Joe Higgins
Ceist:2 Mr. Higgins (Dublin West) asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his contacts with the new Prime Minister of Israel, Mr. Sharon. [3900/01]
Ceisteanna – Questions. - Official Engagements.
Michael Noonan
Ceist:3 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach if he plans to have discussions with his European Union counterparts in advance of the special European summit to be held in Stockholm in March 2001; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4623/01]
Michael Noonan
Ceist:4 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach when he next expects the President of the European Commission to visit Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4626/01]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:5 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach his priorities for the Stockholm European summit; if he proposes to meet other European leaders in advance of the summit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5560/01]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:6 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach when he next expects to meet the President of the European Commission; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5561/01]
Trevor Sargent
Ceist:7 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the upcoming special European summit in Stockholm in March 2001. [5753/01]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 2 to 7, inclusive, together.
I wrote to Mr. Ariel Sharon on 8 February congratulating him on his election as Prime Minister of the State of Israel. I indicated in my letter that Ireland continues to look forward to a satisfactory outcome to the Middle East peace process. In this regard, I note last night's decision by the Israeli Labour Party to join a unity government with Mr. Sharon. I hope the establishment of a unity government will assist in an early resumption of meaningful negotiations towards achieving the goal of a just and lasting peace.
In advance of the European Council in Stockholm on 23 and 24 March, I met yesterday with Prime Minister Persson of Sweden, who came to Dublin as the first stop on his pre-summit tour of capitals. The main purpose of the Stockholm European Council is to give heads of state or government the opportunity to take a strategic overview of progress towards achieving the goal we set last year at Lisbon, namely by 2010 to make the European Union the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion.
Achieving this very ambitious target requires continuing action across a wide range of areas both at the EU level and by the member states individually. While specific decisions are for the Council, in its various sectoral formats, to make, or for national governments, it is important that the European Council is able to look at the big picture and give overall direction.
Prime Minister Persson and I had an excellent and productive exchange of views. He outlined to me how the Presidency intends to organise the meeting and we discussed the proposals presented by the Commission in the Synthesis Report published earlier this month. The Synthesis Report identified ten priority areas in which it is hoped progress can be made at Stockholm. We agreed that the Commission paper is a very good basis for discussion and that it is likely agreement can be reached on most of the issues it raises.
While Prime Minister Persson is looking forward to a comprehensive debate, he is anxious to place a particular focus on how we should respond to demographic change in Europe and, in particular, the ageing of the population. He also places particular stress on the economic potential of biotechnology, while recognising that the scientific and ethical issues need to be fully debated and carefully worked out. The Prime Minister also wants to ensure there is a linkage between the Union's socio-economic strategy and its approach to sustainable development, which will be fully debated in its own right at the June European Council in Gothenburg.
We share with our partners the objective of developing policies that promote employment, economic reform, research and innovation in the knowledge-based economy and social cohesion and at Stockholm we will work to encourage progress under each of these headings. Another major aspect of the Stockholm Council will be a discussion with the Russian President, Mr. Putin, who has accepted an invitation to attend a session. It is expected that this will focus on economic and social aspects of the EU-Russia relationship. This will be an important and valuable opportunity for dialogue and I congratulated Prime Minister Persson on arranging it. Inevitably, as always happens at European Councils, there will be other urgent issues of the day which will require attention, but it is too early to say in detail what these will be.
I have no plans at present for further meetings with EU colleagues to discuss Stockholm, although I will meet Prime Minister Blair tomorrow on other issues. My Department, and the other Departments concerned with the issues which will arise at Stockholm are in close touch with their relevant counterparts. Furthermore, national views or proposals which have so far been sent to the Presidency by member states have been copied to all capitals, so we all have quite a good idea of one another's views. I will speak directly to my colleagues if this appears necessary closer to the time.
While I will meet President Prodi at the Stockholm and Gothenburg European Councils, I am also pleased he has accepted an invitation from me to visit Ireland. The intention is that the visit will take place in June. Officials have had preliminary discussions on the shape of his programme and I believe it will be a valuable opportunity to welcome the President to this country and to have substantive discussions with him on the range of issues on the Union agenda at that time.
(Dublin West): How does the Taoiseach justify sending congratulations to Mr. Sharon on his election as Prime Minister of Israel when Mr. Sharon is responsible, as a result of a visit a few months ago to a very sensitive shrine, for the current tragedy in Palestine and Israel which has left approximately 400 people dead, the majority Palestinian but Jewish people as well? Was the Taoiseach aware, when sending his congratulations, of the murderous reputation and history of Mr. Ariel Sharon dating back to 1953 when he commanded unit 101 which was responsible for the massacre of 69 Palestinians in the village of Kibya? Was he further aware that Mr. Sharon was a key architect of the illegal settlements in the West Bank and was held responsible for the horrific massacre of 2,000 innocent men, women and children in the camps of Sabra and Chatila in Beirut in 1982? Will the Taoiseach explain the difference between Mr. Sharon's history and the brutal history of Slobodan Milosevic, former President of Serbia, whose brutal ethnic cleansing policies were offered as the reason for the NATO bombing campaign?
The Deputy is making a statement; he should put a question to the Taoiseach.
(Dublin West): Will the Taoiseach justify the distinction he makes between treating the former Serbian President as an outcast and congratulating a prime minister with a similar history? Is it because Ireland still defers to the United States—
The Deputy should not anticipate the Taoiseach's reply.
(Dublin West):—for which Israel is a client state?
It is a long-standing practice in this country to send a message of congratulations to a democratically elected president of a state which is friendly to us, and I sent a brief message to Mr. Sharon. I am aware of Mr. Sharon's reputation as a promoter of new Israeli settlements and a critic of the negotiations with the Palestinians. However, he has extensive experience in government and is well aware that Israeli security is dependent on good relationships with Israel's neighbours, the nearest of whom are the Palestinians. I hope Mr. Sharon will use his time in the new National Unity Government to build on the excellent discussions which took place over the years which have unfortunately broken down in the past four to five months resulting in horrific deaths. The National Unity Government includes people who have a record of commitment to the peace process. We must await further developments in this area before arriving at any conclusions.
Yesterday, I spoke to Mr. Persson, President of the European Council, who is anxious to play a greater role in this area. Special envoy, Mr. Javier Solana, has been involved in this area for the past two years but it is felt in Europe that a greater role could perhaps now be played in the construction of a peace agreement. Only a short number of months ago, prior to Mr. Barak calling the election, an agreement was imminent and a summit was to be held in Stockholm. Unfortunately, statements were made at that time which unsettled those arrangements and the peace accord, which was progressing well, floundered.
Does the Taoiseach accept that Mr. Sharon sabotaged the process?
The Taoiseach, without interruption.
President Arafat made a statement only days before the talks were to commence in Stockholm and Mr. Barak refused to attend the summit although President Arafat effectively apologised. I believe Mr. Barak should have attended the talks as his non-attendance resulted in a glorious opportunity being lost. I got the impression yesterday from Mr. Persson that a settlement was only inches away at that time. We must get back to the position which prevailed five or six weeks ago and I hope that can be achieved.
How does the Ceann Comhairle propose to organise the supplementary questions in the time set?
The Deputy has tabled two questions and will be allowed two supplementary questions, and more if time permits. The same will apply to Deputy Quinn.
Regarding the Taoiseach's proposed meeting with Mr. Prodi in Stockholm, and the fact that he is not coming here in the near future, I draw attention to sentiments attributed to him in the European diary of today's The Irish Times which state the Commission President, Mr. Romano Prodi—
The Deputy knows it is not in order to quote at Question Time.
I am not quoting. I understand the ruling. I am referring to the article. I am ensuring accuracy by referring to the quotation in my hand.
It appeared to the Chair that the Deputy was quoting.
The Ceann Comhairle tends to jump before he hears the supplementary question.
Some people say I jump too slowly.
It depends on who asks the question. Sentiments are attributed to Mr. Prodi in today's The Irish Times which state that he does not propose to visit Ireland before a referendum on the Nice Treaty because he can establish our position on issues by talking to Mr. Blair. The American President stated last week that any involvement he would have in Northern Ireland policy would be at the request of the Prime Minister, Mr. Blair. Is our foreign policy position so weak that our position on Europe and the United States has to be brokered by the British Prime Minister? What is the Taoiseach's view on Mr. Blair being under the impression that he can be our spokesman with the President of the European Commission and the President of the United States on matters of fundamental importance to this country?
I have not seen that article in the newspaper. I can only assume it is a mistake by President Prodi. He does much of his business by telephone rather than in writing and I have had many conversations with him. He is due to visit here shortly, and in his diary June is "shortly". I discussed this with him on the telephone. He had hoped to come in February but that was not possible because of other commitments. I do not imagine Prime Minister Blair would discuss European matters related to Ireland with him.
This week the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, will meet the US Secretary of State, and a number of other senior officials in the Administration to discuss Security Council matters, Northern Ireland and other issues. I will meet President Bush in a fortnight.
Can I refer the Taoiseach to the European diary in today's The Irish Times which is not guess work. It states that Mr. Prodi indicated privately that if he wants to find out the Irish position on matters he can talk to Tony Blair. Will the Taoiseach inquire into this matter? In respect of President Bush's inclination to be led on Northern Ireland affairs by Prime Minister Blair, how does the Taoiseach propose to refocus the White House's attention on Northern Ireland affairs? I understand that when the Taoiseach visits Washington for St. Patrick's Day, while he will present the shamrock in the traditional manner, there will be no White House reception for the Irish. I understand also that delegates from North and South who travel to Washington are referred to the State Department. The First Minister of the Northern Assembly, Mr. Trimble, was met by an Assistant Secretary in the State Department on his recent visit to Washington. I am concerned by the downgrading of the Irish foreign affairs position, both in Europe and in the United States.
Deputy Noonan should be careful in saying there has been a downgrading of our position in Europe. Both the General Affairs and Agriculture Councils met yesterday, and I met the President of the Commission. Deputy Noonan's remarks do not stand up to analysis and are silly.
As regards the White House, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen will meet Colin Powell and other senior officials in the next few days to discuss Security Council issues and Northern Ireland. I will meet the President as part of formal St. Patrick's Day arrangements. I understand that President Bush is to attend lunch on Capitol Hill, although arrangements are tentative. Perhaps Deputy Noonan has information which is not available to me, but as far as I know there will be a formal meeting with the President to present the traditional shamrock.
There will not be any social craic agus rince, but that will not affect diplomatic relations as it only started in recent years. As far as I understand, the other meetings will take place. Despite our small size, we will be one of the first countries to talk to the President. New arrangements between the State Department and the North have not yet been made clear. A number of key officials equivalent to those we had contact with over the past eight years are not in position, as almost 5,000 people have yet to be recruited. Such matters will be teased out in discussions between the Minister, Deputy Cowen, and Colin Powell, and in my meetings with President Bush.
I would like to ask a brief supplementary on this issue.
I will allow it when Deputy Quinn has finished speaking.
Thank you, Ceann Comhairle.
Did the Taoiseach, during his meeting with the Swedish Prime Minister Göran Persson yesterday, discuss the damage to Ireland from the unnecessary row with the Commission? Broad economic policy guidelines are to be formulated at a summit in Stockholm in March, which is a follow-up from Lisbon. Did the Taoiseach discuss with the President of the Council the steps to be taken at the summit by Ireland and the Presidency to ensure there will not be a repeat of what transpired earlier this year? Did the Taoiseach express regret at the damage caused to Ireland's relationship with the rest of the Union, particularly that between Ireland and the rest of the euro zone?
I raised the matter for discussion with Göran Persson. I assure Deputies that I am confident damage has not been done. We discussed items on the agenda where we could usefully work together and where I could support the President. We have a good track record on some of these items, but not on others where we should help. We will not try to reinvent the wheel in Stockholm. The conclusions and profits of Lisbon will be further developed by Mr. Persson during his Presidency and in the spring summit so that by 2010, Europe will have reached dynamic growth and will be better able to deal with information technology.
There are two new matters that Mr. Persson wants to introduce in Stockholm which were not discussed in Lisbon. The first of these is biotechnology, including the risks, fears and concerns that surround the issue. He also wants to add demographics to the agenda, so that the ageing of the community can be discussed. This country is not experienced as regards the second of these matters, but we can certainly help with the first, by building on last year's Lisbon conclusions.
In light of the crisis in Britain and the ongoing BSE crisis, did the Taoiseach raise with the President of the Council Ireland's concerns regarding the double attack faced by the agricultural community in Europe, particularly in Ireland? If so, what was his response?
I did and in any meeting I will have this week, I will do that. Most of our discussion centred around the BSE issue, as the President is far more familiar with it and it is now an issue, albeit a smaller one, in his country, although I think it is a false alarm. I am not sure of the veterinary analysis in that regard. The Deputy probably read over the weekend that he has difficulties as well.
BSE is a major issue in many countries, particularly Germany and France, which he must preside over on this issue. The cost factor is a major issue, not to mind the destruct system. There is the matter of people's views on it and what will be needed to develop a sustainable, strong and coherent policy to stabilise the veterinary and market situations. That will affect us and the United Kingdom because of the foot and mouth disease issue. The President's view is that the BSE issue must be resolved.
The French would strongly hold the view, as would we, that the Berlin negotiations on this matter cannot be opened up, but the Germans would hold the view that they should be. These issues will continue to be discussed at Agricultural Councils and perhaps other Councils over the next period.
The Minister, Deputy Walsh, stayed over for an early morning meeting to discuss these matters with the Agricultural Commissioner, Franz Fischler, and I understand what was said yesterday on these issues was satisfactory enough.
I briefed the President yesterday on the views here regarding the seriousness of the food and mouth disease situation, the difficulties it poses for us and the types of measures we had to take.
Following the manner in which the Minister for Finance handled the reprimand from the European Commission on Ireland's budgetary and fiscal policy, is the Taoiseach aware of a widespread belief that we are being diplomatically isolated in Europe and that belief is reinforced by the Tánaiste's unwise threat to the commitments given at the Treaty of Nice in a recent newspaper article? Will he use the Stockholm Summit to repair some of the diplomatic damage done by the unwise manner in which the Tánaiste and Minister for Finance handled this affair? Will he arrange bilateral meetings with his counterparts in Europe on the margins of the Stockholm Summit to repair this diplomatic damage?
I am sure the Deputy would accept that if there was any diplomatic damage, it is unlikely the President of the European Council would start his round of trips in Ireland. That would hardly be the way they would signal it.
It might be the exact reaction of a prudent president.
Visit the worst port of call first.
They do not work that way.
President Prodi would not have stated he will come to Ireland in the first half of this year.
I will use the Stockholm Summit in this regard. As I said many times before, when international groups have something to say, it is not a bad idea to listen in a calm and sane way to their advice, explain our position and try to come to a satisfactory conclusion and diplomatically avoid conflict, disharmony or any type of difficulty. I will take the opportunity of the Stockholm Summit to do that.
I agree with the approach the Taoiseach just outlined, but has he advised the Minister for Finance that is the approach to be followed? Does he have an assurance from the Minister for Finance that he will also sing from the same hymn sheet?
All members of the Government know that at times one must stand up for a position and ensure that matters are dealt with in an even handed manner and one's views are taken into account. Almost all Members of the House are pro-European and are in favour of what Europe stands for and of the enlargement process. I support all those aspects.
The Government is still in denial.
Can we expect to see backbenchers on the plinth after that statement?
Was the Taoiseach's office made aware of the article that was published by the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment in the Financial Times in which she made a less than veiled threat to the effect that if the Commission and the European Union partners continued to press Ireland, there might be a negative reaction to the ratification of the Nice Treaty? Was the Taoiseach's office consulted about the article? Did he see it before it was published? Did he express any views to the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment before the article was published in the Financial Times? Did he know what was going on?
I saw the article at the time it was submitted and I had no difficulty with it. The Cabinet, the Government parties and the House are aware of my view on this matter because I have stated it on a number of occasions, for example, during the debate on the Nice summit. The Nice Treaty is about enlargement. Regardless of debates and arguments on side issues, the enlargement process is part of European philosophy and the great dream of making Europe a success. Nobody should make an issue of the enlargement process.
In that case, was the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment wrong?
I do not accept that was what she was doing. I wish everybody understood, as Deputy Quinn does given his comments on this matter, that the enlargement process is bigger than any squabbles in any of the Councils about any issue. It is a major part of the way in which we want Europe to develop. This is what the Nice Treaty is about; it is not about anything else. It should be sold only on the basis of what it is about, which is enlargement.
So the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment's reference to Nice was unfortunate if not unwise?
Is the Taoiseach apologising?
Many people said that if there are negative comments, some might use it as a way of protesting. However, they should not do so. The enlargement process is—
Does the Taoiseach agree that as Tánaiste she has a responsibility—
The time for these questions has expired.
The Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment did not say that. It is important to reflect on what the Nice Treaty is about, which is the enlargement process. It is not about anything else.
She should not have referred to it, yet the Taoiseach saw the article.
(Dublin West): Regarding Question No. 2, does the Taoiseach agree that many people will find him guilty of monumental hypocrisy? He congratulated one leader who is patently guilty of ethnic cleansing while supporting the bombing of another leader, Mr. Milosevic, who was guilty of ethnic cleansing because the United States and Britain said so.
A question please, Deputy.
(Dublin West): I am asking a question.
The Deputy should do so briefly.
(Dublin West): Given that he is dealing with an unreconstructed advocate of state terror and not somebody who is reformed—
The Deputy is being repetitious.
(Dublin West):—what is the Government's attitude to the withdrawal of the Israeli defence force from the Left Bank and Gaza and the creation of an independent and democratic state for the Palestinian people – which the Palestinian authority is not – while guaranteeing the Israeli people a secure state?
Is the Taoiseach aware that the indiscretions of the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment got the Government into difficulty previously? Is he particularly aware that indiscreet comments by the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment were the proximate cause of the courts not being able to prosecute Mr. Haughey? When he saw the article for the Financial Times, was it not apparent to him that the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment was on another gallop around the field and was being equally indiscreet? Why did he not telephone her and tell her some editing had to be done to the article before it was published in the Financial Times because otherwise it might cause diplomatic damage?
He could have got one of his advisers to do it.
In reply to Deputy Noonan's question first – it caused absolutely no damage, diplomatic or otherwise.
That is just not true.
Actually it was a very good article.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
In reply to Deputy Higgins, it was this country, which, at the Bahrain Summit over 20 years ago, called for an independent and free Palestinian state and which has always worked to achieve that, but that must be balanced with the security position for Israeli people and all of the difficulties which have arisen for them over the years. The resolution of this can only be a comprehensive settlement, which deals with all of the territories, with those who were in the 1947 camps and with all of the other issues which have been spelt out in Camp David and all other areas where there have been talks over the past three or four years. That is what the Irish Government supports and continues to support.
Last autumn the UN High Commissioner set down what the UN stood for and Mr. Kofi Annan did so more recently. They are the principles for which we stand and which we will continue to try to pursue under the new national government of unity under Mr. Ariel Sharon.
That concludes Taoiseach's questions.