Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 7 Mar 2006

Vol. 616 No. 1

Ceisteanna — Questions.

Proposed Legislation.

Joe Costello

Question:

1 Mr. Costello asked the Taoiseach if the Prosecution of Offences Act 1974 establishing the office and functions of the Director of Public Prosecutions will be reviewed to ensure that matters of general public concern arising from the performance of his duties are clarified; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3630/06]

There are no proposals to initiate legislation to amend the Prosecution of Offences Act 1974 as suggested by the Deputy.

I thank the Taoiseach for that comprehensive answer. I asked if the Prosecution of Offences Act 1974 would be reviewed to ensure that matters of public concern arising from the performance of the DPP's duties are clarified. An amendment to the Act would not be necessary to enable the DPP to make statements of clarification to victims or to the public at large on matters of general public concern.

I am seeking a review of the operation of the Act. It is 30 years since the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions was established. It was set up to ensure independence in prosecutions, but there is also a need for accountability and transparency in prosecutorial decisions made by the DPP. Such a need does not exist in Britain, where the Attorney General, who is a Member of Parliament, regularly comes into the House of Commons and answers questions. No mechanism is in place in this country to explore or inform victims of the reason a particular course of action was embarked upon by the Director of Public Prosecutions. In the interests of justice and to combine independence with accountability, I seek to determine whether a mechanism or avenue can be found to obtain clarification when various high profile court cases have controversial outcomes.

Two issues arise. On the question whether the Director of Public Prosecutions will disclose, after a trial has taken place, the existence of material which has not been put before a court, the practice of the DPP is not to disclose, after a trial has taken place, the existence of material which was not put before a court because it was inadmissible or not probative of the case. To do so would involve disclosing prejudicial material and leaving the persons affected by disclosure with no effective means of combating any damage to their reputation. As I stated, there are no proposals to review or amend the legislation.

The policy for not giving reasons in public for decisions not to prosecute predates the Prosecution of Offences Act 1974 and the establishment of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. This policy is underpinned by an old principle which did not originate in the 1974 Act but found its way into it.

If reasons are given in one or more cases, it would be difficult not to give them in all cases, as wrong conclusions would inevitably be drawn with regard to those cases in which reasons were refused. If, on the other hand, reasons are given in all cases and those reasons are more than bland generalities, unjust consequences would be difficult or impossible to avoid.

The two main potential negative consequences of giving public reasons for a decision, as outlined by the Director of Public Prosecutions in a recent statement, is that to give a specific reason as opposed to a bland generality, such as, for example, that the evidence did not permit a prosecution, could in many cases cast doubt on the innocence of a person and thereby violate the presumption of innocence which can only be displaced by a trial, in due course of law, in open court at which the accused is legally represented. Second, giving reasons could damage or prejudice the good name or reputation of a potential witness, for example, if it was stated that a witness was not thought to be reliable.

While acknowledging the long-established practice of not giving reasons in public, I am aware that the Director of Public Prosecutions is examining whether there may be scope for giving greater information about prosecutorial decisions to victims of crime. An obvious difficulty is that in the event that reasons are given privately to victims, this information may be subsequently disclosed in public. It is the practice of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions to give the Garda Síochána a full account of the reasons for prosecutorial decisions.

While no amendment or review of the Act is planned, the Director of Public Prosecutions has indicated he is examining whether there may be scope for giving general greater information to victims of crime. As the Deputy is aware, my role with regard to the DPP is administrative and I have no function in how he acts in cases.

I thank the Taoiseach for his lengthier reply. I am aware it is practice and precedent for the Director of Public Prosecutions not to make statements. Although the current DPP's immediate predecessor never made statements, the incumbent has made several clarificatory statements. While I welcome the fact the DPP is seeking to determine whether there is scope for providing extra information, the legislation provides for consultations between the DPP and the Attorney General. That might be a useful avenue of exploration in terms of opening up the decision making process within the office of the DPP and providing a mechanism for releasing information to the public domain.

The Deputy is correct that section 2(6) of the 1974 Act provides for consultation between the Attorney General and the DPP from time to time. I have no function on these consultations and do not have the power to direct them to take place, order that particular matters be discussed or request details of the contents of the consultations, which have always been regarded as confidential. I am afraid that does not help much.

EU Summits.

Enda Kenny

Question:

2 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he has received an agenda for the March 2006 meeting of the European Council; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4262/06]

Enda Kenny

Question:

3 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the bilateral meetings he intends holding on the margins of the March 2006 European Council meeting; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4263/06]

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Question:

4 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the bilateral meetings he has scheduled for the March 2006 European Council meeting; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5366/06]

Pat Rabbitte

Question:

5 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he has received the agenda for the forthcoming March EU summit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5497/06]

Pat Rabbitte

Question:

6 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach his priorities for the forthcoming March EU summit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5498/06]

Joe Higgins

Question:

7 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with the Ukrainian Foreign Minister, Mr. Borys Tarasyuk. [5509/06]

Joe Higgins

Question:

8 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he has received an agenda for the upcoming European Council meeting in Brussels. [5510/06]

Trevor Sargent

Question:

9 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he has received an agenda for the European Council’s March 2006 meeting; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6400/06]

Pat Rabbitte

Question:

10 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the outcome of his meeting with the Prime Minister of Croatia on 3 March 2006; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9019/06]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 2 to 10, inclusive, together.

Last Friday, the Presidency circulated the draft agenda for the European Council in March. The draft agenda focuses on the need for implementation of the commitments on jobs and growth entered into at last spring's European Council. In particular, they highlight the need to maintain momentum across the board. In this context, they identify as priorities ensuring sound and sustainable public finances, completing the internal market and enhancing social cohesion and environmentally sustainable growth. They give special attention to investing more in knowledge and innovation, unlocking the business potential of SMEs and increasing employment opportunities.

They will now be considered at official level and by the Foreign Ministers of the member states before being submitted to the European Council. Our priority is that the European Council should continue to give impetus to the Lisbon Agenda with its new focus on jobs and growth. At present, I have no plans to have any bilateral meetings at the European Council.

I had a short meeting with the Ukrainian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Borys Tarasyuk, on 8 February. In our meeting, we discussed bilateral political and economic relations between our two countries, with a focus on political and economic reform. The Minister briefed me on the current situation regarding energy issues between Russia and the Ukraine.

I met Dr. Ivo Sanader, Prime Minister of Croatia, on 2 March during his official visit to Ireland. Our discussions focused on Croatia's EU accession process and ways of enhancing our bilateral relations. We agreed that greater potential exists to develop trade, tourism and economic links. I congratulated the Prime Minister on Croatia's progress to date in accession negotiations and assured him of Ireland's continued support throughout the process. The Prime Minister was interested to learn about Ireland's economic progress since joining the EU. I assured him that we would be happy to share the knowledge resulting from our economic experiences. The Prime Minister, Mr. Sanader, briefed me on current relations with Croatia's neighbours in the western Balkans.

I have three questions for the Taoiseach. In respect of the period of reflection on the European constitution, which is now almost complete, what is the Government's attitude towards this? Austria was anxious to move the matter forward and other countries made soundings to the effect that we should revise activities in so far as the passing of the constitution is concerned. Has the Government considered this and, in view of the completion of the period of reflection, where does it now stand?

While the following matter will not shake the world, it might be of interest to the Taoiseach. The Committee of the Regions is the European Union institution which brings together locally elected representatives from the 25 member states. We have always espoused inclusiveness and equality. Every other European leader has respected the geographic and political balance of their respective countries in respect of representation.

Following the results of the June 2004 local elections, appointments were made for delegations of Irish members to the Committee of the Regions. The people made a choice but, despite the loss by the Taoiseach's party of 80 local authority seats, he took the opportunity to appoint five full-time members and five alternatives, whereas my party, with a similar number of council members, was given two full-time members and two alternatives. Given that every other leader in Europe respected geographical disparity and a proportionate reaction to votes, is the Taoiseach prepared to change this? I understand that in one case, the brother of a Minister was facilitated.

Os rud é gurb í seo Seachtain na Gaeilge, agus go bhfuil an Gaeilge mar theanga labhartha san Comhaontas Eorpach, cad é barúil an Thaoisigh ar an Bhille a thug an tAire Dlí agus Cirt, Comhionannais agus Athchóirithe Dlí os comhair an tSeanaid i leith sceimhlitheoireachta? An aontaíonn sé leis an mBille? It annoys me that we have a translation system in the Chamber which the public has paid for, but which is rarely used. The Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Hanafin, translates for the Taoiseach, which is not a slight on him. There would be no shame in the Taoiseach using the headphones provided as somebody is being paid to translate. The word "sceimhlitheoireacht" means "terrorism".

That is what the Minister told me.

I realise that, but her job concerns the Department of Education and Science, which she is failing to look after in many respects.

She is doing a good job.

Not really.

As the public has paid for this service, nobody in this House should be afraid to put these headphones on to hear the translation.

I agree with the Deputy.

While the Taoiseach agrees with me, he does not want to do it.

It is a personal choice.

An aontaíonn an Taoiseach agus an Rialtas leis an mBille a thug an tAire Dlí agus Cirt, Comhionannais agus Athchóirithe Dlí os comhair an tSeanad i leith sceimhlitheoireachta?

I have answered the first question, which related to the European constitution, a number of times. Following the French and Dutch referenda results, the European Council decided to initiate the period of reflection. Deputy Kenny has stated this period is almost complete. Austria began its Presidency quite anxious to make significant progress and the matter was discussed at the foreign ministers' meeting. After the foreign ministers' meeting, the Austrian Presidency has limited its expectations for the June summit, if that is not to quote the Presidency unfairly. It is obliged to make a full report on the issue.

The Government's position is that it will continue to review the matter. I have stated to European colleagues that I cannot see us being able to press this issue until we see what our Dutch and French colleagues can do. Belgium has ratified it and Estonia is about to ratify it. I do not believe, from my latest information, that any other country will move on the matter. That continues to be the position. I will support any initiative and effort that colleagues make in attempting to progress the matter. I do not foresee a referendum or us being able to make any real movement on the French position. That remains my position.

Momentum is perhaps being gained by the opinion that countries which have not ratified the constitution should look at this and move on it. If the position changes after the March European Council meeting, I will report to the House on the conclusions. I do not foresee a change.

The Deputy's second question concerned the European Union Committee of the Regions, and he has written to me on the matter. I have not been involved in the breakdown, but I saw the points made by the Deputy. I do not recall if I replied to the Deputy, and I apologise if I have not done so. I have asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, to give me the breakdowns. I have seen the figures in the Deputy's conclusions and I understood there had been a consultation process. Clearly there must not have been. I will reply to the Deputy if I have not already done so.

On the third question, Deputy Kenny's Irish is so good, I normally understand most, if not all, of what he says. I wish I could speak it as fluently but I cannot. I can understand the Deputy fairly well, however. I agree with the terrorism Bill which was introduced in the Seanad.

Will the services directive be on the agenda of any of the meetings the Taoiseach will attend on the margins of the upcoming summit this month? In the context of 50,000 people demonstrating in advance of the passage of the services directive, did the Taoiseach make any intervention or representation to his party's representatives in the European Parliament with regard to the impending vote?

What is the Taoiseach's position on the voting pattern of his party's representatives during the passage of the various elements of the services directive? Will he explain why they voted against the amendment that would have excluded health-related services from the operation of the directive? Does the Taoiseach accept that the directive continues to represent an attack on wages, working conditions and public services? Does he acknowledge the view of the European Commission that the services directive as passed by the Parliament will be interpreted by the European Court of Justice in line with case history and that that will result in an affirmation of the country of origin principle? If there were any chance of it being interpreted otherwise the country of destination would have had to be specified during its passage. The Taoiseach's colleagues in the European Parliament voted against an amendment to that effect as, all too sadly, did other Irish voices. Will the Taoiseach advise the House of his position on these matters?

I will say a few words about the services directive but will not comment every day on the actions of our Members of the European Parliament. If I did I would have to raise many questions with Deputy Ó Caoláin about the bizarre decisions his party members continually make, so I will not go down that road.

The Government continues to support a services directive with safeguards to ensure it does not result in a race to the bottom, as I said previously. The European Commission is expected in the period ahead to return with further proposals and the issues will continue to be discussed with the stakeholders, including the social partners. The objective is to secure the optimum outcome for Ireland's and the EU's welfare and economic interests.

The Government supports the directive because over 70% of our economy now comprises trade in services, and a services directive makes good economic sense for this country. We must work to dispel the many myths surrounding the services directive and convince everyone of its benefits. It is a growing issue and the social partners have been supportive because it represents the long-term interests of workers. We must also ensure the directive fully meets employment standards, which is the reason it went through recently. It will be a long process.

There were over 1,000 amendments so I will not deal with those. We support the changes that have been made and the work that is ongoing. My colleagues in Europe have done a good job on these issues, as have other parties. They have undertaken a long process with the Bolkestein directive, as it was termed prior to Commissioner McCreevy taking over, and are working towards a successful conclusion. The issue will require much work but I welcome the decision made a few weeks ago and will continue to take an interest in how the work progresses.

The Taoiseach employed the word "bizarre" in his initial response but that term more aptly applies to his own response in its entirety. I specifically asked if it was intended to address this matter in any of the bilaterals that will take place on the margins of the upcoming summit, but the Taoiseach did not answer.

The answer is "no".

The second question was on health-related services and the issue of country of destination. I did not ask the Taoiseach to go through the 1,000 amendments he cited, rather those two issues in particular. I cannot for the life of me understand how the Taoiseach can believe that the stance taken is in the interests of Irish workers. There are very few who would agree with that analysis.

I have given my answer.

Is the Taoiseach aware of an initiative among the member states under the umbrella of the Party of European Socialists culminating in a petition to President Barroso about the trafficking of women into Germany in advance of the World Cup for the purposes of prostitution, degradation and so on? Will the Taoiseach lend the support of the Government to the initiative to cause member states to act as best as they can to prevent that practice?

I will ask the Taoiseach not about the position of his party colleagues in the European Parliament, but about the position of the Government on the services directive which is on the agenda for the summit. I will ask him not about the thousands of amendments but about the big issues. It seems that the Government's position has changed with the wind since this matter was first discussed. I presume the Taoiseach acknowledges that the Government must have been responsible for the briefing of elements of the media that sought to respond to the campaign about the defects in the services directive and, with few exceptions, were uniformly hostile to the demands for reform of the services directive.

Will the Government support dropping the country of origin principle in favour of the host country or country of destination? Will the Government support the exclusion of employment agencies from the services directive? Does the Taoiseach accept that had the country of origin principle stayed in the directive, it would have done untold damage here to small companies trying to compete and to Irish workers being required to compete with workers employed in the working conditions of the lower cost countries in the Union?

Does the Taoiseach acknowledge that employment agencies are part of the big problem in terms of displacement in industries such as the building and the meat industries? Last Saturday, I spoke with a young man who along with his friends had lost their jobs as painters with a particular subcontractor. They had been displaced by workers paid €3 an hour less than they were paid. When they went to the labour exchange, they found that the company did not exist and no social insurance or tax had been paid on their behalf. That young man hopes to emigrate to Australia because he says the abuse by employment agencies in the building industry is such that it leads to the type of displacement he experienced as a 24 year old.

Will the Government vote for the exclusion of employment agencies from the services directive at the summit? Will the Government reconsider its opposition to the temporary workers agency directive in Europe? It is unacceptable that unfortunate workers are landed here, do not work for an employer registered in this State but the employer buys their services and they are paid through an employment agency. The capacity for abuse is almost endless. It is important that the Government is seen to take a stand against that, in Europe.

Having seen a press report on the first issue, I will do anything I can to deal with the issue in Germany re the World Cup and prostitution.

On the second issue, early last summer I made it clear inside and outside the House and at some EU conferences I attended on the country of origin principle that major difficulties would be created. I was lobbied by trade unions, small firms associations and others on these difficulties. We had difficulties in many areas and sectors, including that mentioned. Perhaps we do not all agree in this House but I understand most Members who are MEPs agreed on most of these issues. On the country of origin issue, I stated that if it was not amended it would cause grave difficulties.

I am aware of the point Deputy Rabbitte is making about employment agencies. I have not been involved in the detail of how best to resolve it but the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Martin, has. While we have legislation on employment agencies and how they operate and have amended this legislation, this matter continually arises.

I have received reports on a range of sectors from individuals, trade unions, and families. Individuals should be caught if they breach employment guidelines and the minimum wage. In cases my office has checked, these have not been breached. Instead, they pay less than the going rate but are clever enough in operating to avoid breaching regulations. I do not suggest that people should only be paid the minimum rate when they are working hard. It is difficult to deal with these cases as workers may be paid higher than the minimum rate. Increasingly, I hear of cases where people are offered a position at a particular rate, which is substantially less than the weekly rate when the hours are calculated.

This is causing a difficulty and we must examine this in our system before examining the European system. Anything we agree collectively with the European Trade Union Confederation, ETUC, or discussions on this concerns minimum rates or minimum guidelines. Perhaps this will be of assistance in the debate on the services directive but I do not think it will resolve the issue. We must examine this in Ireland. I have seen examples in forestry, horticulture, the meat trade, construction and hotels. Perhaps there are not many cases but they are increasing and all are connected to employment agencies. I have brought this to the attention of the Minister, Deputy Martin, and the Minister of State, Deputy Killeen. I am not ruling out the services directive but there is an issue here.

If these operators are based in this country they must comply with certain norms. Large numbers of people working in certain sectors did not find their way to Ireland on their own but were recruited in an organised way, through advertisements by employment agencies and this is where the difficulty lies. Some months have passed since I raised this matter and a number of these issues have been examined over the past six months and are the subject of work within our talks process.

It will not surprise Deputy Rabbitte to hear that both sides of the argument are pressing me on this issue. If one side took the lead earlier, the other side is fast approaching on the other side of the argument. I take a pragmatic view of this and one side must be protected more than the other side.

In addition to the description given by the Taoiseach, I have encountered workers willing to work excessive overtime hours without being paid or without being paid overtime rates.

Or working a six day week.

That is also a factor and some colleagues in the media may be interested in examining this. I refer to a report received yesterday which I presume is an assessment of progress on the Lisbon Agenda by the Taoiseach's Department. Will he indicate whether any unique Irish proposals on the question of the Lisbon Agenda will be advanced at the summit?

As is mandatory under the rules, we have put forward a position paper. Our success in achieving high employment numbers in recent years means there is an interest in our proposals. Our position paper this year will stress the significant employment gains in the small and medium enterprise sector. Recent reports have shown that approximately 250,000 small business employers have made quite incredible gains over the past seven to ten years. Many of the initiatives which grew out of the report on small business published some years ago have worked very successfully and should be taken on board.

From the point of providing assistance to small business, it should be acknowledged that small businesses have problems. They do not have the resources to apply for research and development grants and are unable to obtain the same kind of training grants. Allowances must be made for regulations and overheads. This has been included in the position paper. The importance of small business will be reflected in the report, as will the distinction between small business and medium-sized business.

With regard to the Taoiseach's meeting with the Prime Minister of Croatia who has a wholesale plan of privatisation of public assets and as the Taoiseach is somebody who agrees with this right-wing agenda, did they discuss the privatisation drive?

He is a socialist.

With regard to the future of the discussion on Europe and the future of the proposed EU constitution, the next Council meeting will be half-way through the Austrian Presidency which was scheduled to resolve this issue. What is the present thinking regarding a plan of action or a timescale among EU leaders for this debate on the proposed EU constitution? Will it be this year?

When the Taoiseach referred to the Presidency conclusions which were published in January, was his attention drawn to the section on Iraq where at the previous meeting he warmly welcomed the elections held on 15 December as being a further step towards democracy and stability in Iraq? In hindsight does he believe that sentiment should be revisited in his next meeting in March? In light of the hellish catastrophe which Iraq has become for its long-suffering people and which is far from stability, will he have any original proposal to bring to the Council of EU leaders to try to alleviate this nightmarish existence for the people of Iraq? Will he take the lead in calling for the withdrawal of the imperial armies who are responsible for the catastrophe that exists? Will he explain the reason he allowed the commander-in-chief of the main occupying army, President Bush, rally troops in Shannon Airport, which is on the Taoiseach's territory, in support of that occupation?

Iraq is not on the agenda of this Council meeting. I will take the opportunity to condemn all the violence and the dreadful atrocities carried out against ordinary citizens in Iraq. The General Affairs and External Relations Council meets monthly to discuss these issues. It is up to the coalition forces to make their own decisions. I note today that the UK commander-in-chief has made some announcements regarding the UK forces, but it is a matter for those countries.

I did not discuss the economic policies of Croatia other than where Ireland assists it in the process of joining the EU, which is the central agenda item of the people of Croatia. They are anxious to make the necessary reforms, move away from the atrocities and wars of only ten years ago, modernise their country, build their economy — which they are doing successfully — and prepare themselves for the process of European integration which they hope to achieve by 2008 or 2009, although that has not been agreed at European Council level. They are working through their chapters, including the economic chapters, trying to reform and build the economy, make way for foreign direct investment and help their people to invest in the country to try to improve employment and develop infrastructure and tourism.

It is a source of satisfaction that Ireland can help in a number of ways. We are helping through a small number of technical and advisory people from our Civil and public service who are working with the Croatians at various levels through the process of integration as we have done with the ten eastern European countries that joined on 1 May 2004. While these people are small in number, they provide useful reform assistance for a country such as Croatia. A number of Irish investors have already been engaged in business or property acquisition and development, which is appreciated——

What is positive about driving up prices for the locals?

——as it helps the Croatian economy. Greater numbers of Irish people are returning not only to areas they visited before the wars and the break-up of Yugoslavia, such as Dubrovnik, but to many other regions. All this is appreciated. It is hoped that there will soon be a direct flight from Dublin to Zagreb, which the Croatians and I believe will be beneficial.

As I told Deputy Kenny, discussions on the constitution are ongoing. The Austrians will dutifully report on work in progress. Most countries, including some by democratic mandate, have voted for the constitution. What will happen with the French and the Dutch remains a dilemma. It is generally believed that there will be no policy change in that area until after the French general election in summer 2007. Many candidates for that election are setting down what they believe should be the conclusions and solutions, but that is an ongoing political debate in France. Given the size of Europe, the decision-making process and the institutional issues, they will have to return to the issues in the constitution. They may not accept the issues as they are but may try to remove parts. Europe will not be able to function without returning to these issues.

If I heard the Taoiseach correctly, in his original reply he said he is concerned about environmentally sustainable growth but needs to maintain the momentum. Will there be awareness at the March European Council meeting of the serious phenomenon of the peak of oil production which is imminent if it has not already been reached? Even the most optimistic forecasters and geologists predict it will peak by 2010. For example, will the biomass action plan be on the agenda? Launched by the EU in December 2005, it indicates the EU is meeting 4% of its energy needs from biomass. Will the Government be able to catch up quickly, given that we are very much behind, at 0.06%, as per the 2005 figures, as against 3.7% for the Czech Republic while the EU average is 1.4%. Will the Taoiseach indicate to the March Council meeting whether Ireland has a genuine interest in catching up or will we always be behind in that regard?

The European Commission Green Paper on Energy Policy was due to be completed by spring this year. Will that be on the agenda for the March Council meeting and will the Taoiseach have an input, given that it will probably flag nuclear power again? Will he tell the British Prime Minister, for example, that the prospect of nuclear power in Northern Ireland will not be acceptable to the Irish Government, if Mr. Blair is pushing that agenda?

Will the meeting discuss the conclusions of the Council of Europe which call on the EU to introduce tougher controls to ensure checks on aircraft passing through the territory of member states being used for illegal purposes? Hungary, apparently, is the only country that is regarded as having laws that are in any way acceptable in this regard. The Council of Europe Secretary General believes that Europe, particularly Ireland, is a happy hunting ground for foreign security services. Given the seriousness of that report, will the issue be raised?

I will go back over the issues. The General Affairs and External Relations Council has been discussing that issue. We have co-operated fully with the Council of Europe and the European Parliament. A few investigations are in train under the auspices of the European Parliament. One of those has asked for co-operation while the others have not. However, we are co-operating fully with them.

As regards the European Council, energy is raised all the time, and it will come up under economic issues. It has become a central issue for all the countries, as I stated previously. Energy needs and requirements are being addressed more and more. Our work in this regard, in which the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Noel Dempsey, is engaged in compiling a report on energy policy, is separate from the European issue to which we are giving attention. There are a number of relevant issues for Ireland, the issues of supply and future generation and what we can do as regards sustainable energy. We are doing everything possible to advance these issues and will continue to report on them.

What about conservation?

Conservation has become particularly important because of the price of oil, as the Deputy rightly said. It is generally realised that there is no possibility of oil prices reverting to the level of 18 months ago. It seems to be on a new level and I hope that will not reach a new ceiling, but these issues are relevant. As I said before, we will continue to assist in whatever way we can.

On the nuclear question, I will say my piece again, but I think the Deputy knows that the British, the French, the Swedes, the Finns and others have set their minds-——

The Swedes are not building more.

No, but they are maintaining existing capacity and putting resources into this area, and that will continue. Germany has taken the alternative view, or at least the last Chancellor did so. I do not think the present Chancellor has stated her position yet. Everything that I have heard at those meetings makes me believe that the British will opt for more nuclear energy, with all the difficulties that creates for Ireland. I restate our position, but it seems as if the analysis in the UK is in favour of more nuclear energy. That appears to be the road Britain will go down for the next decade.

Top
Share