Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 30 Mar 2004

Vol. 582 No. 6

European Council Meetings: Statements.

The Taoiseach

I chaired the European Council meeting held in Brussels on 25 and 26 March. I was accompanied by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, and the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy. The Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach with responsibility for European affairs, Deputy Roche, also attended. I apologise for the absence from the House of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who is in the Middle East, and the Minister of State, who is in Strasbourg. The conclusions of the European Council and the declaration on combating terrorism have been laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas.

The meeting was successful for the European Council. We adopted a declaration on combating terrorism; we agreed to resume our negotiations in the Intergovernmental Conference and reach agreement no later than our next meeting in June; we identified what needs to be done to promote sustainable growth and more jobs; and we discussed a range of foreign policy issues and adopted conclusions, including on the Middle East, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Balkans and Russia.

A successful meeting of the European Council was important for the European Union at this time. We face a period of uncertainty and challenge in the European Union. In face of this uncertainty we need to forge agreements. We need to show that we are doing everything possible to protect our populations from terrorist actions such as those that took place in Madrid. We need to move forward our economic agenda and create more and better jobs. We need to prepare for the enlargement of the Union to 25 member states on 1 May and prepare the Union to cope better with the challenges ahead.

For 50 years there has been common purpose and collective political will and the European Union has moved forward. It has met challenges with solutions. It has delivered. Our meeting last week showed that the European Union can continue to deliver. The successful meeting will send out a message to new and old members of the Union that working together enables us to achieve our common objectives. By setting our goals and working together to achieve them as we did last week we can deliver the outcomes that our populations deserve.

The first session of the European Council was devoted to combating terrorism. It was held as a direct response to the horrific terrorist bombings in Madrid on 11 March. The scale of the attacks in Madrid demanded a rapid and real response. That is why the Council adopted a comprehensive declaration on combating terrorism, drafted by the Irish Presidency, in which we endorsed the European Parliament proposal to declare 11 March a European day commemorating the victims of terrorism. The declaration reaffirms that we are at one in the European Union in our determination to face down the terrorist threat. Since the events of 11 September 2001 a huge body of work has been ongoing in our fight against terrorism. The attacks in Madrid injected a new urgency in bringing this work forward.

The declaration adopted by the European Council was considered at a specially convened meeting of justice Ministers and was considered also by foreign Ministers. It highlights our existing co-operation, seeks to improve it and emphasises the need to implement what we have agreed. It also sets out a number of important initiatives in the fight against terrorism. We have included measures to improve intelligence sharing, strengthen border controls and the security of travel documents, enhance protection for our transport systems and counter the financing of terrorism. We have renewed our commitment to implement the European arrest warrant in every member state and strengthened our efforts to prevent the financing of terrorism.

Combating terrorism demands a more effective and systematic approach to exchange of information between our police, security and intelligence services. The EU high representative, Javier Solana, has been asked to report to the June European Council on how intelligence capacity can be integrated within the Council structure. We have agreed new strategic objectives for a revised plan of action on terrorism and will agree the key tasks and the deadlines by which these tasks are to be achieved in June. Improved co-ordination across the whole of the European Union is essential to defeating terrorism. This is why a counter-terrorism co-ordinator has been appointed. Dr. Gijs de Vries will have the job of co-ordinating the work of the Council and following up on Council decisions to make the fight against terrorism more effective.

We also need to enhance our international co-operation. The declaration reaffirms the central role of the United Nations and underscores the need to continue to enhance our co-operation with partners, including the United States. In addition, we have agreed a declaration on solidarity against terrorism. This highlights an element of the draft constitution for Europe which commits the member states to act jointly in a spirit of solidarity if one of them is the victim of a terrorist attack. It is, of course, subject to the constitutional requirements of each member state. The message coming from our meeting was simple. We are building on our existing co-operation and seeking to improve it. We are also emphasising the need to implement what we have agreed and considering what more we can do.

Following the session on terrorism, the members of the IGC considered the conference over dinner. We had a positive and constructive session. There was appreciation for the Presidency's approach. I asked colleagues to commit themselves to a timeframe in which to bring the IGC to a conclusion and we agreed to conclude no later than the time of the June European Council. There is still a substantial amount of work to be done. There are complex and important issues to be resolved. However, there is a strong will to find a way forward. Everyone understands that there must be compromise. This is a collective process in which we all have a part to play. Everyone has shown flexibility. In the discussions that will follow, more compromises will have to be made.

I would like to see agreement on the new constitution sooner rather than later. At the same time, I want the best possible outcome. If possible, we will reach agreement before the European Parliament elections. However, we should not forget that when we began at the start of the year there were many who said that it would not be possible to set a target for the end of the year. We now have a commitment to finish by June.

While combating terrorism and crafting a constitution for Europe are critically important matters, the spring European Council was originally conceived as an economic summit. In advance of the meeting, I wrote to my colleagues on the Council outlining the Irish Presidency's priorities on the Lisbon agenda and our approach to advancing them. I highlighted the fact that overall, Europe is well behind target in a number of areas and that we must now give the highest level of political priority to the critical issue of delivery. I underlined the importance of stepping up implementation at national level of the commitments to which we have all agreed over the past four years. Fortunately, the climate for delivering on the Lisbon agenda is improving. The global economy is picking up and we must position ourselves to benefit from the upturn.

I took the decision that we would concentrate on two urgent priorities: sustainable growth, and more and better jobs. The true test of the Lisbon agenda will be whether the European Union will, by 2010, be able to sustain higher levels of growth and employment than a decade earlier. For growth, we need the right combination of sound macroeconomic policies and greater competitiveness. To this end, we called for the draft directive on services to be agreed to improve the internal market for consumers and business; we committed ourselves to accelerating regulatory reform; and we agreed on the need to invest in basic research and the life sciences.

The level of private sector investment in research and development is too low. All member states have been asked to improve the general conditions for research and development investment and to consider targeted support and incentives to encourage greater investment by business.

Growth will not be sustainable if it is coupled to the increasing use of finite natural resources. This is why the European Council called for a rapid implementation of the environmental technologies action plan. As well as protecting the environment, this plan will also contribute to competitiveness and economic growth. The European Council also called for full implementation of the Kyoto agreement.

Growth and competitiveness are not ends in themselves. They are the means to secure and develop the European social model, with its emphasis on sustainability and inclusion. Protecting the most vulnerable members of our society is an essential part of the Lisbon agenda.

Our other focus was jobs. We agreed that our top priority now must be to increase the employment rate in Europe. Higher employment will not only boost growth but will also provide the best route out of poverty and social exclusion. We agreed that we will carry out a detailed review of our national levels of progress on jobs at next year's spring European Council. We agreed also that the urgent challenges that need to be tackled are adaptability, attracting more people to the labour market, improving the quality of employment and investing in human capital.

We acknowledged the substantial progress made in a range of areas, which will promote mobility, including the European health insurance card. In addition, the reform of Regulation 1408, which will protect the social security of migrant workers, is an important measure that will be agreed over the coming weeks.

Governments alone cannot bring about the range of changes required. All stakeholders have a vital role to play and, to this end, the European Council agreed to establish national reform partnerships. These partnerships will be initiated by each member state in accordance with its own national arrangements and traditions. They will help to build commitment and legitimacy as a lever for change at national level.

The European Council also looked ahead to 2005, the mid-term point in the Lisbon goal and an appropriate time for an in-depth review of delivery. While we were all agreed that the continuing validity and relevance of the Lisbon agenda is not in question, we need a comprehensive mid-term evaluation to guide us over the next five years. The European Council, therefore, invited the Commission to establish an independent high-level group, headed by Wim Kok, which will undertake an evaluation of the Lisbon agenda. With his proven track record, Mr. Kok will provide continuity with the earlier work of the employment task force, given that employment is one of the key areas of the Lisbon agenda.

On foreign policy, we discussed Kosovo, Afghanistan and the Middle East, focusing on our partnership with the wider region. We also had a discussion on Cyprus. On Kosovo, the High Representative, Mr. Solana, and Commissioner Patten reported on their visit there last week. While the situation appears to have stabilised, the recent outbreak of violence has been undoubtedly a setback. We must try to ensure that there is no further descent into the type of ethnic violence which has destroyed so many lives throughout the western Balkans over the past 13 years. We reconfirmed our support for Security Council Resolution 1244 and the policy of standards before status.

On Afghanistan, we welcomed Germany's decision to host an international conference in Berlin on 31 March and 1 April. The people of Afghanistan require a future governed by the principles of freedom, justice, respect for human rights and fair political representation. The Berlin conference will mark another step towards securing this.

The Middle East continues to be of grave concern to the European Council. Extra-judicial killings are contrary to international law and undermine the rule of law. The European Union has condemned the killing of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin by Israeli forces last week. Violence must cease. We have called on the people of the region to look beyond the politics of the last atrocity. They need to summon up the political will necessary to overcome the current impasse in the peace process. We remain convinced that the quartet road map offers the basis for a lasting peaceful settlement resulting in two viable, sovereign and independent states, Israel and Palestine, based on the borders of 1967.

The European Council also expressed the desire of the European Union for partnership with the countries of the Mediterranean and the Middle East. We welcomed the interim report endorsed by foreign ministers last week, which is entitled An EU Strategic Partnership with the Mediterranean and the Middle East. The European Union and the Middle East are neighbours. We share strategic interests and concerns. Many of the countries in the Mediterranean and the Middle East face challenges that require far-reaching political, economic and social reforms. These reforms must come from within. At the same time, the European Union stands ready to help.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, and I planned to attend the Arab League Summit in Tunis yesterday to convey this message of partnership and engagement. Unfortunately, however, the summit was postponed. We maintain close contact with the leaders of the principal Arab states. The Minister, Deputy Cowen, was in Cairo yesterday and is visiting Damascus today to emphasise the need for a concerted effort to advance our common goals of peace and security in the region.

We are at a critical stage this week in the UN-led efforts to arrive at a settlement in Cyprus, with the intensification of negotiations in Switzerland. We fully support the efforts of UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, to help the parties to seize this historic opportunity to bring about a comprehensive settlement. I am maintaining close contacts with the negotiations.

At our meeting last week, the European Council reaffirmed its strong preference for the accession of a united Cyprus to the European Union. We reiterated our readiness to accommodate the terms of such a settlement in line with the principles on which the Union is founded. We remain convinced that a just, viable and functional settlement is achievable by 1 May. I urge all parties to grasp the opportunity for a successful outcome to the negotiating process in the days ahead.

Our meeting last week was a good and productive one. We are now at the halfway point of our Presidency and much work remains to be done. As in the past, this Irish Presidency will be judged on its results over the six month period and whether it achieved what it set out to do. I thank Ministers and officials for their continuing efforts to deliver for the European Union. At the halfway mark, we can be satisfied with what we have achieved to date. We now need to continue this good work.

Mr. Kenny

I wish to share time with Deputy John Bruton.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Kenny

I commend the Taoiseach and the Government on the positive and encouraging developments regarding the EU constitutional treaty. In particular, I commend the real heroes of these and other complex political negotiations — the anonymous civil servants who, despite working long, hard hours, often under intolerable pressure, receive little public recognition for being such exemplary diplomats and extraordinary deal makers.

Mr. J. Bruton

The Taoiseach should write that down.

Mr. Kenny

They can take credit for the new enthusiasm they have aroused in hitherto reticent protagonists. The flexibility they have managed to secure on issues that had been blocking final agreement is a testament to their tenacity and skill. It proves yet again what Ireland's public servants can offer and deliver when it comes to international affairs.

By moving immediately to provide the necessary debate on the draft treaty, the Government can achieve two vital things. First, it can show credibility in engaging the people of Ireland on Europe and European issues. Second, it can demonstrate that it has turned over a new leaf when it comes to Europe. Having learned the lesson of being arrogant, patronising and removed on the first Nice treaty referendum, the Government can now show that it is genuinely appealing to people and being honest and open with the electorate about this latest treaty. The work of the Convention on the Future of Europe has been of considerable importance in bringing this about, along with the work of the Forum on Europe and the Committee on European Affairs. As, in many ways, this treaty will be more complex than the Nice treaty, it is of critical importance that as much information and clarification is provided as necessary.

Europe, however, is at a serious disadvantage because the Government must sell a treaty to an electorate which, in many respects, finds it difficult to believe in this Administration. As Europe demands much more than the freeze-frame politics of this Government, it will go to the country cold and without any of the usual inducements, such as political bribes and promises of more jobs, more gardaí, an end to hospital waiting lists, and so on. This is a case of selling the context and content of a treaty and the constitutional amendment giving effect to it.

The two major issues facing the Taoiseach, as President of the Council, are, first, the decision on the size of the Commission and, second, the definition and scope of qualified majority voting. I wish him well in his endeavours. Having attended a meeting of the EPP last week, I believe this is possible and we will support him in so far as we can.

The summit was completely overshadowed by the tragic events in Madrid and the mass murder of ordinary people taking the train to work. This brings home to the rest of the Union the threat posed to everyone by international terrorists. Ireland is aware of the effects of terrorism and the associated pain, grief and trauma. The Union should not give in to the climate of fear created by the terrorists throughout the world, but it is vital it should adopt a much more coherent strategy to tackle terrorism. The Union's counter terrorism measures must become markedly more effective. Currently, it lacks neither the will nor the capabilities to do so, whether they are financial or judicial or related to policing or intelligence. New capabilities are not needed and it is a matter of making optimum use of those currently available. That is why I welcome the appointment of Mr. de Vries to co-ordinate this important and urgent work.

However, success will not be achieved unless the intelligence agencies in various member states are willing to share information for their mutual benefit to ensure the safety of all EU citizens. Everything must be done to prevent the co-ordination effort becoming a mere bureaucratic mollifying exercise. Three measures should be taken immediately. First, legislative measures such as the European arrest warrant must be fully implemented at the earliest opportunity. Second, the acceleration of the Union's document security and border controls must be examined and, third, existing curbs on the financing of terrorism must be re-examined.

The Taoiseach has been preaching to his EU counterparts about the need to ratchet up the fight against terrorism, yet the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has not progressed legislation to combat terrorism which he published two years ago. While at the White House the Taoiseach suggested putting forward a declaration and suggestions about what should be done immediately. It is coincidental that two Bills have been published this week, which deal with anti-terrorism measures. At a time when Ireland's position as President of the Union demands that it should lead by example, the Government could have made more of an impact by dealing with these Bills.

The Madrid murders highlight that we, the civilians, are the oxygen of terrorist publicity. Our civilian status makes the terror aspect all the worse but with the British Government and the commission of the Metropolitan Police recently admitting that a major terror attack against the UK is inevitable, Ireland must examine critical issues of national security. I attended the lord mayor's ball in London prior to St. Patrick's Day. It was hosted by mayor Livingstone and attended by 1,000 people. I spoke to many business people and community leaders and they said it is practically impossible in a city such as London to prevent an incident similar to that which occurred in Madrid from taking place on the tube or at train stations. Vigilance is critical. Al-Qaeda is responsible for the Madrid bombings and it is in the business of blowing governments out of office and causing mayhem and terror on the streets. People cannot give in to this but a difficulty is created in cities the size of London.

Sellafield is chief among terrorist targets in Britain. It was described by one of the world's leading authorities on nuclear energy, Matthew Bunn, as one of the "most sensitive civilian nuclear facilities in the world." It was recently reported that the site contains major lakes of nuclear fuel. I have visited Sellafield twice and security has been increased but I urge the Taoiseach to be up front with the Prime Minister Mr. Blair and to seek independent analysis and verification of the security measures by the RPII or the Atomic Energy Commission. Mohammed Al Baradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency warned, following 11 September, that "an unconventional threat demands an unconventional response" and that may happen. The Taoiseach should constantly raise this with Mr. Blair.

I recently read My Enemy’s Enemy, a book about the funding of the Mujahadin by the CIA to throw the Russians out of Afghanistan. Cultivation of opium in the country has increased by more than 1000% and caravans of heroin are exported under the eyes of Western troops. This drug leads to the destruction of lives in most western European cities, including Dublin. As head of the EU, the Taoiseach should raise this issue with the powers that be so that investment is made in alternative crop facilities for Afghani farmers rather than inflicting heroin on the next generation of Europeans. I refer to the Middle East conflict, which is an alibi for terrorism in countries surrounding Palestine and Israel. It is the root cause of the reign of terror being conducted in the region and that should be a priority for the Taoiseach.

On the economic front, despite the great ambitions declared by the EU in Lisbon four years ago this week, which would have seen it become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world by 2010, there is a long way to go. Far from catching up with the US, the EU seems to be falling further behind. The European Commission report of January this year finds that Europe is far from meeting its ambitious goals in three vital areas: economic growth, productivity and employment. There is a number of irritators here. First, approximately 40% of all EU laws relating to Lisbon have yet to be transposed by member states. I refer to the Union's failure to implement the 42 part financial services action plan, one of the most ambitious legislative programmes laid out at Lisbon. The problems in this may not be with Brussels per se but with individual member states, especially the larger states that have not delivered their end of the bargain to make it easier to trade across borders. The implementation of the plan was meant to increase GDP in the EU by €130 billion over ten years and was expected to raise employment by 0.5%. This has not happened and this demonstrates the larger states are not serious about implementing the accord. The Taoiseach should remind them of this.

However, we must see this in a wider context in terms of those things that might act as a brake on Lisbon. Is it perhaps the case that the aspirations of Lisbon have become caught in the middle of the debate between economic liberals on one side and, on the other, those who believe that the social and the environmental aspects should come first, especially given the Union's targets on emission reductions, renewable energy, biodiversity and social inclusion?

Surely just like in Ireland, our crucial choices, as a Union, cannot degenerate to a case of "either or." Surely, it must be a question of creating a better economy to, in turn, create a better society as the means to an end. Surely for the sake of our citizens, our whole and true selves, it must never be the end in itself.

The Taoiseach should take some of these points into consideration during the remainder of the Presidency and, in so far as we can assist him in reaching a conclusion on the constitutional treaty discussion, we will be happy to do so.

Mr. J. Bruton

I endorse Deputy Kenny's contribution. I refer to terrorism. It is important to recognise that comprehensive EU legislation is needed to address cross-border crime. That will not happen if the unanimous agreement of all 25 member states is required. I studied the proposals put forward by the Italian Presidency as a compromise prior to the Brussels summit. A so-called emergency brake was suggested whereby if a country says legislation is affecting the fundamentals of its legal system, it can take the matter to the European Council where there must be unanimity. In other words, a veto is provided for in the Italian compromise. If we are serious about combating terrorism, cross-border crime must be combated because terrorism is a manifestation of cross-border crime. Virtually all terrorism is cross-border. The idea that Europe will require unanimity for anti-crime and anti-terrorist legislation in the Single Market makes no sense. It is not right that we should create a Single Market for crime. We need a single approach to crime and the elements in the Irish and British Governments that are resisting majority voting on crime have to be faced down if we are serious about this matter. The delay in bringing the European arrest warrant into being illustrates how unanimity and the present approach does not work. We have had to have a second atrocity. We had the atrocity on 11 September 2001 to get them to launch the European arrest warrant, now the atrocity of 11 March 2004 will get them to put it into effect. If majority voting existed, one would not need to have those sorts of incentives.

There is a saying in business that one should stick to the knitting, in other words, stick to one's job. I think the Lisbon process is an example of the European Union wandering off into the functional area of member states. Most of the material in the Lisbon Agenda are not matters for the European Union but for member states. The idea that the time of the heads of government, who have a great deal of European Union business to do should be taken up tut-tutting at one another for their failure to do things in domestic policy, which it makes absolute sense to do is ludicrous. If countries are too stupid to do it, it is their own fault. Why should one of the two councils per Presidency be taken up with the Lisbon process? I do not know. It originated during the Luxembourg Presidency of 1997. I was at the Council when this idea was launched, of having an employment summit during every presidency. It is only window dressing and is all for show. There is not anything really happening that would not be happening anyway. Most items in the Lisbon Agenda are just common sense. The OECD is producing reports which deals with these points. Why do we need the European Union to get involved as well? It does not make sense. If the European Union dealt with the items on its own agenda within its own competence and passed the legislation it needs to pass and if the heads of government concentrated on that, they would be doing a good job rather than lecturing each other on pension reform. Anybody who does not know that pension reform is necessary in many of these European countries is not numerate. However, they are numerate, they just lack political courage. Having a meeting in Dublin or another meeting next year about this will not make the Italian government have more political courage than it has. One either has it or not, as far as implementing this is concerned. Personally, I think the Lisbon process should be scrapped. It is a waste of time. Perhaps I say so in an attempt to stimulate some discussion, but I am serious about what I am saying.

The Western Balkans presents the biggest worry. If Kosovo explodes, one cannot look to the American troops to sort it out. The American army is now over-stretched in Iraq and in Afghanistan. If a peace making force has to go into Kosovo to stop a civil war, it will be European and not American troops, with European logistics, tanks, aircraft and lives being put at risk to make this happen. I do not think a serious enough effort is being made to deal with European defence. I know that Fianna Fáil has its problems about this matter, dating back to the times of the then former Minister, Deputy Raphael Burke and his promises.

We should stop agonising about European defence and get on with it. It is not the case that the Spanish people were bombed into voting its government out of office by Al Qaeda, but the bomb brought out voters who would otherwise have stayed at home. There is a risk that will be repeated and that elections in Europe will be targeted by terrorists, which is a very serious matter.

Mr. Rabbitte

Last December in the aftermath of the failed Rome summit, the Taoiseach appeared to lack ambition to conclude negotiations on a new treaty and a great deal of discussion took place on the need for a period of reflection and so on. On that occasion I said:

It now falls to the Irish presidency to seek to complete the job. I have to say that in the reported comments of the Taoiseach over the weekend, and also in remarks made by Minister of State, Deputy Roche, there was a strong sense that both our representatives regarded this as a poisoned chalice, or at least a cup that they wished to pass from them as soon as possible.

I would argue here that the central motivation of the Irish Government, as it takes over the presidency, must be to restore and sustain momentum. As part of that process, the Government should already be consulting as widely as possible as to how momentum can be got back into the process.

I acknowledge that the Taoiseach's attitude has changed and it would be churlish of me at the outset of my contribution if I were not to congratulate him and the Irish Presidency on the progress apparently achieved at the summit last weekend. The Irish Presidency appears to have taken successful advantage of the evident renewal of commitment among the governments of member and accession states to see the work of the intergovernmental conference brought quickly to a conclusion. The breakthrough is to be welcomed, and I hope the new commitment will be sustained during the next few months.

It would seem that much of that renewed commitment is in response to the tragic and utterly unjustifiable terrorist slaughter in Madrid. The shock and horror that emanated from that dreadful day, which has so profoundly scarred the Spanish people, will never be forgotten. It is a tragedy in many ways that it was the consequence of a terrorist attack, and the fear of further terrorism, that has so concentrated the minds of Europe's leaders. Whatever the reason for the fresh impetus it is to be welcomed that the rapid completion of the IGC is now the aim as opposed to the long stalemate that was in prospect.

Europe needs a good constitution. Whether that is what will emerge from the IGC is still uncertain and it will be for member states to decide whether by popular referendum, as will be the case in Ireland and a number of other member states, or by whatever other means is provided for in the constitutions of other individual member states.

What must now be avoided by the IGC and presidency is a draft, based on horse-trading from the point of view of various national interests, conducted in secret, and to the detriment of the precepts of good constitutional drafting as well as at the expense of what was achieved at the Convention.

We do not know all the detail of what is on the agenda and what may still be put on the agenda. There is talk for example of a desire to reduce the role of the Parliament in respect of the budget — reduce it from the position envisaged in the draft Constitution. That is something that I would oppose, and I believe the Presidency must oppose.

On qualified majority voting, it is not simply a question of how the votes are to be counted, but also what is to be subject to QMV. Neither do I believe that the Government should give up on the principle that each member state should continue to have the right to nominate a member of the European Commission. This is an important issue for the Irish people. If it is important for us, just consider how important it is for many of the applicant states that do not have the 30 years membership experience that this country has clocked up.

Assuming a successful outcome to the IGC what must also critically be avoided is a subsequent process that ignores citizens, that presents them after a period of silence with a fait accompli and the undemocratic message that they must vote ‘yes’, the disastrous scenario during the first Nice referendum. In this regard it is crucial that in Ireland the National Forum on Europe is fully resourced to continue with its informational work and as a forum for discussion and debate on the content of whatever emerges, assuming there is an agreed draft for the June Council.

If the people are to be given sufficient time to consider the implications of any new treaty before being asked to vote on it in a constitutional referendum, the same principle should apply in regard to all constitutional referenda. In this regard, I am sorry the Taoiseach confirmed to me in a letter today that he and his Government are determined to press ahead with the constitutional referendum on citizenship in conjunction with the European and local elections. Apart from the substance of the issue, the Government has yet to make a convincing case as to the necessity of the referendum.

Mr. Quinn

The racist card.

Mr. Rabbitte

A successful case cannot be made in the seven sitting days left to us between now and 12 May which is the minimum deadline of 30 days before 11 June.

Mr. Quinn

It is disgraceful.

Mr. Rabbitte

It is reprehensible that the Government should seek to do this. The Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, in the sixth report of the all-party committee, which made a number of important recommendations, said:

Measures should be taken to ensure that a Bill to amend the Constitution is fully debated by the Dáil. Given the importance of a constitutional amendment, every Deputy and every Senator should have the opportunity to express his or her views. The Bill therefore should be debated in principle and in detail by each House. To ensure this the committee considered whether a minimum period for the Oireachtas debate should be specified in the Constitution. The committee are aware that there can be occasions when the Government needs to act with great speed in relation to a proposal. Accordingly the committee does not recommend any constitutional change in this respect. However we recommend, that the Standing Orders of the Houses should be amended so as to embody a presumption that every TD and Senator will have sufficient opportunity to make whatever contribution he or she wishes to make.

Will the Taoiseach state what the issue of great speed is in this case? The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform hung his case on a meeting with the masters of the maternity hospitals in October 2002, which he misrepresented. The issue of great speed is, sadly, a resort to using a referendum on a sensitive matter to stoke up feelings, the result of which the Government thinks will redound to its advantage.

Mr. Gormley

Absolutely.

Mr. Rabbitte

It is a great pity the Government has resolved to proceed. Clearly, the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, then chairman on the all-party constitutional committee, counts for nothing. For seven years the Government has paid lip service to the wisdom on whether we should intrude in the matter of private property as it relates to building land. After his first five years in office, the Taoiseach decided to side-track the issue to a committee of the House where it has remained for two and a half years. While the price of houses is rocketing, it is not an issue of great speed seven years on. Suddenly, the issue of people wealthy enough to pay for tickets to fly into Dublin Airport and leave with an Irish passport at, I am told in the Coombe hospital, a rate of 200 per annum is one of great speed. We must deal with it in the context of an election when we and the Taoiseach know the implications. He was forced to condemn the activities of some of his backbenchers during the previous general election campaign.

On the summit itself, there is little in the official communiqué on the outcome in respect of the constitution. There is, however, a somewhat more useful, although still only indicative, Presidency note of 24 March which was issued as a separate press release. That is, perhaps, understandable given that the Intergovernmental Conference must now return to business and that, traditionally, the main purpose of the spring Council is to discuss the economic and social programme known as the Lisbon agenda. I do not wildly disagree with the remarks Deputy John Bruton has just made on the matter. I understand that, despite the commitment that the Lisbon agenda and economic issues would be the focus of the spring summit, less than three of approximately seven hours were devoted to them. Most of the conclusions were written in advance. Like Deputy John Bruton, I query the wisdom and merit of that.

On the subject of Lisbon, last weekend's communiqué had a somewhat Mylesian touch which was perhaps appropriate given the Irish Presidency. What is the message of the European Council? "It is one of determination and confidence". What are the challenges ahead? They are "formidable". What does Europe have? "The will and capacity". To do what? "Achieve its economic potential". As Deputy John Bruton said, there is nothing particularly imaginative or inspiring about those words. For those who need reminding, there is little prospect of achieving the targets set in the Lisbon agenda. That is official, by which I mean it is the reckoning of Mr. Wim Kok, the former Dutch prime minister who was asked to examine progress. As I remarked in the House in January after the previous Council, Mr. Kok has concluded in an exercise conducted for the Commission that the European Union is at risk of failing in its ambitious goal set at Lisbon in 2000. According to Mr. Kok, it is looking increasingly unlikely that the overarching goal for 2010 and the employment objectives will be attainable.

We read in last week's communiqué that Mr Kok is to be asked to head another expert group to again examine the Lisbon agenda, this time in the context of a mid-term review to be undertaken by the Commission next year. We are also apparently to have yet more fora for talk, the establishment of new bodies and national reform partnerships feeding into a European partnership for change. No one can object to the ambitions set out in the original Lisbon agenda. They include more growth, improved competitiveness, reduced unemployment, a cleaner environment and so on. These are, to use an Americanism, like motherhood and apple pie. While they are highly laudable, one wonders, given the differences in the politics of member states and governments, the diversity of national and regional economies and the complex nature of the union, particularly post-enlargement, if the Lisbon agenda is really anything other than Euro rhetoric.

There is a little more to it than that. The occasions of the Council and the communiqué have been used again to beat what is by now the rather tired old drum of commitment to the so-called Stability and Growth Pact. The pact has served its time. For France and Germany it is a millstone simply to be ignored. It is fundamentally based on the unproven economics of the so-called non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment, or NAIRU. It is also based on the anti-political theory that central bankers know best when it comes to the economy. It is corrupting of political morality, ignored by member states, the subject of an appeal by the Commission to the Court of Justice, which should never have happened, and used by governments such as ours to synchronise political and business cycles in the interest of maintaining power.

Despite all this, the communiqué refers to the maintenance by member states of sound budgetary positions in line with the Stability and Growth Pact. This is the stuff of Alice in Wonderland and conducive of public cynicism to the extent that communiqués are ever read, heeded or noted by the public. Among the commitments signed up to by the Taoiseach is a commitment to social cohesion. The Taoiseach was able to sign up glibly to the contents of the communiqué on this commitment while, at home, the Minister for Social and Family Affairs made her savage 16 social welfare cuts and short-changed working widows. I provide the House with a small taste of the communiqué on the topic under discussion:

A high level of social cohesion is central to the Lisbon agenda. Strategies which make a decisive impact on social exclusion and on the eradication of poverty must be reinforced.

When he sits with his fellow prime ministers, that is what the Taoiseach signs up to. What happens at home, we know, is a different story.

On telecommunications, the Taoiseach signed up last weekend to a developmental broadband policy for Europe while, at home, the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Dermot Ahern, continued to oversee a disaster on this front. Many tens of thousands of citizens and a great many businesses are unable to access broadband services over the telephone network as a result of the shambles which is the Eircom legacy. Ireland has some of the most impressive global links in the world. Despite its impressive national network of trunk lines, including thousands of kilometres of optical fibre, unbundling of the local loop has not taken place. Even if it had, the local loop is, in too many instances, simply not capable of carrying broadband services.

While the Taoiseach was able to sign up last weekend to fine talk on opportunities for women in the labour market, gender equality and more family friendly workplaces etc., Ireland lags far behind the best standards of Sweden and even of the more modest EU average in this regard. Ireland lags far behind on these issues, and it is the Government's policy that has secured this regardless of the rhetoric, policies and ambitions of Europe. The Government has not invested in child care or pre-school services and appears to have no intention of doing so. It has overseen an inflation in housing prices that is anti-family in its impact. In many cases this has forced both parents into full-time work and long-distance commuting to service the mortgage on inflated house prices. This is one area where there has been an enormous amount of rhetoric from the Government. The Taoiseach has called for reform as if he were on this side of the House. There has been none of the action one could expect from a Government with a substantial working majority. One has to wonder if the subject of house prices is always to be determined by the views of those who contribute to the coffers of Fianna Fáil, rather than by the common good.

The spring summit represented work in progress. A huge amount remains to be done if the IGC is to be completed successfully. It will require vision and will, not just on the part of the Presidency, but on the part of all the members and accession countries. By the time of the next summit, the accession of the ten will have taken place and Ireland will have had public celebrations to mark this.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I wish to share time with Deputies Gormley and Harkin.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh

The spring Council meeting highlighted a number of serious concerns Sinn Féin has about the Government's conduct within the European Union, and its conduct of the EU Presidency. Owing to the Government's refusal once again to permit adequate time for debate, I will touch on only two of these.

The Government is rushing to conclude negotiations on a fundamentally flawed draft treaty in the interests of enhancing its prestige within the EU. In the process, it has sacrificed transparency and democratic accountability to the Irish electorate and has also abdicated its responsibility to ensure that the treaty protects Irish interests, the rights of all small nations, and the rights of neutral member states. It appears the Government's success at reviving the negotiations has been predicated primarily on compromise by the smaller states. The reported Irish compromise on the double majority will provide, at best, a dubious outcome for small states. It only reinforces the current unequal distribution of power among EU member states. This is a profound disappointment. However, it is not the first time the Government has sought favour from the EU power-broking states by siding with them to the detriment of those less powerful states that are in greater need of our alliance and advocacy.

It is unacceptable that fellow EU member states should know more about the Government's negotiating position on the draft treaty than the Irish electorate. While the Taoiseach denied press reports that article 40, the common defence provisions, have been agreed, my subsequent attempts to get clarification and a straight answer from two Ministers have met with a wall of silence.

While the Government claims it does not want to compromise its negotiating position, it does not have to be this way. Even the British Government has had courtesy and respect for its electorate — this is a rare occurrence — and has published a White Paper outlining its positions on the draft treaty to help conduct a proper debate. Despite calls from Sinn Féin and other Opposition parties, the Government has refused to do likewise on either count. What has the Government to hide? What is its negotiating position?

The Government's secretive behaviour since the draft was published last June does nothing to alleviate the growing fear among people that the Government is so committed to getting a deal — any deal — during the Presidency, that a vote in a referendum to ratify the agreement will not count if it goes against the Government position. Such doubts among the electorate about the integrity of the democratic process must not be allowed to fester. The Government owes it to the people to restore trust by making a public declaration that it will accept the will of the people on this treaty, regardless of the outcome.

I am concerned and disappointed that the EU appears to have learned nothing from the failure of its counter-terrorism policies to prevent the terrible tragedy in Madrid, and moreover that the Irish Presidency has failed to learn from and use its experience in working towards the resolution of the conflict on this island to show the necessary leadership to guide the EU to a more effective approach to security through targeting root causes of conflict. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is wrong when he says that civil liberties must be sacrificed for security. Even the new EU anti-terrorism chief has disagreed with him on this by saying that the EU must react by preserving the open and democratic character of our society.

I do not have time to expand on the outcome and implications of the Council meeting. I hope we will have ample time to discuss these issues when they are next discussed.

Mr. Gormley

I thank the Taoiseach, his colleagues and the civil servants in the Department of Foreign Affairs for their hard work during the Irish Presidency. It is important that we work together with other EU states to combat terrorism. We have experience of this here and it can best be fought by working together in the areas of security and intelligence. However, as the Taoiseach knows, certain EU intelligence agencies are reluctant to swap information.

Mr. Barnier, chair of the defence working group, argued that we need to build up European military capacity to combat what are now known as the new threats. I do not accept this. Those with experience here will know that combating terrorism by military means does not work. The United States, the mightiest military power on the planet, could not prevent attacks on it on 11 September 2001. We should learn from this. While Britain has a strong military force, it could not defeat terrorism on this island. We must be subtler and realise that it requires better security and intelligence rather than increasing military capacity. I fear this will be used to build up European military capacity. Arms dealers, not European citizens, will be the only beneficiaries of this.

The solidarity clause has been agreed. While we have difficulty in ascertaining Ireland's position on many issues, we know what has emerged from the summit regarding the solidarity clause. The wording is clear and is similar to article 42 of the draft treaty. It says, "they shall mobilise all the instruments at their disposal, including military resources to prevent the terrorist threat in the territory of one of them". This issue was raised at the Convention and I spoke on it. I was happy to support the clear and unambiguous amendment proposed by the Minister of State, Deputy Roche. It stated, "deployment of military capabilities for the purpose set out in this article shall be limited to the territory of the Union".

Why did the Taoiseach not seek to have this wording included in the solidarity clause? It makes perfect sense to me. If we allow the clause to go forward as it currently stands, there is a real danger that we will once again be dealing with the doctrine of pre-emption. I asked the Convention what did it think George Bush was doing in going into Iraq. Mr. Bush and Colin Powell argued repeatedly that it was to prevent the terrorist threat in the United States.

Deputy Kenny rightly referred to Sellafield as an obvious and easy target for terrorists. In this case, why has the Government agreed to include the EURATOM Treaty, which sustains the nuclear industry in the European Union, as part of a protocol attached to this treaty? This matter was repeatedly raised at the Convention by me and my Green Party colleagues. We had the support of some member states when we tabled amendments to this effect and when we asked for a sunset clause to be included. Unfortunately, the Government did not support us and I do not understand why it failed to do so. This is an important issue. Many Irish people are concerned about the threat of Sellafield, which has been heightened as a result of threats from al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups which will undoubtedly seek out a target as easy as Sellafield. Will the Taoiseach address this issue?

Will the Taoiseach report on comments coming from the summit of business people seeking a cost-benefit analysis of climate change? This would seem to be in line with the attitude of the Bush Government to the environment and especially to the Kyoto Protocol. The book, The Sceptical Environmentalist, supports such a cost-benefit analysis and asks whether it is good for business to deal with climate change through eco-taxes and energy taxes. While such an approach would be welcomed by employers and business people, it is the wrong way to go about business. The current approach by the European Union will lead to us to become less European. The problem is that Boston is moving closer to Berlin.

Why are we enshrining an economic philosophy through the Lisbon agenda into the proposed constitution? This does not make sense. Deputy John Bruton said this is a matter for member states.

We need a European-wide referendum. Deputy Rabbitte spoke of giving the voters a choice. We saw the choice given on the Nice treaty, which was tantamount to saying: "You can vote for or against this, but if you vote against it, we will have to vote again". The same will happen in this referendum. While people can either vote for or against it, in reality they had better vote "Yes". There is really no choice. If we had a European-wide referendum on the basis of a dual majority, we could have real democratic legitimacy and a real debate.

I am shocked that the Government plans to hold a referendum on citizenship on the same day as the European Parliament and local elections. People have spoken about a guru giving advice. We do not need a guru. This is a political no-brainer. We are confronted by prejudice and racism every week when housing is discussed at the city council and people claim that those from foreign parts get housing before them. This is the lowest form of politics and it is disgusting that, instead of being a responsible politician with a calming effect, the Taoiseach is pandering to this prejudice. His behaviour does the Government no credit and the Green Party will take a strong line on this matter.

Ms Harkin

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the European summit held in Brussels last week. Like other Deputies, I wish the Government and its officials well in the remainder of the term of our Presidency of the EU.

One of the main issues concerning us now is the possible conclusion of negotiations on the European constitution. I heard the Taoiseach say earlier that we all need to compromise. He said that this is a collective process, that we must play our part and that compromises will have to be made. While I do not expect the Taoiseach to outline his complete negotiating position today, like many others I have some concerns about the compromises to which he refers. For example, will there be modifications or changes to our veto on foreign policy and justice matters? Will we consider qualified majority voting? Are we moving in a new direction in these areas?

I understand the need to share intelligence, increase security and co-operate with our neighbours in the EU, especially in the new climate of international terrorism. While I understand that this summit occurred in the shadow of events in Madrid, it should not have been unduly influenced by them. When speaking about the Middle East peace process, the Taoiseach said that those in the Middle East should look beyond the politics of the last atrocity. Equally, the future direction of European justice and foreign policy must be proactive rather than just reactive. I agree with Deputy Kenny. We do not need new powers but to make the maximum use of those already existing. For example, we need to activate the European arrest warrant.

On many occasions I have said that, in introducing a European constitution, we must not go too far ahead of our own people. I have some concerns when I hear about new compromises. Following two referendums, the people barely voted in favour of the Nice treaty. The prospect of further change, especially in sensitive areas such as justice and foreign affairs, will simply increase their unease. At a recent meeting of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs, I was surprised to hear the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, refer to the Nice treaty as an interim arrangement. I never heard that phrase when the Government canvassed for a "yes" vote in the referendum on the treaty. Nobody mentioned an interim arrangement or a temporary little arrangement.

While I understand that leaders must lead, if the Government goes too far ahead of the people, the democratic deficit that we all talk about will widen and the centre will simply not hold. Europe — this grand vision — must be a Europe of peoples and not just an agreement between the Heads of State. If the proposed constitution further widens the distance between the people and the decisions taken in their name in sensitive areas like foreign affairs, taxation, criminal law, justice etc., I am not sure that the people will vote in its favour.

There is no point in negotiating a constitution that will be unacceptable to the people. While I do not wish to appear negative — indeed I am positively disposed towards the EU — I am simply putting down some markers because this is the message I get when discussing the issue with people. They feel they need some control over their destiny and, if the new constitution does not give such a sense of security, then the centre may not hold. I agree with Deputy Rabbitte on the work and resourcing of the National Forum on Europe which facilitates an exchange of information. The people will have the last word and will have to vote on the new constitution if it is agreed.

The Government and especially the Taoiseach have a serious responsibility to ensure that this new constitution does not include unacceptable compromises. I do not want to see us concluding negotiations sooner rather than later. I want to ensure the constitution is better rather than worse. I have already referred to my concerns about how the Government is prepared to concede on the vital issue of qualified majority voting. I have similar concerns that proposals on competitiveness emerging from the debate on the Lisbon agenda will result in too much focus on competitiveness and too little emphasis on social issues.

While we spoke about social cohesion, we also need regional cohesion. Many Irish people have looked to the EU to provide regional balance in the provision of Objective One and Cohesion funding, which have made a real contribution. Unfortunately, this has not been followed up by the Government. I urge the Taoiseach to look to home as well as abroad and to recognise that regional cohesion is a national responsibility which is not being honoured by the Government.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We will now have a period of up to 20 minutes for questions.

Mr. Kenny

If it emerges that agreement on a European treaty is possible before the European Parliament elections, will a special summit meeting be called? The Taoiseach is scheduled to address the European Parliament tomorrow morning. How will he justify his decision as EU President to restore diplomatic relations with Burma last month? Is it not disgraceful to give respectability to an unreconstructed military dictatorship? Is he aware, for example, that the European Parliament, which he will address tomorrow, has adopted a resolution condemning this decision? Part of that resolution reads:

... Insists that Burma should not attend the ASEM meeting scheduled for April 2004 in the Republic of Ireland, and that Burma should not become a member of ASEM until irreversible political change towards democracy takes place in that country ... Regrets that the Government of the Republic of Ireland decided to establish diplomatic relations on a non-resident basis with Burma on 10 February 2004 almost at the start of its tenure of the Council Presidency ...

Will the Taoiseach explain why Ambassador Mulhall is now associated with Rangoon? Dr. Aung San Suu Kyi was given the freedom of Dublin city. Why was the decision taken to establish diplomatic relations and how does the Taoiseach intend to justify it to the European Parliament tomorrow?

What is his view, as President of the European Union, on the bombing of the leader of Hamas on the orders of Prime Minister Sharon? Condemnation of this event has been vetoed at the UN. Does the Taoiseach share my view that, based on experience of what happened with the Berlin Wall, the building of the wall by Israel across sections of the Gaza Strip will not resolve anybody's problems? Does he agree that this matter is the root cause of the creation of an alibi for terrorism in surrounding countries in the Middle East? The Minister for Foreign Affairs, on the Taoiseach's instructions, has been dealing with this matter. However, for the remainder of the Presidency, the Taoiseach could show effective leadership by attempting to bring about some sense of normality and achieve a conclusion in respect of this matter, otherwise it will merely drag on.

The Taoiseach

Deputy Kenny referred to three issues. If it proves possible to reach a conclusion prior to the European Parliament elections, I would be pleased. The greatest difficulty we face in terms of moving forward relates to the dates for changes in government in various states. The new Spanish Government has made it clear that it will not take office before 20 April. However, we will engage with the Spanish in so far as is possible. I have already met the Prime Minister elect, Mr. Zapatero, and we will try to work with him and his colleagues.

The decision to establish diplomatic relations with Burma was taken in the context of Ireland's Presidency of the European Union and the need for us to be in a position to deal directly with the Burmese authorities. During its Presidency, Ireland has an opportunity and a responsibility to speak to the Burmese authorities on behalf of the European Union. We will, in particular, demand the release of political prisoners and the participation of the National League for Democracy in the forthcoming national convention. The Deputy is aware of the timetable for progress towards democracy and improvement in the human rights situation in Burma. Ireland and the European Union are strongly critical of the serious and persistent human rights abuses, the lack of fundamental freedoms and the absence of political progress in Burma. The EU common position on Burma, which provides for a visa ban on members of the regime and a freeze on all its financial assets in the European Union, is due to expire on 29 April. Together with our EU partners, we will discuss, in due course, what revisions, if any, in the common position will be necessary in view of developments in Burma.

Our goals are the return of democracy, the ending of human rights violations and the realisation of peace and prosperity for the long-suffering people of Burma. The appointment of an ambassador to Burma increases our influence and credibility in efforts to promote these goals by the EU and the international community.

The Deputy's third question related to the Middle East. Since the beginning of the year I have met Abu Allah, the Foreign Minister and representatives of the World Jewish Organisation. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, visited the region both before and since the commencement of our Presidency. We were to attend the summit to be held on Sunday and yesterday. Unfortunately, however, following the death of Mr. Yassin, in an extra-judicial killing to which we are totally opposed because it will get us nowhere, the summit did not proceed. We did everything we could during the past week through the European Council to urge other leaders to use their influence to stop the normal reaction, namely, retaliation. The huge efforts made by Egypt and their resolution at the summit in Tunis did not work and that is why the summit was cancelled because of tension and the major reaction on the part of most of the 22 member states. It was decided to cancel late on Saturday night or in the early hours of Sunday morning but the technical groups had already begun their work.

We will continue to do all we can during our Presidency in respect of this matter. I totally reject the notion that because there are elections in America and elsewhere this year, progress cannot be made. We made this point when we met President Bush and Condoleezza Rice, who we asked to continue to endeavour to make as much progress as possible. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, visited the region yesterday and today and I assure Deputy Kenny that we will continue to do everything possible to make progress on the Middle East during our Presidency.

Mr. Quinn

I also offer my congratulations and best wishes for the successful completion of what will be, in effect, the final Irish Presidency in the form we have known on seven or eight occasions.

I will confine my remarks to the Lisbon process which is supposed to be the main theme of the spring Councils. I do not share Deputy John Bruton's view. The whole purpose was to try to exert peer pressure and force people to do things they found difficult to achieve domestically but which they might possibly achieve in the cold light of comparison. I have read the conclusions which contain an extraordinarily non-Irish phrase. I do not know from where it came but it certainly did not originate in Dublin 2 or Dublin 4. The phrase the "de-industrialisation of Europe" did not emanate from the literate quarters of our diplomatic service. However, it relates to competition and the fact that it is not working. Diplomatic language, blunt language and the language I heard from Pedro Solbes in Brussels last week prior to the Council proper confirm that the two follow-up spring Councils have not been as effective as was anticipated. The amount of time dedicated to the discussion on this matter was extremely limited.

In those circumstances, would the Taoiseach consider it necessary that a commissioner be given the responsibility of co-ordinating the Lisbon process? I do not refer to a commissioner for competition but to one with responsibility for ensuring that the Lisbon agenda is delivered and that league tables and comparative figures will be published in a transparent and open way in all 25 member states. Such tables could show comparisons in, for example, the cost of child care and access to certain kinds of support systems. This would enable the social, economic and environmental objectives that comprise the Lisbon process to be advanced by means of using peer pressure at local level in different member states. The process is not working the manner intended when it was agreed at Lisbon in 2000.

The Taoiseach

I thank Deputy Quinn for his remarks. Approximately three hours was dedicated to this matter at the summit, which was far more than was allocated in the past two years. We scheduled the business on the Thursday so that most of Friday could be given over to the economic issue.

Deputy Quinn is correct. The concept of Antonio Guiteras' plan four years ago was to ensure heads of State gave time to economic matters so they were not ECB or ECOFIN business and to ensure there was drive in all countries to have a broader debate than what is sometimes the finance debate in which I, too, participated for some years.

While the Lisbon agenda is behind — there has been much criticism of what has or has not been achieved — Europe is often too hard on itself. Some six million jobs have been created during the past five years. Because of the co-ordinated effort mentioned, there is now a real emphasis in Europe in terms of research and development and putting money into the sciences. I do not believe that would have happened if everybody had paddled their own canoe. Many useful things are happening though, admittedly, we are behind on many targets. I have discussed at length with the Prime Ministers of the Netherlands and Luxembourg what it is we hoped to achieve during our three Presidencies and on what we have been focused since early last year. We are trying to benchmark the issues raised, focusing on them and identifying the deficiencies and, more important, the remedies. One of the difficulties of the past three years has been the constant debate on benchmarking without identifying what it is trying to achieve.

If there are problems with the Lisbon process it is because we tend to watch what happens internally rather than externally taking on the battles of the future, India and China and so on as Deputy Quinn knows. We tend to become focused on the internal debate such as how France, Ireland or Germany is doing rather than compiling our statistics and comparing them with countries in other continents that are extraordinarily successful.

Mr. Quinn

Is there a role for a commissioner?

The Taoiseach

I think there is, in terms of co-ordination. I do not like the concept of just a competitiveness commissioner. Everyone knows how that will turn out. I have no problem with competitiveness leading to a better economy and investment but the social dialogue issue would get lost in that. Last week, I met with the employers, unions and conferences. They will always have more resources and will always push that debate. There are many difficulties in that area. There is a need for co-ordination. As the Deputy mentioned, all the activities in education, child care and other economic areas need to be co-ordinated. However, that will not be done by ECOFIN alone or by the Labour and Social Affairs Council.

As I said at the meeting of the tripartite summit, I am concerned about what some countries are trying to do and I do not say that wearing my Presidency hat. If co-ordination is discussed in terms of finance and competitiveness what then will happen to the Labour and Social Affairs Council of which Deputy Quinn and I have had experience through the years? Will it remain or will it be subsumed? Whatever its faults, the council has done excellent work for the past 30 years. It would suffer if we take that road.

The growth and stability pact was also mentioned, though not by Deputy Quinn. I do not agree with Deputy John Bruton or Deputy Rabbitte in that regard. The growth and stability pact has served its purpose well. There are arguments about it but it has also helped policy in terms of growth. I acknowledge that Deputy Bruton takes a great deal of interest in European issues but I do not agree we should tear up the strategy. If business is not about growth and jobs, what is it about? That is what we should be about — growth and jobs create opportunities for quality of life.

Deputy John Bruton mentioned that some of his remarks were made to provoke debate. The name of the strategy has been debated during the past few days. However, that is irrelevant. One has to have economic policy.

Mr. Gormley

Will the Taoiseach agree that the Irish Presidency is, in many ways, proof that the rotating presidency works? That being the case, why are we now scrapping it? In many cases, the smaller countries have done more than the larger ones, as is often the case in the European Union.

On the ratification process of the new constitution, how will we proceed from here on in? We know that in terms of the first Nice treaty Ireland was the first country to attempt ratification. Perhaps, that was seen in retrospect by this Government as a tactical error. In terms of the second Nice treaty, Ireland was the final country to ratify, something which put people under enormous pressure. How now does the Taoiseach propose to proceed with the ratification of the European constitution? Will there be a breathing space of two years? Where will Ireland come in terms of the ratification process?

On the solidarity clause, why is it — I referred to this in my contribution — that the Taoiseach did not insist on the clear and unambiguous Irish wording as put forward at the convention? It clearly stated that any prevention of a terrorist attack could only take place on the territory of the European Union. Why was the Irish performance on the EURATOM Treaty and, in particular, the protocol, so poor? Here, I must be critical because Sellafield is a real threat to this country. So many Irish people are concerned about it yet I have not seen the type of action required on the protocol. We should insist that no protocol is attached to the treaty and should insist on a sunset clause. I would like clarification from the Taoiseach on that point.

Does the idea of a European-wide referendum not make sense in the context of a new European constitution which should be about the citizens of Europe? While it may be argued that certain member states make no provision for referenda, at the very least we could have consultative referenda in countries to identify where the people of Europe stand on this issue. After all, the Laeken declaration referred to bringing Europe closer to the people. Does the Taoiseach believe, when he looks at the figures from the euro-barometer studies which show that only 30% of people knew that a convention had taken place, that we have succeeded in bringing Europe closer to the people?

Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I will try to be brief because I also mentioned this point in my contribution. Following the failure of the IGC last autumn the press reported that Article 40, common defence provisions, had been agreed and signed off on prior to the breakdown. The Taoiseach later denied that was the case. I subsequently sought clarification of the matter from the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 12 February but he refused to answer my question. Last week, I sought clarification on this matter from the Minister for Defence but he, too, refused to answer the question. The answer is simply, "yes" or "no". Can the Taoiseach confirm whether Article 40, common defence provisions, have been agreed? More importantly, has the Government agreed to them and on what terms? Are Article 40 provisions on the list of the 20 outstanding problem areas. If so, does the Irish Government consider them to be an outstanding problem? If it believes that, what changes does it seek to Article 40? The most important question is whether the Taoiseach can confirm that Article 40, covering common defence provisions, has been agreed.

The Taoiseach

I thank Deputy Gormley for the constructive role he has played in this process. We retain elements of rotation. However, the European Union is approaching the stage when no single country, big or small, can manage the full range of business. In the IGC, we are working with 28 members, the Council secretariat and the Commission, and the range is simply enormous. Macedonia lodged its papers with me for its entry to the EU last year, and Croatia had already done so. The extent of the engagement is enormous. As the Deputy knows, we had an EU-Canadian summit a week ago, and we are preparing now for many more. To do that in one Presidency on its own would become impossible. It is a nice honour, but it is becoming an impossibly challenging task. I hope that rotation is not totally lost but that one might rotate in blocks whereby several countries come together to share the workload. I hope that will continue.

On previous treaties, the time for ratification has been about three years. Two years is normally given, and it is up to us where we come in during that period. Right, wrong or indifferent, the Deputy knows that part of the argument on the Treaty of Nice was that the debate had already started on the next position. That was coming in on our debate, even though we went early. That was part of the difficulty. I know the Deputy was out campaigning with me, and not many in this House can say that. However, it was part of the problem that we had the President of the Commission, Lionel Jospin, talking on the other side, totally upstaging the debate.

Ireland has strongly supported a conference on the EURATOM treaty, and we have been clear in the IGC on that. The Deputy and I do not differ on the issue. However, I am afraid there will simply not be a consensus on that; we can only go forward on it. Deputy Sargent has asked me whether we will continue to campaign for some examination to take place. I agree with the Green Party on that; that is how we should try to deal with it.

The declaration on solidarity against terrorism states that member states in accession countries intend to act in the spirit of the solidarity clause laid down in Article 42 of the draft constitution. It is important to demonstrate the political commitment of the European Union to meet the challenges presented by terrorism. The declaration does not affect the legal position regarding the solidarity clause itself. We have agreed that we will act in its spirit pending its adoption. The declaration states that each member state will choose the most appropriate means to comply with the solidarity commitment towards the effect stated. However, each member, including Ireland, will implement that undertaking in accordance with national laws and interests. The solidarity clause has no implications for Ireland's policy of military neutrality. I can say to Deputy Gormley that it does not imply, oblige or require military action of any kind. It is about solidarity with our fellow EU citizens who suffer terrorist attacks, something that all EU citizens support — I know that the Green Party does so. The other neutral countries, Sweden, Finland and Austria, agree that the solidarity clause does not affect their military neutrality.

Deputy Ó Snodaigh mentioned the defence Articles. As set out in the draft constitutional treaty, they are acceptable to all member states, including the neutrals ones, based on the understanding that our traditional positions are fully respected. It is on that basis that we agreed to them.

Deputy Gormley raised the possibility of an EU-wide referendum. That is unlikely, since there are so many countries opposed in one form or another to referendums. In fairness, this time around there has been a convention and a very open process. There has been far more debate, interest and dialogue. I agree with the Deputy that not everyone fully understands, and sometimes it is unfortunate that, no matter what one has included, one does not get the requisite debate. However, this country is ahead of most. Whatever the rights or wrongs of those two referendums, they did much to aid understanding. The ongoing work of the forum and so on helps. We must continue trying to get more discussion and understanding of it in all its aspects. We all play our part in doing so.

Deputy Harkin has left the Chamber, but she asked me a specific question. A declaration pointing to a wider debate on the future of Europe was attached to the Treaty of Nice, and the convention proposes to amend that. That emerged from the wider debate in which many took part.

I thank everyone who participated in this debate for their comments and questions. We will take account of the points made in the second part of our Presidency. I appreciate the constructive attitude shown in Members' contributions.