Enda Kenny
Question:1 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the European Council in Seville; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15303/02]
Ceisteanna – Questions. - Official Engagements.
Enda Kenny
Question:2 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the contents of the European Council Declaration agreed at the Seville summit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15304/02]
Enda Kenny
Question:3 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the bilateral meetings he held during his attendance at the Seville European Council; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15305/02]
Enda Kenny
Question:4 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent official visits to Rome and Vienna; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15306/02]
Enda Kenny
Question:5 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent contacts with other European Union Heads of Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15625/02]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:6 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his participation in the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg. [16374/02]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:7 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the political leaders he met during the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg; the matters discussed at these meetings; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16375/02]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:8 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his meeting with the Finnish Prime Minister. [16379/02]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:9 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the Government's priorities for the meeting of the European Council in Brussels on 24 and 25 October 2002; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16380/02]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:10 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach his plans for meetings with other political leaders from EU states or the applicant countries in advance of the Brussels summit at the end of October 2002; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16381/02]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:11 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his telephone discussions with President Yasser Arrafat while under siege at his office in Ramallah. [16575/02]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:12 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his participation in the recent ASEM summit in Copenhagen. [16576/02]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:13 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the outcome of his meeting on 27 September 2002 with the Prime Minister of Slovenia. [16754/02]
Joe Higgins
Question:14 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the recent World Summit on Sustainable Development in South Africa. [17107/02]
Joe Higgins
Question:15 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with UN Secretary General, Mr. Kofi Annan, at the recent World Summit on Sustainable Development in South Africa. [17108/02]
Joe Higgins
Question:16 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the matters discussed and conclusions reached at the meeting of the European Union leaders held in Copenhagen at the end of September 2002. [17109/02]
Joe Higgins
Question:17 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach the bilateral meetings he attended at the meeting of European Union leaders held in Copenhagen at the end of September 2002. [17110/02]
Joe Higgins
Question:18 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach the official visits abroad he plans to make over the coming months. [17117/02]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:19 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his visit to South Africa at the conclusion of the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg; his other engagements in South Africa; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17157/02]
Enda Kenny
Question:20 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the UN Earth Summit in Johannesburg; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17924/02]
Enda Kenny
Question:21 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the bilateral meetings he had during his attendance at the UN Earth Summit in Johannesburg; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17925/02]
Enda Kenny
Question:22 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he has received an agenda for the forthcoming European Council meeting in Denmark; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18074/02]
Enda Kenny
Question:23 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the preparatory meetings he will hold in advance of the European Council meeting in Denmark; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18075/02]
Enda Kenny
Question:24 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the bi-lateral meetings he intends holding during his attendance at the European Council meeting in Denmark; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18076/02]
Trevor Sargent
Question:25 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the agenda for the upcoming European Council meeting on 24 and 25 October 2002; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18111/02]
Trevor Sargent
Question:26 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his participation in the World Summit on Sustainability in Johannesburg; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18112/02]
Trevor Sargent
Question:27 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the outcome of the European Council meeting in Seville. [18113/02]
Trevor Sargent
Question:28 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the recent ASEM Summit in Copenhagen which he attended; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18118/02]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 28, inclusive, together.
On 25 June, I reported in detail to the House on my preparations for and attendance at the European Council in Seville, which included preparatory meetings at home and abroad with the Heads of Government of a number of member states. In the course of my statement I dealt at some length with the declarations made in Seville which have been laid before the House. While I do not propose to further take up the valuable time of the House in reiterating what I said on that occasion, it is worthwhile to restate the reasons the Government is calling for a "Yes" vote on Saturday. I have made it clear that I fully understand and respect the concerns which caused many people to vote "No" to the Nice treaty last year. There was a lack of information and fears on issues such as neutrality and many felt their concerns were not being taken seriously. Before we put the treaty to the people again, we set out honestly and to the best of our efforts to address these concerns.
During the general election campaign, we set out our intention to hold a second referendum and are now asking the people to reconsider their decision and vote "Yes". There are four key reasons for doing so. The Nice treaty is a good deal for Ireland. We continue to punch above our weight in terms of voting and membership of the Commission and this enlargement, as with every previous one, will be good for Irish business. Full engagement with Europe has allowed our generation to reap economic and social rewards undreamed of by our parents. The European Union is the space within which we have prospered and Nice, while in many ways a minor treaty, will enable Europe to grow and develop. It can only be in our interest to help it to do so.
We have radically changed the question posed in the referendum and the amendment put to the people will place a complete bar on Ireland taking part in a European common defence. There will now be a total constitutional protection against Ireland joining a European army. At Seville, every member state of the Union confirmed that our policy of military neutrality is unaffected by Nice or any other European treaty. The European Union is about peace not war and this amendment strengthens further Ireland's neutrality.
A second "No" vote will prevent Europe enlarging as planned. Whether we like it, we will be blamed for the inevitable delay and confusion in the enlargement process. The applicant states have worked hard to get ready for the EU and will themselves have referenda on membership. Are we to deny them that choice? A second "No" carries enormous risks. It can only make Ireland less attractive to investors and lessen our influence when negotiating in Europe. This will damage Irish jobs, Irish farming and Irish society. I have asked again and again for the economic case for a "No" vote and I have not heard it. This decision is one of the most important we will ever make as a people and the younger generation, including my children, will have to deal with its consequences. I urge all who have a vote to exercise it. When we vote next Saturday we will be faced with a momentous decision. National, European and personal interests will be served by voting "Yes". The risks lie with a "No" vote.
I attended the inaugural international convention of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, which was held in Dublin Castle on 28 and 29 August. It was a most worthwhile undertaking providing a forum for debate on all aspects of the European social model. In the course of my opening address to the forum, I indicated that Ireland is committed to a Europe that continues to develop and can respond to global challenges in an effective way. I stressed my strong belief that there must be no question of treating Europe purely as an economic entity. The social dimension is an absolute requirement for a Europe that works to the benefit of all its people.
I met the Prime Minister of Finland, Mr. Paavo Lipponen, on 12 September last. We discussed a range of issues, including enlargement, and I was delighted to be able to brief him on the Government's campaign to ratify the Treaty of Nice. On 27 September I had a meeting with the Prime Minister of Slovenia whose visit was part of the intensive preparations for Slovenia's imminent membership of the European Union. The Prime Minister was also here to officially open the Slovenian Embassy in Dublin. We welcomed this as an opportunity to further strengthen diplomatic relations between our two countries and discussed Slovenia's preparations for membership of the European Union as we enter the final phase of the accession negotiations.
I congratulated the Prime Minister on Slovenia's political and economic progress, noting that Slovenia is a leading candidate in the accession process. We discussed the Commission's proposals for transitional arrangements for the candidate countries, including the allocation of Structural Funds, and agreed to strengthen and develop bilateral economic relations to encourage investment between Ireland and Slovenia. I updated the Prime Minister on the Nice referendum campaign and welcomed the joint statement made by the ten main candidate countries on 25 September in Warsaw, which reiterated the importance of the Nice treaty in the accession process. The Prime Minister stressed that importance.
The World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg was a ten year review of the 1992 Earth Summit. The purpose of the summit was to reinvigorate global commitment to sustainable development. I attended the summit from 2 to 4 September and addressed the plenary session on 3 September. I participated in a round table discussion, chaired by the Prime Minister of Sweden, on the implementation of new sustainable social, environmental and economic measures. The summit adopted a plan of implementation which is a detailed action programme covering all facets of sustainable development. It reaffirms existing UN commitments and other international agreements, particularly in relation to the eradication of poverty in developing countries, and brings economic, social and environmental actions together under one umbrella. It seeks to develop an institutional framework to monitor and promote its goals. New targets for access to sanitation and health care, more efficient use of chemicals and restoration of fish stock levels should help focus international action in these areas. From a developmental perspective, one of the most important achievements in the plan is the reaffirmation of the commitment of the international community to achieving the UN target of contributing 0.7% of GNP to overseas development assistance. I reiterated Ireland's commitment to reaching that target by 2007.
While in South Africa, I had the opportunity to launch a new Ireland Aid HIV and Aids regional initiative at Soul city, a local non-governmental organisation. I also met Irish missionaries and NGOs who are working in the region. I had a meeting with Kader Asmal, Minister for Education in the Government of South Africa, and we discussed a range of bilateral issues, including scope for educational exchanges. I also met the United Nations Secretary General, Kofi Annan. In addition to our discussions on sustainable development, we reviewed a number of issues of current concern to the Security Council, including events in the Middle East, Iraq and Afghanistan. I also met the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, with whom I discussed issues pertaining to the summit. In view of the imminent end of her term of office as High Commissioner, I took the opportunity to congratulate her on her exemplary term in office and I echoed the pride of the Irish people on her splendid achievements.
I telephoned the President of the Palestinian Authority, Yasser Arafat, on 21 September at his compound in Ramallah where he was under siege. He described the prevailing conditions in the region and repeated his condemnation of the suicide bombings and attacks on Israeli civilians. I told him that Ireland would continue to work through the EU and the United Nations Security Council to relieve the present state of affairs. While Israeli forces have drawn back from their siege positions, their continuing occupation of the area remains a cause for concern.
I attended the fourth Asia-Europe meeting in Copenhagen on 23 and 24 September. The summit was attended by leaders from ten Asian nations, the European Union member states and the President of the European Commission. It was divided into three main sessions covering political dialogue, economic co-operation and social, cultural and environmental issues and a copy of the chairman's statement on the summit's outcome has been laid before the House. Discussions in the first session focused on the international climate in the aftermath of 11 September and on new security issues to combat international terrorism and trans-national organised crime. Leaders agreed to issue a declaration on co-operation against international terrorism a copy of which has been laid before the House.
The second session discussed progress in economic co-operation between Asia and Europe. The leaders endorsed the outcome of the ASEM Economic Ministers meeting, which was held in Copenhagen prior to the summit. They agreed to use the ASEM process to increase consultation and dialogue in the run-up to the WTO ministerial meeting in Mexico in 2003. The Asian partners referred to the rehabilitation of their economies and the need for closer co-operation within their own region and between Europe and Asia on trade and investment. All participants expressed support for a strong and vibrant multilateral trading system.
At the invitation of Prime Minister Rasmussen, I was the lead speaker on the European side at the third session on social, cultural and environmental issues. My contribution focused on the importance of lifelong learning at national and European level and the experience which could be shared with our Asian partners. I referred to the progress of the ASEM lifelong learning initiative undertaken by Denmark, Ireland, Singapore and Malaysia. The initiative must serve two purposes. First, to ensure employability and sustain economic growth and, second, to ensure active citizenship and reduce social exclusion. I place great importance on investing in this area in the broadest sense if we are to take advantage of the opportunities and minimise the problems presented by globalisation. There is a growing gap between developed and developing countries in their access to information and communication technologies. This digital divide will only be bridged when the underlying causes, such as poor governance and the implementation of economic reform, are dealt with.
As part of our overall Asia Strategy, Ireland agreed to support a number of initiatives endorsed at the summit through exchange of expertise. These included an ASEM workshop to be hosted by Germany in 2003 on employment and labour and an ASEM seminar to be hosted by Japan in 2003 on education exchange. There was also some discussion at the session on environmental initiatives in the follow up to the recent Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg. The leaders endorsed an Italian offer to host a meeting of ASEM Environment Ministers in 2003. While my schedule did not permit any formal bilateral meetings, I spoke to several of the participants in the margins of the summit.
On 10 October the Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of the Czech Republic paid a courtesy call on me while on a visit to Dublin for substantive discussions with the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I will attend the European Council in Brussels on 24 and 25 October. The Presidency intends to limit the agenda primarily to enlargement, including related budgetary and financial issues and the situation regarding Kaliningrad. The Council will also hear a progress report on work in the Convention on the Future of Europe from its President, Mr. Valéry Giscard d'Estaing. There will also be a meeting with the President of the European Parliament.
In preparation for the Council, Prime Minister Rasmussen of Denmark visited Dublin yesterday as part of his tour of capitals. We had a useful discussion on the agenda items. Enlargement and Saturday's referendum dominated our discussion. The Prime Minister was at pains to point out that while all the member and applicant states fully respect Ireland's right to make its own decision, approval of the Nice treaty is essential if enlargement is to take place on schedule. The Prime Minister also stressed to me and at our subsequent press conference that there is no so-called Plan B.
As regards future plans, I will have a bi-lateral meeting with Prime Minister Simitis of Greece en marge of the Brussels Council. No other bi-laterals are planned, but they may arise if circumstances dictate.
I thank the Taoiseach for his comprehensive reply. Whatever about the quality of his work, no one can say he has not been busy. I join the Taoiseach in congratulating the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, who is a Mayo person, for the distinction with which she served and the courage she brought to bear during her tenure of office.
As regards the Taoiseach's attendance at the Earth Summit in Johannesburg, who can we believe? The Taoiseach clearly outlined to the summit, although the venue was not full at the time, that this country and his Government intended to increase its overseas budget to 0.7% of GDP. Given that the budget has been significantly slashed since then and that the borrowing requirement next year will be €1.7 billion, will the Taoiseach confirm to the House that the allocation for overseas aid in this year's budget will be increased to meet the target of 0.7% of GDP by 2007?
The target is to reach 0.7%. Our economic growth was so great over the past five years we had to use more resources to achieve the interim target of 0.45%. We had to put in tens of millions of euros extra and we achieved that. Although it is a more difficult time, it is still the Government's aim to reach that target. Few countries have made the progress we have made in the past two years. Unlike other countries, our aid figure is not tied aid; it is straightforward. I am not claiming credit for that as that has been the position here for many years. Other countries quote figures which are tied aid. When that is analysed, one can clearly see the real figures. There is no need for me to go into detail as that has been done in recent articles. That is our commitment. We have given enormous resources over the past five years, although economic growth has made it more difficult. We will continue to do that.
I thank the Taoiseach for reiterating his commitment. However, what will the figure be in the Book of Estimates and the budget this year? I look forward to that target being maintained. The people involved in this area are extremely concerned about what has happened to date.
As regards talk about an invasion of Iraq and military action being taken by the United States, will the Dáil be consulted before any decision is taken given that we have a seat on the United Nations Security Council? This matter has been raised by Deputy Gay Mitchell on a number of occasions. There is genuine concern about what is happening. People strongly believe there should be discussion on this issue and that the Dáil should make a decision. Has the Government considered that people are concerned about refuelling facilities at Shannon? If the United States takes military action in Iraq without a UN mandate, will those facilities continue to be extended to the US?
This country is a strong advocate of the system of collective international security based on the United Nations charter. All the comments made by me and by the Minister for Foreign Affairs emphasise that the terms of the UN charter should be followed. The UN Security Council has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace. All member states of the United Nations are bound by the charter. Any decisions made on this matter should be made by the Security Council and no one else. We and our people have worked hard at the Security Council in recent weeks to ensure that the international consensus is that the Iraq regime poses a potential threat to regional security and that it has failed to meet its obligations under international law and the relevant Security Council resolutions. It is still our view that all the discussions should take place at a diplomatic level and within the Security Council and that we should continue to work within the Security Council. We have firmly tied ourselves in the past six weeks of intensive debate at the Security Council to supporting the position of Kofi Annan and we will continue to do that.
I hope the United States does not take any action on its own. It is better that this decision is made. Deputy Kenny is aware that the permanent members are coming to completion of their deliberations. It is likely that in the coming days – I do not know the precise date, although I was trying to find out last night – their work will come back to the Security Council for further discussion.
As regards the question about the overflight area, that decision is made under the Air Navigation and Transport Act. It is decided on a case by case basis, as it was last year and other years. That will not arise until we see what happens. It is better for Iraq, its neighbours, the region, the United States and the Security Council if this matter is dealt with diplomatically and if pressure is put on Iraq to fulfil the UN charter which is to comply with the inspectors and with all the relevant regulations. Depending on its terms, we will support a resolution which clarifies and stipulates how the inspectors should be allowed to do their job so it is fulfilled for the world to see.
As the Taoiseach has answered 28 questions covering a diverse set of subjects, it is difficult to formulate a set of questions in response. Therefore, I will confine myself to two distinct questions. The first relates to the forthcoming referendum on which voting will take place on Saturday. Will the Taoiseach acknowledge that the Government has adopted three initiatives from the Labour Party, all of which we welcome? The first of these was the establishment of the National Forum on Europe which has been a great success and has helped commence a dialogue, which has long since been necessary, about our relationship with the European Union.
Does the Government accept that the European Union Bill, which has been passed by the House and is due to be passed by the Seanad, was a Labour Party Bill tabled and accepted on Second Stage in June last year? It was a Labour Party initiative to address the domestic democratic deficit, which was modified by this House.
Does the Government accept that despite the advice of Iveagh House, it was absolutely essential, having regard to the IMS poll in The Star, that the issue of neutrality would be separated and incorporated in our Constitution in the form in which it has been? In this context, I welcome the presence of the Minister for Defence. Does the Taoiseach agree that the Labour Party has played a constructive role in this House on an issue of major importance which crosses the partisan divide of the political parties, namely, our integrated and deeply involved membership of the European Union?
This first set of questions is easy. All the Taoiseach has to do is say "Yes" to all three of its elements because they are all true. The members of the Government did not produce a single idea and we, in the Labour Party, rescued them. The Taoiseach knows this from the Gothenburg Summit.
More importantly, I have adopted a view that I would never attack the Taoiseach while he was abroad representing the country. He has now returned from Johannesburg. The Taoiseach can con us because we have a way of getting back at him, namely, by voting him out of office, but he should not con the rest of the nations of the world on our behalf. I was going to use the word liar, but you barred its use last week, a Cheann Comhairle.
I would prefer if the Deputy asked a question.
Did the Taoiseach not feel he had a nose at least a metre long?
Pinocchio.
Is that question within acceptable parliamentary parlance, a Cheann Comhairle?
Generally speaking, I prefer if Deputies show respect to each other in the House in their use of language.
I am aware of that and I want to show respect for the rules of the House. Is it acceptable to call him a liar by saying he has a Pinocchio nose? When the Taoiseach stood up in Johannesburg and stated the following:
Significantly increased overseas development assistance is essential to meet our goals. The decline in global ODA in the 1990s is shameful, indefensible and inconsistent with the commitments given at Rio.
This was not Fianna Fáil's commitment, but Ireland's commitment—
It is not appropriate to quote.
I am using this text as an aide-memoire.
It is still not appropriate.
I wish only to ensure that the record is not distorted and I am not accused of misleading the House. The Taoiseach stated not Fianna Fáil's absolute commitment, but Ireland's absolute commitment while aware that the Minister for Finance had cut the overseas development budget not by €32 million, but by €40 million. What was going through his mind in that half empty hall when he made statements of which only Pinocchio would be capable?
I will take the second question first in order that I can say the bad things first and then be nice afterwards. It is hard to listen to my honourable friend. We are running short of days on which I can answer questions from him in this format. As Minister for Finance he did sweet damn all about ODA—
Not true.
—and declined to make a percentage—
Not true.
The Taoiseach without interruption.
He denigrated and savaged the development organisations. When I took office in 1997, the Deputy used to question me on ODA. The fact is we picked it up, restructured it and massively funded it. In the United Nations, the European Union and all the development organisations Ireland is held in the highest regard and Irish people working in the UN now hold their heads high—
That is simply not true.
—because we have poured enormous resources into this area, so much so that the only difficulty we had last year was trying to find projects. We had to work extremely hard to get a new programme and we continue to do so. Rather than bowing my head, we have reached the stage where we are bringing the development organisations with us.
Some €40 million has been cut from their budgets.
We do not have to hide or run away from them. We are held in the highest regard internationally in respect of ODA and I hope that continues into the dim and distant future.
Pinocchio would be delighted.
One of the Taoiseach's former Ministers used to sit there like a talking hen.
The Taoiseach should treat the matter seriously.
The Taoiseach, without interruptions.
I made the point that progress was achieved at any rate and this country is held in high regard.
What does the Taoiseach have to say to the communities in Africa who are having their support cut back?
I went out to those communities in Africa and I saw the work this country has funded. I saw the Irish aid programmes in Lesotho which do so much in education and irrigation. The terrible thing is that not enough people in this country know how much we do. They know how much we did not do when the Deputy was responsible for this area. The reality is that people can now feel very proud. I will even arrange for some of the good programmes to be shown to members of the Labour Party in order that they can see how one can do really useful work when one sets about it.
On a more agreeable note, I readily acknowledge Deputy Quinn's other comments. As I cannot just say "Yes", my only correction is that the Labour Party asked us to set up a forum for Europe before the first vote on the Nice treaty referendum and he will recall that I agreed to that before the vote. The proposal was made in this House and I readily agreed to it. I also agree that the forum has proved to be enormously beneficial. Over the past 12 or 15 months it has extended into the communities the valuable work which had been done in a tight and closed way by other organisations. It was a good proposal and the forum, which has worked well, should continue. If the issue is given back to an intellectual group, it will not get out into the wider public arena. European issues have been debated the length and breadth of the country in the past 12 months and we have seen that they affect all the people in a very positive way, whether in training, environmental issues or other matters. We would be a long way behind without Europe. In the areas of equality, justice and, in particular, women's rights and workers' rights—
All the things the Taoiseach tried to stop.
I brought in much of that legislation during my years as Minister for Labour, including part-time workers legislation, which the Deputy did not do when he served in the same position before me.
It was a big job getting the Taoiseach to bring it in.
I have a long memory. We brought it in collectively. The second issue, the European Union Bill, was a proposal which we have enhanced. The Deputy is correct to state it creates significant pressures on the system. I am aware that in the discussions preceding the Bill the Deputy pressed the point that this would be something we would have to face up to. It will take some time for all of this to be factored in, but the democratic deficit which we had over the years, with the joint committee just receiving annual reports, had long outlived its usefulness. I am aware the Deputy had been making that point for a long time. We have dealt with that very successfully by moving forward. What was the third issue?
The neutrality question being put into the Constitution.
There was no significant difference between the Deputy and myself in the discussions.
There were differences with Iveagh House.
Two issues are worth reiterating with regard to the research the Deputy mentioned. We are in agreement on the matter. First, there is the declaration which was issued and signed by all 15 European Union members. It spells out very clearly that our neutrality is fully protected now and into the future. In the new declaration every other EU member state has confirmed full respect and support for our policy on neutrality and the fact that the Nice treaty and all other EU treaties do not affect our policy on neutrality. In the discussions we agreed that, while that is the case, we would insert a provision to this effect in the Constitution to put the matter beyond doubt now and until such time as the people so decide – if they ever do, which is their right – some time in the dim and distant future. We agreed to do that and anybody who cares about Irish military neutrality or Irish neutrality in any of its forms—
Should vote "Yes".
—should vote "Yes" because anyone who votes "No" is voting for the possibility of conscription, involvement in a European army or participation in common defence. Deputy Quinn is right in saying that the only way of securing and protecting Irish military neutrality is by voting "Yes" on Saturday.
I ask the Taoiseach to withdraw his claim that the Nice treaty provides merely for minor changes in the EU when, under cover of enlargement, significant changes in the future direction of the EU in important areas of policy are being smuggled in by way of the Nice treaty. Does the Taoiseach agree that the changes proposed to the common commercial policy in Article 133, which give the EU Commission the right to negotiate with the World Trade Organisation on the privatisation of our public services, such as water and post offices and is subject only to a qualified majority vote, is a profound change in EU policy? Is he concerned there has been virtually no public debate on this and that the Referendum Commission has scarcely commented on this significant change?
Has the Taoiseach noted the results of a survey published in The Star this morning which indicate that there is extreme concern about neutrality? Does he agree that the Seville Declaration is extremely narrow in its remit and merely prevents this State, without a referendum, from joining a common defence initiated by the EU? Does he agree his claim that it is a major confirmation of our neutrality is nonsense when it would not stop the State, for example, trying to join an alliance with NATO—
It would.
—or other military alliances? No, it refers specifically to the EU Council.
It would implement it.
Deputy Quinn, allow Deputy Higgins to proceed without interruption.
It refers specifically to a common defence initiated by the EU Council.
I am trying to help him.
Does the Taoiseach agree that the Seville Declaration is merely a fig leaf to cover up the fact that he is putting the same question to the people that they rejected a year ago and that he wants to appear to be putting a different question, but it is a very threadbare addition to the original question? Furthermore—
Brevity, Deputy.
—does the Taoiseach agree that this State is being included and amalgamated in the Rapid Reaction Force, which in genesis is an EU army? Lastly—
I will have to cut off the Deputy there because a number of Deputies are offering and the Deputy has asked four supplementaries. Other Deputies have submitted questions and they must get an opportunity to ask supplementary questions.
I tabled six or seven questions.
That may be the case, but Deputy Sargent tabled four.
In view of justified concerns about neutrality and American soldiers pouring into Shannon to wage war on Iraq, will the Taoiseach withdraw the claim he made on a recent "Prime Time" programme that those of us who are opposed to Nice were telling lies when we expressed concerns about neutrality?
I always find it regrettable in these kinds of debates that a person as eminent as Deputy Higgins should say things that are untrue—
On number one.
—and what is more he knows it. This is my objection.
He just wants to scare people if he can.
That is a lie.
On number one in regard to Article 133, the Deputy's suggestion is untrue. Article 133 of the Treaty of the European Union provides the legal basis and procedure for the EU to engage in international trade negotiations. The Nice treaty proposes to amend the article to provide that decisions on EU participation in these negotiations are taken in the same way as decisions are taken on EU internal rules on a range of issues. This amendment is logical, particularly in terms of enlargement. It will improve the effectiveness of EU participation in trade negotiations without diminishing member states' involvement in them. It is particularly relevant in relation to the ongoing multilateral negotiations in the World Trade Organisation on the further liberalisation of world trade in goods and services. The suggestion, which Deputy Higgins made and has made outside this House, that the Nice treaty's provisions could force the privatisation of Irish public services such as health and education, the two he mentioned—
I did not say that. The Taoiseach has misquoted me.
Sewerage and water.
Deputy Higgins was speaking rubbish.
I said water and post offices.
—or in respect of any other service via the World Trade Organisation is incorrect. The WTO's general agreement on trade expressly provides that all WTO members can legitimately regulate economic and non-economic sectors within their territory to guarantee the achievement of public objectives. That could not be clearer. Will the Deputy put an end to that red herring? Will he do that?
Does the Taoiseach agree—
I quoted from what the Deputy said.
Deputy Higgins, allow the Taoiseach to continue.
—that the negotiations can extend to public services?
Deputy Higgins had an opportunity to put his questions. I ask him to resume his seat.
It does not.
It does.
It does not. The Deputy is an intelligent person. The agreement expressly provides that all WTO members can legitimately regulate economic and non-economic sectors within their territories. That means within one's country. That means here.
Can public services be included in the negotiations?
Deputy Higgins, allow the Taoiseach to continue. The Deputy was afforded the courtesy of putting questions without interruption.
The Deputy knows that is a white elephant. He should stop raising it. On the second issue—
I think the Taoiseach meant to say "a red herring".
What did I say?
A white elephant.
A Cheann Comhairle—
I will have to ask the Deputy to leave the House, if he does not want to listen to what the Taoiseach has to say.
This is the Deputy's Dingle characteristic breaking out.
On neutrality, I have been asked a fair question by the Deputy Higgins. He asked me to deal with the summary of the Nice treaty, which is the declaration, and what is in the constitutional referendum. I wish to make the following points. Membership of the European Union poses no threat to Ireland's traditional policy of military neutrality. The EU is a partnership in which each member respects the traditions and priorities of the other. For Ireland, this means our military neutrality is respected by our EU partners and spelt out in the Seville Declaration. The Government recognise that neutrality is an important issue to the Irish people. That is why it made sure all the necessary safeguards protecting neutrality were included in the Nice treaty. This was made clear at the Seville Council in June when I secured the agreement of our EU partners to two declarations. In the national declaration the Government stated clearly that Ireland will not participate in a European common defence unless the Irish people decide otherwise in a referendum nor will Ireland participate in a European army.
The declaration also confirmed that Defence Forces can participate in a peace support mission only if there is UN authorisation, a government decision or the approval of Dáil Éireann, and this includes any future mission undertaken by the European Union. Furthermore, the Government will make its own sovereign decision to participate in any future mission on a case by case basis, the triplelock guarantee which I outlined many times. The Defence Forces have a long and respected experience of peacekeeping with the UN and the steps that the EU has taken to develop a capacity to undertake peace support operations is in full conformity with the tradition and with the UN's approach—
What about Shannon airport?
—and as expressed clearly by Kofi Annan.
(Interruptions.)
In a declaration of the European Council, our European partners confirmed that our traditional policy of military neutrality is in full conformity with EU treaties. There is nothing in the Nice treaty or any of the other EU treaties that changes this. I am not going to answer Deputy Higgins that perhaps we are not talking about the EU and that maybe Ireland might go off and do a deal with southern Africa or outer Mongolia. Let us get real.
What about NATO?
The Government has gone further and changed the question that will be put to the people. It is quite clear that the issue of military neutrality will be put beyond all doubt.
What about Shannon Airport?
I hope the Deputy is satisfied on those two issues. Will he now declare that in order to achieve a "Yes" vote? As regards Shannon Airport, when there is a UN resolution the Government will make whatever decision it deems necessary under the air navigation Acts.
The decision has already been made.
Will there be any injury time?
There are only a few minutes left.
I hope the Taoiseach will answer this question, unlike the last one which he did not answer. How can the Taoiseach reconcile his very laudable comments made in Johannesburg recently and the Government's decision to cut overseas development aid? The Taoiseach stated that the summit reaffirmed the need to increase ODA to the UN target of 0.7% of GNP and also placed emphasis on the importance of fighting AIDS. Is it not the case that ODA from the State has already been cut this year and that this makes it less likely that we will reach this target? Does the Taoiseach recognise that we would need to increase our commitment to overseas development aid annually in order to reach the UN target? Does he recognise that this is something the vast majority of people would want from this or any other Government?
Why is there a difference between the Seville Declaration, which does not acknowledge UN primacy in our defence activities, and the Irish declaration which does acknowledge the UN's primacy? Surely they should be at one with each other rather than at odds. Can the Taoiseach acknowledge that in article 1.2, amending article 27, of the Nice treaty we are sweeping away the references to the Western European Union? That is an organisation we have not been prepared to join, which is understandable if we are to be neutral. Does that not present him with a dilemma in maintaining that we are still neutral?
Will the Taoiseach allow a debate and vote in this House over the use of Shannon Airport by the American airforce? He did not answer that earlier. Interim targets for overseas development aid were part of the Government programme. They have now been set aside and the Taoiseach talks about the final 2007 target. Can the Taoiseach give us year-by-year interim targets for overseas development aid? Following his trip to Johannesburg, does the Taoiseach now accept that infinite growth in consumption world-wide is incompatible with the limitations of a finite planet?
Can the Taoiseach use his authority, both through the EU and the UN, to push for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the occupied territories? Will he do his best to ensure that UN resolutions on the Middle East are implemented? The Taoiseach mentioned that he will take his attitude to war in Iraq on a case by case basis. I am concerned about that. Does the Taoiseach not accept that if Iraq complies with UN resolutions we can all work to prevent war?
Given we do not know what is in the minds of those who drive al-Qaeda, has the Government considered increasing security at Shannon Airport in view of what happened in Bali? If this terrorist organisation decided to strike here, are we in a position to have preventative and detection measures in place?
It is fair to say that the eyes of 100 million people will be watching the Irish electorate on Saturday. We have always been known as generous and caring. A substantial number of people in this country have had difficulties with the transposition into Irish law of existing regulations and directives that have nothing to do with the Nice treaty. While I am not asking the Taoiseach to withdraw any of those, would he consider advising some of his Ministers to consider reviewing some of those applying common sense? Some of those transpositions have changed people's attitudes to the treaty. In view of all the misinformation peddled by the "No" campaign, will the Taoiseach confirm that all the applicant countries fully endorse the Nice treaty and fully recognise that it is essential for the process of enlargement to take place.
They have not voted on it yet.
(Interruptions.)
I understand the point raised by Deputy Kenny on the issue of directives. The question of clarifying subsidiarity and devising treaties in a clearer way has already been raised in the European Convention. Whether or not that is achieved is another issue. The air navigation Acts are being looked at and various security committees are examining security at Shannon Airport and elsewhere. The applicant countries have all but pleaded for our support so that their own process can move ahead.
They want to hold their own referendums.
They do and the vast majority of them have said that if they complete their discussions by the time of the Copenhagen ministerial Council, they will put in place their ratification instruments in the spring and hope to have referendums in the summer. Many of them have already put timescales on that process as they told the Forum on Europe and other meetings.
Deputy McGrath asked a question on the Middle East. Since the discussions that I had at the Security Council we have succeeded in getting the support of other European countries on moving to try to alleviate the pressures. On one side we acknowledge the difficulties for the Israeli community with suicide bombers, but we also acknowledge the rights of the Palestinian people. We have already had resolutions on that but have not had much success.
Deputy Sargent asked about the Western European Union. I have said many times that two issues are being moved, one is the reference to Western European Union and the other is about politicians or officials attending meetings. I do not see that they are creating any great difficulties or problems.
We were not in the Western European Union.
No, but it was agreed that the references would be removed.
As with EU functions?
That is the only change the treaty contains. Members of the House attended at the Western European Union for a number of years as observers but we had no other involvement with that organisation.
I have answered Deputy Ó Caoláin's question on overseas aid. We had access to increased resources available in recent years and the amount increased from €158 million five years ago to an estimated €420 million this year. However, in leaner times it will be more difficult to make progress in this area. It is a priority for us to continue to achieve our targets.
There are cutbacks planned for this year.
We have put in place enormous expenditure programmes. In terms of the staff, resources and aid provided, this is a good news story for Ireland. We should be proud of what we have achieved and continue to make progress.
There are no interim targets.
The interim target is 0.45%.
That concludes Taoiseach's questions. We now move to priority questions to the Minister for Transport.