Michael Noonan
Question:1 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent contacts with other European Heads of Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20927/01]
Ceisteanna–Questions. - Official Engagements.
Michael Noonan
Question:2 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach his recent contacts with the President of the European Commission; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20928/01]
Michael Noonan
Question:3 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach if the arrangements have been finalised for his attendance at the European Council meeting to be held in Ghent, Belgium, on 19 October 2001; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20933/01]
Michael Noonan
Question:4 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach if he has received an agenda for the forthcoming meeting of the European Council in Ghent; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20934/01]
Michael Noonan
Question:5 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach the bilateral meetings he will hold during his attendance at the European Council meeting in Ghent; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20935/01]
John Bruton
Question:6 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the composition of the group of personal representatives of Prime Ministers and Heads of Government set up to monitor implementation of the Lisbon Summit follow-up in preparation for annual summits on this agenda; his representative on the group; the number of times this group has met; the number of times his representative has attended; if his representative has not attended, the reason therefor; and if he will make a statement on the progress to date in reaching the targets set at Lisbon. [20961/01]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:7 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the likely agenda and his priorities for the European summit in Ghent, Belgium on 19 October 2001; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21433/01]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:8 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the discussions or meetings he intends to have with other EU leaders in advance of the Ghent Summit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21434/01]
Michael Noonan
Question:9 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the role, remit, and terms of reference of the proposed National Forum on Europe. [21449/01]
Michael Noonan
Question:10 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach the projected cost to his Department of the proposed National Forum on Europe; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21450/01]
Michael Noonan
Question:11 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach the number of staff in his Department who will be seconded to work in the secretariat of the proposed National Forum on Europe; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21451/01]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:12 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the progress to date regarding the establishment of the National Forum on Europe. [22961/01]
Joe Higgins
Question:13 Mr. Higgins (Dublin West) asked the Taoiseach his priorities for the European summit to be held in Ghent, Belgium on 19 October 2001; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22970/01]
Joe Higgins
Question:14 Mr. Higgins (Dublin West) asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the terms of reference and role of the proposed National Forum on Europe. [22971/01]
Bernard J. Durkan
Question:15 Mr. Durkan asked the Taoiseach if he intends to meet with his colleagues, the EU Heads of Government, at Intergovernmental Conference level or similar level, within the next six months; if he expects to take any initiatives regarding the unfinished business of the Nice treaty; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23065/01]
Bernard J. Durkan
Question:16 Mr. Durkan asked the Taoiseach if he has conferred with his colleagues regarding the future of Europe in preparation for the next meeting of the Heads of Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23254/01]
Michael Noonan
Question:17 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance in Brussels at the special European Council meeting on 21 September 2001; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23518/01]
Michael Noonan
Question:18 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the bilateral meetings he held in Brussels on 21 September 2001 during his attendance at the special European Council meeting; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23519/01]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:19 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the progress to date regarding the National Forum on Europe. [23717/01]
Bernard J. Durkan
Question:20 Mr. Durkan asked the Taoiseach if he has had discussions with other European Heads of State since the rejection of the Nice treaty here; if such discussions have focused on the issues still to be resolved in the context of Ireland's ratification of the treaty; if alternatives have been discussed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23884/01]
Trevor Sargent
Question:21 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the recent European Union emergency summit which he attended on 21 September 2001; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24207/01]
Trevor Sargent
Question:22 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on progress with the establishment of the National Forum on Europe; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24210/01]
Trevor Sargent
Question:23 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the agenda for the forthcoming meeting in Ghent of the European Council; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24215/01]
Michael Noonan
Question:24 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance in Ghent on 19 October 2001 at the European Council meeting; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24814/01]
Michael Noonan
Question:25 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the bilateral meetings he held during his attendance at the recent European Council meeting in Ghent; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24815/01]
Michael Noonan
Question:26 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his address on 18 October 2001 to the opening session of the National Forum on Europe. [24869/01]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:27 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the matters discussed and any conclusions reached at this meeting on 17 October 2001 with members of the European Commission; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24981/01]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:28 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the matters discussed and any conclusions reached at the informal summit of European leaders in Ghent; if he raised the issue of State involvement in national airlines having regard to the serious difficulties being experienced by Aer Lingus and other airlines; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24982/01]
I propose to answer Questions Nos. 1 to 28, inclusive, together.
On 21 September I attended an extraordinary meeting of the European Council which was convened to discuss and fully assess the implications of the terrorist attacks of 11 September on the United States. As I indicated in my statement to the House on 3 October, we agreed that the European Union would co-operate with the United States in bringing to justice and punishing the perpetrators, sponsors and accomplices of the 11 September attacks.
We also agreed that top priority would be given to the introduction of a European arrest warrant, the adoption of a common definition of "terrorism" and to implementing as soon as possible the full package of measures agreed at the European Council at Tampere in 1999. We further agreed that there is an urgent need throughout the European Union to identify suspected terrorists, terrorist organisations, or organisations supporting terrorists. All useful data regarding terrorism will be shared through Europol, within which a specialist anti-terrorism team is to be established.
I had a working lunch with the President of the European Parliament, Ms Nicole Fontaine, on Monday, 15 October, with whom I had a very productive discussion on the broad European agenda. On Wednesday, 17 October I met the full European Commission. This meeting was preceded by a separate meeting with the President of the Commission, Mr. Romano Prodi. I had discussions with both President Prodi and the European Commissioners on the current European agenda, including the recent attacks on the United States, enlargement of the European Union, the likely work programme for the forthcoming Spanish Presidency of the European Union in 2002, the outcome of the recent referendum on the Nice treaty and the launch of the National Forum on Europe. I also raised with the Commission the current difficulties faced by Aer Lingus.
Following my meeting with the Commission I met the Belgian Prime Minister and President in office of the European Council, Mr. Guy Verhofstadt, to discuss preparations for the Ghent European Council. Clearly, the outcome of the referendum on the Nice treaty is of interest to all our partners. As I previously stated in the House, I briefed the European Council in Gothenburg on the outcome of the referendum. I indicated then, as I have indicated at meetings since, including the meetings with the Commission, Madame Fontaine and Prime Minister Verhofstadt, that we are undertaking a period of national reflection before we move forward.
On Friday, 19 October I attended the informal European Council in Ghent. Three Presidency declarations, copies of which have been laid before the House, were approved by the Council. These declarations relate to the follow-up to the 11 September attacks and the fight against terrorism; a review of the economic situation post-11 September and the preparations for the introduction of the euro.
The Council commenced with a presentation by the President of ECOFIN, Minister Reynders, Commissioner Solbes, the President of the European Central Bank, Mr. Wim Duisenberg, and the President of the European Commission, Mr. Romano Prodi, on the introduction of the euro and the current economic climate. Preparations for the introduction of the euro are progressing well, although we noted that additional efforts need to be taken by both individual member states, ECOFIN, the European Commission and the European Central Bank to ensure small and medium sized enterprises are appropriately prepared. There was general agreement at the Council that the benefits of the euro could be seen in the lack of exchange rate tensions in the euro area. With regard to the economic climate post-11 September, we expressed confidence that the sound economic framework of the Union, and the fiscal consolidation already achieved, will help to ensure the economic impact of the attacks will be limited and temporary.
We had a lengthy discussion on the situation post-11 September, and reaffirmed the Council's support for the military operations which began on 7 October and our determination to combat terrorism, in every form, throughout the world. We also recognised, however, the need for a humanitarian effort to assist the Afghan population, including refugees. In particular, the need to avoid civilian casualties was stressed. I raised with my colleagues the need for a flexible approach to assisting the aviation sector on the basis of effective viability plans.
As regards other responses, we reaffirmed our commitment to adopting a proposal on the European arrest warrant by 6-7 December, although we recognised that the detail of this proposal needed to be drafted with care. We asked the Council and the Commission to prepare a programme to improve co-operation between member states on the evaluation of risks, alerts and intervention, and research on the threats of biological and chemical terrorist attacks. This programme will cover the detection and identification of infectious and toxic agents, as well as the prevention and treatment of chemical and biological attacks. A European co-ordinator for civil protection matters will be appointed as part of this programme. The future of Europe debate and enlargement were discussed over dinner.
With regard to the follow-up to the Lisbon Summit, the Portuguese Presidency convened three informal meetings of Prime Ministers' advisers and the Commission between the Lisbon Summit in March 2000 and the Feira Summit in June 2000. Irish officials attended all of these meetings. This informal group or network discussed preparations for the Feira European Council and was instrumental in agreeing the conclusions of the European Council in Feira relating to the follow-up to the Lisbon Summit.
With regard to progress to date in reaching the targets set at Lisbon, I refer the Deputy to my statement to the House on the outcome of the Stockholm European Council on the 29 March and my answers in reply to questions on this matter on 10 April 2001. As the Deputy will be aware, the Lisbon European Council agreed that the spring European Council meetings should address the economic and social agenda of the EU. At Stockholm we agreed to build on the very good progress we made towards achieving the target set at Lisbon of making the EU the most competitive and dynamic knowledge based economy in the world by 2010. At Ghent, we reaffirmed the need to accelerate the implementation of the Lisbon agenda in the wake of 11 September and encouraged the European Investment Bank to step up its contribution by providing lending, particularly to infrastructure projects, to support the knowledge based economy and to help foster long-term investment.
As Deputies will be aware, the first meeting of the National Forum on Europe took place on Thursday, 18 October. The text of my inaugural statement has been laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas and I do not consider it appropriate to make a statement on it.
The terms of reference, which I have also laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas, envisage that the work of the forum will fall into two phases. First, it will consider the implications of enlargement and the organisation of the future of Europe debate. It will then proceed to an examination of Ireland's overall relationship with the EU and issues relating to the future of Europe discussion. The overall duration of the forum will be a matter, in the first instance, for the forum itself. It is not intended, however, that the work of the forum would take an inordinate period of time.
Six officials have been seconded to the forum, three from my Department and three from the Department of Foreign Affairs. At this early stage it is not possible to accurately indicate the projected cost of the forum. I will, however, be pleased to supply that information to the House once the costs have been identified.
Did the Taoiseach raise the issue of Sellafield and the new MOX plant proposed there at either his meeting with the Commissioners on Wednesday last or in the course of the Ghent Summit, either in plenary session or on its margins?
The Taoiseach confirmed that he raised the Aer Lingus issue at his meeting with the Commission. Did he raise it at the Ghent Summit? What was the reaction of his European colleagues and the Commission to the issue of the Irish State putting equity into Aer Lingus to save the company?
On the first matter, I did not raise it with my European colleagues. We are pursuing that now on a legal basis. It will be before the House later today and it was before the Cabinet today also. At this stage the European Commission is aware that, under European law, the Law of the Sea, Euratom and the OSPAR Convention, we are looking at taking legal action. On a number of occasions and the other night on the margins of the summit, I discussed it with some colleagues only to tell them what we are proceeding with. Of course I again mentioned it to Prime Minister Blair on Friday, just to inform him of what we are doing.
As Deputy Noonan said, I raised the issue of Aer Lingus, first, with President Prodi and his officials, then with the full Commission where there was quite a lengthy discussion on it, and again at the European Council. Of course Ireland is one of half a dozen countries which have such difficulties. A number of European countries are tied into the difficulties directly related to Swiss Air. The Greeks are also tied into those difficulties from other sources and so are some other countries. Each country has raised its position. There was debate, not on any one country but just on the difficulties of the sector. The Commission's view of course is its stated position on state aid. Its view is there should be co-ordination in aviation within Europe and, for that matter, within the United States. There are a number of Private Notice Questions on that matter later today. The Cabinet discussed the matter this morning and the Minister will report on that during her response to those questions.
The Taoiseach will appreciate that Sellafield is not only an Anglo-Irish issue; it is a European issue also. Does he agree that it may be considered insincere, if not down right hypocritical, that he would launch a strong attack on the British Government about Sellafield and then go to two major meetings in Europe and not raise the issue at all?
On another topic, the Taoiseach is probably aware of the concerns expressed publicly by Romano Prodi, the President of the Commission, about the fact that the French, British and German Prime Ministers had a meeting in advance of the Ghent Summit. Does he share the views of Romano Prodi that this gives rise to further concerns and feeds Euro-scepticism and a public view that the real decisions are being taken in committee by the larger countries and that the smaller states, including Ireland, are not party to the serious decisions being taken by the French, British and Germans?
On the first question, my views and those of the Government are well known through talking to Energy Ministers and other colleagues. It is also well known that we have been involved in litigation on this issue for some time and are now pursuing it through OSPAR. It is not well known, however, that we are also pursuing it through the law of the sea and the European Union. It is not appropriate to raise these issues when discussing economic and other matters. Therefore, nobody would think it odd or hypocritical – in fact, people would wonder if it was raised.
I share Romano Prodi's view about countries meeting in private session. However, there was much discussion of this before the meeting, and all the smaller countries – six of my colleagues – had an opportunity to discuss the issue and make their views known. At the commencement of the meeting the President said he had spoken with Germany, France and the United Kingdom as it had been reported that they had had a meeting. However, Germany was not involved in the meeting, but there was a meeting between President Chirac and Prime Minister Blair. It was made clear to the Presidency that this was a bilateral meeting about issues unrelated to the agenda. It was assumed that the ongoing military issues in Afghanistan had been discussed and that the meeting had nothing to do with the agenda items. It was also clear that nobody in the European Council wants to see people meeting for other than normal bilateral meetings, which happen all the time. For example, I have regular bilateral meetings with Prime Minister Blair and others on different issues.
The Taoiseach mentioned that he and his EU colleagues recommitted to the concept of a European arrest warrant. Will he report on the discussion which took place before this occurred? How will it work in practice? Does it in effect mean that inter-community extradition treaties will be set aside and that it will be possible to arrest and take from one jurisdiction to that of another member state a person suspected of particular offences, and that the law in the other member state will take its course? Is it a substitute for extradition in relation to particular offences? Can the Taoiseach give an example of what would happen in this jurisdiction if such a warrant was exercised?
This was debated at the meeting in Tampere over two years ago. There are many examples of extradition between countries not working particularly well. In fact, there are exclusions and legal and constitutional difficulties and even in the context of straightforward terrorist extraditions there are major problems. For a considerable time the removal of normal extradition procedures has been examined as there is evidence through Europol and the security forces in member states that terrorist groups use and abuse procedures and move to countries where they can get around extradition procedures. They can easily find a way round extradition procedures. Numerous terrorist organisations in the European Community locate themselves in countries from where they are unlikely to be extradited and successfully manage to manipulate the law in that regard. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform recently listed during Question Time the organisations involved. On the other hand, there is a great reluctance on the part of a majority of countries to adopt new pro cedures which could be used willy nilly. There is concern that one could end up extraditing a person for an offence committed in one country but which would not be an indictable offence in that person's own jurisdiction. A majority of countries are opposed to this and it clearly would not work. I gave examples of where this issue could arise between here and member states, which would not happen.
In terms of moving this issue forward, the Justice Home Affairs Council decided to endeavour before 6-7 December to look at co-operation in regard to categories of extreme terrorist offences or related offences, not minor offences. For example, a person who is involved in a major terrorist offence in France and then moves here could be extradited, but it would have to be a listed offence. It is on that basis matters are being moved forward.
There is total support in a majority of countries for this proposal. However, there is also concern that it must be in line with the constitutional position of these countries. It is believed this is possible if the list of categories of offences is limited to serious offences. That could by-pass the extradition system and become a European arrest warrant for very serious acts.
I thank the Taoiseach for his answers explaining the Lisbon process. My Question No. 6 relates to a slightly different matter, that is, a meeting of personal representatives of Heads of Government. I understand that at least six such meetings have taken place and that as of the summer of this year no representative of the Irish Head of Government attended any of the meetings to discuss the Lisbon process. I understand, to assist the Taoiseach, these meetings take place in the hotel closest to the airport in Brussels. Will the Taoiseach confirm that no representative of his attended any of these meetings? If so, will he indicate why, if the Lisbon process which concerns employment, employment development and competitiveness is being discussed at European level among representatives of Heads of Government, the Irish Head of Government is not represented?
In regard to the plans for the forum, is it ruled out that the forum could propose, for example, a protocol to be added to the Nice treaty? I understand the Minister for Foreign Affairs has stated that no change to the Nice treaty could be put forward at this juncture. Will the Taoiseach agree that a protocol being added to the treaty because it would have legal effect would, in effect, be a change? Will he confirm, therefore, that all the forum may propose in terms of improvement to the Nice treaty is a mere political declaration? Will he agree that if the French, British and Germans persist in holding meetings prior to summits, the answer would be for the remaining 12 member states to hold their own meetings separate from the French, British and Germans in advance of the summit in the same place, and soon the three would stop?
I will answer the Deputy's questions in reverse order. If meetings were held by the larger countries that would get back to the argument about a two tier Europe and all of the other difficulties and would be, as always, resented by the smaller countries. That is not something we will allow to happen. Where there is co-operation between large and small countries it does not necessarily break down that way, but I reiterate that the concern was made clear through the Presidency and we were given a commitment at that meeting. The reason it got so much publicity is another question, but I have to take things at face value. The President said he checked the position and relayed the concerns of small countries, and what Romano Prodi had said, and that of the three countries reported in the European paper that morning as having this major meeting, only two had met and that it was on an unrelated matter. That is where these matters rest and I hope they will not continue to be raised.
On the question Deputy Bruton asked about the Lisbon issue, as I said in my reply, officials from my Department and the Department of Foreign Affairs met during that period. That group was instrumental, as Deputy Bruton will recall, in agreeing a conclusion at the European Council in Feira following on from the Lisbon Summit, but the group was not convened again by the subsequent French, Swedish or Belgian Presidencies.
Senior officials in both my Department and the Department of Foreign Affairs are in regular contact with their European counterparts and prior to the extraordinary meeting in September there was a meeting of Prime Ministers' advisers and permanent representatives. That happens on an ongoing basis. Specifically in relation to the Lisbon process, about which Deputy Bruton is anxious to know, a group was not convened after the Feira Summit. Ireland is represented at any formal and informal meetings convened under the auspices of the President of the European Union. I assure Deputy Bruton that senior officials in my office are in regular contact with their counterparts but if there are any other meetings of a group of countries, they are not formalised meetings to which we are invited or are part of, but we are certainly part of any of the other meetings. Deputy Bruton asked me another question.
I asked whether it would be open to the forum to propose a protocol to the Treaty of Nice.
The forum gives us all an opportunity, regardless of perspective, parties or groupings, to examine the enlargement issue in its totality, give our views on that and see where it goes. Going to the end of the process, which I think is where the Deputy is coming from, whatever the outcome – this is hypothetical – there could be a political view or a view of the parties but there could also be declarations, with the co- operation of other countries, at another European Council that relate to what was in the Nice treaty and if that was accepted by other countries, it would be something that could be negotiated, but that is at the end of a process and it is entirely hypothetical. It would not have to be a political declaration. If other declarations or changes were negotiated with other countries, it could be done.
Mr. J. Bruton rose.
The Deputy must be very brief. Other Deputies have tabled questions and time is running out.
Is the Taoiseach aware that a number of countries, three I believe, have already ratified the Treaty of Nice in its existing form and that any other negotiations that might occur to achieve changes in that would require all those countries to re-ratify the treaty and start all over again? Is he further aware that any changes would require the convening of an intergovernmental conference to agree them? If so, why did the Taoiseach not warn his colleagues when he met them in Gothenburg that there was a possibility, as it now appears he is suggesting, that Ireland could be looking for changes to the Nice treaty before it asks the people to consider the matter again? If the Irish are to propose changes to the treaty why did the Taoiseach not warn other colleagues who may waste their time seeking to ratify it in their countries?
There is always a problem in anticipating at the outset what may happen.
Those in the Taoiseach's position are supposed to have foresight.
At the Gothenburg summit our EU colleagues made it clear they would do all they could to help if, having gone through a period of reflection, Ireland considered that issues needed to be re-examined.
Does that include treaty changes?
It would include declarations that would have to be negotiated with the member state holding the presidency but there is no point in anticipating an end that might never happen.
Will they be treaty changes or protocols?
Members should not ask questions unless they have been given the floor.
They would be protocols.
A protocol is a treaty change.
The Taoiseach should not respond to interruptions. Deputy John Bruton is interrupting.
It would have to be agreed by all member states.
The Taoiseach referred to a number of declarations and communiqué issued by the EU Presidency following the Ghent summit. A press release was issued by the Belgian presidency following the declaration of the heads of state and government and the President of the European Commission. Regardless of the impact made by the Taoiseach on the relevant deliberations of the council and heads of government meeting, the press release contains no reference to the crisis in the European airline industry, nor a specific reference to Olympic Airlines, TAP, Aer Lingus or Sabena. Will he explain why the Belgian presidency did not make any reference to what is a crisis, not only in Aer Lingus but in a number of European airlines?
It is not for me to explain what an EU presidency would include in an informal summit declaration. The Deputy is aware how such summits are dealt with. I was the first to contribute to the economic assessment. I probably spoke the longest and was surprised others did not have more to say. That is a matter for them to explain. The short note on the economic assessment did not refer to lengthy presentations by Wim Duisenberg, the president of ECOFIN and the EU Council of Ministers. The economic assessment by the monetary council, the ECOFIN council and the European Central Bank was that while there are difficulties ahead, in the medium to long-term and for the remainder of this decade, the fundamentals of the European economy would still hold good. Wim Duisenberg outlined that in his assessment and according to the ECB's examination of its inflationary model, inflation would fall to approximately 2% next year with interest rates of approximately 3%, producing real interest rates of approximately 1%. They consider this will provide the opportunity for robust economic growth but that it will take some months to get to that position.
Would it not be fair for an Irish or Belgian person to conclude that if this is a summary of the review of the economic situation and it does not contain any reference to the crisis in the European aviation business, the issue cannot have generated much attention at the meeting?
The summary of the communiqué gives no indication that the meeting took ten hours. That is the usual position. I am not sure what point the Deputy wishes to make. The matter was discussed with a range of other issues arising in the aftermath of the events of 11 September and a number of countries made reference to this. Many other industries face problems in the 15 member states and if all points raised were to be included in the summary it would be approximately 100 pages long.
(Dublin West): Two aspects of the Taoiseach's initial reply prompt supplementary questions. What representations did he make concerning Aer Lingus during his talks with senior EU figures? How did they justify preventing the owner of Aer Lingus – the Taoiseach himself, on behalf of the people – from investing in his company? The Taoiseach has been engaged in a charade. The refusal of the European Commission to allow the Government to invest is a political decision, made by political leaders, governments and the Council of Ministers, with which the Government has gone along. The Taoiseach, therefore, is in no position to attack the European Commission because it takes its orders from politicians. The people are being treated to a charade, behind which the Government is trying to hide.
Will the Taoiseach give details of his discussions with other EU leaders concerning proposals to restrict the civil liberties of EU citizens in the wake of the atrocities of 11 September? Is he aware that measures reportedly mooted at senior EU level go far beyond tackling terrorism and encroach on the area of mass demonstrations and protests? These are traditional methods of the trade union movement and anti-globalisation protesters to make political points. The peaceful occupation of a building or a walk by environmentalists on land while protesting against genetically modified crops could, under one definition I have seen, be regarded as terrorism. Is there a cynical agenda to use the tragedy of 11 September to criminalise various opposition movements within the European Union because they have become embarrassing to governments as they have grown in strength? Will the Taoiseach pledge to oppose any restriction of civil liberties along these lines?
The first question has been posed by two Deputies already today, but I will go back over the answer again. I had a lengthy and useful discussion with the President of the Commission and subsequently with the Commission as a whole, apart from two members who were at a meeting of the General Affairs Council. I addressed the Commission regarding the difficulties faced by Aer Lingus and it is extremely conscious of the turmoil in the aviation industry, particularly here. I made sure of that as did the Minister for Public Enterprise. As the Commission had approved an emergency rescue package for Sabena the day I was there, it was familiar with the issue. It had been discussed before I arrived. I pointed out that the fate of the national airline is a huge preoccupation here because of the central role of our access-transport policies. I stressed that Aer Lingus is facing up to the radical restructuring package that is emerging. The Government has adopted a prudent approach and does not unquestioningly contemplate a bale out. The restructuring plan is a genuine one and will result in a radically restructured airline based on commercial realities. I stressed to the Commission that our priority is to keep Aer Lingus viable. It is a major challenge, not least because of its exposure to the downturn in transatlantic routes, from which the airline takes 40% of its business and 60% of its profit. Its viability requires that the survival plan is agreed within the airline.
I emphasise the need to seek approval for any measures proposed. We will ask the Commission to use its discretion and to be flexible, under the state aid rules, in its approval of a credible viability plan. The Commissioner with responsibility pointed out that the aid package for Aer Lingus would have to comply with the rules in question. Any discretionary treatment in favour of any airline would be successfully challenged by the courts. That has been indicated in the case of Aer Lingus, among others. We agreed that officials from both sides would keep in close touch and they have done so. We arranged a meeting for Friday morning, during which officials from both sides remained in touch. We were even in touch over the weekend.
I share the view of Deputy Higgins that the events of 11 September should not be exploited for the sake of some bright idea by somebody trying to curtail civil liberties or some plan that has been around for a long time. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has been at pains, therefore, to ensure constitutional positions in member countries are totally recognised – a point included in the conclusions of the meeting the other day – and that we deal only with issues that genuinely pertain to terrorism and problems that already exist. That is the current approach, which will continue in the next four or five weeks.
As I said to Deputy Noonan, the kernel of the matter is that terrorists representing organisations which pose a genuine threat – the kind of people who would shoot someone for a penny – have been operating around extradition laws in Europe. An effort is being made to try to prevent them from doing so with such ease. It is well known where they go, the procedures they follow and how they evade the law. The effort is to try to make life a little bit harder for them and a bit easier for Joe and Mary Soap who want to go about their business and live their lives.
Following the period of national reflection, to which the Taoiseach referred, and the outcome of the deliberations of the forum, should a wide divergence emerge between the opinions of the forum and those contained in the Nice treaty, how does the Taoiseach propose to advise his EU colleagues on the direction Ireland will take in such circumstances?
We will see what emerges from the forum on Europe and if it is possible to for mulate a view on what direction we should take, if not a consensus view. Ultimately, we will have a major problem with enlargement if we cannot find a solution to the current difficulties. Perhaps there are more ways than one. No one person, group or organisation has all the solutions.
We must now debate the referendum that was defeated. Equally, most people would say they are in favour of enlargement. We must find a way of ensuring Ireland is not responsible for restricting the ability of the European Union to enlarge. That is first challenge that faces us. Second, the issues concerning the future of Europe must be dealt with. They will be discussed at Lacken, where a debate on the kind of forum or foundation that is to be established will take place. An exact model will have to be determined. It is becoming clear what form it will take – it will be representative of the European Parliament, national parliaments, and outside experts. They will start work around Easter and work into the summer of 2003 for an intergovernmental conference, probably during the Irish Presidency in 2004. That is the process now being considered and which will be agreed at Lacken on 15 and 16 December.
The Deputy may ask a brief supplementary question.
Is the Taoiseach conscious of the concern and disappointment expressed by many of the smaller countries within the European Union in regard to Ireland's commitment to the European project? What can he say to reassure the Irish people and his European colleagues that we are still committed in the same way as we were?
And Aer Lingus workers.
First, we have to look at what the people said in the last European poll. Ireland was still at number two in terms of its commitment to the European Union model. I will not discuss what the people had to say on certain issues because we know this already. We must endeavour to build up support through the forum, the House and its committees. It must also be done through Departments and agencies, political movements and organisations and the four pillars of social partnership along with other groups encompassed within those. There must be a debate where the benefits of Europe to Ireland are brought to light in a meaningful way, where what people interpret as disadvantages and problems are dealt with and where those people are convinced otherwise. That is a challenge in which we must participate. It is not all negative because people are still supportive for various reasons but the vision of Europe must be explained again.
In the Taoiseach's reply to Deputy Noonan, I was also shocked, but not quite surprised, to hear he did not mention MOX during his round of meetings. Does he agree that, whenever the subject of the war on terror is discussed, he should take the opportunity to raise the issue of Sellafield from an Irish perspective given the danger inherent in the transportation of nuclear fuel and the fact the plant itself is a potentially deadly target?
How did the Taoiseach raise the Aer Lingus matter? Under what heading did it arise? Was it under security or was it economic or political in nature? Does he agree the issue should be raised whenever the issues of European integration and the democratic deficit are dealt with given the alienation felt by workers in Aer Lingus because of the cold shoulder the European Commission has shown to their plight?
On the war in Afghanistan, has anyone raised the fact during meetings that a military staff committee to advise and assist the UN Security Council has not yet been established which, under Article 46, is to be established to advise on all questions relating to Security Council military requirements for the maintenance of international peace and security? Given that this committee has not been activated as required by the Charter, was any question raised as to the legality of the military campaign in Afghanistan which is being supported, apparently without conditions, by the Government and other EU member states? Is that to be raised with the United Nations and, given our position, with the United States to ensure there is a mark of legality on this war against terrorism?
I raise the issue of Sellafield whenever there is an opportunity to do so, as there is regularly, whenever it is appropriate and whenever we have any dealings with the British Government. I have raised the issue of Aer Lingus and have stated four or five times what I said in that regard.
No one questioned in any form the legality of the war. Most of the discussion last weekend focused on humanitarian aid, the EU programme and how to deal not just with Afghan refugees outside the country but those still inside it as well. The discussion also dealt with the logistics of supplying food and the need to work together to achieve as much as possible on the humanitarian front.
On the structures for the future, the UN has appointed Ambassador Brahimi who now reports to the UN on the various structures. I am sure the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, will deal with that again. The preparations for the structure and workings of a new administration are being made. These will be debated at a later EU meeting but there was excellent support at the previous meeting for the Ambassador and the difficult task he has ahead of him.
Does it worry the Taoiseach that Ireland is almost friendless in Europe and that he cannot put together a coalition of European colleagues to either support the case for Aer Lingus or to close Sellafield? Ireland is equally friendless in the Commission. Does the Taoiseach agree that this is mostly due to the activities of the Minister for Finance at ECOFIN and on its margins? Does he agree that it is also due to the fact that his party in Europe is joined with a ragbag of uninfluential people and that the flirtation of his group's leader, Mr. Gerard Collins, MEP, with the British Tories group will not help the situation?
Will I answer for Fianna Fáil now or for the Taoiseach?
They are all orphans.
We have very good relations in Europe. Commissioner Solbes reported recently that he is no longer concerned about issues which he thought earlier in the year would be matters for concern. Our standing is high in Europe at Commission level and we have good personal relations with our various groups. I did not intend to raise this but many of Deputy Noonan's own colleagues wonder what he is at.
That is a poor answer when everything is going down the tubes. We will be singing "Going Home" for the Taoiseach shortly when he joins the Tories.