Michael Noonan
Ceist:11 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach when the arrangements for his meetings with the President of the European Commission were finalised; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17626/01]
Ceisteanna–Questions. - UN-European Union Issues.
Jim O'Keeffe
Ceist:12 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Taoiseach if he will appoint a Minister of State for European Affairs. [17920/01]
Michael Noonan
Ceist:13 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the European Union Summit meeting in Gothenburg on 15 and 16 June 2001; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18358/01]
Michael Noonan
Ceist:14 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the bilateral meetings he held during his attendance at the European Union Summit meeting in Gothenburg; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18359/01]
Michael Noonan
Ceist:15 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meetings in Sweden with the Heads of Government of states who have applied for accession to the European Union; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18360/01]
Michael Noonan
Ceist:16 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting in Dublin with the President of the European Commission, Mr. Prodi; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18362/01]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:17 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the matters discussed and conclusions reached at his meeting in Dublin with the President of the EU Commission, Mr. Romano Prodi; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18638/01]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:18 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the implications for Ireland of the outcome of the Gothenburg EU Summit. [18639/01]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:19 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the discussions he had with representatives of the applicant states at the EU Summit in Gothenburg; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18641/01]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:20 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the discussions he had with Government leaders from the EU applicant states arising from the outcome of the referendum on the Nice Treaty on 7 June 2001; if he plans to visit applicant countries to explain the factors that led to the outcome of the referendum; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18642/01]
Joe Higgins
Ceist:21 Mr. Higgins (Dublin West) asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his meetings with the EU leaders at the summit in Gothenburg. [18728/01]
Joe Higgins
Ceist:22 Mr. Higgins (Dublin West) asked the Taoiseach if he met the President of the United States during his attendance at the EU Summit in Gothenburg; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18729/01]
Bernard J. Durkan
Ceist:23 Mr. Durkan asked the Taoiseach the outcome of his recent discussions with his European Union colleagues regarding European integration and enlargement; if he has satisfied himself that Ireland is committed to continued membership, including integration and enlargement; whether the outcome of the referendum rejecting the Nice Treaty will have an influence on the Government's position in this regard; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18783/01]
Bernard J. Durkan
Ceist:24 Mr. Durkan asked the Taoiseach the extent to which he discussed the integration and enlargement process of the European Union with European Commission President, Romano Prodi; the views expressed by the President in relation to the future of the Union in the aftermath of the rejection of the Nice treaty by way of referendum; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19019/01]
Bernard J. Durkan
Ceist:25 Mr. Durkan asked the Taoiseach if, following the rejection of the Nice treaty, he has reassured his European Union colleagues to the effect that the Government fully supports the concept of enlargement and integration; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19020/01]
Trevor Sargent
Ceist:26 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meetings here with the EU Commission President, Mr. Romano Prodi. [19692/01]
Bernard J. Durkan
Ceist:27 Mr. Durkan asked the Taoiseach the outcome of his recent discussions with his European Union colleagues regarding European integration and enlargement; if he has indicated his intentions as to the way in which he proposes to proceed; if he expects support from his EU colleagues for any new stance Ireland is likely to adopt; if he has received an indication from his EU colleagues as to the way in which the Union should proceed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19702/01]
Jim O'Keeffe
Ceist:28 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Taoiseach if it is intended to have a further referendum on Europe before the general election. [19706/01]
Michael Noonan
Ceist:50 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent visit to Iceland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18364/01]
Michael Noonan
Ceist:51 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the United Nations General Assembly special session on HIV and AIDS; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18365/01]
Michael Noonan
Ceist:52 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the bilateral meetings he held during his attendance at the recent United Nations General Assembly; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18366/01]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:53 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his attendance at the UN General Assembly Special Session on HIV and AIDS on 26 June 2001. [18637/01]
Trevor Sargent
Ceist:54 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent visit to Iceland. [19693/01]
Trevor Sargent
Ceist:55 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the special session of the UN General Assembly on HIV/AIDS; and if he will also report on other meetings he had while visiting New York. [19694/01]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:56 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the purpose and outcome of his official visit to Iceland. [19697/01]
I propose to answer Questions Nos. 11 to 28, inclusive, and 50 to 56, inclusive, together.
In relation to the Gothenburg European Council, I would refer Deputies to the full statement I made to the Dáil on Thursday, 21 June. As I said on that occasion, at the start of the Council meeting I was given the opportunity to make a statement on the outcome of the Irish referendum on the Nice treaty. I sought to make it absolutely clear that the "No" vote in the referendum should not be interpreted as a vote against enlargement and I reiterated that Ireland remains fully committed to enlargement and to the successful conclusion of the accession negotiations. I went on to say that it was now necessary for the Government to reflect carefully on how to move on from here. In that I asked for the support of my EU colleagues and their Governments. I said that the Irish Government very much appreciated their readiness, as expressed in Luxembourg at the General Affairs Council on 11 June, to contribute in every possible way to help us to find a way forward, and indeed this was restated in the Presidency conclusions. In this regard, I remain of the view that it would be premature for the Government to make any decision at this time on how to proceed, including in relation to the question of a possible second referendum.
Enlargement was, of course, the major theme of the Council, and indeed of the Swedish Presidency as a whole. The clear message from our partners also is that the entry into force of the Treaty of Nice is a necessary condition of the enlargement process. The European Council confirmed that the enlargement process is irreversible. We agreed that it should be possible by the end of 2002 to complete negotiations with those candidate countries which are ready. The objective is that they should participate in the European Parliament elections of 2004 as members.
Directly after the ending of the European Council, there was a working lunch involving the 15 EU member states, the 12 candidate countries and Turkey. I had numerous informal conversations with colleagues from applicant states. I also had a pre-arranged bilateral meeting with Prime Minister Buzek of Poland. One purpose of the meeting was to emphasise the particular interest of Irish business in the Polish market. This underlines the potential value of enlargement and of the wider internal market it will help achieve.
With the exception of an official visit to the Czech Republic arranged for 13 and 14 September next, I have no immediate plans to pay further visits to the applicant countries, several of which I have visited already. However, in addition to my contacts at Gothenburg, I recently met with the Speaker of the Czech Senate, Mr. Pithart. I am to meet the Romanian Prime Minister, Mr. Nastase, on 9 July and the President of Lithuania, Mr. Adamkus, in September. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, met representatives of all of the applicant states in the period directly after the referendum and paid an official visit to the Czech Republic last week.
In relation to the other matters on the agenda at Gothenburg, as the Minister for Foreign Affairs and I stated in the Dáil on 21 June, these included agreement on a sustainable development strategy, discussion of social and economic issues, consideration of external relations issues, including the Middle East and the Balkans, and discussion of the European security and defence policy. Together with the EU Heads of State of Government, I attended a dinner with President Bush on the evening before the summit. At the dinner, both sides agreed on the continuing fundamental importance of the EU-US relationship and reaffirmed our core values and shared objectives, including the Middle East and the HIV/Aids crisis. In a very honest and direct way, we noted our disagreement over the Kyoto Protocol and its ratification. However, we expressed our shared determination to meet our national commitments and obligations under the Climate Change Convention.
As previously reported to the House, I had a bilateral meeting with the Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, in Gothenburg to discuss Northern Ireland affairs.
The President of the European Commission, Romano Prodi, visited Ireland from 21 to 24 June, accompanied by Commissioner David Byrne. While the outline of the programme had been agreed with President Prodi back in January 2001, detailed arrangements were only finalised in the week leading up to the visit.
On 21 June, together with the Tánaiste and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, I met President Prodi and Commissioner Byrne for talks at Government Buildings. President and Mrs. Prodi were guests of honour at an official dinner in Dublin Castle later that evening, and I subsequently had the pleasure of spending time with them during the private section of the visit in County Kerry. Our discussions covered a wide range of issues relevant to the present and future business of the European Union, and to Ireland's place in it. I was at pains to emphasise that Ireland remains firmly committed to the Union and to enlargement. I stressed that while the Government needs to take the necessary time to consider how to proceed in the aftermath of the Nice treaty referendum, we remain determined to ensure that enlargement can proceed.
I described the steps the Government will take to foster greater public awareness of and support for the Union, including the establishment of the National Forum on Europe and preparing mechanisms for enhanced Oireachtas supervision of the Government's participation in the Council of Ministers. President Prodi and I agreed there is an urgent need to make the Union more relevant to the people and to enhance the sense of its democratic legitimacy.
As the House will be aware, President Prodi came here very much in a listening mode, and had a wide range of meetings while here. His thoughts at the meeting with myself and my Government colleagues were very much along the lines set out in the major speech he gave at University College Cork on 22 June.
While I keep the areas of responsibility of Ministers of State under review, I have no plans to appoint a Minister of State for European Affairs. I do not believe such an appointment is necessary. I am quite satisfied Deputy Cowen is doing an outstanding job as Minister for Foreign Affairs, including in respect of his responsibility for European Union issues. The lead role in European issues has to be played by a senior Minister.
During my one day visit to Iceland on 25 June, I paid a courtesy call to President Grimsson, met Prime Minister Oddsson and addressed the Icelandic Chamber of Commerce on the factors underlying Ireland's recent economic growth and development.
Prime Minister Oddsson and I had a lengthy meeting during which we discussed bi-lateral relationships and Iceland's relationship to the EU. I also took the opportunity to brief the Prime Minister on Ireland's term on the United Nations Security Council and the current situation in Northern Ireland. Prime Minister Oddsson briefed me on the current economic situation in Iceland and we agreed that our two countries' excellent bi-lateral relations would be enhanced.
I attended the UN General Assembly Special Session on HIV-AIDS on 26 June. In my address to the General Assembly, I declared Ireland's commitment to the international campaign against HIV-Aids. I pointed out that this disease, which has already devastated so many developing nations, is progressing at a speed beyond the capacity of many national Governments to control. A properly resourced, co-ordinated effort by the international community, is the only way to protect people now and in the future.
As part of Ireland's commitment to the global fight against HIV-AIDS, I announced that we will contribute 30 million dollars per year to initiatives specifically targeted at the treatment and prevention of HIV-AIDS. This 30 million dollar contribution, will be drawn from the increased contribution to overseas development aid, which is in line with commitments to reach the interim target of 0.45% of GNP on overseas development aid.
In addition to addressing the General Assembly, I had a series of bi-lateral meetings with the President of the General Assembly, Harri Holkeri, the Secretary General Kofi Annan, President Mkapa of Tanzania, Prime Minister Mocumbi of Mozambique, Prime Mini ster Mosisili of Lesotho and President Sampaio of Portugal. During these bi-lateral meetings I had the opportunity to discuss the global impact of HIV-AIDS. In my meeting with President Sampaio I briefed him on the Nice treaty referendum result and the future of Europe debate. In addition I met representatives of Irish NGOs.
Almost a month has passed since the Government failed to get the people to ratify the Nice treaty. Will the Taoiseach explain why I, as leader of Fine Gael, have had no contact whatsoever from either him or the Government on the proposed forum that he envisages to discuss European affairs and prepare the Irish people and public opinion for the possibility of putting the question again or putting an alternative question? Has the Taoiseach given up on the idea of the forum or does he think it will be some kind of talking shop? At this stage I am beginning to reconsider Fine Gael's decision to participate in it because the Taoiseach does not seem to be serious about it.
I outlined here, less than two weeks ago, the Government's position on this matter and I listened carefully to the suggestions and proposals from all sides of the House. I said I would reflect on what was said in that debate, bring proposals to Government in two weeks and then talk to the Opposition leaders so that, before the holiday period, we could have all matters in place. I did that. I reflected on it. As the Deputy knows, I was away last week and I brought the proposals to Government today. The Government has cleared the proposals for discussion with the Opposition. We did not finalise them because I gave a commitment that those issues would be discussed with the Opposition leaders. The Government has completed its work on the matter for now and I will forward the proposals to the Opposition leaders, either in direct discussions or whatever way they prefer. In the proposals cleared by the Government this morning, I took into account all the views expressed here and outside the House by Opposition leaders.
Does the Taoiseach intend to bring a coherent Government policy to the forum, or will he allow free rein to his dissenting Ministers to express their own opinions? I have in mind, in particular, such Ministers as the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, and the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and Islands, Deputy de Valera, and the Attorney General. Does the Taoiseach see it as a forum for individual opinion, or will the Government bring forward a coherent view?
As I said a minute ago, the Government has finalised its proposals which were passed at this morning's Government meeting. The proposals I am putting forward for dis cussion with the party leaders represent the Government's decision.
That is not an answer to the question I asked. I know it is the Government's decision which is coming forward, but will that decision involve a coherent submission by Government to the forum or will individual members of Government be allowed to air whatever view they wish, in the context of the forum?
When it comes to the forum, the Government will put a coherent position, as always. I hope the forum will be used by people to put their different positions. It will not just be made up of Government but of all the parties. I should not pre-empt the proposals, but they provide a mechanism whereby others can put their views also.
In response to the Taoiseach's reply to a number of questions, did he, in the course of his bilateral meeting with the Polish Prime Minister, Mr. Buzek, convey to him the decision the Government was about to make to cancel the ESB's participation in the purchase of up to eight electricity distribution companies and did the Prime Minister of Poland indicate any response to that decision? Further, arising from that, are the reports in the newspapers accurate to the effect that there were four members of the Cabinet on the Cabinet sub-committee, of whom two voted against the proposal, including the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment and that he and the Minister for Public Enterprise voted in favour of it? Can he state on what commercial grounds, as quoted in the newspapers, the Cabinet sub-committee took this decision after a period in which the ESB had personnel in the field for up to six months evaluating this project and were close to making a final bid, having incurred costs of approximately £3 million to date in relation to this project?
I discussed that matter, among many matters with Prime Minister Buzek. I told him this matter was being assessed. The ESB has put in a substantial amount of work on this. As the ESB downsizes in Ireland, because of EU competition and the liberalisation of the market, it is looking at a number of proposals through which it believes it could extend its remit in other areas, particularly in the context of the work of ESB International over the past 25 years. This proposal was by far the biggest one. In fairness to the ESB negotiators and management, it was only in recent weeks that they had seen the full extent of it. As they went through the tendering phase of the process, the full scale of what was involved began to emerge. They only got the full extent of it a week beforehand.
The ESB management was anxious to keep going in the process but realised the difficulties involved. This was, effectively, bigger than the ESB itself. It would tie up practically all of its investment and put back its own proposal for privatisation, or at least the share option proposal, for six years. With some reluctance the Government had to say no. The reason for that was the risk to the ESB and the fact it would tie up its investment outside of Ireland and not allow it engage in the huge amount of infrastructural work necessary here. It would also tie up a significant portion of the ESB's management. On those grounds the Government decided not to give the go ahead.
There was no divergence regarding the view of the Cabinet sub-committee. We were anxious to assist the ESB as far as possible. The financial advice to the Government from all the Departments was that this was far too risky and dangerous and that moving to the next stage of the process should not be recommended. We gave our answer on the basis of the collective view from all the Departments, and all the financial advice we had available to us.
Can the Taoiseach confirm what I have just heard, namely, that the advice from all the Departments to the Cabinet sub-committee, including the sponsoring Department, was negative and that on balance they were against the proposal? If that is the case, are the reports in the newspapers stating the Taoiseach and the Minister for Public Enterprise were in favour of the proposal inaccurate?
I have just given the position. Everybody was in favour of the proposal. However, when the extent of what was on offer became clear from the Polish authorities, the view then – the Deputy should listen rather than nodding his head—
I am listening.
When the extent of the proposal became clear, showing it would be greater in size than the ESB itself and would use its entire capital resources, the view of all Departments and their officials was in the negative.
When the Taoiseach was in Gothenburg he appeared in public with the Polish Prime Minister and his position was quickly and almost simultaneously undermined by his Minister for Finance who was speaking at another forum. Does the Taoiseach feel the Minister for Finance, by vetoing the ESB initiative, has undermined him further and undermined whatever assurances he gave to Mr. Buzek in respect of this investment by the ESB in Poland?
Exactly.
Deputy Noonan has his days mixed up. My meeting with Prime Minister Buzek was the day following the press conference given by the Minister for Finance. However, I do not think either event in any way undermined me or anybody else. On the second question, the position of the Minister for Finance on the proposal of the ESB was the same as all of his senior officials.
In respect of the ESB's proposed bid in Poland, will the Taoiseach take us through the sequence of events at Cabinet? I understand the decision of the Cabinet sub-committee was not the first time this was discussed by the Government. Is it not a fact that a decision was taken in principle by the Government to allow the ESB go ahead with the bid and that it proceeded on that basis and found the ground taken from under it subsequently?
I will say for the third time that the ESB was involved in this process for a considerable time. Even in the ten days following my visit to Gothenburg the extent of what was on offer and the financial exposure to the ESB moved dramatically forward from the briefing notes I had on that occasion from the Department of Foreign Affairs and given by the ESB. The Government on this and other projects is supportive of the work of the ESB, but the financial consideration would have meant the ESB getting involved in an operation which was substantially bigger than itself, at a time when an enormous financial capital investment would be necessary in Ireland, including work on the north-west and the western seaboard, which could not be sustained. That was the advice of all those who examined this project and it was on that advice the Cabinet sub-committee decided, unfortunately, that the answer on this project had to be in the negative. The ESB is engaged in other projects and will, I hope, be able to proceed with these because they are not of the size of the project in question.
I ask the Deputy to be brief because two other Deputies have tabled questions and I want to ensure they have an opportunity to ask supplementary questions.
I find the Taoiseach's answers very unsatisfactory. Can he explain why the ESB was allowed to get so far into this project, the utter dismay in the ESB and statements by senior financial analysts that the reputation of the ESB, which has a presence in more than 35 countries as a vibrant and enterprising State-owned company, has been seriously damaged by what appears to be an arbitrary and ill-judged intervention clumsily undertaken by a Cabinet which appears to be ideologically opposed to an enterprising State-owned company?
I put it to the Taoiseach that the Government allowed the ESB to proceed with this tender and then pulled the plug once the company was short-listed by the Polish Government. That has had two effects. It has under mined the credibility of the ESB in the 35 countries in which it operates and undermined the credibility of the Government with the Polish authorities whose tendering process is now seriously damaged because one of the five companies on its short list for the project has withdrawn.
On the instruction of the Government.
There is no problem whatever with the Polish authorities. Their tendering structure has not been damaged. It simply means one of the companies that was going to the last—
One of five companies.
Yes, one of five. There have been several projects in which one of three bidders pulled out.
Not on the instructions of the Government.
There is no question that the Government is ideologically opposed to the ESB. The credibility of the ESB has not been affected. Just today it contacted me concerning two other major projects in which it is involved. On this project the ESB was linking in to a company bigger than itself, which would have taken up all its financial resources at a time when the company's lack of infrastructure is being raised regularly at Question Time. The exposure would have been far too great and all the Government's financial advisers on the issue took that view.
The Taoiseach gave it permission to bid.
I wish Deputy Noonan had listened to what I said at the start.
(Interruptions.)
What I said was that when the company entered the process, it did not realise the extent to which it would be put up for.
Of course it did.
It did not, and the briefing—
It did.
If it did, that is a pity.
(Interruptions.)
I ask the Taoiseach not to reply to disorderly interruptions.
There was an ideological gun put to the Taoiseach's head.
The Deputy is totally incorrect.
The Taoiseach pulled the rug from under the ESB.
The ESB still has a number of important contracts on the international scene.
The ESB's credibility has clearly been damaged by the Taoiseach's action.
I do not believe its credibility has been damaged. It is normal for both State and private companies to opt out at a stage of a phased process in which the ground rules are being laid down by a company or, as in this case, the Government. That is an every day occurrence in the commercial world.
(Dublin West): Does the Taoiseach support the right of EU citizens to engage in mass peaceful protests against EU policies with which they disagree when summit meetings of EU leaders take place? Did the Taoiseach discuss with the Swedish Prime Minister, Mr. Persson, at the EU summit in Gothenburg the tactics employed by the Swedish police against peaceful protesters? Will the Taoiseach condemn the deliberately provocative commando style tactics of the Swedish police during the EU Summit in Gothenburg, which I personally witnessed and which were the catalyst for violence that occurred with hundreds of demonstrators, although, unfortunately, it was blown totally out of proportion in the media by contrast to the tens of thousands who protested peacefully?
Will the Taoiseach lodge a formal complaint with the Swedish Prime Minister, Mr. Persson, about the deliberate provocation by the Swedish police of peaceful protesters, about the arbitrary arrests of people engaging in peaceful protest, which I personally witnessed, and about the arbitrary banning of free movement in the EU by the Swedish police whereby colleagues of mine on the Committee for Workers International travelling on buses from Germany to protest peacefully were arrested, detained all day and sent under armed police escort back to the border? Will the Taoiseach protest to the Swedish Prime Minister about the unprecedented use of—
The Deputy should confine himself to questions.
(Dublin West):—live ammunition by the Swedish police during the EU Summit in Gothenburg?
The protests in Gothenburg on the first day of the summit, which coincided with President Bush's visit, were licensed protests. The Deputy correctly said there were peaceful protests by several different groups from all over Europe and even further afield. They were licensed protests. They were all on fixed routes and I think they all went off peacefully. The opinion of the Swedish authorities is that they are very liberal in allowing protests. Their legislation is very much geared towards allowing peaceful protests. They thought that was the end of it and they did not think there would be marches and protests on Friday, which were not licensed.
(Dublin West): That is not true. They had an agreement with the Swedish police.
I will tell the Deputy my only example of what happened. I did not see too much of the protests but I saw the peaceful marches on the Thursday. At 10.10 a.m. on the Friday a crowd of protesters, who were not Swedish, arrived at the hotel at which I was staying on the main thoroughfare and proceeded to smash every window in the hotel. They went inside and smashed all the furniture in the name of what I am not too sure. The police were across the road looking at them. They had no instruction. The protesters then proceeded on down the road and smashed windows in all the other premises on the main street. That continued for the rest of the day. As I understand, very strong armed action was taken about 12 hours later. It is not slightly—
(Dublin West): The police attacked peaceful demonstrators with dogs and horses.
It is not slightly unreasonable for a police force to react when its city has been pulled apart by a crowd of international hooligans.
I call Deputy Durkan.
Who paid the Deputy's fare?
(Dublin West): Who does the Minister think paid my fare? I paid my own fare.
In reply to an earlier question on the Nice referendum, the Taoiseach said that Ireland is firmly committed to the Union and enlargement. On what basis has he come to that conclusion given that during the recent referendum it became obvious that several members of the Government were not in favour of the proposal?
The basis of that is the euro poll, and every other poll. A poll of workers has been done this week by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions which shows that more than three-quarters of the people are strongly in favour of the European Union and our involvement in it. Only 4% in one poll and 1% of workers are against it. It is on that basis that I formed that opinion.
That is fair enough but how can the Taoiseach come to that conclusion given the responsibility of the Government to address the result of the Nice referendum? Does he expect in subsequent discussions or referenda to be able to rely fully on the Government for its support?
The Government was and is totally supportive of the campaign to convince people of the merits of the European enlargement process. However, the people did not vote for that in the recent referendum. The enlargement process will not commence on 1 January 2003 unless we facilitate that. In the meantime, we must do our best to comply with our EU obligations.
Will the Taoiseach inform the House whether Government members will have the freedom to state their preferences in future discussions or negotiations, as happened in regard to the Treaty of Nice?
Each member of the Government is totally supportive of the enlargement process.
How many millions of pounds were expended by the ESB with Government approval in pursuit of the Polish contract prior to the plug being pulled? Will the Taoiseach reply specifically to Question No. 28 on whether we can expect a further referendum on Europe? Does the Government have a current position on the matter?
Does the Taoiseach accept that, in the context of the Polish bid, the ESB assembled a team of financial and technical experts from the private sector who worked on the project for a considerable time? Does the Taoiseach further accept it is nonsensical to suggest that the size of the proposal did not become apparent until the last minute? Does he accept that energy prices in Ireland will be adversely affected by the ESB's inability to operate effectively abroad as a result of the Government's indecision?
(Dublin West): Does the Taoiseach agree with the use of live ammunition against protesters by certain EU states during EU Summit meetings? Will he contact EU leaders to ensure this does not recur?
The use of live ammunition against protesters is not desirable anywhere, neither is the enormous intimidation and damage which occurred in Gothenburg. Hopefully, that will not recur either. Deputy O'Keeffe should table a detailed question on the ESB to the Minister for Public Enterprise. I understand a few million pounds is the figure involved.
On the prospect of a further referendum, I already stated that the enlargement process cannot commence on 1 January 2003 unless Ireland facilitates that. Enlargement cannot proceed unless everybody is on board. We must reflect on how best we can proceed in this matter; rushing into a further referendum a month later is not the most desirable way to proceed. The manner in which we should proceed will become clear sooner rather than later. Calls for a "Yes" or "No" answer at this point are not helpful.
In reply to Deputy Stagg, the project in question became bigger as time went on which is not unusual. Prime Minister Buzek explained to me why that happened and explained the necessity to act in Poland's best interests. The ESB, particularly ESBI, believes that as a result of EU directives, there will inevitably be competition in the market here and it will lose its market share. It feels the need to look elsewhere for business. Most European projects are of a sizeable nature. The ESB is considering a number of projects and, given its good name, I feel it will be successful. I spoke to a number of ESB executives and I am aware of their disappointment. However, they were aware of what the process entailed and are currently considering other substantial projects which, while not of the same scale as the project in question, amount to several hundred million pounds.
That concludes Taoiseach's Questions.