Michael Noonan
Question:1 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the recent work of the National Forum on Europe; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30967/01]
Ceisteanna–Questions. - National Forum on Europe.
Michael Noonan
Question:2 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach the costs which have accrued to date in respect of the National Forum on Europe; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30968/01]
Michael Noonan
Question:3 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach the projected cost of the National Forum on Europe for 2002; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30969/01]
Michael Noonan
Question:4 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach the foreign visits he intends to undertake during the first half of 2002; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30970/01]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:5 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the matters discussed and conclusions reached at his meeting on 6 December 2001 with the Prime Minister Mr. Verhofstadt of Belgium; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31479/01]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:6 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach his plans for a meeting with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, on the margins of the Laeken summit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31483/01]
Trevor Sargent
Question:7 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach his views on the progress of the National Forum on Europe; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31513/01]
Jim O'Keeffe
Question:8 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Taoiseach the costs incurred to date in 2001 on the National Forum on Europe; the full staffing complement; the monthly cost thereof; the cost of installing the computer system for the Secretariat; and the estimated cost of the design and implementation of the website. [31782/01]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 8 together.
As the Members of this House know, the forum is a two phase process with the first phase focusing on the implications of enlargement and the organisation of the future of Europe debate. In the second phase, the forum will examine Ireland's overall relationship with the European Union.
As the House will be aware, the National Forum on Europe is an independent body, with an independent chairperson and secretariat. The agenda and work programme are a matter for the forum and neither I nor my office has any responsibility for these issues. As such, it would be inappropriate for me to report on progress to date within the forum, or to comment on its day to day operation.
I, nonetheless, take this opportunity to congratulate the forum's chairman, Senator Maurice Hayes for the work that has already been done and for the purposeful and constructive manner in which he and his staff have been managing the business of the forum. Senator Hayes has contributed enormously to advancing the agenda of the forum and has been most effective in gaining the confidence of all the participants.
The costs which have accrued to date in respect of the National Forum on Europe amount to £152,283 or 193,360. The cost associated with operating each plenary is in the region of £10,000 or 12,697. To date seven plenary sessions have been held with one more planned in 2001.
The cost of operating the National Forum on Europe in 2002 is estimated at £1.57 million per annum or 2 million or £131,260 or 166,667 per month. The forum will shortly tender for the installation of a new computer system, while the estimated cost of the design and maintenance of its website for 2001 is £12,000 or 15,237. A break down of the costs to date and for 2002 is available in the tables which follow this reply.
The forum is supported by a secretariat comprising departmental officials seconded from the Departments of the Taoiseach, Foreign Affairs, and Defence. In addition, one person has been recruited from an agency on a short-term, unestablished basis in a clerical capacity.
The Department grades involved are one assistant secretary, one counsellor, one principal officer, one first secretary, one administrative officer, one higher executive officer, one executive officer, and three clerical officers, one of whom is working on a job-sharing basis. The secretariat is headed by an assistant secretary of the Department of the Taoiseach, who formerly acted as secretary general of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation, and co-ordinator of the secretariat of the New Ireland Forum. The full staffing complement has only recently been put in place. Accordingly, full staffing costs will only apply from this month onwards.
With regard to my foreign diary commitments for the first half of 2002, I plan to go to the United States during the St. Patrick's day period. However, my programme for that visit is not yet finalised. I will attend the spring European Council in Barcelona on 15 and 16 of March. On 17 and 18 May I will attend the EU Africa, Caribbean, Pacific and Latin America Summit, in Madrid. I will attend the European Council in Seville on 21 and 22 June.
The work programme for this week's Laeken European Council is quite intensive and at the moment I have no specific plans for formal bilateral meetings. I will, nonetheless, have an opportunity for informal discussions with many of my colleagues, including the Prime Minister Mr. Blair, on the margins of the summit. I met the Belgian Prime Minister and the current President-in-office of the European Union, Mr. Guy Verhofstadt, on Thursday 6 December. Prime Minister Verhofstadt was in Dublin as part of his pre-council tour of capitals.
Central to our discussions was the draft text of the declaration which we expect to agree at Laeken. We discussed the mandate that will be given to the convention which will take the future of Europe debate forward between 2002 and the commencement of the next intergovernmental conference in 2004. The Belgian Presidency is continuing its work on the declaration to take account of the views expressed during the Prime Minister's tour of capitals.
The Prime Minister Mr. Verhofstadt and I also discussed the continuing EU response to the events of 11 September, and in particular, the progress to-date in implementing the milestones agreed at Tampere in 1999. I assured the Prime Minister that Ireland remained committed to the fight against terrorism, and that we were looking forward to a successful outcome in this area and agreement on a European arrest warrant during the Laeken Council.
Costs in 2001 to date in respect of the Forum on Europe.
|
Description |
£ |
|
|
Salaries |
52,480.00 |
66,635.85 |
|
Attendance Allowances |
9,720.00 |
12,341.85 |
|
Travel & Subsistence |
5,678.78 |
7,210.56 |
|
Catering |
14,765.62 |
18,748.47 |
|
Telephone and Postage |
2,121.00 |
2,693.11 |
|
Office Equipment and Stationery |
13,229.86 |
16,798.46 |
|
Advertising |
43,000.00 |
54,598.74 |
|
Backdrop |
3,600.00 |
4,571.06 |
|
Broadcasting |
2,000.00 |
2,539.48 |
|
Computer Cabling |
2,000.00 |
2,539.48 |
|
Miscellaneous |
3,687.94 |
4,682.72 |
|
Total |
152,283.20 |
193,359.78 |
2002 Estimate for costs in respect of the Forum on Europe
|
Description |
£ |
|
|
Salaries |
450,000 |
571,382 |
|
Attendance Allowances and Travel & Subsistence |
300,000 |
380,921 |
|
Secretariat/Research for Delegations |
100,000 |
126,974 |
|
Catering |
120,000 |
152,368 |
|
Consultancy |
120,000 |
152,368 |
|
Communications |
320,000 |
406,316 |
|
Administration and Office Expenses |
165,000 |
209,671 |
|
Total |
1,575,000 |
2,000,000 |
The National Forum on Europe was established by the Taoiseach and all costs attached to the forum are borne by the Exchequer. This is the first series of questions put down on the forum and the manner in which they are dealt with will establish a precedent for the future. The Taoiseach is refusing to answer questions on what is happening at the forum. What questions on the forum does the Taoiseach consider appropriate to answer and what is he ruling out? Once a precedent is established on this new item, the rules will be followed for the next three or four years, for as long as the forum lasts.
In my role as Taoiseach I have replied to questions on whether, how and when the Government might facilitate wider public debate on Ireland's membership of the European Union. Prior to the referendum on the Nice Treaty, I indicated to the House that the Government had agreed to the establishment of a national forum and I subsequently answered questions regarding its establishment, given that it is the responsibility of the Government to work out how and when the forum might operate. The forum is now up and running.
Following substantial discussion with the parties represented in the House and to facilitate debate, it was agreed that the forum would be independent of the Government. It is independent and should be seen to be so. The forum was established on that basis and I cannot reply to questions regarding the work of an independent body. That is neither my function nor my role. I do not influence the forum's agenda, nor do I wish to do so.
I have occasionally referred to the forum during replies to supplementary questions on matters relating to the outcome of the referendum on the Nice Treaty and other matters on the European agenda for which I am answerable, but these references have been within the terms of reference of the forum and the input it might have in facilitating wider public debate.
To avoid any perception of interference – an issue which was raised in the discussions on setting up the forum – I do not intend to comment on the specific work programme of the forum, who should speak or how its debates should be conducted. I have no authority in that matter.
The forum has been established by the Taoiseach. Every expense attached to the forum is borne by the Exchequer. The Taoiseach appointed the chairman of the forum and, with the exception of Fine Gael, the other parties in the House are participating in it. How does the Taoiseach propose that the forum would be accountable to the House, other than by answering parliamentary questions, or is he confirming my initial suspicion that the European debate was being taken out of the House and put into Dublin Castle, that the Taoiseach would no longer be accountable for it and that he was going to close the debate down until the forum had finished its discussions?
I have answered questions every week on European matters.
Not on the forum.
Last week we had an extensive discussion on the Laeken Council. Today I answered questions about my meeting with the President-in-office, Guy Verhofstadt.
A wide ranging debate on Europe must take account of the views of the Irish people. While a debate in the Dáil or Seanad would allow elected representatives to speak on the issue, the national forum, through the special observer pillar and other arrangements, is now allowing a wider debate to take place. Whether Deputy Noonan likes it or not, the forum is independent. The parties which form part of the forum represent some of the parties in this House and other organisations through the special observer pillar. The committee fixes the agenda and I have no part in that. I neither design nor control it, and so I am not answerable for it either.
That would be fine if the Taoiseach answered questions on how the Government will deal with the fact that the Irish people did not ratify the Nice Treaty. However, when we ask the Taoiseach questions about the Nice Treaty he says it is being discussed at the forum.
It is a catch-22.
The Taoiseach will not answer questions about the forum which means he will not answer them about the Treaty of Nice. We are facing into a general election, we do not know his view on enlargement of the European Union, if he plans another referendum on the Treaty of Nice to allow the people to ratify it and enable enlargement or what the terms of any referendum would be. When we ask questions about the Treaty of Nice the Taoiseach will not answer them because he says the issue is being discussed in the forum. Where is the accountability? Will there be an interim report produced by the chairman of the forum in the next three months?
I do not know if there will be an interim report produced by the chairman because I do not control what the chairman does.
The Taoiseach does not know.
Deputy Noonan should turn up.
That is ridiculous.
The Deputy is an abstentionist.
That is ridiculous. This is a national Parliament. People all over Europe are waiting for Ireland to ratify this Treaty. We asked the Taoiseach about the Treaty of Nice and he told us it is being discussed at the Forum on Europe. When we asked him about the forum he told us he could not answer questions because it is independent. What else is the Taoiseach closing down?
The Deputy is putting the cart before the horse.
The Taoiseach is as aware as I am that it is the intention of the chairman of the Forum on Europe to introduce an interim report in the next month or so.
Thank God someone is answering questions here today.
Could the Taoiseach answer some questions in relation to the mandate of the convention that will be confirmed in Laeken this week? On the basis of his most recent meeting with the Belgian Prime Minister, could he outline what the broad framework of the mandate of the convention will be? Could he also indicate how long the convention will last? Will it last into 2003? What will be the standing of the convention if the Treaty of Nice is not ratified by all the member states at the end of 2002?
It is becoming clearer what will happen. The intention is that the convention will commence operations in March. It is intended that it will be finished within 12 months, so it will be finished for Easter 2003 but not later than a time that will allow it to report in final form to the European Council in June 2003. There will then be a firebreak period to allow people to reflect on what the convention sets out. The Intergovernmental Conference will start in the summer—
How long is the firebreak expected to be?
About nine months.
Why?
To allow people to reflect on the outcome of the convention rather than going straight into the Intergovernmental Conference. It might change at the weekend but that is where it lies at this stage and it is unlikely to change. The Intergovernmental Conference will start effectively with the Irish Presidency, in—
Spring 2004.
Yes, spring 2004. The only other major change from what I reported to the House last week and the week before in Question Time, is that the original idea of the convention, or presidium, would report in final form on most issues and not allow options. I think that is chang ing as Prime Minister Verhofstadt moves around and what he is more likely to do – he seems disposed to it – is in the areas where there is agreement and no alternative views, they will state this is the position. The final agreed position is that in areas where there are conflicting views, they will set down the options but indicate where the balance of agreement lies. If there are three options, they will say that this is the indication. The value of this is that it will avoid opening up debate on agreed aspects at the end of the report but during the firebreak period it will allow the focus to be on addressing the options and allowing their consideration.
It will start with four issues – the delimitation of powers between the EU and member states, the status in the charter of fundamental rights, the implication of the treaties and the role of national parliaments in the European architecture. It is highly unlikely that it will hold to those for very long – I have no doubt there will be extensions to it – but that, at least, will be the opening remit of the chair. The chair is not yet appointed and no name has been put forward but it will be discussed at the weekend.
Presumably the firebreak period of approximately nine months will allow the member states to prepare for an Intergovernmental Conference starting in the spring of 2004 with the intention of concluding by the end of 2004. Is that timetable correct? In relation to issues other than the four the Taoiseach has read out, is it the Irish Government's intention to ensure that the issue of the number of commissioners in the Commission and the size of the Commission is revisited given the decision taken at Nice that there would be a limitation on the number of commissioners if the composition of the EU went above 27 states?
At this stage there is no final date on the completion of it. As the Deputy knows, it is usually about six months, so somewhere between spring and autumn 2004. On the Deputy's second question, following the EU's analysis and the research they undertook on the referendum, I have been looking very carefully and consulting informally with colleagues about what would be possible if we were to go back and seek support. There are a number of issues that come out of that review which Deputy Quinn as well as everyone else has seen. It is unlikely we would get anywhere if we went back with a shopping list.
We must identify the key issues so we can go back. What we know is what was said in Gothenburg which was that our European colleagues would be helpful and, while they would not change the Treaty of Nice, they would see what they could do to help us. This is something that must be addressed at the summer Council in Seville but it would have to be well negotiated beforehand. If we went raw to the European Council and said this is where we are at, we would get a definite no but if we consult with them we could see what we have. We have not signed off on that list nor have we extensively consulted with colleagues. I have canvassed the views of colleagues for their help and assistance when we come to that point.
Does this mean that the Government is open to the possibility that the convention will take on a life of its own and control of its own agenda? Is the Government, represented by the Taoiseach and the present Administration, prepared to add to the four items already mentioned the revisiting of the issue on the composition of the Commission on the basis that it was a compromise which was found to be unsatisfactory not only in this country but in other countries as well? Is the Taoiseach saying that, in his bilateral meetings with heads of government of the other member states, he has raised the possibility that the decision taken at Nice would, in effect, be superseded by a new decision on the composition of the Commission arising from would be the Treaty at the end of 2004?
While I have discussed the issues that created difficulty for us – and they are two of the issues – the formal position of the European Council is that the Nice Treaty cannot be amended. Deputy Quinn asked a different question in asking what issues are to be added to the agenda. That allows us and other countries to raise new issues—
Or re-visit old ones.
—or re-visit old ones.
I ask Deputies not to intervene because their remarks may not be recorded.
In the past week, at least two prime ministers re-visited the issue of qualified majority voting which was very clearly signed off at Nice this day last year. People thought that would be the end of that for a long time. However, I did not believe that would be the case. It is open for us to come back with other issues. People would say we will not get anywhere in regard to the treaty. However, next summer there is an opportunity for us to raise an issue, but not to change the treaty. Let us be clear that we will not be able to do that. If we want clarification or support on some items it is an opportunity for us to bring those items to the table. That is an opportunity we should take if we believe we would get sufficient support. It would not be possible to change the treaty but there may be other ways through which to work.
If questions to the Taoiseach on the national forum are in order, it should be possible to ask this question. Is the Taoiseach aware of the focus of the forum in dealing with enlargement and that the outcome of the discussions has largely resulted in a consensus on it and its benefits, but that the areas of sovereignty have not been dealt with and this needs to be done?
Does the Taoiseach agree that this is a natural conclusion to come to at this point in the forum's life, by way of a report?
Does the Taoiseach agree that the convention to be agreed upon at Laeken is to produce a document for a new treaty for the European Union and as such would he pursue the possibility of two documents arising out of that process? The integrationists and the Euro-federalists will obviously have a view as to how that document should develop as will those who believe in an intergovernmental approach, based on nation states maintaining national democracy. I gather from previous discussions that the Taoiseach may be among the latter group.
Would the Taoiseach agree that view should also be reflected in another document and would he be in favour of a consultative referendum on that process to ensure that the democratic deficit is minimised in the European Union when we are dealing with these important issues?
On the first matter, as I said to Deputy Noonan, I will not get into the day to day issues. From what I heard in this House and in the campaign last year, people seem to be in favour of enlargement – and there is a Fine Gael motion on this issue tonight. It is one thing to be in favour of enlargement but then if the view is taken that the Nice Treaty deals with something more than enlargement and we cannot deal with the Nice issue then we are effectively holding up enlargement.
The position is now very clear. As I stated last summer, it looks as if this time next year the ten applicant countries will be ready. Commissioner Verheugen makes it very clear in his recent report that we will face ten countries joining together and clearly that cannot be done under the Amsterdam treaty. It requires agreement to the Nice Treaty, and as it stands at the moment we are holding that up.
There are other outstanding issues, and as I said in my reply earlier, in the first case the forum was to deal with other issues. It is now set down that it will deal with preliminary issues in the first instance and then the Laeken issue – the future of Europe debate – in the longer term. At this stage the draft documents for Laeken contain an enormous number of questions about what will happen in future, how will the treaties be divided, what is subsidiarity, what is the best way for countries to deal with various issues, and should it always be by means of EU directives or by subsidiarity. They are all listed and will have to be answered in the course of that debate but that is only the start of the process. Every country will have to answer them and one of the issues which emerged in last year's referendum was that in many cases, the view of the public is that if subsidiarity works and if the domain of a national government works then it should be at that level and we should not get involved in directives, co-decisions or other issues. All of those issues have been listed in question form for the convention to deal with and I have no doubt the list will be added to next weekend, and also between then and next spring when the forum starts.
Is the Taoiseach in favour of a consultative referendum on these issues?
Let us get the position on that one completed and let us wait until then.
Does the Taoiseach accept that the main, if not the sole interest, of European colleagues in Ireland's view at the summit next weekend, will concentrate on our post-Nice referendum position? Is it not a fact that our European colleagues will want to know if we are in favour of enlargement and if we are in a position to impede or delay it, in view of the ten applicant countries who will be ready to complete accession negotiations next year?
At Laeken what will the Taoiseach say he has done over the past six months following the defeat of the Nice Treaty referendum? What does the Taoiseach propose to do over the next six months – if perchance he survives in office that long – arising from the defeat of that referendum?
They are straight questions and I will answer them in a straight manner, but first I wish to disabuse Deputy O'Keeffe of the notion that the heads of the European Council are sitting around wondering what will happen. They know precisely what the Government and people are saying and are very well informed of what is happening in Dublin Castle at the forum as well.
(Interruptions.)
They attend and keep themselves well briefed.
(Interruptions.)
If the interruptions stop then I will continue. If the Deputy does not want to hear it even before I answer, then I will not say anything. That is fair enough.
(Interruptions.)
I urge the Taoiseach to tell this House what he has done in the past six months arising from the defeat of the referendum to ensure that we will not impede or delay enlargement and second what does he intend to do over the next six months, if anything?
I would be glad to if Deputy O'Keeffe's party leader had not interrupted me before I even opened my mouth. In Gothenburg I said we would reflect on the sovereign democratic vote of the people and then examine the reasons behind the decision and act accordingly on them.
A number of reasons were highlighted such as confusion, information deficit and concerns about Europe and on other fronts. Each of those is being dealt with. We are explaining why enlargement is important and looking at the issues that make the European model important to this country such as those relating to agriculture, trade and investment. All of these issues are now being debated and the case put. Within the Department of Foreign Affairs, my colleague will outline tonight the work that is ongoing. My colleague will tonight outline the work that is ongoing.
There is a need to consider the outstanding issues and how they should be addressed. In addition, there is a need to reach an understanding with our European colleagues on what we can do while setting out the Government's position. I have done this at various fora, bodies and groups involved in forming opinion and I commend them on their excellent work.
Having gone through a period of reflection and considered the views of the people we will inevitably re-visit this issue. We can then be successful. That is the process in which we are engaged in addition to keeping our European Union colleagues informed.
The question put to the Taoiseach by Deputy Sargent gets to the nub of the difficulties many of those opposed to the Nice Treaty continue to have with it. It is artificial for the Taoiseach to take questions in this House and not reply to a reasonable question which gets to the heart of the matter. He has also created enormous difficulties for himself in his reply to Deputy Jim O'Keeffe. He proposes to keep his colleagues in Europe informed on progress made in Ireland at the summit in Laeken. The basis of his information to them will be the discussions at the forum. This means he will freely inform his colleagues in Europe of the debates at the forum but he will refuse similar information to this House.
In an earlier reply the Taoiseach said he does not know if the chairman of the forum will issue an interim report next month. I am informed informally it is his intention to do so and Deputy Quinn has also informed the House to this effect. Is it the case that the Taoiseach has misinformed the House or has he not kept himself briefed on such an essential issue? Will he outline the position and if a report is to be issued next month will he correct the record of the House?
The Taoiseach wrote to party leaders to nominate members to the committee of the regions on an all-party basis and that was done. The nominees are due to be renewed at the end of the month but I have received no correspondence. What is the Taoiseach's intention in this matter?
I replied to Deputy Sargent in full.
The Taoiseach did not reply to my key question.
I said the question of the consultative forum would have to be considered. A decision cannot be taken at this time.
The Taoiseach has a view on that. Will he outline it to the House?
I have indicated my view. The issue will come to fruition some time between late 2003 and early 2004.
Will the Taoiseach push it?
It is not an issue now and we will have to see what happens. I was clear in my answer to Deputy Jim O'Keeffe. The deliberations at the forum are part of the overall process in which the country must engage following the result of the Nice referendum. The debates are an important part of trying to deal with the fact that 54% of those who voted opposed the treaty. All other issues and analyses are ongoing.
I recently spoke to the chairman of the forum and I understand he has not decided on whether to issue an interim report. It is not for me to put pressure on an independent chairman.
Will the Taoiseach confirm if there will be an interim report?
No, because it is not for me to decide. The forum was established to address two issues. The first was the outcome of the Nice referendum and the second was the future of Europe. It was agreed that a report would be issued after the conclusion of deliberations on the first issue but the chairman has not said he will produce a report next month. There will not be clarity on this aspect until the meetings around the country take place. The Minister for the Environment and Local Government is dealing with the committee of the regions.
Will the convention have a legal independent existence separate from the passing or non-ratification of the Treaty of Nice? If the treaty falls will the convention continue to operate? Has the Government indicated its preference on who should be the president of the commission? When will the process of decision making on the appointment of the Irish participants of the convention commence?
To the best of my knowledge the convention will proceed regardless of what happens on the Nice Treaty. I do not see it being influenced by that. I originally supported the candidature of Wim Koch for president of the convention but he has since declared he is no longer available. As soon as we finish our work this weekend we will consider the composition of the Irish participants. We will require a strong team, both at official and parliamentary level.
Why is a fire break of nine months necessary for Governments to reflect on the outcome of the convention, given that they will participate throughout its year of work and will be fully up to date on its deliberations? Why do they need a further nine months to think about what they have already thought about? Is the fire break not designed by those countries opposed to the idea of a convention with a view to ensuring that whatever the convention produces is forgotten before the Intergovernmental Conference starts? Is it the case that the fire break idea is being promoted by larger countries who do not want the convention to get a hearing?
Does the Taoiseach accept that, in contrast to the interpretation placed on his words by Deputy Sargent, the intergovernmental approach, which Deputy Sargent prefers, does not suit the interests of smaller countries and that what is required is strong institutions at European level, such as the European Commission, acting with a strong mandate that operates to the benefit of smaller countries and that intergovernmentalism suits the British, Germans and French and nobody else? Has the Taoiseach decided that there will be a second referendum on the Nice Treaty?
I am not sure where the idea of the fire break originated but the arguments in favour were not posited because of Deputy Bruton's fears but because it was agreed that the Intergovernmental Conference would take place in 2004 and that it would be inappropriate to commence an Intergovernmental Conference immediately after Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice. The view was that a break should be provided after the convention period to allow wider participation than merely those involved in the presidium. It is envisaged that Parliaments, the public, the social partners and others with an interest should be able to participate. On balance I believe this approach to be a good idea because if there is direct movement from what will be a report to an Intergovernmental Conference, there is a danger the public may be unaware of what is happening or may not take sufficient interest in developments. That is what happened last year.
I have argued about the strength of the Commission many times in this House and it will arise again from these discussions in Laeken. The strength of the Commission, how it will operate in future and its role in relation to small member states are important issues for discussion. The protection of the Commission by the smaller countries is a major concern in this EU Presidency. It is an open secret that the larger countries are setting out to – perhaps "undermine" is too strong or unreasonable – but, certainly, to take back power from the Commission. I believe they will try to narrow the range of power of the Commission and that, in the next decade, that will be the line of attack of the Germans and the French. What was the Deputy's third question?
Has the Government decided to have a second referendum on the Nice treaty?
What we have said is that we would have a period of reflection and that an announcement would be made at a certain stage in that process. I will not say "yes" or "no" at this stage. On 31 December next year our colleagues will then have made a decision on the report of Commissioner Verheugen with regard to moving on the admission of ten new member countries. That cannot be done if Nice is not ratified. Between now and then, we will have to deal with this issue. We have to deal with it in such a way that we get the best possible construction and agreement for this country.
Is the Taoiseach saying there will be a second referendum?
I did not say whether there would be a referendum. I said that, between now and then, we should get ourselves into the best position.
(Interruptions.)
I call Deputy Joe Higgins.
We cannot ratify it without a referendum – I confirm that.
(Dublin West): Arising from his discussions with the Belgian Prime Minister, is the Taoiseach aware that, on the occasion of the EU summit, there will be very large groups of EU citizens from European trade unions, the anti-capitalist movement and others who will seek to protest peacefully about some key policies of the EU, particularly the massive drive towards privatisation of public services? Did the Taoiseach discuss this with the Prime Minister of Belgium and did he raise my concern that the Belgian police would not act provocatively, as happened in Gothenburg in January, and thereby foment violence among sections of the demonstration, which we all wish to be peaceful? People have the right to protest for alternative policies. Will the Taoiseach confirm, for the benefit of Deputy Noonan, that Fine Gael can still join the debate on the National Forum for Europe, if it gives up its policy of abstentionism? We used to associate that with the republican movement rather than a long-standing bastion of the establishment known as Fine Gael.
On the Deputy's third question, the answer is yes. I did not discuss the secur ity aspect but I am aware of the arrangements for the weekend and I hope the situation will be peaceful. In relation to Gothenburg, there is no doubt the situation got out of control. The Swedish Government took a very liberal view and issued licences to all those who sought permission to march. On the first night of the summit, 18 different groups marched and protested. They were allowed to proceed with almost no security – that would not happen anywhere else in the world – right through the main street, right beside the buildings in which the meetings were taking place and that went off very peacefully. However, at 10 a.m. on the following morning, a crowd of yahoos, gangsters and thugs began to wreck the place, breaking hotel and shop windows, including the hotel where I was. At 10 a.m. that behaviour could not be attributed to drugs, drink or anti-social behaviour.
Perhaps Deputy Quinn's comments are relevant in that regard.
Unparliamentary language. The police were literally standing by. As the day went on and the city was subject to ongoing wreckage, they had to take strong arm tactics and, in the end, what had been a peaceful situation led to live rounds being fired. Nobody wanted that.
The time for Taoiseach's questions has expired. We must proceed to questions nominated for priority to the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs.