Enda Kenny
Question:1 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if a date has been set for the proposed visit to Ireland of the French President, Mr. Sarkozy; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37826/08]
Ceisteanna — Questions.
Official Engagements.
Enda Kenny
Question:2 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he has received an agenda for the December 2008 meeting of the European Council; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37827/08]
Eamon Gilmore
Question:3 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if he has received an agenda for the December 2008 EU summit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39365/08]
Eamon Gilmore
Question:4 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the bilateral meetings he plans to have with other EU leaders in advance of the December 2008 summit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39366/08]
Enda Kenny
Question:5 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the special EU summit meeting in Brussels on 7 November 2008; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [40575/08]
Enda Kenny
Question:6 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting in Dublin with the President of the Czech Republic, Mr. Vaclav Klaus; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [40576/08]
Eamon Gilmore
Question:7 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his participation at the informal meeting of EU Heads of State and Government in Brussels on 7 November 2008. [40596/08]
Eamon Gilmore
Question:8 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his recent meeting in Dublin with the President of the Czech Republic, Mr. Vaclav Klaus. [40597/08]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:9 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the European Council meeting on 7 November 2008; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [40652/08]
Eamon Gilmore
Question:10 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his recent meeting with the Finnish Prime Minister, Mr. Matti Vanhanen, on 27 November 2008. [43599/08]
Eamon Gilmore
Question:11 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his meeting with the Swedish Prime Minister, Mr. Fredrik Reinfeld, on 28 November 2008. [43600/08]
Enda Kenny
Question:12 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent visit to Sweden; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [44679/08]
Enda Kenny
Question:13 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent visit to Finland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [44680/08]
Eamon Gilmore
Question:14 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the outcome of his meetings with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Gordon Brown, in advance of the December 2008 European Council summit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [45079/08]
Eamon Gilmore
Question:15 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the outcome of his meetings with President Sarkozy of France in advance of the December 2008 European Council summit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [45080/08]
Eamon Gilmore
Question:16 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the outcome of his meetings with the German Chancellor, Ms Angela Merkel, in advance of the December 2008 European Council summit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [45081/08]
Eamon Gilmore
Question:17 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the outcome of the EU Summit on 11 and 12 December 2008. [45967/08]
Enda Kenny
Question:18 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the recent European Council meeting in Brussels; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46193/08]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:19 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his participation at the latest European Council meeting. [46289/08]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 19, inclusive, together.
I travelled to Paris on 1 October to meet with President Sarkozy. During the meeting we undertook to work closely together between that date and the December European Council. President Sarkozy expressed interest in coming to Ireland again during his Presidency but this was overtaken by my visit to Paris on 5 December.
I travelled to Brussels on 7 November for an informal meeting of Heads of State and Government. The meeting was called by President Sarkozy to discuss the current financial crisis. While there are no formal conclusions from the meeting, it gave the Union the opportunity to frame its general approach to the G20 discussions in Washington on 15 November on examining ways of reforming the international financial system.
I met with President Vaclav Klaus on 10 November as part of the three day State visit to Ireland by the President of the Czech Republic. We held a bilateral discussion, following which I hosted a Government lunch in honour of the President and Mrs. Klausová. President Klaus's visit, which was arranged earlier this year, was a return visit following President McAleese's State visit to the Czech Republic in 1999. As Deputies will be aware, the Czech Republic will assume the Presidency of the European Council on 1 January 2009. We discussed the priorities for the Czech Republic's forthcoming Presidency, the global financial crisis, the Lisbon treaty and bilateral relations between Ireland and the Czech Republic.
I travelled to Helsinki on Thursday, 27 November for an evening meeting with Prime Minister Vanhanen. While in Helsinki I also had a meeting with President Tarja Halonen. I then travelled from Helsinki to Stockholm for a meeting with Prime Minister Reinfelt. On 3 December I met with Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker in Luxembourg. Following my meeting with Prime Minister Juncker I travelled to Berlin for a meeting with Chancellor Angela Merkel. The following morning I had a meeting with Prime Minister Gordon Brown in Downing Street. I met with the current President of the European Council, President Nicolas Sarkozy, in Paris on Friday, 5 December.
Our discussions were dominated by the Lisbon treaty and on his part, President Sarkozy confirmed that his contacts with the other member states made clear that the process of ratification could not be reopened. The meeting was part of an ongoing and intense co-operation with the French Presidency in our effort to secure a way forward that responds to the concerns of the Irish people while securing the support of all member states. After my meeting in Paris I travelled to Brussels for a meeting with European Commission President Barroso. Once again, discussions at our meeting focused primarily on the Lisbon treaty. We also touched on the climate change and energy package.
During each of these meetings the main topic of discussion was the Lisbon treaty and in particular the concerns of the Irish electorate and how they needed to be addressed. We also discussed other key EU issues, including the climate change and energy package and the international financial crisis.
I also made a series of phone calls to my colleagues in the European Council in the run-up to the summit in Brussels on 11 and 12 December, during which I explained to them what we were hoping to achieve at the European Council, and sought their support. I attended the European Council on 11 and 12 December in Brussels and as I will be making a statement to the House later today I will merely give a summary account of the proceedings.
For Ireland, discussions of the Lisbon treaty was a major focus, and I explained to the Council the concerns of the Irish people. First I indicated that retaining a Commissioner was a real concern for the Irish people and it agreed to that. Second, I stated that I needed an undertaking that the other concerns of the Irish people, such as tax, family and ethical matters and the Common Security and Defence Policy would be addressed in a legally robust manner. This was also agreed upon.
On the basis of the agreements made at the European Council, and on the condition of our being able to satisfactorily put guarantees in place, I have said that I would be prepared to return to the public with the new package and to seek approval of it. It is important to stress that there is much detailed work to be carried out in the months ahead regarding the content of the guarantees to be provided. In addition to the Lisbon treaty, the Council also reached agreement in a number of other areas, most notably the energy climate change package and economic and financial measures.
Arising from the Taoiseach's lengthy reply, is he giving consideration to the appointment of Ireland's next Commissioner? Apparently some people want the current Commissioner to come back here.
Whether he is coming or going, I do not see a question put down on it here.
Given the delicate circumstances under which the Taoiseach worked in Brussels and Paris, this country's reputation has been damaged somewhat in the past 12 months. It is very important that a strong and early nomination would be made in order to secure a priority commissionership.
That is going completely outside the boundaries of these questions, with all due respect.
One of the central issues of the Taoiseach's discussions in Brussels and Paris——
An Irish Commissioner
——regarded the concerns expressed by the Irish people about each country having a Commissioner. I am merely asking the Taoiseach an extension of that question.
The Deputy is asking who it will be, which is a different matter.
It is a very sensible question.
The Ceann Comhairle would ask it himself were he standing over here.
Carry on.
He would be a friend of the Ceann Comhairle.
The Deputy knows what I am saying.
I know the Taoiseach will not answer the question but I am asking him anyway if he is turning his thoughts to the early nomination of a Commissioner to represent the country, assuming a satisfactory conclusion is reached and the people of the country endorse the Lisbon treaty whenever they are asked, be it the back end of next year or another time.
Is it intended that the Government will participate in the €200 billion economic stimulus plan presented by the President of the European Commission, Mr. José Manuel Barroso? This is clearly a costly but important exercise. We are all aware of the European position and if Europe does not lead on all this alternative recyclable green agenda, it will be difficult to get other countries to follow suit. Has the Government decided to participate in the Barroso plan and teased out the cost and strategy implications for Ireland?
I have not been turning my mind to the early appointment of the next Commissioner. On the second point, from our perspective the stimulus brought to the economy in view of our financial position has been the maintenance of our capital investment programme, which is twice the European Union average. Were it the European average, the capital programme would be approximately €4 billion next year, when we will have a programme of €8 billion.
Has the Taoiseach given consideration to a matter I referred to him before, the opting in to the justice and security issue which was part of the Lisbon treaty? I make the point because the Taoiseach is aware that over €700 million of drugs was seized off the Irish coast a number of months ago and earlier this year over €100 million of drugs was washed up at Mizen Head. Given the scale of international crime now, be it from human trafficking or the fact that this country is both a conduit and destination for serious amounts of drugs, does the Taoiseach consider it would be an important element of our central participation in Europe to opt into the justice and security element of the treaty?
The Taoiseach is well aware of the academic arguments put up by legal minds on the difference between common and civil law. The people of the country would like to know that the Government wants to participate fully — and demonstrate this — in all elements of justice and security, so our citizens are safe and our young people are not continuously exposed to the pressures of drugs, drug abuse and drug addiction. That scale of crime is happening on a continuous basis.
Our position on the justice and home affairs area is to participate as fully as possible. There is a reserve in terms of ensuring the difference between common and civil law is respected and understood. We are legally advised there may be occasions where that full participation might not be possible as would otherwise be the case. Our demeanour in the area is to work co-operatively with colleagues in the European Union and further afield, such as in Interpol and other organisations, to deal with the worldwide criminal networks which run the drugs trade and bring much agony, sorrow and tragedy to so many lives. They blight many societies in the modern world in which we live.
These are legal questions which have been assessed by our Attorney General and the Government has followed that advice. All our colleagues are aware that it is our full intention to participate in all of these matters and our reserve is simply in the event of there being a legal problem by doing so.
I wish to ask a few questions about the conclusions reached at the summit. It was agreed that if the Lisbon treaty is ratified and comes into effect, each member state will have the right to appoint a Commissioner. Has any consideration been given to what will happen with regard to the appointment of the new Commission if the Lisbon treaty is not ratified?
There were agreements on legal guarantees in a number of areas in respect of taxation and security and defence policy. I do not see any great difficulty with these because, as I read it, they were not affected by the Lisbon treaty in any event. There is also a provision for a guarantee that the provisions of the Irish Constitution regarding the right to life, education and family are not in any way affected by the Treaty of Lisbon, the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the justice and home affairs provisions of the treaty.
We all understand that the abortion issue was raised during the course of the referendum on the Lisbon treaty. I cannot recall anybody raising issues relating to education during the course of the referendum campaign. In so far as family issues were raised, they certainly were not central. I have been through the research which was done following the referendum, but I cannot see anywhere in it that family or education issues surfaced as matters of concern. Perhaps the Taoiseach could explain where those issues emerged from, the nature of the legal guarantees being sought, and how that will be squared with the charter of fundamental rights.
I also wish to ask the Taoiseach about workers' rights issues, which he raised during the European summit. The text of the conclusions states that high importance will be given to those issues but not legal guarantees, as is the case in the other areas. Can the Taoiseach explain why that is so and what he proposes to do to address it?
As regards the issue of a Commissioner per member state, in the event of the Lisbon treaty not being ratified the Nice treaty arrangements will be operable. Those arrangements state that when the membership reaches 27 the Council will have to agree to a reduction of that number and provide a solution along the lines of the Nice treaty. Therefore one cannot guarantee a Commissioner per member state if the Lisbon treaty is not ratified. If it is ratified, these conclusions confirm that the Heads of State and Government are prepared to undertake a procedure which will ensure that every member state has a Commissioner. That situation cannot continue under the Nice treaty. The Lisbon treaty currently states that a Commissioner per member state will be available to every member of the Union until 2014, whereupon on a principle of rotation a reduced number, to 18, will be agreed. That is an important point which arose during the course of the referendum. I am glad to note that the commitment given by the European Council last week is quite clear in that respect.
As regards other matters, we are involved in work in progress and further detailed texts will have to be worked out. We can keep the Deputy and his party apprised of that. The Deputy raised questions concerning the right to life, the family, the right to denominational education and other issues, some of which concern minority groups in this country.
The issue of workers' rights is about ensuring that, by ratifying the treaty, we incorporate the charter — which is part of the treaty — into the treaties of the European Union. On any objective reading of the situation, it is accepted that that would greatly enhance and protect workers' rights in future. The difference in some respects is that the workers' rights issue is not simply an Irish-specific question, it is one for all 27 member states. The other issues are Irish-specific ones, but that is not to say for one moment that we do not accord importance to this matter, which was raised during the last campaign. There are dossiers going through various sectoral councils at the moment dealing with delineating the exact implications of certain cases that were brought before the European Court of Justice, which were specific to those particular states. However, they obviously caused concern as to whether they would have a wider application or — in respect of the issues that were dealt with in those cases — what policy response will emerge between member states that would be agreed at Council level. Those dossiers will continue to be addressed in the forthcoming Czech Presidency and probably during the Swedish Presidency as well. That is the context in which these matters arose.
I am still not clear about the references in the text of the summit conclusions to education and the family, or what is contemplated in those areas. Perhaps the Taoiseach might return to that.
I acknowledge that if the Charter of Fundamental Rights was adopted, it would strengthen the rights of workers both here and elsewhere in the EU. It would also strengthen the right to collective bargaining. As matters stand, however, that charter has not been adopted. That aside, would the Taoiseach acknowledge that the judgments in the Laval case and other somewhat similar cases before the European Court of Justice, have given rise to concern about the possibility of undermining pay and working conditions which are accepted as the norm here? Does he agree that it would be necessary to have those issues satisfactorily addressed in advance of another referendum on Europe?
Does the Taoiseach intend to involve the Opposition parties, particularly those which have supported the Lisbon treaty, in constructing the texts of the legal guarantees, assurances and other matters which are to be concluded as part of this process?
Providing support for vulnerable workers is of central concern to the Government. The development of European policy and practice reflected in the Union's legislation has been hugely positive for workers in Europe, including Irish workers. To take but one example, this is reinforced by the adoption of the directive on temporary agency work. This measure continues the long established pattern of significant and effective protection for workers being reinforced by and, in many instances, originating with European initiatives. It is that tradition and its continued potential which was reflected in the decisions of the executive of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the European Trade Union Confederation to support the Lisbon treaty. As I said earlier, through the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the draft treaty represents a significant advance in the articulation of workers' rights, not least in respect of the operation of collective bargaining.
Regarding the ECJ judgments to which Deputy Gilmore referred, the particular issues raised in, for example, the Laval and Viking cases relate to the specific social partnership and collective bargaining context which exists in Scandinavian countries. Therefore, the judgments are case-specific. Our legal advice is that there are no particular implications arising from the ECJ judgments in these cases for Ireland, with the particular arrangements in place as part of the Irish industrial relations system. We have a strong body of employment rights legislation which protects workers, including posted workers — that is posted from another EU member state — who have the same rights as Irish workers under Irish law. It is important to note that the transitional agreement, which was recently ratified by IBEC and ICTU, will serve to bolster and enhance our body of employment rights legislation. That said, the Government has made the case to our European counterparts that these ECJ judgments should be discussed among the social partners at EU level. In this context, we welcome the fact that the European Commission, backed by the Troika of French, Swedish and Czech Presidencies, has asked the EU social partners, as part of their work programme in 2009, to undertake an analysis of the balance between workers' rights and competitiveness issues, having particular regard to the ECJ rulings. In the time available to us, we will continue to use that process to the greatest extent we possibly can, as a means of bringing the necessary clarity and orientation to that debate, which will provide reassurance to those who may continue to have concerns in this area. We would also be glad to apprise party leaders in the House, particularly those who support the treaty, of our efforts to go ahead with the envisaged detailed work arising out of the conclusions and to listen to and see in what way we can accommodate the ideas or proposals of others as part of a collective effort as comprehensively as possible.
Will the Taoiseach confirm that, at the European Council meeting last week, he secured no changes and no commitments to make any changes to the actual text of the Lisbon treaty? Given that no changes have been secured and no commitments to make any changes to the actual text have been made, why has the Taoiseach agreed to put the same treaty to the electorate, which has already rejected it? In a previous manifestation, it was rejected by other European electorates.
The Government has told us that key issues that arose in the referendum will be dealt with by what have been described as legally binding guarantees. What is the nature of those guarantees? Will the Taoiseach spell out for this Deputy and the House exactly what it is that the Government is proposing? How would he respond to this Deputy's opinion and that of many others that the guarantees will be of questionable enforceability and will not measure up to amendments or protocols to the treaty, the necessary critical elements? Will they amount to nothing other than political declarations with no legally binding powers? Is it the case, as indicated by President Sarkozy, that some declarations or all of what has been suggested by the Taoiseach and other national commentators on these recent developments will accompany the accession treaty for Croatia in 2010 or 2011?
Regarding the questions raised, this is an exercise in democracy. Concerns were raised by our people about the Lisbon treaty, which meant the treaty was rejected last May in a referendum. The Government undertook a process, as did the Oireachtas, to see in what way we could first of all identify the main concerns. As the Deputy knows, different points of view were expressed on different issues by people who voted on any particular side, not all of them mutually supportive or mutually coherent.
We sought to identify those issues and a very structured process was undertaken, both in terms of a modern means of assessing public opinion and also, of course, ensuring the Oireachtas was fully involved in bringing forward a number of groups and discussing the matter publicly in our committee system in a transparent and open manner. Having done that, the Oireachtas sub-committee came forward with, while not a unanimous report, what was very much the view of the vast majority of those who sat on the committee, namely, that the concerns that influenced people to vote in any particular way could be identified. Those are reflected in the main in the conclusions suggested.
The Oireachtas sub-committee has other recommendations in respect of national procedures and national issues that could be dealt with at country level and that do not require the agreement or consent of our member state colleagues. These relate to how we deal with European legislation, scrutinise it and provide a further reassurance to people that, not only has the appraisal undertaken been rigorous on the part of governments or the Commission in terms of initiating legislation and the subsequent work at Council of Ministers level, but that the issue of subsidiarity should be given expression in this House to a greater degree than has been the case before. This point is well taken.
I have always believed that, as a proponent of European issues, we should contextualise many of the issues that we discuss here to a far greater extent, whether they are economic, social or cultural, in the context of the European Union itself. There is an interdependence and interlinking, not just in terms of financial resources in many respects, because we are moving on from that phase of membership, but also in terms of policy formulation and where competence lies in these areas, where there is a very strong European influence.
We need to articulate that to a far greater extent in our national debate on a whole range of questions in order for people to see the relevance and importance of European Union affairs in the daily lives of our own people. It is not simply a constitutional matter. While European issues have been dominated by an effort to accommodate enlargement and to define structures and systems within the European Union and its institutions to make it responsive to the wider needs of the new united Europe in the post-communist era in which we live, the constitutionalisation questions have, perhaps, dominated to an extent that has bemused many. We wish to move on from that.
The Lisbon treaty, perhaps, provides us with the best way of doing it. It represents the seven-eight year compromise that was reached after much deliberation. It is specific in terms of protecting member states' interests and accommodating their concerns, perhaps by its complexity of structure, but this is an inevitable outcome of the accommodating and inclusive nature of the Union itself in reaching agreement on matters of importance to member states in a coherent fashion.
For that reason, it is important that we seek to address the concerns of the Irish people. It is totally open to them to come back to any issue at any time where our national interests are at stake. I strongly believe that our national interests are at stake. Deputy Ó Caoláin may disagree, which is his entitlement, but I strongly believe it. From the position I hold, I am all the more convinced of it as every week and month passes.
Be that as it may and to answer the specific questions raised, I am glad to note from Deputy Ó Caoláin's remarks that, if it were to occur that we would be able to obtain legal guarantees of protocol status, it would give him the reassurance that he requires in these matters, since he seems to be emphasising the importance of legal effect of the concerns raised being provided. I do not wish to move beyond the conclusions as they are currently stated at the December Council meeting or to anticipate the outcome of further discussions that must take place, but I have a clear political understanding that the legal effect that we will require can and will be forthcoming subject to a satisfactory conclusion of the work that is yet to be done.
This is an indication of the willingness of colleague member states to seek to accommodate the concerns that we have democratically assessed in this Parliament and that we are now communicating to colleagues in the European Union. If it is the case that this is ultimately what is to emerge, I would be delighted if it were an influential part of Deputy Ó Caoláin's thinking on this issue for the future. I would welcome that.
The Deputy asked a question about ratification of the treaty. We are involved in a discussion with 26 member states. It has been portrayed by some who oppose the treaty that our work on this matter began two or three weeks ago. One would be quite naive to suggest that the objective results achieved at the Council meeting last week could have been achieved on the basis of two or three weeks work. In the aftermath of the rejection of the Lisbon treaty, I went to a European Council meeting where I informed the Council of the rejection of the treaty and the need for that rejection to be respected. In other words, if they were ever to return to this matter, they would need to try to address the concerns which caused the people to reject the treaty. It was made clear to me that a re-ratification of the treaty was not an option the other 26 member states wished to consider. We can take one of two approaches from that. We could decide there is no more we can do or we can decide to work in solidarity with those member states to try to resolve the problems that were specific to Ireland's rejection of the treaty. I took the second approach because that is in the interests of the country and that we have an obligation to do that.
The response that is emerging from member states indicates a respect for the concerns to which I refer and a preparedness to give legal effect in the future for those concerns and to deal with the fundamental question relating to the representativeness of the Commission — that is, one Commissioner per member state — at all times. That is an advance on both the Lisbon and Nice treaties. Had I done nothing, we would have lost our Commissioner on the basis of the Nice arrangements. By engaging and negotiating with member states and asking them to respect the issues raised by the Irish people, we have come with a conclusion that is specific in respect of the institutions. This has not happened previously in respect of other countries that found themselves in a position similar to that of Ireland. Other member states are prepared to make this institutional change and to commit to it now in an effort to convey to the Irish people their willingness to address that important matter so people can reconsider the treaty. Had I taken the approach suggested by some, what we have achieved might not have been possible.
I understand the Deputy's party, in the context of the criticism it has offered, has set down a range of issues in respect of which changes should be made. The problem is that the other 26 member states are not minded to do so. We must, therefore, make a decision: should we address and try to deal adequately with the main concerns identified Sub-Committee on Ireland's Future in the European Union or should we continue to set the bar so high, as the Deputy's party has done, to ensure that matters will never be renegotiated?
The Taoiseach referred to people not being minded to make changes. If Sinn Féin had accepted that position over the years, the dramatic and important developments——
The Deputy's party has ways of softening people up.
——in the North of this island would never have occurred. The significant achievements made in the past 12 months were brought about because people were prepared to continue to play their part and to imaginatively explore the options. Does the Taoiseach accept that he has not so explored the mandate the electorate gave him in the referendum on the Lisbon treaty to the effect that he should engage directly in respect of this matter? Let us ignore the fact that other member states are not minded to introduce changes. We have heard that mantra on many occasions from the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The reality is that the Taoiseach had a task to undertake. Does he accept he has not taken action in respect of that task?
The Taoiseach stated this matter relates to democracy. That is certainly the case. However, whether he has been engaged in an exercise of democracy is another matter. Many of us who voted "No" can detect neither respect nor regard for the position we articulated when we made our choice in the referendum held earlier this year.
The Taoiseach did not reply to a number of the questions I posed. In respect of President Sarkozy's contribution vis-à-vis the expected treaty relating to Croatia’s accession in 2010 or 2011, will the Taoiseach state whether, unlike the position heretofore, this treaty and all future accession treaties will not be put to the Irish electorate? If President Sarkozy is indicating that the legally binding declarations relating to Ireland are to be part of such a proposition and if it is the case that these will not be put to the Irish electorate, does it not follow that the Taoiseach is asking the people to buy a pig in a poke? On foot of his earlier comments, will the Taoiseach acknowledge that he does not have a clear vision, in written form or otherwise, of what was allegedly agreed in the run-up to and during the European Council meeting which took place last week?
Other Members are offering. Questions to the Taoiseach cannot be allowed to last as long as Paradise Lost.
Does the Taoiseach accept he does not possess a clear formula to allow him to answer my question regarding the status of these oft referred to legally binding declarations? Does he also accept that, critically and clearly, no changes to the Lisbon treaty as presented to the Irish electorate, either by amendments to the text or by protocols, have been secured, and that is the critical fault line?
It is best to use the language of the conclusions to avoid confusion. That is if one is not interested in spreading confusion. The conclusions state they are legally binding guarantees.
Will the Taoiseach explain how they are legally binding?
I just explained that I have a clear political understanding with regard to obtaining legally binding guarantees as per the conclusions. We are in a work-in-progress phase. We will carry out the detailed work and when that is done, we will bring them before the House and explain them further. We will then hear from the European Council as to how it wishes to give legal effect to those guarantees. As President of the European Council, President Sarkozy indicated at the Council meeting, at the press conference which followed it and at the European Parliament yesterday what he believes will be the means by which these legally binding guarantees will be given. I am prepared to await a formal decision from the Council on those matters. However, I have a clear political understanding which allowed me to provide the conditional commitment I gave. If I did not have such an understanding, I would not have given that commitment.
It is on the basis of that clear understanding that we are proceeding to the next phase involving detailed work on the text. The Deputy will have to accept that is the position at present. When the detail is completed, we will bring it before the House and have a further discussion on it and see what is the position at that point.
Deputy Ó Caoláin made a point about people being minded and not having put the case sufficiently. I put the case. He referred to his party's involvement in compromise. He had to make some fundamental compromises in order to achieve political progress. However, that does not disbar him from continuing to pursue his political vision for the country, as I pursue mine. I do so with quite transparent and unsophisticated democratic principles. The Deputy's experience could perhaps inform him better than anything I could say. One advances the position nationally in so far as is possible, based on the ability of others to agree with one.
Sinn Féin or the Deputy might prefer other changes to be made to the Lisbon treaty. However, the treaty can only be agreed, not on the basis of a diktat of his party or mine, but on the basis of a consensus agreed among 27 member states. The other 26 member states have come forward with a consensus position and they must take account of our concerns. They are seeking, willing and anxious to do so out of respect for the Irish people, for the fact they want Ireland to be fully part of the Union and in terms of the additional changes to the Lisbon treaty construct. The Deputy suggests there has been no change. Where in the Lisbon treaty does it say there will be one Commissioner per member state? It does not say that.
It does not say in the Nice treaty that we cannot.
It does.
To be clear, the Nice treaty says that when the Commission reaches a size of 27 members it must be reduced.
It is to be reduced to 27.
There is no need for confusion.
Let us stick to the facts.
Yes, let us stick to the facts. Is there sufficient generosity in Deputy Ó Caoláin to acknowledge that we have achieved, as a result of discussions and negotiations with 26 other members states, one Commissioner per member state.
Is there sufficient generosity in the Taoiseach to acknowledge——
Is that accepted?
——that only the majority of Irish people voted "No" he would not have sought that and was prepared to have us accept far less than is even provided for in the Nice treaty?
Never mind generosity. Please allow the Taoiseach to finish his reply.
No.
Does the Taoiseach have the generosity to acknowledge that?
Deputy Ó Caoláin cannot interrupt again.
My answer to that question is that were I to accept the "No" vote and do nothing about it I would have to have a Commissioner under the Nice treaty arrangements, which were worse than the existing Lisbon treaty arrangements. We put forward a proposal in the December Council that is better than the Lisbon treaty position.
It does not have to be worse under the Lisbon treaty.
That is the situation.
Not at all.
That is the legal situation and the Deputy cannot get away from it.
It could be done by way of unanimity.
What the Deputy cannot get away from is his continuous effort——
——to suggest that to reject the Lisbon treaty puts Ireland in a better position. To reject the Lisbon treaty puts Ireland in a worse position.
No. We want to secure agreement in the interests of the Irish people and the broad electorate.
Anyone who knows anything about politics or political economy understands that point. We are engaged in a democratic process. We must address the concerns that the people raised, as they are entitled to do, in terms of the democratic decision they made last May. That is what we are doing.
Sinn Féin has decided to use a different tactic, namely, to go about suggesting to the Irish people — I cannot recall how many amendments Sinn Féin was seeking, it may have been 25, in its famous document produced within a week of the rejection of the Lisbon treaty — that if the Government does not achieve what it suggests it cannot put the treaty to the people. Deputy Ó Caoláin has a problem in that the other 26 member states do not agree with him.
That is not the way that was presented.
The other member states do not agree with Sinn Féin.
The only one trying to paint that picture is the Taoiseach.
One cannot dictate what people should do. People sometimes think one can dictate but one cannot. One must work with practicalities and realities and deal with the concerns of the Irish people. The people must be given the reassurances they need not only in respect of sensitive issue in regard to our Constitution but in regard to workers' rights and the Commission. We must give a clear indication to the people that if they vote "Yes" Ireland will keep its Commissioner. That, perhaps, is the reason the poster erected by Sinn Féin will be redundant if we ever get to the next referendum.
It is our duty and responsibility to point out to the electorate the deficiencies contained in that which the Taoiseach and other parties in this House have been promoting for so long. We will continue to inform them truthfully.
I call Deputy Costello.
I agree with the Taoiseach that there has been major progress in terms of the achievement of a Commissioner for each member state and that should be acknowledged.
I wish to put a question to which there are two aspects. The Taoiseach stated that his function was to ensure that the concerns expressed by the Irish people, in so far as we understood them, in terms of their rejection of the Lisbon treaty referendum, were addressed. There are two ways the Government can do this. It must first show good faith by addressing the issue of workers' rights and protecting the hard won rights of workers in this country.
Hear, hear.
Why has the services directive not been passed into law? We have only until the end of next year to do so. We must address this issue quickly.
Also, we should pass the agency workers' directive which is currently awaiting transposition in Irish law. Why not do that? Why has the migrant workers' directive not been passed? It is causing mayhem in terms of employment of migrant workers in the service industry and, especially in restaurants, an issue raised yesterday by the migrant workers' centre? What is the position in respect of the compliance Bill? We must deal with that legislation. The Government must, first and foremost, show good faith at home.
Hear, hear.
The Taoiseach also stated that the Viking and Laval cases do not concern us. They could concern us if a business from another country were to take a similar case. The European Court of Justice would then have to determine in respect of national law and practises and the freedoms of the European Union. We must put in place a legal mechanism that will protect us in the future. Otherwise, there is not much sense in putting a new referendum to the people.
On the first matter, the parliamentary committee outlined various recommendations, some of which must be addressed with member state colleagues at European Council level and others which must be dealt with at national level. In the context of employment rights legislation and so on, it should be pointed out that we have a good record on employment rights. Employment rights legislation which protects migrants workers has been bolstered. For example, on the posted workers issue, these people now have the same rights as Irish workers under Irish law. Other issues are being discussed in the social partnership process. We have a voluntary industrial relations system.
Let us show some urgency about this.
There is urgency in respect of this issue. However, there are also issues to be dealt with such as how we balance workers' rights——-
When does the Government propose to do this?
——with competitiveness issues in the interests of maintaining workers in employment, which is also a critical workers' right. We must consider these matters in a sensible way.
There is no major ideological chasm between us in respecting the rights of workers, which is something to which I adhere. What we need to do is ensure this is addressed in a context that does not affect competitiveness or makes less likely that we will have more rather than fewer workers in employment. We must also maintain standards. I have no problem with any of this. It is something to which I subscribe. I was formerly a Minister for Labour.
Dialogue is taking place within social partnership. We will do anything we can to progress this issue and to provide reassurance on these matters. They are issues, at a national level, that must be considered with others in the Parliament during the coming months. Of course, we should do this. We must be helpful, open and co-operative in these matters. The contention was made that if one voted "Yes" to the Lisbon treaty one would be adopting a construct; that there is no such thing as a social market or social Europe and the European Union is hostile to workers' rights. We all know that the genesis of much of the most progressive social legislation in our employment legislation originated from the European Union and the Commission.
It was the late Paddy Hillery who, through the first Commission on Social Affairs, introduced equal treatment and equal rights directives which have been transposed not alone into Irish law but European law. This is an area where the European Union has differentiated itself from the neo-liberal market economics of other major trading blocs in the world. We are seeking all the time to strike this balance, not because we are trying to dilute its importance but because we want to ensure that the context within which workers' rights are exercised is an economy that will provide employment and a more fulfilled life for workers. It is a difficult balance and is a matter of judgment and of changing circumstance.
I take the point that this is not an exact science. In making these I am not suggesting that one is not committed to inclusion and to dealing with reassurances in this area. We need to do so with that context in mind. For this reason, and if, as Deputy Costello stated, I am to proceed in good faith on these matters, which is my intention, I do not believe this should be an issue between us.