Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 20 Mar 2002

Vol. 550 No. 4

European Council Meeting: Statements.

The Taoiseach

I attended the European Council on 15 March and 16 March 2002 in Barcelona. I was accompanied by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, and the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy. The conclusions of the meeting have been laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas. The meeting was a successful one in that it built on the work of the past two years in ensuring that progress was being made on the European Union's ambitious ten year Lisbon agenda.

The meeting was also significant from Ireland's point of view in that the European Council welcomed the approach of the Government to the ratification of the Treaty of Nice and reiterated its willingness to contribute in every possible way to supporting the Irish Government in this process. The European Council will come back to this issue at the Seville European Council meeting in June.

The main purpose of our meeting in Barcelona was to examine if the European Union is on track to become, by 2010, the most dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion. This goal, as embodied in the Lisbon agenda, was set two years ago at the European Council meeting in Lisbon. Last year in Stockholm we added a sustainable development pillar to our agenda. The Lisbon agenda rests therefore on three pillars: economic, social and environmental. At Lisbon, European leaders decided to meet every year in the spring to review progress and make any adjustments necessary to reach our ambitious targets. We are now one fifth of the way towards our 2010 target date. By the time Ireland holds the Presidency in 2004, we will be nearly at the half-way mark. In Barcelona, we had a good discussion on the many and varied issues currently on the Lisbon agenda. We took stock of what had been achieved. We set a number of ambitious targets. All of us were aware of the need to take the decisions necessary to ensure increased competitiveness, greater social cohesion and for these to be done in an environmentally sustainable way.

Last Christmas, in advance of Barcelona, the Government gave detailed consideration to the five priorities identified by the Spanish Presidency for the Barcelona Council, and the relevance of these issues to Ireland. In further considering Ireland's contribution to the Barcelona Council, I issued a joint letter to Prime Minister Aznar, with Prime Minister Persson of Sweden, seeking continued action throughout Europe to facilitate the growth and development of small and medium enterprises. Prime Minister Persson and I recognise that the creation of new jobs will largely depend on the development and enhancement of small and medium sized enterprises, and we sought progress in four key areas to assist SMEs: research and development, regulatory reform, entrepreneurship and biotechnology. I also wrote separately to Prime Minister Aznar, outlining Ireland's priority areas for Barcelona, including regulatory reform, research and development, greater labour force participation, social cohesion, and inclusive life-long learning. Both the joint letter with Prime Minister Persson and my letter to Prime Minister Aznar have been laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas.

Barcelona marked the beginning of what I hope will be a long and productive relationship between the European Council and the President of the European Parliament. Pat Cox was very warmly received by the members of the European Council and the conclusions specifically welcomed the president's initiative for political dialogue and pragmatic change. The willingness of the European Parliament to enter into partnership with the Council will make achieving our 2010 goals that much easier. It means that the building blocks needed to reach our targets are being put in place.

I should underline that the Lisbon agenda is not about making dramatic breakthroughs at European Council meetings. The goals we have set will not be reached overnight. The Lisbon agenda is, nonetheless, the framework within which we in Ireland and European Union citizens everywhere will achieve our future prosperity, well-being and quality of life. These are the bread and butter issues of the European Union. They have direct implications for every citizen and every community here in Ireland and throughout Europe. Getting it right means that Europe will prosper and we will prosper in it. Since we agreed the Lisbon agenda two years ago, five million new jobs have been created in the EU. Many of the measures we agreed to take at Lisbon have been implemented or are in the process of being implemented. We successfully launched the euro notes and coins at the beginning of this year marking the culmination of more than ten years of work within the EU. However, our spring meeting this year took place at a time when the world economy has been experiencing a downturn, exacerbated by the events of 11 September and their aftermath. With signs of a recovery in sight, European leaders renewed their commitment to economic reform to increase the potential of the EU for growth and employment.

Europe is going through its own very profound changes. It is expected that the accession negotiations will successfully conclude at the end of this year and that ten new members will join the Union in 2004. It is essential that these new members be fully prepared for the Lisbon agenda. To ensure that this is the case, the leaders of the accession countries attended a meeting with the heads of state or Government in Barcelona. They described their very considerable efforts to give effect to the Lisbon agenda.

The Barcelona European Council was important for people engaged in small business, the backbone of our economic activity. In line with the approach adopted by Ireland, we underlined the fact that entrepreneurship and a well functioning internal market were the keys to growth and job creation. We made the point that the regulatory environment should encourage entrepreneurial activity and make it as simple as possible to set up new business, in particular through the use of the Internet. The forthcoming Commission action plan will give renewed impetus to the regulatory reform agenda at EU level.

Over the two days of the Council, we agreed a wide range of measures. While the measures are too numerous to detail here, I feel a number merit particular mention. We asked member states to speed up the implementation of the European charter for small and medium sized enterprises. This will make it easier for small businesses to do business in Europe by cutting Europe's red tape. We also agreed that full implementation of all internal market legislation was a prerequisite for the proper functioning of the internal market. We agreed to make further efforts to meet a 100% transposition target by the spring European Council in 2003. This will represent a challenge for many member states, including Ireland. However, it is a challenge that is in all our interests to meet. Efforts by all member states in this area must be stepped up.

On the social agenda, the European Council reiterated that the European social model is based on good economic performance, a high level of social protection and education and social dialogue. We underlined that the Lisbon agenda goals can be brought about only by balanced efforts on both the economic and social fronts.

The European Council stressed the importance of the fight against poverty and social exclusion. Member states were invited to set targets in their national action plans for significantly reducing the number of people at risk of poverty and social exclusion by 2010. We agreed that the reform of pension systems should be accelerated and we mandated the Council to examine more thoroughly issues of health care and care for the elderly for next year's spring Council meeting. To encourage the creation of better jobs and more opportunity, we agreed to a reinforced employment strategy and promoting skills and mobility in the European Union. To underline this, we decided that a European health insurance card will replace the current paper forms. The Commission will make a proposal on this before our next spring European Council under the Greek Presidency in 2003. We decided that there should be a one-stop European mobility information website which will be operational by the end of 2003.

For consumers and investors, we gave impetus to the measures in the financial services action plan, setting a target of adopting seven directives this year. Action on these issues is important to give increased choice and lower prices. We agreed that there should be appropriate levels of protection for consumers of financial services. Also of benefit to consumers are the target dates that we set for opening the markets in electricity and gas. Perhaps the one area that received most publicity before the Barcelona European Council was the question of whether a target date could be set to open the gas and electricity sectors. We succeeded in agreeing 2004 as the date for freedom of choice of supplier for all European non-household consumers. We also agreed that before the 2003 spring European Council we would take decisions on further measures taking into account the definition of public service obligations, security of supply and in particular the protection of remote areas. This was a significant development. However, more needs to be done in this area.

Perhaps the greatest challenge facing Europe is the creation of a true knowledge society. The Council marked real progress in this field. In particular, we called for the Commission's e-Europe 2005 action plan to concentrate also on network security and information, e-government, e-learning, e-health and e-business. This issue will come to the Seville European Council this coming June. We called for the sixth research framework programme to be adopted by June 2002. We also agreed that overall spending on research and development and innovation in the European Union should be increased with the aim of approaching 3% of GDP by 2010. Two thirds of this new investment should come from the private sector. This will represent a challenge for a number of member states, including Ireland, where research and development spending by the State has increased dramatically but where there is much more room for private sector spending. In the research and development area, we also underlined the importance of enabling Community business to exploit the potential of biotechnology while taking due account of the precautionary principle and meeting ethical and social concerns. This is another issue we will address at our meeting next year.

The working methods used by the European Council in this area were perhaps the most important facet of the Lisbon agenda addressed at the European Council. In Barcelona, we agreed that the focus of the European Council must be to give key political impetus to the actions crucial to the European Union's long-term objectives. As a result, we agreed that the calendars for the adoption of the broad economic policy guidelines and of the annual employment package should be synchronised. In this way, the European Council will be able to review and, where necessary, adjust the Union's economic, social and environmental policies as a whole.

As Deputies will see, and as I signalled at the start of this statement, the Barcelona European Council conclusions reflect the fact that I outlined to the members of the European Council the Government's approach to the ratification of the Nice treaty, due to be completed by all member states by the end of this year in order to allow enlargement to proceed as planned. I informed our European partners that the Government remained fully committed to enlargement and to the ratification of Nice by the end of the year. I said that there was a general recognition and expectation that a second referendum would be held in the autumn. In the context of whether there was any assistance the European Council could offer, arising from the assurances we received at the Gothenburg European Council last June, I signalled that the Government would be seeking a declaration from the Seville European Council confirming that Ireland's traditional policy of military neutrality was not affected by the treaties. As the conclusions show, the European Council welcomed my approach and reiterated its willingness to contribute in every possible way to supporting us. We will come back to this issue in June in Seville.

While the Minister for Foreign Affairs will address the foreign policy aspects of the Barcelona European Council, I will mention just two issues on the international agenda. First, the Barcelona European Council welcomed the agreement on overseas development assistance, ODA, increases in time for the Monterrey conference on financing for development which is now ongoing. This agreement underlines the European Union's position as the world's major provider for development aid. Of course, we remain committed nationally to the UN target of 0.7% of GNP to ODA by 2007. In addition, we agreed that the Economic and Finance Council will examine other means of debt relief for the least developed countries. Second, we adopted a declaration on the Middle East – the Barcelona Declaration. The declaration underlined the fact that the Middle East is in the grip of an extremely grave crisis. We called on both sides to take immediate and effective action to stop the bloodshed. We reiterated that there was no military solution to this conflict and that peace and security could only be achieved through negotiations.

I also had an opportunity to have some brief exchanges with Prime Minister Blair on a range of Northern Ireland issues.

We made significant progress in Barcelona but we acknowledge that more needs to be done. The Lisbon agenda, and indeed the European Union, touches each citizen of every member state in a real and material way. The positive outcome of the Barcelona Council is a clear demonstration that Europe works for all of its citizens. I believe it is further proof that Ireland's place is within the EU, as an active, contributing, involved member state, actively pushing those policies that are critical to the further social and economic development of both the EU and Ireland.

Mr. Noonan

I wish to share time with Deputy Jim O'Keeffe. The outcome of last week's EU summit in Barcelona presents a number of challenges to the next Government. First, having agreed in principle to a declaration respecting Irish military neutrality, our EU partners will be anxious to see that the other steps needed to secure the ratification of the Treaty of Nice are put in place. Second, the 15 heads of government have agreed to accelerate the liberalisation of the energy and gas markets, with the objective of creating the most competitive economy in the world by 2010.

An examination of the Government's performance in respect of both of these issues makes it very hard to have confidence in its ability to deliver on either of them. Last week we witnessed a graphic example of the Taoiseach's well practised line in double speak. On Tuesday he was in Washington offering unconditional support for President Bush's so-called war on terror at a time it was clear the US campaign was to be widened beyond that mandated by the United Nations. Only three days later, on Friday, the Taoiseach was in Barcelona pleading with the heads of government of the other EU member states for a solemn declaration respecting Ireland's military neutrality.

Against this background, is it any wonder many people were confused and sceptical about the Government's position on neutrality during the Nice referendum campaign, particularly given that the Taoiseach promised a referendum on this issue during the last general election campaign and reneged on the promise when he entered Government?

Let me make my position and that of my party perfectly clear. We support the concept of a Council declaration that would respect the Irish position and confirm that nothing in the Nice treaty imposes a military or defence obligation on any member state. Such a declaration was among a number of measures aimed at securing the enlargement process proposed by Fine Gael last October in our consultation document on Ireland's future in the EU. The Nice treaty does not include provisions relating to defence policy but we must acknowledge the genuine fears of those who voted against the treaty because they believed that it might.

The Taoiseach made a mistake in not revealing his intention to seek this declaration in advance of the Barcelona Summit. It is this type of secretive approach that leads more people to feel alienated from the decision making process of the EU. He has yet to spell out what he would like to have included in such a declaration with the result that the people are not in a position to assess its likely contents. If I am elected Taoiseach, I undertake to debate the contents of the declaration in advance of the Seville Summit in June, at which it is expected to be endorsed by the heads of government.

A second mistake made by the Taoiseach was his failure to map out a comprehensive plan for the ratification of the Nice treaty. The securing of a Council declaration on its own will not be sufficient. Fine Gael believes the declaration must be accompanied by a series of other initiatives. Fine Gael believes there is a need to immediately re-examine Ireland's security and defence policy. Fine Gael's policy on international terrorism and human rights violations is clear. Ireland is not and cannot be neutral in the conflict against international terrorism or in the struggle against ethnic cleansing and other gross violations of human rights.

Fine Gael favours open Irish involvement in discussions on peace and security at EU level and our possible involvement in future peacekeeping and peacemaking missions. In this way we have an opportunity to influence our partners in the EU and to decide on a case by case basis for ourselves whether the EU should participate in certain missions. A decision to involve Irish forces must always be taken on its individual merits by the Dáil and the Government.

Fine Gael rejects membership for Ireland of international alliances such as NATO because of the mutual defence obligations of such bodies. Just as Fine Gael will not enter an alliance that would oblige it to participate through mutual defence obligations, we will also not allow the veto of one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council to prevent Ireland from participating in missions if we believe they are appropriate, necessary and in accordance with the principles of the UN Charter. The terrorist attacks on the US on 11 September were an attack on democracy which may be followed by further terrorist attacks on democracies in Europe. It is timely that our position on neutrality should be re-examined. Fine Gael believes a comprehensive White Paper should be produced, addressing Ireland's military neutrality in the new Europe and in an uncertain world.

In addition to the Council declaration, the Government should make it clear that participation by Ireland's Defence Forces in future missions under the European flag as part of the rapid reaction force, will be subject to the exclusive consent of the House and the Government. Furthermore, Oireachtas legislation on Ireland's participation must be adopted, specifying the conditions for future participation by the Defence Forces in missions under the European flag.

The Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs must be given new powers akin to those enjoyed by the Committee of Public Accounts, which will enable it to examine, track and report on all policy and legislative proposals made by the European Commission from initiation to adoption. The committee should also be empowered to monitor the conciliation process between the European Council and European Parliament. Furthermore, legislation should be introduced to require all future Government nominees to European institutions to be vetted and approved by the committee. The institutions concerned will include the European Commission, European Court of Auditors and European Investment Bank. Reports from the committee should be regularly debated in the Dáil.

The Seanad should be specifically empowered to invite the attendance of members and representatives of the European Commission and the Council Presidency to report on legislative proposals and policies at European level. A procedure must also be introduced to enable Irish members of the European Parliament and members of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs to attend Seanad debates and hearings on European matters.

A Minister of State for European Affairs attached to both the Departments of the Taoiseach and Foreign Affairs with the power to attend Cabinet meetings should be appointed. This Minister would have responsibility for the co-ordination of Government and departmental policy in the area of European affairs. The comprehensive approach I have outlined would serve to create better public understanding of the implications of the Nice treaty and create the climate in which its ratification in a second referendum can be achieved.

I will turn briefly to the other issue of significance arising from the Barcelona Summit, the liberalisation of electricity and gas markets. By any yardstick, the Government's performance in this area has been abysmal. With regard to the electricity sector the Government's inaction has incurred the wrath of both the European Commission and the OECD which carried out a major study of deregulation in Ireland last year. So bad has been the pace and structure of this deregulation that potential new market entrants are voting with their feet. In recent months several large investors, including BP, Scottish Power, ePower and ATCO Power have all scrapped their plans to invest in the energy market.

I issue the following warning to the Government: "get your act together on energy liberalisation or this country will fall even lower down the competitiveness league and the electricity shortages predicted by the Institution of Engineers and others may become a reality". The outcome of the Barcelona Summit presents real challenges for the incoming Government. I look forward to meeting these challenges head-on.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

My concern is that the Government is sleepwalking the country towards another referendum defeat. A completely ad hoc approach has been taken in the conduct of foreign and European policy over the past week or two. It all depends on who is speaking on behalf of Ireland at a particular time, to whom he or she is speaking and where he or she is speaking. The leader of Fine Gael, Deputy Noonan, mentioned the typical example of the Taoiseach meeting President Bush in Washington last week. At this stage I am not sure whether Ireland is a member of the coalition targeting Iraq. However, President Bush is clearly satisfied that we are part of that coalition and he can be satisfied only as a consequence of what the Taoiseach said to him.

On the other hand, according to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, the Government believes any difficulties between the US and the countries cited by President Bush should be resolved by dialogue. This was the answer I got from the Minister, Deputy Cowen, when I asked the views of the Government on the axis of evil foreign policy approach of President Bush. What the Minister said appears to directly contradict what was said to President Bush in Washington. To confuse matters further, the Taoiseach avoided – or should I say evaded – answering the question as to whether the support committed was in relation to action sanctioned by the United Nations. This is no way to conduct foreign policy on behalf of the sovereign nation currently represented by the Taoiseach. The Taoiseach's attitude to President Bush seemed to be along the lines of saying, "Begorra, whatever you are having yourself, sir, you can have it". That seemed to be the paddywhackery approach adopted by the Taoiseach during his St. Patrick's Day visit to Washington.

I am concerned that the same ad hoc approach arises in relation to Europe. I am not sure which wing of the Government the Taoiseach was representing in Barcelona, but it is clear the Government still has no road map or agreed game plan as to how to deal with the referendum failure in relation to the Nice treaty. The Government has largely abdicated its responsibility to the Government we will have after the general election. I do not intend to re-enter the debate on the forum on Europe. When its chairman, Senator Hayes, came with members of the forum to the Oireachtas Committee on European Affairs, I complimented him on his distinguished role in Parliament and elsewhere. However, when he produced his interim report it was clear the forum did not have terms of reference to enable it to deal with the treaty of Nice. Consequently the chairman's interim report could deal only with the broad discussion of issues relevant to Ireland's membership of an enlarging Union. It is as if we were living in a different world.

Following failure of the Nice treaty referendum, we will impede or delay enlargement of the Union if we do not clear up the matter before the end of the year. This year we will have a general election, the time to form a new Government and the summer recess. The window of opportunity is closing. I am genuinely concerned over the actions, or should I say the lack of actions, on the part of the Government.

The spin doctors – I do not know how many of the 75 of them were involved – trumpeted what they suggested was a major victory for the Taoiseach at Barcelona because of a positive reaction in principle to the idea of an EU declaration. Let us get real. For the past six months European ministers and ambassadors have been telling us two things. There is no possibility of a change in the terms of the treaty of Nice and there is no difficulty about securing a declaration from the European Council. That has been obvious for so long that it is a fact of political life at this stage. The really interesting issues go beyond that. I presume the Taoiseach did not ask whether there is a way of going beyond a declaration.

Some people talk about a protocol, but that is not realistic at this stage. Is there a possibility of a Danish type solution, an EU agreement with a commitment to a protocol in the next treaty? Was that explored and if not why not? The Taoiseach raised the issue of the EU declaration without warning. What is supposed to be in the declaration? Where is the draft declaration? Who will prepare it? Will it be subject to political scrutiny? For instance, has it ever been brought before the European affairs committee? We talk about the democratic deficit. We already have at least some organs of the Oireachtas in place to deal with issues. Why did the Taoiseach or his Minister for Foreign Affairs not come before the European affairs committee prior to the Barcelona meeting to discuss the idea and produce a draft of what was proposed. Was there even a debate at the famous forum about the declaration? Of course there was not. That is symptomatic of a Government that continues to carry on in the same old way and is devoid of any ideas beyond that of the declaration, which is commonly accepted to be nearly passé at this stage.

Where is the domestic action that is within the competence – I should not use the word competence in relation to this Government – within the power of the Government to underpin an EU declaration? Last October, I proposed a range of measures. Where is the Bill to amend the Defence Act, specifying the conditions of any future participation by the Defence Forces in missions under the European flag. These are the kinds of issues that came up in the referendum. Why have we not had a Bill? Where is the White Paper on neutrality? I have made it absolutely clear that the Nice treaty does not affect our neutrality, but there is a perception that it does. I want to see it off the table and one way to do this is to follow the lines I have been suggesting. Nothing of that kind has been done by the Government. I strongly recommended having a Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs and I suppose in the dying days of the Government it is a bit late, but is there even a commitment on the part of the Taoiseach, in the unlikely event of him being returned to power, to have such an office?

I mentioned the democratic deficit. Where are the additional powers for Oireachtas committees? There has been talk, but nothing has happened. We do not have the additional powers, resources or finances. Talk without resources and commitment will not solve the democratic deficit problem. These approaches in relation to Oireachtas committees should be operational by now. I am concerned that we will go sleep walking back into the next referendum without having done that. Items within our power should have been done by now, so that we can demonstrate to the people that we have listened to the legitimate concerns they raised at the time of the referendum and have done something about them. I am frustrated that the Government has done nothing.

Is it correct that the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, has refused the resources to fund additional powers for Oireachtas committees, either the Oireachtas Committee on European Affairs or the involvement of committees representing frontline Departments? If that is so, it is a crushing indictment of the Government. If we do not get this right this year, the country will face its greatest international crisis ever. Of all the issues that need support, resources and finances – not a huge amount – this is the one.

At this stage we have a Government of no cohesion with different views, including euro-sceptics who openly expressed their views after the failed referendum without demur from the Taoiseach. We have a Government without leadership and that helpless approach to European affairs puts us in dire danger. My real worry is that when Fine Gael participates in the next Government the window of opportunity will have closed. It is eight months since the failed referendum and what have we to show for it? We have very little and that is a huge indictment of the Government. I know it will be up to Fine Gael to pick up the pieces in Government after the general election and to provide strong leadership for Ireland in Europe and that is a commitment our leader Deputy Noonan will give to this House.

Mr. Quinn

It is fair to say that in general most commentators regarded the Barcelona Council as satisfactory. Given that the centre right coalition on economic liberalisation and other issues did not carry the day, the thrust of balance set out in the Lisbon agenda has, by and large, been maintained. In so far as the Taoiseach contributed to that outcome, I welcome it. I simply do not know how much he contributed but clearly it has emerged.

I want to pick up on the two themes on which the two previous speakers concentrated. I presume the Taoiseach will reply in the absence of the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Is that the case?

The Taoiseach

The Minister for Foreign Affairs is due to be here but he is not as yet.

Mr. Quinn

The dialogue we are now having is not unlike the dialogue the country is having with the Government. I am seeking responses to questions to a person who is not here. Perhaps we would have been more productive if we had faxed each other our various comments. It is a sad reflection, Taoiseach, even though I say this more in sadness than in anger. Nevertheless, someone will pick up on the points I am making. No doubt the officials are the people to whom the task will fall in the first instance.

I understand the Taoiseach's reluctance to engage in debate until the very last moment. It has been the hallmark of much of what he does, but he has taken part in very positive negotiations resulting in the positive outcome of the Good Friday Agreement. He was there during the last round of talks over a period of ten years or longer and he got a satisfactory result in that regard. I would hate to think his reputation of achievement on the Good Friday Agreement, which is deserved, would be forever damaged by a failure to deliver a positive result in a referendum on Nice some time in the autumn of this year. I say this from a position of having supported the Nice referendum from the outset and having urged the Taoiseach not to call the referendum prior to June last year but to wait until the autumn. This would have allowed time for an informed debate to take place because the dialogue of secrecy which has characterised much of the European debate, not just in this country but in other countries, prevented many people from understanding fully all the issues involved and from recognising that legitimate concerns about the democratic deficit, the European rapid reaction force and neutrality were not central to or party to the terms of the Nice treaty. While the Government decided to have a referendum there was a question as to whether it was legally necessary. Whatever about its political desirability, it was incumbent on the Government at the time to ensure there was a proper debate, which sadly was not the case.

We need to learn collectively the lesson of that experience. I put it to the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs that it will not be sufficient for the Government to remain silent in terms of the former content of a declaration or draft declaration prior to the general election some time in May. A Government will be formed around the end of May or early June and preparation will be made for the Seville Council, which will take place during the third week in June. Against that timeframe it simply will not be realistic, if the Government is re-elected or if there is a different Administration, to send a Minister for Foreign Affairs, Taoiseach and Minister for Finance to Seville to obtain a declaration, the purpose of which is not to achieve anything within the European Union per se or to persuade any of our partners in the European Union to alter or shift their position, but purely to reassure a concerned Irish electorate in regard to some of their fears on issues surrounding the process of enlargement and further integration of the European institutions.

Notwithstanding the Taoiseach's characteristic way of dealing with issues, which on occasions has been extremely effective, in this set of circumstances I do not believe he has the luxury of delay, silence or procrastination, nor do I believe he has the sole obligation or responsibility to find a solution. However, he is Taoiseach for the time being and has the obligation and responsibility of leadership. Therefore, I invite him through whatever process, be it the forum, his position as Taoiseach or through this House, to begin to enter into dialogue about what kind of declaration we want with those people who voted against the Nice treaty. I include in that category the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Deputy Ó Cuív and many people in the Fianna Fáil ranks, who apparently had reservations about enlargement.

We should have a debate about the parameters of the declaration, its tone and the issues it should address so that when the Taoiseach or his successor arrives in Seville, following the COREPER and other forms of preliminary dialogue among professional diplomats, who are among the best in the European Union and of whom I am very proud although they can only be as good as the political directions given to them, he or she can say, hand on heart, that the format and draft of the declaration being sought from the leaders of the other 14 member states will meet with the approval of the Irish people. We must ensure a positive outcome to the referendum on the Nice treaty to be held later this year as it is key to the enlargement process.

I am asking for the dialogue to begin now. We should get the draft out in the open for debate in the various quarters which opposed the Nice treaty for various reasons. I believe the place to do so, notwithstanding what Deputy O'Keeffe said, is, in fact, the forum. The interim report of the chairperson of the forum clearly establishes that enlargement is not opposed by any of the groups that participated in the forum. There were concerns about other aspects of the European Union project but not enlargement per se. The French Minister for European Affairs, Pierre Moscovici, said there can be no enlargement without Nice and Nice is the path into the gate of enlargement. Therefore, Nice is the gate through which we must pass if enlargement is to take place. While President Prodi was less than helpful when he suggested that, legally, the Amsterdam treaty could accommodate an enlargement of a maximum of five states, it is now clear we are looking at the prospect of ten member states joining at the one time. There is no side door and there is no possibility of utilising the Treaty of Amsterdam and a one by one series of bilateral treaties of accession. These issues must be clarified and legitimately addressed by a large body of Irish opinion which is open to persuasion and which does not want Ireland to be sidelined or made redundant within the European Union. I want to initiate dialogue now. While the Taoiseach and I differ on many issues, there will be no obstruction from the Labour Party on the issue. There will be positive engagement and positive participation.

I now want to refer to the second part of the concerns that emerged following the defeat of the Nice referendum which the Labour Party supported. This relates to the democratic deficit. Concerns were raised by eminent people such as the former Attorney General, John Rogers SC. He described quite accurately and graphically the lack of engagement by this House in the formulation and participation of directives and draft directives before they finally come to this House to be enacted into domestic legislation. It was not the most balanced critique of the democratic deficit but it put its finger on a deficit which undoubtedly exists.

In response to that, the Labour Party drafted its European Union Bill and, in fairness to the Government, it accepted it on Second Stage last June. The Bill has not progressed since then and there has been no indication of movement by this Administration other than the indication, in the package of Dáil reform proposals, that contents and measures similar to those set out in our Bill, which now belongs to the House, would be brought into effect.

As part of the dialogue between now and Seville this Government – we cannot wait until the new Government, whatever its composition, comes into office – has a second task to do, namely, give a clear commitment to enact as a priority the European Union Bill, or a variation of it because no Bill is perfect. The Bill goes a long way towards meeting needs. Deputy Jim O'Keeffe in his contribution put his finger on the main problem, namely, the lack of resources made available to the House and its staff to fulfil the very onerous requirements of the Bill. I say as a former office holder that the requirement for Ministers and their staff to appear before a committee of the House in advance of attending a European Council meeting to set out the opening position of the Government and to return to indicate what changes and compromises were made will be a whole new ball game. It has a number of implications. It means more ministerial time and more departmental staff devoted to European affairs. We are not talking just about a Minister for European Affairs and a group of people in the Taoiseach's Department or in the Department of Foreign Affairs. We are talking about dedicated European units in each Department which has an active engagement on European issues, and that includes almost every one.

There are resource problems in terms of political time in the House, its committees, Departments and Minister's offices, and in terms of staff time and assigning senior staff within Departments. That must begin with what was indicated in Deputy Noonan's proposal for the future, something which clearly should have been in place by now and which was intended when the Taoiseach announced the formation of his Government, namely, to have a Cabinet Minister with responsibility for European affairs. However, the manner in which the Taoiseach proposed it meant the proposal blew up in his face and was consequently abandoned.

The third issue on which I wish to focus in terms of opening, widening and easing the path of comprehension and understanding and engagement by the people with the necessity to ratify the Nice treaty is the second part of the reservations expressed by many people who voted "no" or who chose not to vote in the referendum last June. It was that they no longer knew the end destination of the European Union and the ultimate end point in relation to the balance of sovereignty between this republic and a European Union entity. We do not have a noun to describe the constitutional structure of the emerging European project, but it is no longer sufficient to simply call it, as the Treaty of Rome describes it, "an ever closer union of the European peoples".

That working phrase, that deliberate bit of obfuscation, which began in the early 1950s and effectively became redundant in 1989 with the collapse of the Berlin Wall, means we must find some form of finality or some degree of endgame so that we can say to people what the project will look like when it is finished, that it will not include Belarus or the Ukraine and will probably not include Turkey, that it will have a balance of sovereignty between the Commission, the Council, the Parliament and the national parliaments, that certain matters, such as taxation, will remain the sovereign responsibility of national governments and so on.

I do not say that any of us, whether here or in the convention which has commenced its work, can put a clear picture in front of the people at present, but they must hear from the Taoiseach some indication of what he believes the endgame might be. He has the responsibility to assure people about what is to be shared, retained or held accountable to this House and about the way the Council of Ministers functions. We will not get the result the Taoiseach and the majority of parties in the House want unless we begin that dialogue now. Sadly, the contents of the declar ation and of the Taoiseach's speech in no way go far enough to begin to open up that dialogue.

I invite the Taoiseach to reflect on how we can go about achieving a shared objective. Every one of the Members present in the Chamber supports him in trying to get a second referendum through. We do not know on which side of the House we will sit, but we will support the same project. However, its success will be enhanced or diminished by what the Taoiseach does between now and the formation of the next Government. We are with him on this issue. We utterly oppose him on many other matters, but on this one we are with him. He should take courage from that, be brave and enter into dialogue. He has more friends on this issue than he realises. If he has enemies, they are behind him.

The Taoiseach

In my opening statement I reported substantively on the Barcelona European Council. I would like to take a few minutes to report on the foreign policy issues addressed in Barcelona and then say a few words in reply.

In the wake of several weeks of almost unremitting violence, it is heartening to see some tentative signs of movement in the Middle East. The Heads of State and Government of the European Union stated the position on the Middle East at Barcelona in a declaration which sets out clearly the expectations the European Union has of both parties. The declaration lays down the steps the European Union feels are necessary to achieve peace and expresses our support for certain recent initiatives, such as Security Council Resolution 1397, the ideas of Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and the renewed engagement of the special envoy of the US President, General Zinni. The declaration also restates the EU's call on the parties to implement the Tenet and Mitchell plans. It reaffirms the willingness of the European Union to work with General Zinni and the other members of the so called "Quartet", that is the Russian Federation and the Special Representative of the UN Secretary General.

In the final analysis, responsibility for peace in the region rests with the parties to the conflict. As I said on Question Time today, we have called on the Government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority to assume their responsibilities and to proceed to the immediate implementation of the Tenet and Mitchell plans without further delay or preconditions.

On Serbia and Montenegro the European Council welcomed the agreement brokered last week by Javier Solana between Serbian and Montenegrin leaders on a new union of Serbia and Montenegro. The union, once ratified by all parties, will replace the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and, coming after ten years of conflict and instability, marks an important contribution to the rebuilding of the Balkans. A key factor in the negotiations was the acknowledgement by both the Serbian and the Montenegrin sides that engagement, especially economic engagement, with the European Union was vital to their shared future.

The central role of the Union in the process of stabilisation, reconciliation and reconstruction in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, FYROM, was underlined again in Barcelona. It was agreed that the Union should now explore options which would enable it, following elections and at the request of the country's Government, to take responsibility for the current operation there for the protection of international monitors. This development can also be seen in the context of the decision at last month's General Affairs Council that the EU take on, with effect from January next year, the future management of the police mission in Bosnia.

This focus on the Balkans is very much in line with our perspective on the EU's efforts to mount humanitarian and crisis management tasks – the Petersberg tasks. The EU is already constructively involved in the efforts to bring peace and stability in the Balkans, including FYROM, in a diversity of ways, not least through the Stability Pact on South-Eastern Europe. In contributing to conflict prevention and crisis management in this way, the EU is playing to its strengths.

There is a range of instruments it can use, including the civilian and military capabilities being developed as part of the European Security and Defence Policy. It was accepted, however, that the EU should not take responsibility for the FYROM operation until the permanent arrangements for EU-NATO co-operation are in place. These stem from the fact that the EU is not a military organisation and needs to rely on infrastructural and transport support from NATO to carry out some crisis management tasks.

In Barcelona the foreign ministers discussed the recent presidential election in Zimbabwe which saw President Robert Mugabe elected for another term in office, an issue also discussed at the dinner on Friday evening. Based on the damning reports submitted by the Commonwealth observer team and the SADC parliamentary forum, we concluded that the election was not free and fair. The manner in which the election was conducted and the ongoing threats to senior opposition party members in Zimbabwe are completely unacceptable. We will continue to monitor developments closely and will consider possible further targeted measures against the Government of Zimbabwe.

At the European Council we also decided to send a high level troika delegation to countries of the Southern African Development Community, SADC, in the near future to discuss the EU's concerns in relation to Zimbabwe. We will continue to provide humanitarian assistance to the people of Zimbabwe who have been gravely affected by political and economic decline and by looming food shortages.

At Barcelona we also discussed recent developments in Angola. The foreign affairs ministers welcomed the ceasefire declaration by the Ango lan Government and its intention to allow UNITA to reorganise politically following the death of Jonas Savimbi in February. We urged the parties to fully implement the provisions of the Lusaka Protocol by engaging in a political dialogue under the aegis of the United Nations in order to promote lasting peace and stability in Angola. The humanitarian situation in Angola remains desperate and we have asked the Government of Angola to facilitate the humanitarian work of local and international bodies to bring relief to the people of that country. Ireland is strongly of the view that there can be no military solution to the conflict in Angola. As chair of the Angola UNITA sanctions committee, we are fully ready to contribute constructively and creatively to all necessary modalities of the political process which we hope will emerge over the next phase.

The European Council also discussed recent developments in the Democratic Republic of the Congo where a fierce battle for control of the strategic town of Moliro is raging between DRC Government troops and Rwandan-backed rebel forces. The DRC Government side has used the attack on the town as a reason to pull out of the inter-Congolese dialogue already under way in South Africa. The European Council expressed concern at recent developments and regretted the effect that these developments have had on the evolution of the inter-Congolese dialogue. The Irish Government urges the DRC Government to continue its engagement in the inter-Congolese dialogue, a political process to which the Congolese people attach so much hope and which is vital for the democratic development of the DRC. We also urge all sides to cease fire in south-eastern DRC and to abide by their commitments under the Lusaka ceasefire agreement and relevant Security Council resolutions.

Finally on the subject of Africa, the European Council expressed its concern regarding the possible stoning of a woman in Nigeria. We urge the Nigerian authorities to fully respect human rights and human dignity in Nigeria, with particular reference to women.

As I have already highlighted, there was substantial progress made at Barcelona on the EU economic and social reform agenda known as the Lisbon process. I have nothing to add other than to welcome the comment and acknowledge that it is an ongoing issue.

The European Council welcomed the start of proceedings of the convention on the future of Europe. As the convention is just getting under way, the issue was not substantively discussed at Barcelona. The Seville European Council in June will discuss progress at the convention on the basis of a report by its Chairman, Mr. Valery Giscard d'Estaing. The convention provides an important opportunity to address the disconnection between the European Union and many of its citizens. The Irish Government's priority will be to ensure that concerns which were manifested in the context of our referendum last year are brought to bear and that the Union is made more comprehensible, more accessible and that its relevance to the concerns of citizens is better understood.

The European Council also heard a presentation by Council Secretary-General Solana of his report on reform of the way Council operates to make it more efficient and transparent. The issues raised in the report will be examined in a substantive way at the Seville European Council in June.

Although enlargement was not a formal item on the agenda of the European Council in Barcelona, the meeting between the EU 15 and candidate countries on 15 March to discuss the Lisbon strategy and its implementation was significant. This represented another positive endorsement of the substantial progress made by candidate countries in their bid to achieve EU membership. It showed an acceptance on the part of the member states that candidates are now in a sufficiently advanced position to participate in the Lisbon process. Furthermore, it is hoped that the Lisbon strategy will prove a further incentive to candidate countries to continue their efforts to adopt and implement crucial economic, social and environmental objectives.

The presence of the candidate countries in Barcelona and their active engagement in the discussions on the Lisbon process underlined once again the importance of completing the ratification of the Treaty of Nice so that enlargement can proceed on time.

I said we would seek a declaration from the Seville European Council confirming our position in the security and defence area was in accordance with the treaties. This would not diminish our commitment to European security and defence policy which is consistent with Ireland's traditional policy of military neutrality. As I have already stated, the European Council welcomed the approach outlined and reiterated its willingness to contribute in every possible way to supporting us and to return to this issue at the Seville European Council in June.

I have listened carefully to what Deputies Noonan, O'Keeffe and Quinn have said. I take note particularly of Deputy Quinn's constructive remarks about what we want to achieve. I have already said that, regardless of what position I am in after the general election, I am a strong advocate of the European model and want to see progress take place. I have listened attentively to points made about how we can perhaps exchange and build on dialogue around the declaration. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Finance are keen on two points, not just on the contents of the proposals of the Bill on engagement and changing the structures of how we operate this House. I agree with Deputy Quinn that it is not a simple matter but it is one on which we must progress. The extent of that dialogue and parliamentary scrutiny can be negotiated. A number of Ministers have already appeared before committees, particularly the Joint Committee on European Affairs where the Minister for Foreign Affairs has just been in attendance, to discuss this matter and there has been far more attendance at committees than ever before. I accept that we need to do more; there is an issue of resources and we must deliver on that.

One of the difficulties in communicating about Europe over the past ten years is that the resources committed to it were small and probably ineffective. This must be addressed or we will lose sight of it. We have been working on proposals to change that focus. This is the second strand. The third strand is the declaration. The research following the unsuccessful referendum on the Treaty of Nice showed that, apart from the fact that the people did not see it as enormously important to their lives, the European security and defence issue came out as the major issue. When people looked through the issues they were confused. They heard the debates and they had nothing against enlargement but the predominant issue was security and defence. I hear what people are saying and we can enter into dialogue on it.

I have attended many meetings in colleges and elsewhere, perhaps the largest of which was in Ballymun, and there is a certain element of the "No" side that is not interested no matter what one does. As soon as one says what the contents of the declaration is they will say they want a protocol or the Danish system and when one says that is not what the Danish wanted or got there is a difficulty.

Mr. Quinn

The Taoiseach needs to mobilise the "Yes" vote.

The Taoiseach

Yes, and it must be on that basis. If I moved on a declaration, then a protocol would be required and so on. We would be naive to think there is a section of that "No" group that is interested. I am open to idea of building and trying to build on the "Yes" consensus of what our declaration should be. I am not opposed to that.

Incidentally, none of this was a surprise. I signalled in three speeches in the last month what I was going to do in Barcelona but, unfortunately, the world was not exactly listening to me.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

That is part of the problem.

Mr. Quinn

The Taoiseach should have tied it in with the opening of a pub.

The Taoiseach

That is the difficulty. Indeed one of those speeches was at my own Ard Fheis – I could not have got a bigger audience but that is the way it is—

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

Ard Fheis speeches.

The Taoiseach

No, I said it afterwards in a public address.

Mr. Cowen

The Deputy should come as an observer next year.

The Taoiseach

I have heard what has been said in terms of building that consensus and dialogue and both the Minister for Foreign Affairs and I will take note of that. I appreciate that moving too quickly from an early June to mid-June position without consultation and then moving it into the autumn is not something we should do. If those of us on the "Yes" side work together, regardless of where we finish up in this House, we should achieve something worthwhile. I will look at how we can engage in that from an early stage.