Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 16 Dec 2003

Vol. 577 No. 3

European Council Meeting: Statements.

The Taoiseach:

I attended the European Council and the Intergovernmental Conference in Brussels on 12 and 13 December. I was accompanied by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, and the Minster of State with responsibility for European Affairs, Deputy Roche. The Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, attended the European Council meeting. The conclusions of the European Council have been laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. I also participated in the extraordinary tripartite social summit in Brussels on 11 December.

It was clearly disappointing that the Italian Presidency was not able to bring the IntergovernmentaI Conference to a definitive conclusion at the weekend. Like others, we had very much hoped a final agreement would be possible. In the end, however, it became clear that the time was not ripe. A basis for compromise, in particular on the key issue of how to define a qualified majority, was not present. In the circumstances there was a general sense that there was little to be gained from prolonging the meeting unduly.

As the next President of the European Council, I undertook to reflect, initially in conjunction with the Italian Presidency, and then consult partners with a view to bringing a report to the spring European Council in March. I hope that in the light of our consultations it might be possible to have a better idea on how and when we can move ahead. In the next couple of weeks we will be considering how best to structure consultations. The entire Presidency team and I will be giving the highest priority to our Intergovernmental Conference responsibilities. In its Presidency Ireland will, on this issue as with others, be even-handed and open. In particular, we have repeatedly made clear that on the question of the voting system, we could live either with the Nice arrangements or the Convention proposals. Nationally, we could accept any reasonable compromise. Therefore, partners may be confident that we will be motivated only by the desire to build consensus.

While the voting system remains the most difficult and prominent issue, it is not the only question to be resolved. Good progress has been made in recent weeks, including progress on issues of particular concern to Ireland. There also seemed to be an emerging consensus on most institutional questions, including the composition of the Commission and the Presidency. I made clear to Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi where Ireland stood on the outstanding questions, emphasising our desire to be positive and constructive.

While I was pleased with the apparent direction of developments and the Italian Presidency's helpful approach to our concerns, particularly in the areas of justice and home affairs and European security and defence policy, there will obviously be no final agreement on any of these issues individually until there is an overall deal. The Italian Presidency has expressed the view that its proposals should stand. Its good work remains the obvious basis for the final stages of the negotiations. I have no doubt that there will be eventual agreement on a constitutional treaty. The open questions are exactly what the nature of the agreement will be and when it will happen.

At the weekend there were many present who thought that the Intergovernmental Conference was unlikely to finish in our Presidency. There was a strong sense that more time would be needed. The situation is complicated by the electoral calendar, not least the European Parliament elections in June.

No Presidency can compel agreement if the political circumstances are not right. I will not promise that the Intergovernmental Conference will finish in our Presidency but equally it would be premature to conclude that it will not. If there is good reason to believe in the light of our consultations that fast progress is possible, I will spare no effort to achieve it. It depends on the overall atmosphere and whether everyone is ready to do a deal.

This is a setback, not a crisis. Pending agreement on a new constitutional treaty and its subsequent ratification, the European Union will continue to function on the basis of the current treaties, as amended at Nice. There is a full programme of work ahead of us and much for the Union to do at home and abroad which does not depend on a new treaty.

Clearly, it would be preferable if agreement was reached as soon as possible. There is a great deal in the current draft, as prepared by the Convention, which is not in dispute and clearly positive: a clearer statement of the European Union's objectives and founding principles; greater certainty as to where its powers begin and end; the simplification of decision-making procedures; a greater role for national parliaments; the enhanced prominence of human rights; the prospect of greater coherence in the Union's external action; and reformed Presidency arrangements.

All of these aspects would contribute enormously to making the European Union more effective in meeting the expectations of citizens and responding to the internal and external challenges it faces. It would also be good to resolve finally the debate about the Union's future institutional framework which has lasted for several years from the time of the Amsterdam negotiation and which has been an ongoing source of tension and uncertainty within the Union. Agreement at the weekend would have been highly desirable but the Union has confronted these difficulties before. It has always united and overcome such difficulties. At a time when its core values of partnership and solidarity have never been more important, I am very confident that the Union will eventually succeed in this endeavour, even if it takes more time than we had hoped.

The meeting of the European Council that preceded the Intergovernmental Conference was very productive. As the conclusions show, the current internal and external agenda of the European Union is broad and diverse. All of the issues on the table will have a significant impact on our Presidency.

There are a number of issues of particular significance for our Presidency. The European Council endorsed the European action for growth initiative. This initiative by the Italian Presidency has enabled the European Union to mobilise investment in areas which will reinforce competitiveness, growth and infrastructural development. The initiative is very important for the Union and will be carried forward by Ireland during our Presidency.

As part of the growth initiative, the European Council noted progress on the Quick Start programme which already includes two Irish projects, the Belfast-Dublin-Cork rail link and a "motorways of the sea" project for port infrastructure. As the list remains open and dynamic, there is further potential to add projects. Two additional Irish projects, the Cork-Dublin-Belfast road project and the Ireland-UK electricity interconnector, have the potential to be added to the Quick Start project list in the near future. We are also looking at possibilities in the broadband and research and development areas.

At the European Council last October I expressed the concern that accounting practices could be obstacles to the implementation of infrastructural programmes. The European Union has now asked member states, together with the European Commission, to act to address any such technical, legal, administrative and accounting obstacles in the implementation of infrastructural projects. This includes the current view by EUROSTAT of the treatment of public private partnerships for national accounts purposes. I am very pleased that this concern has begun to be addressed and that there is an appreciation of the need for a considered approach to removing the other obstacles. Together with growth and competitiveness, employment will be a major priority for the next European Council in the spring. A key element in our consideration of employment will be the recent report of the task force on employment. This report was discussed at the tripartite summit with the European social partners in Brussels on 11 December, a meeting in which I participated.

Following the tripartite summit, I had a meeting with the former Prime Minister of the Netherlands, Mr. Wim Kok, who chaired the task force. We agreed that, if we wished to achieve our employment goals for 2010, it would be important for the European Union to make the structural changes required. We also reached agreement on a range of sites for certain European Union agencies. These included the European Food Safety Authority which will have its seat in Parma, the Maritime Safety Agency in Lisbon and the European Chemicals Agency in Helsinki.

Deputies will recall that the Heads of State and Government failed to agree these sites at Laeken in 2001. As such, the agreement at the weekend is clear evidence that a temporary setback can be overcome. The conclusions of the Heads of State and Government on this issue has been laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas.

The European Council also noted progress in the justice and home affairs area, including on the management of migratory flows, progress on establishing a European border management agency and agreement on a number of measures in the fight against drugs.

At his request, I met the Prime Minister of Turkey, Mr. Erdogan, on 11 December, prior to the meeting of the European Council. I conveyed to him the European Union's preference for a united Cyprus to join the European Union on 1 May 2004. I also emphasised that a settlement of the Cyprus problem would greatly facilitate Turkey's membership aspirations. This message was reiterated at the conclusions of the European Council adopted the following day.

The European Council noted a range of foreign policy issues which will impact significantly on the Irish Presidency, including the European security strategy and the declaration on transatlantic relationships. The European security strategy reflects the European Union's and Ireland's commitment to a comprehensive approach to security. It puts effective multilateralism and, in particular, the United Nations at the heart of the EU foreign and security policy.

As the incoming Presidency, Ireland will be responsible for the first phase of the implementation of the security strategy and we will focus on effective multilateralism. Our aim is to give significant EU support to Kofi Annan's UN reform process. We will also give priority to implementation of the EU-UN agreement on co-operation in crisis management.

The declaration on transatlantic relations underlines the importance of the EU's relationship with the US. It emphasises that, by acting together, the EU and the US can be a formidable force for good in the world. This will be a priority for Ireland during the Presidency, as will the proposed EU-US summit to be held during the term.

While it was a successful European Council, it was disappointing that we did not reach agreement in the Intergovernmental Conference on Saturday last. The Irish Presidency will do all in its power to take the process forward. We may or may not succeed in fostering final agreement, but I promise the House and our partners that we will not fail for want of commitment or determination. We will also focus on the other topics on the agenda, in particular the economic challenges facing Europe.

Ireland will hold the Presidency at an exciting an challenging time for Europe. I am confident that Ireland will make a real difference and deliver positive results.

Mr. Kenny:

I wish to share my time with Deputies Gay Mitchell and John Bruton. It is not every day I can state in the House that the eyes of the world are upon us without presenting Ireland as suffering either delusions of grandeur or acute paranoia, but today is precisely such a day.

Europe has failed to reach agreement and this is certainly disappointing, but it must be regarded more as a delay than as a disaster. However, we cannot risk adding new fault lines to those that have appeared as a result of the war on Iraq. In January, it will fall to one country out of 25 to resolve the problem. The next country in line to shoulder that responsibility is Ireland. With the European Convention and the Intergovernmental Conference process over the past 20 months, there certainly has been, to borrow a phrase, a lot done. If the desired agreement is to be achieved before the accession of the ten new countries in May and the European elections in June, there is much more to do. For the sake of Europe, the Government cannot afford to sit back and do nothing until the Spanish elections are over and the summit meeting beckons.

It is that tricky issue of leading and leadership that could yet prevent Ireland from playing an historic, as opposed to a mere historical, role in the new Europe. Above all else, leadership is exactly what securing the necessary agreement will require. It must be leadership based on principle and belief. This is a time for clarity and vision on the world stage. With the future of Europe at stake, there can be no equivocation.

I had hopes for the new process adopted in these negotiations. The fact that the European Convention featured not just the 25 Governments of the member and candidate countries but the EU institutions and representatives of the various national parliaments augured well for achieving a positive result. It was sensed that such inclusive negotiations could yield a result based on what Europe needed in terms of efficiency and effectiveness as opposed to what individual Governments demanded. It is disappointing that all the hard work of the Convention has yet to bear fruit. In the end, the hangover from Nice proved problematic. Blaming individual countries for their perceived intransigence will do nothing to progress the desired agreement. Equally, we may never achieve agreement if the process is again ambushed by intergovernmental wrangling. It falls to Ireland to bring the recalcitrant bargainers back into dialogue at the earliest opportunity. The proposed double majority voting mechanism is a reasonable one.

The Taoiseach and the Government, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs will not have an easy task. Instead of sitting back and waiting for agreement to be reached as if by some miracle, or even worse, passing the buck to the Dutch who assume the Presidency after Ireland, I suggest the Taoiseach and the Government act with alacrity and begin work on day one of Ireland's tenure. I urge the Taoiseach to facilitate immediately a series of bilateral negotiations between Germany and France and Spain and Poland. The Taoiseach must not be allowed to fool himself or Europe that the summit in March will be a new step in the negotiation process. That summit was scheduled on the assumption that agreement would have already been reached. For the sake of Europe and Ireland's credibility, the Taoiseach should make an honest and realistic examination.

As a hard-core European leading a hard-core European party, I want to see agreement reached as soon as possible on anything that will make the EU more effective, efficient and democratic. This process was about making Europe more manageable, transparent, accountable and approachable so that it could be seen and perceived to operate on a human scale. A constitutional arrangement could have achieved much in each of those respects. I would like to see Ireland play a vital and an historic role in making that happen.

This is a great opportunity for Ireland. It is an opportunity to show what a small island nation can achieve both in and for an enlarged Europe. Size does matter. It gives the message to all the new countries and those waiting for admission that a tiny island can heal, change, persuade, mend and even create a better Europe. As a nation, we are more than equal to this challenge.

Now more than ever the world needs a strong Europe that speaks with one voice. The war on Iraq taught us an important lesson. Europe did not have the facility to speak with one voice and act cohesively and collectively. We were silenced and sidelined. In the interest of bringing a more enlightened view of the global interest, that cannot be allowed to happen again.

The Taoiseach outlined some of the difficulties faced by the Government on the assumption of the Presidency from 1 January 2004. I wish him well in that work and assure him of my party's support where possible. The work of the Intergovernmental Conference continues. The Government faces a significant challenge. It is critical that Ireland uses its traditional gregariousness and negotiating and diplomatic ability to make further strides. I wish him well in his endeavours.

Mr. G. Mitchell:

I am grateful to Deputy Kenny for the opportunity to speak on this matter. There is some disappointment that the Italian Presidency did not reach its objective, but perhaps the Italians were a little eager to bring to a conclusion what has been a long drawn-out process involving both the Parliament and Government in this country and in other countries of the European Union.

I am pleased that, to some extent, a small state such as Ireland will have an opportunity to advance the Intergovernmental Conference. I do not like the idea of France and Germany seeing themselves as the locomotive of Europe, being able to stamp their own authority on the rules, such as what they will accept in the Growth and Stability Pact, holding joint Cabinet meetings of both countries and President Chirac standing in for Chancellor Schröder. There is the danger that this locomotive will set the pace for the rest of Europe. The Intergovernmental Conference is an Intergovernmental Conference and clearly it has decided that it is not yet ready to conclude. Now a small state such as ours will have the opportunity to advance that and perhaps bring it to a conclusion. I wish the Government well in that task.

The Taoiseach should address the question of the democratic deficit and the role of national parliaments. The Amsterdam treaty advanced the role of national parliaments but the current Intergovernmental Conference proposes a further enhanced role for them. Even if the treaty under negotiation is not brought to a conclusion, it may be possible to start the process of national parliaments having such a role. Increasingly, we must realise that the entire ratification process will require 25 national parliaments, including this House, to be satisfied with it. The scrutiny process has shown that we are not prepared to be taken for granted. Some Ministers, and I include those present in the Chamber, have been well disposed to attend the Committee on European Affairs and to consider its views. Some Departments, however, have not yet realised that there is such a scrutiny process. The Government should signal its intention to support that process by trying to advance the cause of national parliaments, even before the Intergovernmental Conference concludes its deliberations.

When Ireland assumes the Presidency of the European Union in January, the Committee on European Affairs will take over the chairmanship of COSAC, which comprises the European affairs committees of all 15 member states, the ten applicant countries and the European Parliament. Some 170 parliamentarians from those 25 countries will meet in Dublin in May. COSAC has invited the Taoiseach to open its conference and I hope he will have an opportunity to do so. In Italy and Greece, the Heads of State and Government played a part in that regard. The views and concerns of parliamentarians should be taken seriously.

I noted the Taoiseach's reference to the declaration on transatlantic relations, which I have not yet had an opportunity to read. I also note that the European Food and Safety Authority is to be located in Palma, while the Maritime Safety Agency is going to Lisbon as a result of the European Council meeting. Given that the EU is moving east, and given the special relations between Ireland and the United States and Canada, there is a case to be made for locating in Ireland some form of co-operation structure between the EU and North America. The Taoiseach should try to advance that matter, especially during the EU-US summit which is to take place here. I understand that there is some doubt as to whether President Bush will attend the summit, so perhaps the Taoiseach will say something about that in his response.

Given that the Intergovernmental Conference has not concluded its work, the terms of reference of the proposed chair of the European Council are important. From our point of view, anything that weakens the institutional balance or the relationship between the EU's institutions and its member states is a dangerous development. It would be easy for a powerful chairperson of the European Council to overshadow the Commission. If the President of the European Commission were also President of the European Council, the role of both institutions could become fused.

The Taoiseach should use Ireland's Presidency of the EU to consider the terms of reference of the person who will take on the role as chair of the European Council. That individual should have terms of reference to ensure that the roles of those institutions are not fudged. If the chair of the European Council oversteps his or her terms of reference, the Taoiseach should consider giving national parliaments a role in vetoing or removing him or her. The European Council is a creature of national parliaments so it may be possible to include such a measure in its terms of reference without having to rewrite the Intergovernmental Conference report.

I may be in a minority but I am disappointed that we did not take the opportunity to have the protocol on defence drafted in such a way as to allow Ireland to opt into a common defence from the beginning, albeit on a case by case basis. There was an opportunity to do that. NATO members are being accommodated and non-NATO members may also be accommodated as a bloc, but I do not think our interests coincide with those of Austria, Finland and Sweden which are all armed and quite capable of defending themselves whereas we are not.

Rather than examining how we might stay out of a defence pact, we should ask ourselves what capacity we have to defend ourselves. If we had an opportunity to be in a defence entity or union, with the Dáil having the final word on a case by case basis, it would formalise what is de facto already the situation. I do not believe we would refuse to come to the defence of a member state if it were attacked, but it would also give us some cover. I hope the Taoiseach will use the opportunity of Ireland's EU Presidency to tease out some of these ideas. I join with Deputy Kenny in wishing the Taoiseach well during our EU Presidency, which will commence shortly.

Mr. J. Bruton:

Between now and March, the Taoiseach should attempt to have the constitutional treaty agreed during the Irish EU Presidency. He was prudent to lower the expectations that he would be able to do anything between now and March, and I expect he will continue to adopt that stance in this debate. However, I urge him to go for it for a number of reasons. If he does not fix it up between now and March, we will be going straight into the European Parliament election campaigns. In the course of their domestic election campaigns, countries will take much more severe positions on issues that are still in contention. They may perhaps even retreat from matters to which they have already committed themselves, under the pressure of a domestic European election campaign.

If the constitutional treaty is delayed it will end up becoming entangled with the financial perspectives debate. I realise that debate will be launched in January during the Irish Presidency, but the real business on this matter will be done during the Dutch Presidency. The latter Presidency will have enough on its hands sorting out the financial perspectives and will thus be ill-equipped to deal with the constitutional question.

As far as the financial perspectives are concerned, the Netherlands is the country that most wants to reduce the budget, so the Dutch will be in an outlying position on that issue, which does not make them especially well suited to be deal makers on the constitutional question. The Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs will be better placed than the Dutch Presidency to settle this matter and I strongly urge them to do so.

I also urge them to bear in mind that, if this treaty is concluded on the basis of matters that have already been agreed and are not in dispute, it will be a huge step forward for European democracy. This is because national parliaments, including the Dáil, will be involved in scrutinising EU legislation even before it is considered by the European Parliament or the European Council under the subsidiarity protocol. We will be involved and, through us, public opinion in Ireland will be alerted to EU legislation four or five years before it actually becomes law, whereas at present we often do not discover it until six or seven years after it has become law when somebody is prosecuted. If the treaty is accepted, this aspect of it will be a huge step forward for democracy, as also will be the holding of Council of Ministers' meetings in public session. Another element involves the constitutional treaty's step forward on qualified majority voting on EU legislation covering international crime which poses a huge threat to the lives and livelihoods of people in this city and every other city in Europe.

If the Taoiseach can finalise this matter it would make this the greatest Irish EU Presidency in our history. I say that as somebody who oversaw a previous Presidency which was a comparative success in my view. If, however, the Taoiseach can pull this off, it will be the greatest Irish Presidency of all time. Nobody expects the Government to achieve it but, if it can be done, the Taoiseach will do us and Europe generally a fantastic, historic service. I urge him to make that effort.

It is important to fix this matter while Mr. José Maria Aznar is still Prime Minister of Spain. A new Spanish premier will take office in March but will not have the confidence to settle this deal and unwind the position that Mr. Aznar had adopted up to now. The best chance the Taoiseach has of getting the Spanish down from the horse they have mounted is to do so while Mr. Aznar is still in office rather than when he has gone.

If I were advising the Taoiseach, I would tell him to get on that plane and visit all the key EU capitals. The major mistake the Italian Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi, made was that he did not do a tour of capitals. I remember that during our EU Presidency we had to deal with much less difficult issues, although we did achieve the Stability and Growth Pact.

Deputy Quinn and I had it fixed at the Dublin Summit but that was because I had done a tour of every capital and sat down with each of the leaders in their offices. Silvio Berlusconi did not do this before this summit. The Taoiseach will have an opportunity to do so. Perhaps there was an excuse for Silvio Berlusconi. He leads a very big country and big countries make bad Presidents under the system of rotating Presidencies. Small countries make good Presidents because their Heads of Government have a little more time. Somebody who has been six years in office and knows the shortcuts as well as the Taoiseach can make more time for himself or herself. I urge the Taoiseach strongly to take the risk, give it time and try to have this done during the Irish Presidency. I do not expect him to give a response now to what I am saying but say this to him in all sincerity, in the interests of Ireland and with confidence in what I believe he can achieve, as can the Minister.

Mr. Rabbitte:

I wish to share my time with Deputy Quinn.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Rabbitte:

We are debating the outcome of the Intergovernmental Conference against a strange background. Normally, one would expect the failure of an international summit to feature on the front pages of Monday morning's newspapers but on this occasion there was no room because of the capture of Saddam Hussein. No democrat could fail to welcome the capture of the Iraqi dictator and express the hope the psychologically liberating effect of his capture will be long lasting. Similarly, no democrat could fail to express the hope that whatever trial is now arranged will satisfy the first requirement of not turning a dictator into a martyr and that whatever punishment is meted out for his crimes reflects civilised international norms.

The failure of the Intergovernmental Conference, relegated to the inside pages, must also raise questions for democrats. There is a temptation in a debate like this to concentrate on failure – there is no doubt, despite the success of the Council, that many will have been disappointed by the fact that the Intergovernmental Conference was not completed last weekend. However, I would like to begin by acknowledging one positive feature of the outcome, the fact that the leaders present decided not to repeat the mistake made in Nice and try to cobble together an agreement in which they did not believe themselves.

The purpose of the Intergovernmental Conference is to produce a treaty which is comprehensible, accessible and practical. It is aimed at producing structures that will enable a significantly enlarged Union to function at least as well, if not better, than the current one. It is not aimed at fundamentally changing the character of the Union or the principles that underpin it. Because it is about structure and not, ostensibly at least, a principle, it might be thought that the task of reaching agreement is somewhat easier. One does not expect nations to negotiate about principle. By definition, fundamental issues of principle ought not be amenable to negotiation.

Negotiations on structures are a different matter because they are primarily about reconciling different interests. The only way to achieve a win-win outcome in such negotiations is to arrive at a conclusion in which everyone believes their interests will be reasonably protected in the longer term. Such negotiations, while they can be wearisome and time consuming, are worthwhile when that result is achieved. It means it is possible for everyone involved to promote the new treaty with enthusiasm and conviction. It is worth devoting the extra time to secure that result.

Perhaps the only real failure of the past weekend was the tight timeframe set for the conclusion of the Intergovernmental Conference. While it is ironic that the issue on which the talks failed was not one of the new big ideas in the draft treaty but the old question of the respective voting powers of member states, at least we now know where the main stumbling block lies. It appears to revolve around interest rather than principle. In that sense it is far better that the leaders accepted that agreement would not be reached over the weekend and that no attempt was made to push through a draft treaty that would have led to subsequent problems. That is not to say, however, that issues of principle do not arise in the negotiations. Even the issue of voting rights reflects the concern about democracy in its fullest sense, both the expression of majority will and also the determination to ensure minorities within the Union will never be oppressed. Neither can we be sure, until we see the final outcome, that Ireland's essential and legitimate interests have been fully protected.

Under both headings, principle and interest, we must reserve our final position until the treaty negotiations have been concluded but it has to be said that ever since it was originally negotiated, there has been wide recognition that the Nice treaty would not provide a suitable or appropriate basis for the long-term development of an expanded Union. Therefore, efforts to secure agreement on a new treaty must continue.

I understand that behind the failure to reach agreement, the Italian Presidency was in a position to say it had reached conclusions on a paper covering many non-institutional issues and that it would have wished to publish that paper if the circumstances had been better. I understand, too, that it had in prospect a reasonable degree of consensus on issues important to us like taxation where we regard it as fundamentally important that unanimity be preserved. Even if the Italian paper is not published, I see no reason to believe the Italian Presidency would not be willing to share its information with the new Presidency. I assume the Government will now seek to take ownership of the document.

It now falls to the Irish Presidency to seek to complete the job. In the reported comments of the Taoiseach over the weekend and also remarks made by the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, there was a strong sense that both our representatives regarded this as a poisoned chalice, or at least a cup that they wished to pass from them as soon as possible. The Taoiseach, in particular, was widely reported as being frustrated at having to twiddle his thumbs throughout last weekend. Perhaps his frustration was the reason he found time to revisit and significantly rewrite history in terms of his and the Government's position on the Iraq war. Whatever about this, there are real grounds for concern in the image so far created, if the image reflects the reality, that the entire Government seems prepared to avoid these issues throughout the Irish Presidency.

If the outstanding issues are not resolved before accession, they will be much harder to resolve after accession. If another European Council takes place in Dublin without success, the issues at stake will come to be seen as deeply intractable and the atmosphere necessary to produce agreement made unnecessarily more difficult. For this reason, the Government would be seriously shirking its duty if it were to spend its time preparing the ground for another failure, dampening down expectations in order that the outcome of the next Intergovernmental Conference would not reflect too badly here at home.

Endless talk about the need for a period of reflection will do nothing to solve the problem. The Government must now see itself in a leadership position and needs to start work immediately on the strategies to secure a breakthrough. It was not enough to say, as the Taoiseach was reported on Monday, that he would wait until the mood was right and that nothing would be done before March. He was also reported as saying that while completion during an Irish Presidency was not impossible, the variety of elections in the offing meant that it was all very unlikely. I understand there are difficulties but six months of stasis is not what the people of Europe deserve.

The draft treaty under negotiation was the result of the work of the Convention on the Future of Europe. The Convention was an unprecedented exercise in democratic consultation and virtually every political view in Europe was represented. It reached a remarkable degree of consensus. It is important that the momentum for reform it created is not lost in the aftermath of an unsuccessful summit. I argue that the central motivation of the Government as it takes over the Presidency must be to restore and sustain momentum. As part of that process, it should already be consulting as widely as possible on how momentum can be put back into the process. One initiative that should be considered is whether the Convention should be reconvened to advise on possible ways forward. Whatever approach is taken, I urge the Irish Presidency not to stand back.

As far as the Labour Party is concerned, we will approach the outcome of the Irish Presidency as constructively and helpfully as possible but will be as critical as necessary of any lack of vigour in the process. The next six months must not be used simply as a public relations exercise enabling Ministers to swan around their constituencies with visiting dignitaries.

I am conscious that the Community at large is being urged to tighten its belt and that a number of particularly vulnerable groups are being subjected to savage and unnecessary cuts in social provision. I am conscious of the fact that the Italian Presidency was able to report some progress in the Presidency conclusions, including the accession of new countries. There is continuing progress in respect of reform in Turkey, Bulgaria and Romania while the European Council declaration on transatlantic relations is a helpful document.

I genuinely hope the Government will succeed during its Presidency in furthering the aims and objectives of an accessible, cohesive, dynamic and socially integrated Union. The Labour Party will be as constructive as possible, provided we are satisfied as to the serious intent of the Government. We wish the Taoiseach, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, and their Government colleagues every success in their conduct of the Presidency.

Mr. Quinn:

I fully support the comments made by my party leader, as well as Deputy John Bruton, on the issue of trying to resolve the impasse encountered last weekend. No one who is close to the action will be surprised with the outcome, which makes the matter all the more difficult. I endorse what has been said in this regard. As regards the Lisbon process and the agenda the Taoiseach will face in March, I am aware he met Wim Kok.

I have read the conclusions of the European Council which, on balance, make positive reading. Not many European Council conclusions are as comprehensive or positive in their achievements, including on what appeared to be an intractable problem, namely, the seats of the various centres. This demonstrates, as the Taoiseach has made clear, that intractable problems have solutions. Ultimately, solutions will be found to the vexed issue of the voting strengths of different countries and the question of whether qualified majority voting should be based on the double majority principle.

I will make three brief points, to which I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, to respond. Mr. Kok will no doubt have told the Taoiseach, as he told others in Brussels over the weekend, that we are not on course to meet the timetable of the Lisbon process or strategy – the two words are used interchangeably. Our failure to obtain a decent outcome at the recent ECOFIN meeting and the effective destruction of the stability and growth pact will compound the damage.

While the outcome of the ECOFIN and Eurogroup meetings at the end of November has been sidelined and obscured by other events, the commentators writing in the newspapers the following weekend indicated clearly that something serious was wrong in this area. Regardless of whether the Taoiseach likes it, the responsibility now rests with the Irish Presidency to decide at the ECOFIN Council whether it wants to ignore what was done by the Eurogroup and its effect on the European Commission and the authority of the Commissioner, or revisit the question of how to make the stability and growth pact work.

In this context, the conclusions of the European Council under the employment heading and on changing the statistical basis for what constitutes capital investment or otherwise are of critical importance. In the next couple of months it will be essential from a European perspective to make progress in making the stability and growth pact work or enabling it to be rewritten in a manner which meets the requirements of the 12 eurozone states and others which would like to join. As a former Minister for Finance, the Taoiseach will be aware of the importance of this issue and the nature of the difficulties which surround it. Incidentally, one of the factors which contributed to the defeat of the Swedish referendum on membership of the eurozone was the perception last summer that the rules of the pact were not being properly adhered to and that large countries were being treated differently from smaller countries such as Portugal.

Will the Taoiseach elaborate on the significance of the additional moneys allocated to Ireland under the trans-European networks programme? He referred to a motorway of the seas project and made passing reference to the completion of the Cork-Belfast-Dublin motorway. Will this funding, combined with the funding allocated in the budget, enable the Minister for Transport, Deputy Brennan, to have a single programme and single contract for the completion of the motorway system between Dublin and the cities of Galway, Cork and Belfast? Most of the delay in the process and the most time-consuming element of delivering the motorway system occur in the pre-construction period, rather than when the contractor is on site. If the financial framework is signed off and the five year rolling programme proposed by the Ministers for Transport and Finance is possible, will the implications of the conclusions enable us to proceed, within the framework of the current rules of the stability and growth pact, to commission a single contract or set of contracts, have a single hearing and legal process and complete the project using one federal contract, as it were?

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin:

I wish to share time with Deputies Harkin and Sargent.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin:

The European Council special summit meeting ended in disagreement and breakdown on the proposed new constitution for the European Union. It now falls to the Irish Presidency to deal with the aftermath of the summit and prepare for the next step. I take a different view from earlier speakers. It is good there is difference and, therefore, debate.

The Government should regard the Irish Presidency as a positive opportunity for reassessment and re-evaluation of the entire constitutional project. The breakdown is a vindication of many of the points raised by Sinn Féin in our extensive analysis of the draft constitution, the only such detailed analysis published by a political party in Ireland. Sinn Féin agrees that the simplification and consolidation of existing European Union treaties are necessary but opposes such a process being used to diminish national sovereignty and increase the power of the European Union, as the draft constitution did.

We are opposed to the development of the European Union into a state and do not, therefore, accept the argument that it must have a constitution. This fundamental question must now be reopened during the Irish Presidency. The breakdown should be regarded not as a hitch in some inevitable process leading towards a single state but as an important crossroads and a chance to choose a new direction.

As a party representing voters throughout Ireland and concerned about inequality and exploitation, not only here but also internationally, Sinn Féin has grave concerns about the implications of ratifying any new EU constitution. Our reading of the draft constitution leads us to believe the ongoing process of developing an economic and military superpower would be speeded up by ratifying such a constitution.

The draft constitution has been portrayed as a necessary consolidation and simplification of existing treaties but, as Ministers are aware, it is much more than this. It proposed fundamental changes in the structures of the European Union, gave those structures more power and the European Union a single legal personality for the first time. The effect of this would be to shift the balance of power yet further from sovereign national parliaments towards the European Union and take the single biggest step thus far in the creation of an EU superstate.

The draft constitution has within it unresolved tensions between its objectives and principles, the powers of states and the role of the European Commission, and the desire for subsidiarity and the increased use of qualified majority voting. Some of these tensions emerged during the breakdown last weekend when we saw once again the larger states attempting to assert their dominance through the adoption of a new voting system which favoured them. We need to have a new debate in Ireland on these issues in the coming months. We need to ask, for example, whether the European Union can facilitate a transnational market economy while remaining a social economy with full employment as its core objective. Both of these goals were included in the constitutional treaty.

In terms of partition, while the treaty allows for special provisions for state aid and spending for the costs of reunifying Germany, it does not do so for Ireland where the arguments for funding all-Ireland infrastructure in energy, transport, telecommunications, health and education are compelling.

There was little or no debate here on the judicial aspects of the treaty which would have significant implications. For example, the treaty envisaged a European framework law which would govern the mutual admissibility of evidence between member states. Such a proposal would be likely to result in evidence that is inadmissible in the courts of many member states being deemed admissible if obtained in another member state.

The Taoiseach at the Brussels Summit used the opportunity to say he had opposed the US invasion of Iraq all along. I just wish to refer to this briefly. This was much to the surprise of everybody inside and outside the House. Will the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, in replying to the debate, advise us whether he opposed the war all along?

Ms Harkin:

When reflecting upon what happened, or did not happen, in Brussels at the weekend, I consider two realities of the EU. The first is the vision, that is, Europe at peace after centuries of war with the European Coal and Steel Treaty replacing the coal that powered the engines of war and the steel which was part of the killing machine. There is a second reality of the EU, namely, power politics. It concerns influence, control and the wielding of power.

Both these realities have co-existed up to now to some extent with compromise, negotiations and consensus. However, the breakdown of negotiations last weekend has cast a cloud over the future direction of Europe. It has certainly put the brakes on the speeding freight train which was being driven largely by Chancellor Schröder and the former President, Giscard d'Estaing. It has yet to be seen whether the train has slowed down or has been derailed.

Now that we have had time to reflect on the outcome in Brussels, a number of questions need to be asked. One is of particular concern to many Europeans, namely, whether we are going too far, too fast. Are the soon-to-be 25 member countries of the EU being asked to bite off more than they can chew?

For many Irish people, in particular, there is a sense of unease. We have just voted twice on the Nice treaty. We are barely out of the polling booths when we are being asked to vote on a new constitution for Europe. The fact that these three votes come so soon after one another does not indicate a problem in itself. The reality is, however, that many people might like to see whether the Nice treaty works. Can we learn lessons? Do we need to change? What do we need to change? Would our experience of the Nice treaty guide us down an alternative route?

These are legitimate questions and while I, as a pro-European, could see the need to simplify the treaties and bring Europe closer to its citizens, I am aware that many people, including my constituents, view this new constitution with some scepticism. Even the word "constitution" is too much for too many people, especially those who changed their vote between the first and second Nice treaty referendums. This should not have been called a constitution, rather another treaty based on previous treaties that seeks to regulate the relationship between EU states and ensure that the Presidency, Parliament and Commission work more efficiently. That is what is most important and, in the end, will be the glue that holds the EU together.

As a pro-European, I believe it is an important but extremely delicate project. Leaders should lead, but if there is a sense that they are going too far ahead of their electorates, then it is time to pause and reflect. In this context, I fully understand the position of Poland. It had just passed a referendum on accession to the EU and was being asked to change the goalposts before accession. The Nice treaty may have suited the Poles and not the Germans. It did, but it was agreed. The ink was barely dry on the agreement when change was proposed.

The draft constitution has many pluses, for example, national parliaments will be more closely involved in the process of making European legislation, the UN Charter of Fundamental Human Rights will apply to EU citizens and 1 million EU citizens, working collectively, can petition the EU. These are just a few of the many pluses we may have lost.

I am concerned that the failure to reach agreement may fuel the arguments of many Euro sceptics who consistently ignore the positive aspects of the EU. Working collectively in an increasingly globalised world, we have found in the EU that the whole is better than the sum of its parts. I wish the Taoiseach and the Government well in the forthcoming Irish Presidency of the European Union.

Mr. Sargent:

I also speak as a pro-European. I do not need to remind the Government that the Laeken Declaration, which gave rise to the Convention and eventually the draft constitutional treaty, set out to bring the European Union closer to its citizens. The Government must keep this in mind as it steers a course through the six month Presidency. However, the Green Party is deeply concerned about several key aspects of the draft treaty's content.

We do not accept the apparent official consensus that the problematic issues concern voting weights within the Council of Ministers. We have no difficulty with the concept of a double majority but believe that it will lead to inbuilt inequality between larger and smaller states unless addressed elsewhere. For this reason we would support equal representation being given to each member state on the Commission. We do not believe the Government should yield on this issue.

We are concerned that a President of the European Union has been introduced despite that this was not specifically sought by most member states and that the rotating Presidency has been done away with although it has proved to be an extremely effective mechanism to date.

Substantive policy issues, such as defence, the common commercial policy and the EURATOM Treaty, as well as making Gaeilge an official EU language are not being given the consideration or the public debate they deserve. In the case of the EURATOM Treaty, there has been little formal debate on this at the Intergovernmental Conferences. At a previous Intergovernmental Conference, Austria rather than Ireland proposed that the Union should undertake a review conference on the treaty. However, at the conclave of Foreign Ministers in Naples on 28 and 29 November, when Austria again raised the issue and sought a review conference, strong opposition was expressed by France and the issue has apparently not been discussed further. Following the conclave, Austria put forward a suggestion that a declaration be attached to the final Act of the constitutional treaty calling for an Intergovernmental Conference on the EURATOM Treaty to be convened as soon as possible.

Ireland's poor running on this issue is a disgrace given that the spectre of Sellafield is so close to us. We need to insist on a "sunset" clause as a bottom line. The defence provisions of the constitutional treaty are a matter of enormous concern to many Irish people.

Article 40.6 concerns structural co-operation and is a significant advance on the enhanced co-operation mechanisms within the Nice treaty. Under Article 40.6, only those countries participating in the structural co-operation mechanism can participate in decision making, yet the group of states involved will be embarking on admissions under the auspices of the EU. Ireland as a supposedly neutral state, appears to have had little difficulty with the implications of this defence provision.

Article 40.7 involves what can only be described as a mutual defence commitment by all member states. A proviso has been added to the clause to the effect that that the provision will not prejudice the specific arrangements of an individual member state. This may be viewed as merely a figleaf. It attempts to conceal the extent to which Irish neutrality has effectively been undermined by this draft treaty. Article 40.2, or what is known as the solidarity clause, commits members to assist another member state should it fall victim to a terrorist attack or even be subjected to the threat of such an attack. This clause, and the inclusion of the issue as appropriate to terrorist threats, bears an unfortunate resemblance to the pre-emptive doctrine of the United States. The Green Party is concerned about the failure of the Government to protect Irish neutrality strongly through the negotiation of a protocol to the treaty – similar to that secured by the Danes following the Maastricht Treaty – exempting Ireland from the necessity to participate in or contribute financially to military activities of the Union.

The issue of the common commercial policy as set out within the draft treaty, in particular the potential of Articles 111 to 217 to remove decisions on how health and education services are provided from the control of the member states, is of grave concern. It seems that those who argue that the new treaty enshrines the neo-liberal economic agenda are correct. Unless the Government uses its position during the Presidency to reverse the changes made to the protective clauses of Article 133 of the Nice treaty, the people will see their health and education services gradually privatised over the next decade.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

The Minister for Foreign Affairs will take questions for a period not exceeding 20 minutes.

Mr. G. Mitchell:

As regards the discussions which took place at the European Council and the pending Irish Presidency of the European Union, what steps will be taken to advance the application of Cyprus to join the Union? What effect will the outcome of the elections have on north Cyprus? Does the Government intend to take any initiatives as regards the views of those on the island of Cyprus as a whole, which includes the northern and southern Cypriot population, and whether they are in favour of a united Cyprus entering the European Union?

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen):

Cyprus is successfully concluding its accession to the European Union and will join on 1 May. The hope was that a united Cyprus would join on that date. Following the failure earlier this year of UN mediated negotiations on a political settlement to the Cyprus problem, the European Council meetings in March, June and December reiterated the EU position which supports a comprehensive settlement within the framework of plans proposed by the UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan. We are ready to assist in whatever way we can during our Presidency and continue to hope agreement can be reached in that time to permit the accession of a united Cyprus on 1 May.

We share the view that a comprehensive settlement will involve difficult compromises. The December European Council concluded that there was a good prospect of reaching a just, viable and functional settlement by 1 May consistent with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. It again urged all parties concerned, particularly Turkey and the Turkish Cypriot leadership, to strongly support the UN Secretary General's efforts and, in that context, called for an immediate resumption of the talks on the basis of his proposals.

The impact of the outcome of the elections in northern Cyprus earlier this week is not yet clear. The pro-settlement party scored a narrow victory over Denktash's supporters in the popular vote. However, because of the proportional system of allocating seats, both sides will be equally represented with 25 seats in the Parliament of what they call the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. If either side fails to form a government, the elections will be rerun in two months' time. That would considerably reduce the time available to negotiate a settlement and hold separate referenda in both parts of the island before 1 May. Rauf Denktash's position as chief negotiator for the people of northern Cyprus is not under threat. Primary responsibility for the collapse of the UN mediated talks on 10 March 2003 in The Hague was ascribed to him by the UN Secretary General in his report to the Security Council.

Mr. Quinn:

The outstanding issue on which the Intergovernmental Conference failed was the question of the double majority versus the Nice treaty outcome. One proposal, which my party leader brought forward, was that the Irish Presidency would consult the Convention in a manner of its own choosing, whether that was in the Praesidium or somewhere else, to see if it would be possible to find a way forward from the conflicting position, the anvil upon which the Intergovernmental Conference had broken down. Perhaps the Minister will indicate the Government's attitude to the involvement of the Convention in whatever form might be considered appropriate.

Mr. Cowen:

It is important to point out that before the Thessaloníki Summit under the Greek Presidency it was made clear that the mandate of the Convention was to be completed by the presentation of a Convention text which would end its consultative process. One heard at that Council genuine tributes to the quality of the work done which, in many cases, had exceeded the expectations of many of the Heads of State and Government. While one is, in the context of these consultations, in listening mode and taking soundings, formally or informally, from those involved in the process at the various stages, I do not see a structured re-entry of the Praesidium in that scenario. It would further complicate the situation in terms of the role of the Convention and the the Intergovernmental Conference.

Mr. Quinn:

What about informal consultation with the participants in the Praesidium?

Mr. Cowen:

The Taoiseach will be available for soundings, to take opinions and listen to all sides on this issue. There are no proposals for a structured re-entry of the Praesidium. Many are interested in this project on which they have views. We would be wise to listen to every view as we try to use our Presidency to further advance the situation.

As regards some of what was said previously, it is important to point out that as regards the negotiations, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. There are two texts on the table – the Convention text and the post-Naples Summit text of 9 December. Subsequent further discussions have taken place. We will be taking soundings from the Italian Presidency on its view of the situation. We will also take soundings from individual member states about their positions. We cannot make any assumptions. We have an incomplete set of negotiations. There was general recognition at the Intergovernmental Conference's final meeting on Saturday that substantial progress had been made under the Italian Presidency. However, people will not sign off on all or part of the treaty until we have a complete negotiated settlement.

Everyone recognises the work done and the genuine efforts made. It is more the rule than the exception that Intergovernmental Conferences are not completed in the Presidencies in which they begin. We have had an intensive ten weeks of negotiations in the Intergovernmental Conference, which followed more than 16 months of consideration by the Convention. Unfortunately, it was not possible to complete the negotiations. However, it is important to inform the House that there was no sense of recrimination or failure. We are talking about recognition by all sides. A call was made by the Italian Presidency, with which there was broad agreement, that it would not be possible to reach an agreement that would meet with the satisfaction of everyone if we were to continue over the weekend. There is now time to reflect and allow everyone to consider the situation.

We got a mandate from the Council, by which we must abide, to consult, assess and report to the Council at the spring European Council. As regards some of the contributions we made, people should not be under any illusion about the commitment we will bring to this process. We must recognise that sufficient political will must be mustered to achieve a successful and total outcome to the various outstanding issues.

Mr. Sargent:

Has the issue of the EURATOM Treaty been addressed since 28 or 29 November? Following the example by Austria, will Ireland convene an Intergovernmental Conference on the treaty? It would be appropriate to have such a debate in Ireland given the difficulties associated with renewable energy, particularly the fact that Eirgrid is blocking the inclusion of wind energy on the grid and the favourable treatment being given to nuclear power.

Council Directive 1/1958 will be amended in May to include several new official languages which will bring the total to 20. We have received many representations on this matter. Given the development of the European Union, it seems that English, French and German are the de facto working languages. It would not be as big a burden as some suggest to include Irish as an official language, given that everything written or spoken does not need to be translated. Given that Ireland will be a net contributor to the European Union, having been a net recipient heretofore, would it not be a good time to provide a level playing pitch and establish our national language as an official language? Údarás na Gaeltachta and others would benefit in a material way from such a measure.

Mr. Cowen:

Whether a country is a net contributor or a net beneficiary of the European Union is not a criterion for whether that country's language is an official language in the Union.

The Deputy has, not for the first time, misrepresented the Irish position in these negotiations. It is not possible for a Presidency to unilaterally call an Intergovernmental Conference.

Mr. Sargent:

One can ask for it.

Mr. Cowen:

That might be news to the Deputy, even though he has been a Member of the House for a long time. It is not possible to call an Intergovernmental Conference unilaterally.

Mr. Sargent:

Austria sought one.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

Allow the Minister to continue.

Mr. Cowen:

I am answering the Deputy's questions, if he wishes to listen.

Mr. Sargent:

I was just praising Austria. I would like to have been praising Ireland.

Mr. Cowen:

This country has been supportive of Austria, but there is no consensus within the Union to have it. The next time the Deputy stands to speak he should withdraw the unfounded allegations he made against this country and its negotiating team on this issue. He should try to inform himself on the position and we will be happy to answer his questions.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin:

What is the Minister's view of the statement by President Jacques Chirac that a gigantic step had been taken at the summit with regard to defence? He said that the defence Europe had rejected 40 years ago and which was impossible a few years ago will be an important step towards a political Europe which is capable of playing its part on the international scene. He asserted that the decisions taken are in the interests of all Europe and of NATO. What are the Minister's views on and reaction to President Chirac's statement? Is he accurately reflecting what took place at the summit with regard to defence or military matters?

We are told that an EU planning cell was agreed. Will the Minister explain this planning cell? What position was taken by the Irish Government on that matter?

Mr. Cowen:

President Chirac is obviously referring to the fact that his security and defence tradition is reflected in the text which has been agreed. Our defence and security tradition is also reflected in the text and has been agreed. Anybody who has studied this area since the Maastricht treaty, when a treaty basis was given to the development of a security and defence policy in the European Union, will be aware that the then Irish Government secured a safeguard clause which confirmed that nothing in the treaty shall prejudice the specific character of the defence or security policy of a member state.

That is a reflection of the Community method of negotiation. Under that method, there is an accommodation recognising that there are different security and defence traditions and policies within the European Union. Some member states are NATO members and others, such as Ireland, are not. That safeguard clause has been reflected in successive treaties since then regarding change, update, modification or adaptation of European security and defence policy. It remains in this text as well. It is something we fought for and obtained in the negotiations.

President Chirac secured a reflection of his security and defence tradition in the text and policy, but so did Ireland. The purpose of the policy, from our point of view, is that we retain independence of action and that we take sovereign decisions as a Government and Parliament in compliance with the Defence Acts in respect of any area of participation in which we will be involved. There is no automatic obligation or enforcement upon this country of security and defence traditions with which we might not be comfortable or find satisfactory. That has been maintained in the negotiations I conducted and it is accepted by all member states. The discussions take place in an atmosphere of mutual respect for the fact that there are different traditions. Just as we must and should reasonably seek to ensure that our tradition is reflected so we can participate in a way that is consistent with that tradition, it is not reasonable to suggest that negotiation is possible whereby one would obliterate the security and defence tradition of other member states which come from a different tradition.

With regard to the planning cell arrangements, there are three layers of involvement in security and defence policy within the European Union. The first layer relates to where there are NATO led operations with European participation. The second relates to where there are European led operations with NATO assets. The third relates to deciding in what areas the European Union would operate alone. This is what is called the Berlin Plus principles. In other words, to avoid duplication of assets and to ensure that policies work effectively between all member states, these principles are the basis of the security and defence policy.

The discussion taking place about this treaty relates to the third stratum, which is the circumstances in which the EU should act in the event of NATO assets not being involved in a crisis management operation or in an instance where there is no NATO military involvement. That is the point under discussion. Members have agreed that there should be a situation where developing capabilities should be worked out autonomously from other obligations states might have to other organisations such as NATO.

The bottom line for Ireland in this area is to secure a situation where our participation in the policy concerned remains as before in terms of maintaining the sovereign decision within the Government and Parliament. With regard to other arrangements, it is a matter for us to decide at any time in the future whether we wish to opt into a structured co-operation arrangement, for example, obtaining through public procurement procedures, at the best possible rate, the necessary equipment to ensure our Army is professionally prepared in the interests of our security and should we participate in any crisis management operations and enhanced Petersberg Tasks operations. Complete freedom and independence of action for Ireland in the context of the development of security and defence policy has been Ireland's negotiating goal under successive Governments.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

Given the limited time available, I will take questions from Deputies Harkin, Kenny and Rabbitte.

Ms Harkin:

The Taoiseach spoke about the European Council noting progress on the Quickstart programme. He said it includes two Irish projects, the Belfast-Dublin-Cork rail link and the motorways of the sea project, which would link the east coast to ports in Spain. He also said the list remains open and that there is potential to add projects. In this context, he mentioned the Cork-Dublin-Belfast road project and the UK electricity interconnector. Three of these four projects will not contribute significantly to balanced regional development. Will the Minister consider ensuring that one of the Cork-Dublin-Belfast links, whether it be road or rail, travels through the south and east coast and the other along the west and north coast? This is a reasonable and legitimate request. Similarly, if some broadband projects are to be included in the programme, will the Minister ensure that they will have a strong regional dimension?

Mr. Kenny:

Will the Minister, in his capacity as chairman of the Council of Ministers, make it a priority to work on healing the rift between Europe and the United States? The Minister has a good reputation in member states and the rift will have been healed somewhat by the capture of Saddam Hussein. However, there will be a presidential election in the United States next year and the American Government has always had a distinct view on world trade, regulations and so forth. Will the Minister make it a priority to work on the healing of the rift that existed between Britain and France, France and Germany and so on? Has he plans to meet the American Secretary of State to discuss the matter? Given its ties with both Europe and the United States, Ireland is in a unique position. Will the Minister, in his capacity as the President of the Council of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, work to heal the rift?

Mr. Rabbitte:

Will the Minister put what he can on the record in respect of a paper by the Italian Presidency on non-institutional issues and whether he considers this a good starting point? If overall agreement had been reached, was a consensus in prospect on issues of particular interest to us such as justice, home affairs and taxation?

Mr. Cowen:

In reply to the first question which was raised at a recent meeting of the Committee on European Affairs, Ireland has successfully secured agreement that provision will be made for additional projects to be included under the initiative within the context of the annual reporting cycle to the spring European Council. The Minister for Transport will continue to see in what way a review of the annual cycle at the spring summit can be used to add further projects that might be eligible or would obtain assistance. It is important to point out that much of this relates to how to leverage private sector investment into the TENs programme for the purpose of contributing to a growth initiative, using EIB and other funding.

On Deputy Kenny's question, as the Taoiseach said in his opening statement, the Government welcomes the declaration on transatlantic relations adopted at the European Council. The declaration underscores the importance of the EU's relationship with the US in particular. It emphasises that acting together, the EU and US can be a formidable force for good in the world. Strengthening this relationship will be a particular priority for us during our Presidency of the European Union. We are scheduling an EU-US summit during our tenure. Dates and location are under discussion with the US Administration and this will involve contact with the Secretary of State at my level in preparation for the summit.

The declaration also stresses the significance of the EU-Canada relationship. The Government welcomes the progress to date on the review of the EU-Canada relations. The outcome of the review will provide a new added depth and closeness to this valued relationship. During our Presidency, a summit is scheduled to take place. Dates and location are under discussion with the Canadians.

On Deputy Rabbitte's question, as I said earlier, the only two papers which have been formally tabled during the Presidency have been the Convention text which formed the basis for our work and a post-Naples paper which emerged in the aftermath of a conclave of Foreign Ministers after 8 December. Efforts were made – we must discuss the situation with the Italian Presidency – in bilateral and trilateral meetings during the Intergovernmental Conference meetings in Brussels to collate and identify from the Presidency's point of view what areas of agreement or further modification will be needed, in addition to the papers formally tabled. A further text has not been tabled which would indicate broad consensus beyond the issues suggested in the post-Naples document. Different views have been expressed. There are two texts. We will discuss with the Presidency the precise nature of all the bilateral and trilateral discussions, their view of what people were prepared to bear and what was the point of breakdown specifically. As I said, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. It is an incomplete negotiation.

We had a meeting with the Italian Presidency on Friday night and made clear our position on the issue the Deputy raised. We received a full hearing and there was a full understanding on the part of the Presidency as to our position in the matters. Unfortunately, when we returned on Saturday afternoon, it was clear there would not be an overall agreement. The Italian Presidency outlined to the Intergovernmental Conference meeting the issues it felt would require to be addressed, particularly the issue of unanimity. Ultimately, it felt that the institutional questions would not be resolved. Obviously we have a view as a country where these negotiations have taken us. Given the Presidency, we must take soundings and consult with all other countries to ensure we hear directly from them the rate of progress they envisage. We can then assess the situation and try to construct a negotiating outcome which would be successfully sustained by all.