Trevor Sargent
Question:1 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with the Turkish interim leader, Mr. Recep Tayyip Erdogan, in November 2002; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23342/02]
Ceisteanna – Questions. - Official Engagements.
Joe Higgins
Question:2 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his upcoming meeting with Turkey's unofficial leader, Mr. Recep Tayyip Erdogan. [23551/02]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:3 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the outcome of his recent discussions with the Turkish political leader, Mr. Recep Tayyip Erdogan and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24409/02]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:4 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach to report on his recent meeting with the Turkish leader, Recep Tayyip Erdogan. [24457/02]
Trevor Sargent
Question:5 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the agenda for the December 2002 EU Summit in Copenhagen; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24693/02]
Enda Kenny
Question:6 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he has received the agenda for the European Council meeting in Copenhagen; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25412/02]
Enda Kenny
Question:7 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting with the Turkish interim leader; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25413/02]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:8 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the matters discussed and conclusions reached at his meeting on 5 December 2002 with Danish Prime Minister Rasmussen. [25500/02]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:9 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the matters discussed and conclusions reached at his recent meeting with the Romanian Prime Minister, Adrian Nastase, during his visit to Dublin. [25501/02]
Trevor Sargent
Question:10 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the final agenda for the upcoming EU Summit in Copenhagen; the Government's priorities at the summit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25659/02]
Joe Higgins
Question:11 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach his priorities for the December 2002 EU Summit in Copenhagen; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25674/02]
Enda Kenny
Question:12 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting on 5 December 2002 with the Prime Minister of Denmark; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25883/02]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 12, inclusive, together.
On 21 November, I met Mr. Erdogan, leader of the Turkish AK – justice and development – party. Mr. Erdogan was touring European capitals with a view to seeking support for the commencement of accession negotiations by Turkey to join the European Union. He was accompanied by the Turkish Foreign Minister, Mr.Yasar Yakis. I congratulated Mr. Erdogan on the results achieved by his AK party in the Turkish parliamentary elections on 3 November and I wished the new Government every success in office.
With regard to EU enlargement, I said that Ireland accepted the conclusions of the 1999 Helsinki European Council. That council stated that Turkey is a candidate country destined to join the EU on the basis of the same criteria which applied to all other candidate countries. I assured Mr. Erdogan that Ireland will be as helpful as possible in terms of Turkey's EU candidature. On Cyprus, I welcomed the recent UN proposals and hoped they will be carefully considered by both Cypriot communities and by Greece and Turkey. Ireland has a particular interest in Cyprus as we have contributed from the outset to the UN peacekeeping operations on the island.
I commented on our bilateral economic relations and noted that trade between Ireland and Turkey has grown significantly over the past decade, increasing almost eightfold in the past 12 years. I also noted that several Turkish companies are successfully operating in Ireland, particularly in the construction sector.
On Thursday, 5 December, I met the Prime Minister of Romania, Mr. Adrian Nastase. The Prime Minister was accompanied by an official delegation including the Romanian Foreign Minister. In the course of our discussions, the Prime Minister and I noted that Romania and Ireland enjoy good bilateral relations and both sides agreed to continue to develop these relations as Romania prepares for EU membership. I said that Romania could count on Ireland's support for achieving its objective of EU membership in 2007. Ireland supports this objective in the full knowledge that the Irish people expressed their backing for EU enlargement in the referendum on the Nice treaty.
Prime Minister Nastase briefed me on Romania's ongoing efforts to meet the criteria for EU membership. He also briefed me on the recent positive developments with regard to human rights issues and particular measures being taken to improve the circumstances of children.
Later the same day, I met with the President of the European Council, Prime Minister Rasmussen of Denmark, who was in Dublin as part of his tour of capitals in advance of the European Council meeting in Copenhagen on Thursday and Friday of this week. We discussed the Council's agenda, which will focus on enlargement, and the functioning of the Presidency in that context. It is expected that the necessary decisions will be made to conclude negotiations with the ten accession states with a view to signing the accession treaty in April 2003. From our discussions, it is clear that the Council faces a difficult task. We will, as always, seek to be constructive in our approach. The agreement reached at Brussels on agricultural expenditure is very important to Ireland. Decisions are also expected to be made on advancing the accession process with Bulgaria and Romania while the next stage of Turkey's candidature will also be considered.
The European Council will also discuss an initial report by the Presidency on reform of the Presidency. The Prime Minister and I discussed this and the broader agenda of the Convention on the Future of Europe. I indicated that reform of the Presidency should build, to the greatest extent possible, on the strengths of the current system. In addition, the President of the Convention on the Future of Europe, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, will update the Council on its work and a meeting will be held with the President of the European Parliament, Pat Cox.
What is the Government's policy with regard to giving a firm accession date to Turkey? Has there been any approach by the United States of America to encourage support by the Government of Turkish entry to the EU? If so, has there been a response from the Government expressing concern about human rights?
I met yesterday with the Cypriot ambassador who was very appreciative of Ireland's involvement over many years in peacekeeping in Cyprus, particularly by gardaí currently working there with the United Nations. He is very grateful for the diplomatic skills of the Irish personnel involved. Will the Taoiseach raise the ongoing work of the Convention on the Future of Europe at the Copenhagen summit? Given the high profile representation from EU countries whose Foreign Ministers are members of the Convention, will the Taoiseach be embarrassed by the low key involvement of the Government? The Irish position with regard to the convention is still unknown to our representatives. Will the Taoiseach address that matter before travelling to Copenhagen to allow members of the Convention from this Parliament to be aware of Ireland's position? Deputy Gormley visits Brussels regularly on this business and he and his colleagues would like to be able to work together to promote the national interest.
When he visited, I told Mr. Erodogan that we support the Copenhagen criteria of 1993. That is the same basis everybody else supports. Human rights issues have to be properly addressed and be proven beyond doubt to have been addressed. As the Deputy will appreciate, Mr. Erodogan also fell foul of some of those issues himself. He explained that while he leads the party which won an overall majority in the recent election, he was not allowed to run himself. He is appointed to Government, but he is not a member of Parliament because in the run up to the election he recited during a speech some poetry for which he was jailed. He pointed out that he has more interest than many in resolving human rights problems. I made it clear to him that he must do so and that the criteria described above have to be fulfilled. He emphasised that while his party is Islamic, it wishes to pursue secular politics. He is an impressive person who wants to make progress and deeply wants to join the EU.
He realises that it will not be possible to do so in 2004 and he wants to make as much progress as possible. He has issued a similar message to other European leaders, all of whom have met him despite the fact that he is not a parliamentarian. He is an unusual position. Even if a date is set, which I expect will happen given the discussions yesterday in the General Affairs Council, it has been made very clear that accession will be on the basis of fulfilment of the Copenhagen criteria of 1993. As most people realise, that will not be very easy to accomplish, but there is a new administration in place and it has an opportunity to do it.
As the Deputy will know from his meeting yesterday with the ambassador, a second important issue is how the Turkish Government proceeds in its conversation with Mr. Denktash who is ill at present. That will influence greatly the views of Greek Prime Minister, Costas Simitis, which have much influence in the European Council because of the ongoing Greek and Turkish Cypriot differences. That issue will not be resolved, but major progress will have to be indicated in tackling something that has gone on for years. During my time on the European Council the debate has remained the same with no evidence of progress. That apart, we will continue to support the membership of Cyprus and hopefully the matters discussed will be negotiated and resolved in the accession treaty by 16 April.
I assure the Deputy and other Members that we are actively involved in the Convention on the Future of Europe at both official and prime ministerial level. I have met a number of Deputies who have been involved and last week discussed these issues with Deputy John Bruton who is on the presidium, the inner council of the Convention. He is extremely helpful to the Government having been elected to that privileged position. It gives us access to someone who is in the inner sanctum. Some of the best officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs are actively involved in the Convention on a day-to-day basis and the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, is fully engaged in several meetings per week. To have the same person at full Convention meetings and at sub-meetings is the best way to proceed.
It would not be possible for the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, to attend all the meetings. Today he is chairing meetings on Northern Ireland and last week he was presiding over the Security Council of the United Nations. It is not practical for him to be at the Convention at the same time. We meet weekly to discuss the Convention and the Irish Presidency of 2004. The Cabinet committee meets fortnightly and there is an in-house meeting on Mondays at the Department of Foreign Affairs where the relevant people discuss these matters in the presence of the Minister. He is very well briefed. As the Deputy has said, the French and German delegations have recently been switched and Foreign Ministers now attend. They were not there previously and I expect they are preparing for a major initiative in January on the 40th anniversary of the Franco-German axis of the European Union. Tactically, they will want both Ministers in attendance on that occasion. I may be wrong, but I expect to see a major statement on that event. It is in our interest to keep our people briefed and we will continue to do that.
What about the resources?
We have, I hope, resolved that issue with both Mr. De Rossa and Deputies Bruton and Gormley. We have given resources earlier in the year but we certainly want to keep actively involved.
What precisely did the Taoiseach say to the unofficial Turkish leader, Mr. Erdogan about what he, the Taoiseach, would be saying in Copenhagen about Turkey's application for membership of the European Union and in regard to specifics? I denounce the disgusting comments by some, such as Mr. Stoiber, the German CDU Leader, who said Turkey should not be admitted because it was, "too different to join a Christian club". Did the Taoiseach raise specifics with Mr. Erdogan? Does he believe Turkey should be admitted while, this year still, citizens are being imprisoned for expressing peaceful verbal dissent, when forms of torture are widespread as employed by Turkish police and while elected Kurdish parliamentarians are still serving a 17 year sentence which the European Court of Human Rights said stemmed from a patently unfair trial? What will the Taoiseach say in Copenhagen on this matter? As the Taoiseach did not answer Deputy Sargent's question, I would like to ask it again. What representations have been made by the US Administration to the Irish Government in whatever way to hurry along the acceptance of Turkey into the EU, irrespective of where the issue of human rights stood at present in Turkey?
To make it absolutely clear for Deputy Higgins, I have stated that a date can be referred to following the European Council but that date can only be a date on the basis of the Copenhagen criteria. Ten years ago the Copenhagen criteria spelt out all the rules that any applicant country has to follow. including strict rules on human rights. All the procedures about arrests, laws, signing up to UN matters are all in the Copenhagen criteria. That is the position of practically every country. A few countries might take a more sympathetic view but I do not think any country takes the view that it can join until the Copenhagen criteria are fulfilled.
What about the US?
I have had no representations from the United States but its position is very clear. The US sees Turkey as an important strategic location and has long made its position clear. I imagine that if the US has not written to the Department of Foreign Affairs I would be surprised if we do not get a fax or e-mail prior to, or at, the European Council reiterating its position. It does this every time. The US would like to see certainty on the Turkish position and that has been its position for the past number of years.
Is the Taoiseach saying it is not the case that the Irish Government has shown, what The Irish Times described as contempt for the workings of the convention? Is he saying that the article on 9 December by the European affairs correspondent of The Irish Times, saying that the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, was blithely dismissive of the entire affair and arguing it was no more than a loquacious prologue to the real business being done at the Intergovernmental Conference, is not the case? In particular, is he saying it is not true that the Government has never required Deputy Bruton to raise any matter at the presidium and that it has never sought a briefing from Deputy Bruton? I gather from the Taoiseach's answer that the last point is not true. However, it is asserted in The Irish Times article that the Government never sought Deputy Bruton's influence in a central presidium of 12 people in a very influential position to put forward the Government's position, that essentially the Government has no position on the convention and is happy to leave it to the traditional method of Heads of Government dealing with these major questions.
I thank Deputy Rabbitte for asking the question because I think all of it is untrue. I lobbied in so far as I was able to do, but I was able to assist Deputy Bruton in getting on to the presidium. He had his own major group behind him which was where he was nominated. We also assisted because it was in our interest. Ray MacSharry was on the convention but not on the presidium. We have worked with Proinsias De Rossa and Deputy Gormley and our members on it, Deputy Carey, and the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, and have briefed them. A senior civil servant – it would be unfair to use the person's name – keeps in regular touch. We have a tight arrangement on it.
I accept that from time to time all the papers we would issue from the Department of Foreign Affairs or other sections may not always be agreed. MEPs, officials, outside experts, former politicians, current politicians are represented on it. It is not a question of Deputy Bruton or any other Deputy taking an Irish position, that is not their role, and particularly Deputy Bruton because he is on the presidium. He is most helpful and keeps in contact with me personally. I have had briefing sessions with him and with other Deputies. The Minister of State, Deputy Roche, spends an enormous amount of time on it. Whatever one may say about the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, in the cross-fire of this House on the issue of Europe he is well qualified and has been lecturing on the matter for 25 years.
Au revoir.
He draws fire on other issues but not on this issue. I am keeping him out of the Deputy's constituency and the Deputy should be very glad. We are very actively involved and I regard the article as entirely unfair. We are putting in an enormous amount of effort. I am not asking for any sympathy from Deputy Rabbitte but to keep up to date I personally spend about five to six hours at the weekend reading the convention papers.
Does the Taoiseach not think the Minister, Deputy Cowen, drew some of it down on his own head, judging from his remarks and demeanour?
I will accept the point. I will explain to the Deputy from where that came. The position was put that the convention was to be rushed through, that the Intergovernmental Conference would be irrelevant and that the convention would complete its work and then the Intergovernmental Conference would rubber stamp it and that none of us should raise questions out of the convention to the Intergovernmental Conference. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, in his normal physical self got entirely agitated at that and let fly at the idea. He did it on the basis that clause 8 states that the convention would finish its work and the Intergovernmental Conference would finish in 2004. Another representative stated that it would all be wrapped up during the Italian Presidency and there was no need to worry about the rest of the details. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, gave his views in no uncertain manner. One would expect him to do that in the circumstances but it does not deserve to be said that nobody was doing anything.
I suppose it is much better to have him directing the problem there than closer to home.
He is good at it here too.
Will the Taoiseach agree that his endorsement of Turkish entry to the European Union was premature given the Commission's recent ruling that Turkey does not meet the human rights' requirements for EU entry under the Copenhagen criteria? I presume the Taoiseach is aware of Turkey's appalling human rights record, of the ongoing torture of prisoners and that 101 people have died on hunger strike during the past year alone. Does the Taoiseach not believe that this record and the Commission's decision underscore the point that the Taoiseach has acted prematurely and hastily in endorsing Turkish entry to the European Union?
The Deputy is misrepresenting my position. Turkey has been given a green light for a future date when it will be entitled to join the European Union. It has been told that even if a date is indicated it will not be permitted to join unless it fulfils the Copenhagen criteria. Those criteria include all the human rights complied with by all other members. While 2007 has been indicated Turkey must comply before then. In fairness, Turkey has made substantial moves. Last August the outgoing administration made a number of moves by changing laws and releasing prisoners etc. However, it will be some years before Turkey can join the EU and that will only be when it has complied with the criteria regarding democracy, civil rights and liberties and other initiatives. It faces a mammoth task to do that in the time. The new administration has an overwhelming majority and most of its members have come from a background of being involved in opposition. It is in its interest to show it believes in human rights. The new leader himself suffered under a difficult regime in the past. People are prepared to give Turkey the benefit of the doubt but will not let it join the European Union until there is compliance with the Copenhagen criteria.
Would it not have been better to say to the Turkish Government that in principle we accept its right to join but it should comply with the conditions before an entry date is given? Having given a date we may find that the conditions for entry will not be complied with or that shortcuts will be taken.
Does the Taoiseach have a personal view, given increasing tensions, on an Islamic country joining a Christian world? Will the accession of Turkey lead on to the greater expansion of the European Union and clear the way for Russia, the majority of whose people live within Europe, to join also?
The article referred to by Deputy Rabbitte mentions that there is a growing tendency for small member states to band together to protect their interests. Ireland does not appear to have joined with them. The Dutch representative indicated that Ireland was not invited to a recent group meeting to discuss this. Is this true? Why has Ireland not participated?
It prefers to play with big boys.
Ireland has had great experience as a leading negotiator on a range of European issues yet we have now adopted a head-in-the-sand approach. Why is the Government not proactive in putting forward proposals within the convention that would lead to the new Europe to which people aspire? The convention has a strong moral authority given that all members are represented at it.
Prime Minister Berlusconi appears to be adamant that the next treaty should be the second treaty of Rome. This would mean that the intergovernmental conference would be expedited and that issues relevant to a treaty bigger than the Treaty of Nice would descend upon us without our being acquainted with their consequences. What is the Taoiseach's view on that?
In his acceptance speech for his peace prize former American President Jimmy Carter said that an invasion of Iraq could have catastrophic consequences for the world. Will the Taoiseach raise this matter in Copenhagen on Friday? It is a matter of grave concern that, irrespective of the UN assessment of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, it appears an invasion will take place. Will the Taoiseach undertake to raise the matter with the Heads of Government? In the event of the Security Council having to vote again will he see to it that all the relevant documentation is made available to the Government and to our representative on the Security Council? Will he also ensure that the matter is discussed in the Dáil before a further vote is taken?
It has long been agreed that Turkey will be allowed to join the European Union when it has fulfilled the criteria. The indication of a date is important for Turkey for domestic issues and to keep the dream alive. Turkey wants to see a blueprint for its future. About 85% of the people have indicated they want to join the European Union. The party which won the recent election and which was only founded about 18 months ago is in favour of joining the Union. It is important that we give an indication that Europe will welcome Turkey. The quickest way to get proper human and civil rights in Turkey is under a European model.
My view is that the inclusion of an Islamic country is something good. The ruling party is Islamic but it is also secular and wants to move forward. Looking at the issue from a world perspective it is a fact that many people from the Islamic faith and tradition feel alienated. Interaction with an Islamic country with a democratically elected government, although it has major difficulties to sort out, will help matters more than all the suspicions and fears of the past. It is better that people are actively involved in democratic politics than left on the outside feeling strained.
A lot of the difficulties concerned with Saudi Arabia are because people feel alienated. It does not have a system of democratic government, as we know it, and that creates hate, bitterness and bigotry in some of its citizens. That then feeds to the rest of the world. I have met ambassador Haass on several occasions. When I met him this year I told him that America should use its efforts to build up contacts with the Islamic faith around the world rather than think the problem will go away. That is my personal feeling. We should also do the same.
With regard to the meetings, it is true we were not invited to one dinner. There are endless breakfasts and dinners going on for which we gain no publicity for our attendance. One could be forgiven for taking the view that the best way to gain publicity on some issues is to be omitted from the invitation list to a dinner. The lack of publicity in relation to many functions one has to attend is sometimes rather irritating. On the serious part of Deputy Kenny's question, we avail of every opportunity to engage with the smaller countries to maintain our position. For the record, we did protest about the dinner to which we were not invited, even if it was a quiet occasion.
We have set out our stance in position papers relating to the JLC. The statement last week by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, outlined our position very comprehensively in the Justice and Home Affairs Council. As Deputies will be aware, contacts are not confined to Government level. Deputy John Bruton has also submitted position papers and we make whatever input we can in that regard. The Deputy is correct in his reference to Prime Minister Berlusconi who, for understandable reasons, would like it to be the Treaty of Rome. In relation to my earlier comments to Deputy Rabbitte, that was the origin of the remarks by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, with regard to any move to rush this matter through. The Minister quite rightly reminded people that there is a small matter of rules, regulations, laws and Intergovernmental Conferences which cannot be ignored.
The Deputy is correct in his analysis that such an approach could very quickly result in very major treaty changes being imposed on us. It could also lead to institutional changes in terms of the working of the Presidency, the General Affairs Council and other major Councils, the interaction with the Parliament and the proposal that the charter of fundamental rights should be built into the treaty. Those are truly major issues. Whatever may emerge in the final analysis, it is our view that one cannot simply rush into a convention, rubber-stamp it and then have to explain it to one's people and live with the consequences. As the Minister for Foreign Affairs pointed out, such an approach might be all very fine if one did not have to consult the people of one's country. As we know, it is the view of many member states that they do not have to consult their people on this occasion, as on the last occasion. That obviously gives rise to differences of emphasis as between countries. However, we continue to put forward our view and I fully expect that I will have to do so again next weekend as I have done on many previous occasions. I acknowledge and appreciate that the Deputy has done likewise in his group. That is essential to ensure that our position is understood.
Valéry Giscard d'Estaing has said recently he wishes to make this treaty so simple that every second level student in Europe will readily understand it. At the end of five and a half hours of reading last Sunday, I appreciated that sentiment and will probably appreciate it even more after a further nine months. However, it should be practised as well as preached. Perhaps I will make that point to Valéry Giscard d'Estaing when he visits this country in the near future.
Does the Taoiseach expect to watch the match on Sunday?
No. B'fhéidir ar TG4, le cunamh Dé.
Does the Taoiseach realistically expect to bring back any improvement in the position of Irish fishermen apropos the activities of Spanish fishermen in the Irish Box?
As I said earlier, this issue is unlikely to come up in the formal sessions, which are purely concerned with enlargement and there is no "any other business" session. However, I will certainly raise the matter with my Spanish counterpart and with the Commission. Meetings are scheduled over four days next week in that regard. I have received briefing notes from the fishing sector organisations and I have been in consultation with the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and his Department officials in formulating our approach. Our legal submission has already been made, with the involvement of the Attorney General. Our legal advice is totally contrary to the EU Legal Services Review. I find it difficult to understand how interpretations of the same document can be so diametrically opposed.
Our legal opinion has been given to the Danish Presidency this week and I have raised it with Prime Minister Rasmussen. It has also been raised with Commissioner Fischler. Over the weekend I will avail of all opportunities, on the margins of the meeting, to talk to as many as possible. It is a very serious situation and we need to be very clear on what we are seeking. As I said earlier to Deputy Kenny, we know the present position has to end, but we do not accept it has to end on 31 December this year and is not taken into account as part of the Common Fisheries Policy discussions of next year. What the Legal Services have done, in effect, is to remove our big bargaining chip from the equation, on legal grounds, before it goes into the central discussions. That seems entirely unfair and totally inconsistent with anything that has happened previously. At this stage, we have to fight it legally, on the Legal Services document, as well as fighting it politically and I will certainly play my part in that regard.
I have one further question on the Turkish issue. The Cypriot Ambassador has visited the House on numerous occasions, making the case in relation to the occupation of northern Cyprus by Turkish forces. Would it be helpful if the Taoiseach were to make the point that if Turkey were to withdraw its forces, or to arrive at a conclusion about a withdrawal of forces from northern Cyprus, that would aid and encourage early acceptance and full committal to the conditions of entry to the European Union in respect of Turkey? Is that a proposition which the Taoiseach would support? Does he intend to raise the matter and, perhaps, follow it through?
It would not resolve the matter because the Copenhagen criteria would still have to be fulfilled. However, it would certainly create a sea change in the minds of the European Council towards a new leader, if not prime minister, in terms of serious intent on the part of his administration. He got the message very clearly from every country that his credibility as a person wishing to make progress would be greatly enhanced by a move in that regard. The intention was that progress would be made prior to this weekend. However, allowance has to be made for the fact that Mr. Ecevit is ill in the United States and negotiations cannot take place. A major move in that area would be seen in a very positive light. It would not change the situation with regard to the Copenhagen criteria but it would certainly help the case.
The Taoiseach said he expected the US Administration might send an e-mail or a fax indicating support for Turkish entry to the European Union. Is he aware of the very heavy pressure by Turkey on the US to twist arms in the European Union to secure Turkish accession on the basis that otherwise the Turkish people will not be willing to co-operate in a war on Iraq? What will be the Taoiseach's response to the US in that regard, given that Shannon Airport is, apparently, now part of that war? Will the Minister for Foreign Affairs and his officials meet those going to Brussels on Ireland's behalf in relation to the work on the Convention on the Future of Europe, so that, together, they might hear from the Government as to what its position is and how they might best work co-operatively together in Ireland's interest? In that regard, what is the Government's policy—
The Deputy has already asked two questions. We must move on to next business.
—on the accession countries having different rules to the current rules in the European Union with regard to military involvement?
Did the Taoiseach raise the issue of the Turkish hunger strikes with the political leader of the new Turkish Government? If not, will he explain his reasons? Will he also advise the House of his views on the UN plan to re-unite the Greek and Turkish administered areas of Cyprus under a rotating presidency? Will he confirm that he would regard a resolution of the Cyprus situation as an absolute prerequisite to any consideration of Turkish entry into the European Union?
I am concerned about the representations the Taoiseach proposes to make for Irish fishermen in Copenhagen. He seems to suggest the only issue he will raise is the legal and political situation regarding the Irish Box, yet that is only one of a number of key issues regarding the Irish fishing industry. Will the Taoiseach also emphasise and prioritise the issue of overall quota allocation in the EU as we have less than 5% of the quotas despite having 11% of European waters? That is the key issue the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Dermot Ahern, needs help on.
We cannot have a debate on the issue. Does the Deputy have a question?
It is important the Taoiseach knows this before he travels to Copenhagen because the Irish Box is only one of a number of important issues.
I would like to give the Taoiseach time to reply. Final reply from the Taoiseach.
The US authorities' position on Turkey is clear. They may have already been in contact with the Department of Foreign Affairs as they normally send a message before these meetings outlining their efforts regarding Turkey, and I am sure they will do so again. The European Council wants to give a date to Turkey but it wants the human rights issues dealt with in accordance with the Copenhagen criteria which are clearly set down.
Deputy Ó Caoláin asked about the hunger strike and human rights. I gave a full account of a briefing note I received from the Department of Foreign Affairs on human rights issues – it is a long list. As a new leader, he is well aware of the list and, as he said, is himself a victim of some of the issues on the list.
The Government totally supports Kofi Annan's UN plan. It is a good plan which should win great support – the EU supports it generally. The UN Secretary General and his officials have put a great deal of work into dealing with the division of Cyprus and the Turkish and Greek Cypriot positions. There is growing support around the plan and I will continue to press for it and support it in my discussions this weekend.
I have received only an informal briefing on the fisheries issue as the fisheries Council meeting is next week. I accept there are other points but I emphasised this one because I want to raise it with the Spanish authorities as they raised legal issues with the European Council's legal secretariat, causing the difficulty. The difficulty is created by taking the 50 mile zone out of the Common Fisheries Policy. I accept there is a range of issues including the 80% reduction in quotas and what it would do to Ireland, but I highlighted this issue specifically because of the impending closing date of 31 December 2002 – just a few weeks away. I will take the opportunity on the fringes of the meeting to talk to whomever I can about those issues.