Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 10 Nov 2004

Vol. 592 No. 2

Brussels European Council: Statements.

The Taoiseach

I attended the European Council in Brussels on 4 and 5 November and was accompanied by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, and the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs with responsibility for European affairs, Deputy Treacy. The Presidency's conclusions of the European Council have been laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas.

The European Council was a most useful one. It approved the Hague programme, noted the report of the Wim Kok group and provided the forum for a good exchange of views on the economic and social challenges facing Europe. It also took forward the Communicating Europe initiative launched during the Irish Presidency.

The meeting of the European Council was preceded by an exchange of views with the new President of the European Parliament, Mr. Josep Borrell. This was Mr. Borrell's first meeting with the Council since his election to succeed Pat Cox in July. The discussion with Mr. Borrell took place in the aftermath of the deferral of the vote in the European Parliament on the approval of the new Commission.

During the European Council, on the basis of consultations with key players, Mr. Barroso proposed changes to his team, namely, the nomination of new Commissioners from Latvia and Italy and the exchange of portfolios between the Latvian and the Hungarian Commissioners designate. The Council adopted a new list of Commissioners designate. The presentation of a revised list to the European Parliament puts the approval process back on track. The new proposal from Mr. Barroso deserves the full and early support of the Parliament. The nomination of Deputy McCreevy as Commissioner responsible for the internal market and services is unaffected by the problems that arose in the European Parliament. The Deputy had a very good hearing in the Parliament. In the interim, it has been agreed by the Parliament that the new list of Commissioners designate will be voted on at its forthcoming plenary session in November. Given the challenges facing the EU, it is vital that the new Commission be able to start work, in full co-operation with the European Parliament, as soon as possible.

The main item on the European Council's agenda was agreement on a new programme in the area of freedom, security and justice. Five years ago, in Tampere, Finland, the European Council adopted an ambitious programme, the Tampere programme. This five-year programme dealt with asylum and migration policy, justice issues and the fight against all forms of cross-border crime.

In June, the European Council, under the Irish EU Presidency, invited the Council and the Commission to prepare a programme for the coming years to be considered by the European Council before the end of 2004. Last week, the European Council adopted the new programme, the Hague programme, which builds on the excellent progress made under the Tampere programme in setting out an ambitious range of measures to be agreed in the coming years.

The Hague programme envisages around 90 actions. It includes measures on asylum and migration policy, police co-operation and the fight against terrorism, and judicial co-operation in civil and criminal matters. The programme will fully observe human rights and, in particular, the European Convention on Human Rights, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the Geneva Convention on refugees. A strategy on drugs will be added to The Hague programme in December 2004.

The European Council invited the Commission and the Secretary General of the Council to present a strategy on all external aspects of the Union policy on freedom, security and justice by the end of 2005. It also invited the Commission to present an action plan in 2005 to translate the aims and priorities of the Hague programme into concrete actions and a timetable for their adoption and implementation.

The Hague programme deals with issues of direct concern in the daily lives of our citizens. It demonstrates the strong determination of the European Council to facilitate the free movement of our citizens throughout the Community, to fight terrorism and organised crime, to strengthen security and to ensure that criminals cannot evade justice by fleeing from one member state to another.

I commend the Dutch Presidency on its successful handling of this difficult and sensitive issue. I have no doubt that the programme will make a real difference in Europe's constant fight against crime. The key will be to translate the programme into concrete action. We must all work together to protect our citizens from criminals and terrorists who do not respect borders.

The second key item on the Council's agenda was also of direct relevance to our citizens. We discussed progress on the Lisbon Agenda since the spring European Council, and in particular preparations for the mid-term review. The Lisbon Agenda is the framework within which we are working to ensure Europe's future prosperity and to achieve a sustainable and fair quality of life for all.

At last week's European Council, we built on the work done under the Irish Presidency which had focused on putting the Lisbon Agenda at centre stage. Jobs, growth and quality of life are issues that matter to all citizens across the Union. During the Irish Presidency, we reached agreement on a process to prepare the way for a mid-term review of the Lisbon Agenda. We asked the Commission to establish an independent high level group, headed by Mr. Wim Kok, to bring forward a report to assist us in our deliberations.

At the European Council last week, we heard a presentation from Wim Kok on the work of his group, following publication of its report, Facing the Challenge, on 3 November. I have arranged for copies of that report to be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. The report sets out fairly starkly the difficulties that Europe faces due to economic slowdown, high unemployment, an ageing population and increasing competition from both the US and Asian economies.

While Europe has made significant progress in some areas over the past five years, the report is critical of the lack of implementation in many key areas. It therefore urges accelerated action to deliver the Lisbon goals of growth and employment. Critically, however, Wim Kok's report concludes that the Lisbon target and the level of ambition it set are still appropriate. While there is no single solution, the report stresses that the focus must now be on growth and employment to achieve the Lisbon ambitions across the range of economic, social and environmental objectives. The report calls for determined political action, including the preparation by member states of national action programmes.

The Kok report is a valuable input to the mid-term review process. The European Council noted the report and invited the Commission to bring forward the necessary proposals for the mid-term review by the end of January 2005. We are agreed that this is a critical point in the Lisbon Agenda, and we need a comprehensive and meaningful set of proposals to guide us over the next few years.

Over dinner on 4 November, we had an informal exchange of views on promoting growth and managing change. This allowed the Heads of State or Government to discuss their relative experiences at national level in implementing the Lisbon Agenda. It was particularly useful to have this exchange in the light of EU enlargement which, while very welcome, has made European-wide achievement of the Lisbon goal more challenging.

The European Council received a presentation from Commission President Prodi on enlargement. The Commission has concluded that Turkey sufficiently fulfils the political criteria for candidate countries and recommends that, providing certain key legislative reforms are implemented in time, accession negotiations should be opened. The final decision on opening negotiations is a matter for the December European Council meeting. The Council also received an update on the current state of play regarding the future accession of Bulgaria and Romania and the opening of accession negotiations with Croatia. All these issues will also be considered in more detail at the December Council.

The European Council also had a discussion on the continuing importance of strengthening awareness among citizens of the work of the Union. I am pleased that the Dutch Presidency has taken forward the Communicating Europe ministerial process launched in our Presidency. The initiative will also be carried forward by future presidencies.

Given the importance of public support if the European Union is to continue to function effectively, it is vital that member states are as effective as possible in informing the public about the EU.

The Council discussed a broad range of international issues, including Iraq, where we agreed a declaration and a package of support measures; Sudan, where we fully support the African union's efforts to establish stability and security; the Middle East peace process; Iran and Ukraine. The Council expressed its solidarity with the Palestinian people at this difficult time when President Arafat is gravely ill. The Council also warmly congratulated President Bush on his re-election and stressed the shared responsibility of the European Union and the US in addressing key global challenges. At Ireland's suggestion, the importance of EU-US co-operation in the Doha round of global trade negotiations was specifically included in the conclusions. I have conveyed my warmest personal congratulations to President Bush. I look forward to working with the President to ensure that our relations with the US continue to expand and flourish.

The European Council met Prime Minister Allawi of the Iraqi interim Government over lunch on Friday to discuss the situation in Iraq and how the EU can best help. The European Council adopted a declaration on Iraq, including a package of EU measures to support the Iraqi Government and Iraqi reconstruction. The Council welcomed the international conference that will be held in Sharm el Sheikh on 23 November, in which the EU will participate, to support the political and reconstruction process in Iraq. The European Council condemned the attacks on Iraqis who are trying to take part in the reconstruction of their country as well as the taking of hostages, of whatever nationality, and the brutal killing of many of them. All of us in this House are gravely concerned about the situation of Margaret Hassan and we are doing everything we can to ensure her safety.

The elections planned in Iraq for January 2005 will obviously be a crucial step, but organising them in the current environment will be a serious challenge. The EU will give every assistance it can to the interim Iraqi Government in holding those elections.

The European Council had a useful discussion on the Middle East peace process. Our discussions focused on recent developments, such as the illness of Palestinian President Arafat and the Israeli Parliament's endorsement of Prime Minister Sharon's proposal for unilateral disengagement from Gaza. The EU agreed a short-term programme of action to support reform in the Palestinian Authority focusing on strengthening the Palestinian Authority's ability to provide security and prevent terrorism, political and institutional reform, the continuation of EU economic aid and support for the electoral process. The Israeli Knesset's decision on withdrawal from Gaza is a positive development. The EU has repeatedly stated that the withdrawal plan can be a positive step if, and only if, it takes place in the context of the quartet roadmap and if it marks a step towards a negotiated two-state solution.

The European Council confirmed that the EU and member states would remain actively engaged with the objective of achieving progress on the Iranian nuclear issue before the International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors meeting on 25 November. I welcome the further contacts that have taken place with Iran on this issue since the European Council meeting and the indications that progress has been made in reaching a successful conclusion. The European Council also expressed its deep concern at the political and humanitarian situation in Darfur, Sudan, and called on the Government of Sudan and the rebels to meet the demands of the international community. The Council reaffirmed its support for the African union mission in Darfur and its readiness to provide assistance and expertise to the expansion of the mission.

On the Ukraine, the European Council, while welcoming the high turnout of voters in the recent presidential elections, regretted that the elections did not meet international standards for democratic elections. The European Council called on the Ukrainian authorities to address the deficiencies in the electoral process before the second round of elections.

This European Council, the first under the Dutch Presidency, was a business-like and effective meeting. In focusing on issues of direct concern to our citizens in their daily lives, including jobs, social cohesion and the fight against crime and terrorism, it proved once again the relevance of the European Union. It was a productive and worthwhile meeting for which the Dutch Presidency is to be complimented. At the Council, I held a bilateral meeting with Prime Minister Blair at which we reviewed developments in the peace process in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Kenny

I wish to share my time with Deputy Allen.

Last week's meeting of the European Council was important for a number of reasons, principally the approval of President designate Barroso's amended list of proposed Commissioners. At the leaders' meeting of the EPP group, President Barroso outlined his difficulties in that the persons he had to appoint in the first instance were not his own nominees; they were nominated by member states. At that meeting he was waiting for the new nominee from the Italian Government. I am pleased the matter is being resolved and that the hearings relevant to the new person will be held. Let us hope the new Commission can get down to work in December and January. I commend Mr. Barroso's speed in making the necessary change and that he kept it to a minimum in terms of portfolios and personnel. It appears the new Commission has been well received by the leaders of the main groups in the European Parliament. I hope that next week the Parliament's approval will bring this political impasse to an end.

The Heads of Government also received a crucial report from Wim Kok and his expert group on Europe's failure to reach the ambitious target set out in the Lisbon Agenda. Mr. Kok's report has excellent lessons for Ireland because as Europe slips down the competitiveness league, we slip down that league inside Europe. In 2000, Ireland ranked fourth in the world economic forum competitiveness report while this year we are 30th. It is clear that we will have to find the will and the way to fulfil the ambitions outlined in the Lisbon Agenda four years ago. Standing out a mile is the necessity to invest radically and intensively in research and development if we are to turn the EU into the world's most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy by 2010. By January we will be half way to that date, with no real achievements in sight.

It is time for each member state to fulfil its part of the bargain to ensure Europe attempts to match the economic strides of the US and Asia. We are lagging behind significantly in many of the demanding targets on the promise of greater co-operation and the new legislation which will modernise our economy and revitalise our society. We are struggling in the area of economic growth, productivity and employment. We are losing competitiveness, productivity has slipped and employment, though increased, cannot reach the 67% target set for next year, never mind the 70% rate set for 2010. It is not just a failure of achievement. To date our efforts have been mediocre and it is time we overcame the obstacles to our progress.

For example, as the Taoiseach is aware, approximately 40% of laws relating to the Lisbon Agenda have yet to be transposed by member states. The Commission has 1,000 cases outstanding against national capitals in an effort to get them to tow the line, a line which they agreed. It appears that Heads of Government do not have a real interest in the Lisbon Agenda and they become very focused on their own national problems in terms of re-election or whatever. In that sense, the European group has not got to grips with the requirement that if we are to be the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy by 2010, we should collectively get our act together. Unfortunately, that does not appear to be the case.

It is interesting that the group spoke about Iraq. This is the third or fourth day of the push to take the city of Falluja. However, it will not be just the city or its rebels that are taken in this long planned assault, it will also include children, mothers, old people and destitute families. These are the people who will suffer most and lose most in this effort to cleanse the city of insurgents. As for the report that most of Falluja's 30,000 residents have fled, the question must be to where. In a country where for ordinary Iraqis law and order no longer exists, apart from the recently imposed marshal law which met with serious resentment in Samara, their choices, like their immediate future, are clearly limited.

Today, Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, who addressed the EU Council last week, faces two immediate challenges with his interim Government. First, he needs to convince the Iraqi people that his decision to introduce marshal law was taken to guarantee holding elections next January as opposed to obstructing elections in the way some Arab Governments used in the past, or rather abused, similar emergency powers. Second, he needs to signal immediately to the Sunni population his desire to maximise their participation in the upcoming elections, which is a difficult task. It is clear that rebel activity in the Sunni heartland is likely to decrease only when the Sunnis have the confidence that the electoral process will treat them as fairly as the Kurds and the Shias.

It is clear that the European Union has a role to play in rebuilding Iraq, whether setting up a training scheme for Iraqi police, lawyers and election officers or the prospect of a formal EU-Iraqi agreement on trade and other matters. Despite our willingness, however, the impact of all this will depend on better security on the ground, which is not the EU's direct concern. It is our concern to rebuild the fractured relationships between Europe and the US. The influence of the newly appointed EU ambassador, former Deputy John Bruton, will be critical here. We must find a new way to build a fresh relationship, given Secretary of State Colin Powell's assertion yesterday that President Bush will continue to pursue his aggressive strategy, as he put it, and will not trim his sails or pull back. In the context of building trust and working for trust, about which the President also spoke, Europe has a critical role. The President of the European Commission, Mr. Romano Prodi, was right when he said that we should accentuate the positive, not the negative, and that despite the serious tensions, we should get on with rebuilding good relationships.

The global threat of terrorism is critical for everybody. It makes it impossible for nations to live in isolation. In the past Europe has not just been split, it has been sidelined in what were transforming moments of the world, the two Gulf wars. That is why we need a strong Europe, a strong UN and a strong US.

Specifically, we have a duty not only to ourselves but to the world to create a Europe that speaks with one voice, a Europe that in an international crisis can be counted on to act cohesively and collectively, a Europe that will bring to any future or emerging conflicts a sense of its shared existence and a more enlightened view of the global interest.

That brings me to what the great Arab thinker Mr. Edward Said called the crux of the Middle East crisis, the Palestinian situation, particularly with the current grave state of Yasser Arafat's health and uncertainty as to who his successor may be. During the week the British Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, called the current Palestinian-Israeli impasse the greatest challenge facing the world today. He is right, Europe should be able to play a historic, as distinct from historical, part in all that.

Turkey is a big issue. The EPP leaders at their meeting were happy not to have double standards, that negotiations should start, but that it should not be assumed that they would lead to automatic approval for Turkey to join the European Union.

I am disappointed that the Hague programme contains no reference to a subject I raised here in previous discussions on Europe, namely, the question of paedophilia. This is an international scourge. I would have thought that Ireland could usefully have applied a motion to have research and international investigation in the causes and the sad consequences of this. It is an international problem and it could have been included as part of the Hague programme.

Mr. Allen

The recent European Council meeting made recommendations on issues that are of fundamental importance not only to the citizens of the European Union but also to the citizens of the wider world. The European Union has always paid close attention to parts of the world that do not share the same peace and stability that we are lucky enough to enjoy. The recent discussions on the situation in Iraq, Iran, Sudan and the Middle East reaffirm the European Union's key role in the international political and humanitarian concerns of our time.

Regarding the Middle East, the European Union must reassert itself as an equal player in the Middle East peace process. The current situation in the region is particularly volatile and the continued unrest and violence in the Middle East contributes to instability in the wider world. It is in no one's interest to fail to work in every possible way to achieve a settlement. The European Union is an integral part of the Middle East peace roadmap and should do all that is possible to bring a peaceful resolution to the situation.

The European Council has reiterated a need to strengthen awareness among citizens of the importance of the work of the European Union. This is a resolution in which I wholeheartedly concur. In Ireland we have had a constitutional referendum on successive European treaties. In many respects this has ensured that developments at European level have received a level of media coverage and public engagement which has not always happened in other member states.

We are now facing into a referendum on the new constitutional treaty and this will again focus national attention on Ireland's membership of the European Union. This is to be welcomed. Ireland's membership of the EU is of fundamental importance to us and we should strive to be at the heart of European developments. The National Forum on Europe will have a key role in bringing information on the European Union to all the people. I hope the Government will support the importance of this role in the allocation to be made to the forum in 2005.

The European Council meeting also discussed its strategic goals agreed at Lisbon in March 2000. These goals, referred to as the Lisbon strategy, aim to make the European Union the most dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world. The core of the strategy was to be the creation of employment hand in hand with enduring economic growth and greater social cohesion. The Lisbon strategy should not be simply considered in abstract or economic terms alone. The success or failure of the strategy will have a fundamental effect upon the lives and livelihoods of millions of Europeans. If we meet the targets of the strategy we will be going a long way to significantly improving the situation of the citizens of the European Union. Unfortunately, as Deputy Kenny has said, it seems the Lisbon strategy has run into sand and now needs a considerable boost to kick-start the entire process.

Action is required at both national and European level. At national level the Government should, among other initiatives, actively consider the recent OECD report on third level education policy in Ireland. This report shows that the proportion of spending on education at all levels here is disappointing. Additionally, Ireland lags behind many other countries both in the European Union and further afield in terms of the amount of resources we invest in research and development. Educational achievement and a drive towards fostering a more competitive and knowledge-based economy will go hand in hand.

Achieving the Lisbon strategy goals will require a concerted effort by all European Union member states to drive the agenda forward. The European Council meeting stressed the importance of the mid-term review of the Lisbon strategy at the 2005 spring council as a means of driving the process forward but the Government must act at national level to begin the process of meeting these targets.

The recent presidential election in the United States has once again focused attention on the rift between the US and the EU on certain key matters. The importance of the transatlantic relationship cannot be underestimated. In purely economic terms total transatlantic trade increased from €422 billion in 2000 to an estimated €475 billion this year. These transatlantic economic ties are the most binding the world has ever seen, with a greater amount of European investment going to the state of Texas than the total amount of EU-US investment in China and Japan combined. Everyone should work to mend the critical disagreements between the European Union and the United States. While the transatlantic relationship has traditionally dealt with disagreements based on trade or agricultural matters, the rifts caused by the international political situation and the situation in Iraq go far deeper. I reiterate at this point the Fine Gael proposal for the establishment of a foundation for transatlantic co-operation to be based in Ireland as a potential way of working to heal this fractured relationship.

Mr. Rabbitte

I propose to share my time with Deputy Quinn.

The European Summit on 4 and 5 November was overshadowed by a number of events, not all of them related, but all of potential seriousness. I imagine that by the time the summit was over, European leaders heaved a collective, if short-term, sigh of relief, while at the same time anxiously wondering if the next time they met it would be in an atmosphere of deep crisis or relative progress. Much as one hopes it is not the case, I cannot help feeling that the next few European summits are likely to take place in an even more troubled atmosphere.

It is a cliché to say that the Presidency communiqué released after such summits rarely reflects the reality of the event. The blandness of the communiqué after the most recent Brussels Summit certainly did not reflect the turbulence of events surrounding the summit, nor the calculations that need to be made about how ostensibly extraneous matter can affect European deliberations far into the future.

This summit took place in the shadow of the United States elections. Many of the European leaders, if not all of them, might have secretly wished for a different outcome to those elections. As it was, the democratic choice of the American people appears to have strengthened the mandate of those in the American administration who look forward to what they call the American century, an era when American "military strength and moral clarity" will underpin America's role in the world. European leaders will be only too well aware of the founding principles and objectives of the strategists and planners, now returned to the centre of power, who planned and executed the invasion of Iraq and continue to prosecute that war.

Those objectives include increased defence spending, strengthened ties to democratic allies for the purpose of challenging regimes hostile to the interests and values of the United States, promoting the cause of "political and economic freedom" abroad and accepting responsibility for the unique role of the United States in preserving and extending an international order friendly to "our security, our prosperity, and our principles". These quotes come from the statement of principles for the Project for a New American Century, a body led by men as senior as Vice President Cheney, Secretary of Defence Rumsfeld and others, including Governor Bush of Florida, the man now rumoured to be the most likely candidate to succeed to the Republican candidacy at the next presidential election. Naturally, the Brussels communiqué was silent on these concerns and instead confined itself to warmly congratulating the President on his re-election and looked forward "to working very closely with President Bush and his new Administration to combine efforts, including in multilateral institutions, to promote the rule of law and create a just, democratic and secure world". It is perhaps as well that the drafters of such communiqués have a keen eye for irony.

The presence in Brussels of Iraq's acting Prime Minister, Mr. Iyad Allawi, and the necessity to paper over cracks caused by his apparent attack on some EU members, calling them "spectators" during the Iraq war, will have done little to ease the private anxiety that is now so evident. Mr. Allawi clearly paved the way for the attack on Falluja now under way when he told the European Heads of Government that the people of that city had asked to be liberated. One wonders, witnessing the devastation being visited on the people of Falluja, if they had fully realised that liberation was likely to mean thousands of people dying and being rendered homeless, would they have been so enthusiastic in their request to the Prime Minister. It is worth noting that little if any resistance appears to have been offered by the leaders of Europe to this further escalation of the war, even in the context of a lengthy declaration attached to the communiqué. This is despite the fact that on the day Mr. Allawi was telling the Heads of Government that the people of Falluja were asking him for liberation, the Secretary General of the United Nations was issuing a strong warning that the proposed assault could further destabilise an already dangerously fragile situation.

The Taoiseach referred to the dangerously ill condition of President Yasser Arafat, a condition that now appears to be terminal. That is another factor that overshadows any search for peace in the Middle East. The communiqué, in yet another instance of understatement, describes the crisis facing the Palestinian people as their leader lies dying as a "difficult moment". Difficult it is indeed, difficult to anticipate just what fresh disaster may befall the Middle East if the passing of one of its key figures is not handled with decency and generosity.

Against this increasingly difficult background, it must have come as some small relief for the leaders of Europe that the mismanaged creation of a new Commission has been, it seems, resolved. For my part, I am tempted to say that at least we avoided the rerun of that well-known horror movie, "Nightmare on Merrion Street", with our former Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, demanding his job back just in time to produce another few tax breaks for high income earners in his next budget. Let me instead congratulate the former Minister on retaining his portfolio and, in general, echo the words of Mr. Martin Schulz, leader of the European Parliament socialist group, when he congratulated Mr. José Manuel Durão Barroso on his courage in insisting on respect for the concerns of the European Parliament.

I welcome Mr. Shulz's pledge on behalf of the socialist group to do everything possible to ensure that the new parliamentary hearings take place as quickly as possible and that a vote on the new college of Commissioners is settled in the course of this month. I concur with his view that democracy is the winner from the past few weeks of conflict between the Parliament and the Commission. It was important that the President of the Commission, after what appeared to be a shaky and high-handed start, has clearly listened to the European Parliament's legitimate concerns. Despite what some of our more pious commentators have said on the subject, those concerns were indeed legitimate. There is a final note of irony in the outcome, of course, in that this House is now probably the only Parliament in Europe that reposes confidence in a Minister for equality who believes that inequality is good for us.

I also mention the outcome of the discussions that took place on the margins of the summit between the Taoiseach and Prime Minister Blair about what appears to be an impasse in the peace process rather than the breakthrough hinted at so often. In the immediate aftermath of the summit, the Taoiseach appeared to say that the Government was moving towards a phased restoration of institutions in return for a final declaration from the IRA, presumably accompanied by definitive action on decommissioning. In more recent days, he is quoted in the newspapers as apparently questioning the bona fides of the DUP, and seems to regard the IRA "concessions" as a done deal. What is more, DUP scepticism appears to be regarded as the hoisting of "unrealistic thresholds of visibility", presumably because that party wants more concrete evidence of decommissioning than the IRA is prepared to give.

It is time this House, at whatever level the Taoiseach considers appropriate, is given a detailed briefing on the exact state of play. While I would warmly welcome a statement from the IRA that the war is over and while everyone should welcome credible and definitive action on decommissioning, none of us should be prepared to see such acts as "concessions" by the IRA, but rather as the democratic duty it owes to the people of this island. If the bona fides of the DUP are in doubt, they should be fully tested by an open and unconditional statement ending the war and by concrete and credible measures to put weapons of destruction beyond use forever.

If the two Governments have agreed changes to aspects of the Good Friday Agreement, this House should be told now what they are and we should be fully apprised of the legal and constitutional implications of such changes. I want to be as supportive as I can to any measure aimed at producing, finally, a settlement that will bring stable and productive institutions, and good democratic governance, to Northern Ireland. This democratic institution, however is being somewhat taken for granted in the process. I ask the Taoiseach to ensure that a full statement of the situation is made to us as soon as possible.

Mr. Quinn

I wish to reinforce some of the points made by my party leader with regard to the hearings process and the way in which the European Parliament was reluctantly forced to threaten to vote down the entire Commission because the constitutional framework prevented it from voting against one person who failed in the hearings process in the first instance. Some people in this country have said that this was an attack on Catholicism, an illiberal intervention by secularists within the European Parliament, but I reject that view. The Charter of Fundamental Rights which is in the draft treaty clearly upholds a set of values which Europeans have been struggling to achieve and evolve over the past 300 or 400 years. The attitude adopted by Mr. Rocco Buttiglione, who would have had the right to initiate legislation and a responsibility within the college of commissioners, was in conflict with that set of values, having regard to the specific responsibility which Mr. Barroso proposed to give him.

The Parliament did a very good job and the democratic credentials of the EU have been strengthened rather than weakened by what has happened. Like Deputy Rabbitte, I hope and fervently believe that the new Commission will be ratified, with the minor changes that have been made, and that it can proceed.

Regarding the Lisbon process, the report by the former Dutch Prime Minister, Mr. Wim Kok, clearly outlines that we are in trouble unless we change the way in which we address this issue. I would like the Minister for Foreign Affairs in his reply to consider addressing some of the questions that I will now put to him. Between the Commission at one level and the national Governments and Parliaments at the other, responsibility for driving the agenda seems to be falling between two stools. Some seven to ten years ago there was a sense that we needed no more regulations or directives from the European Union and that it would be better to have a system of co-ordination, co-operation and peer group pressure from member states, one to the other, to achieve the clear objectives of the Lisbon Agenda which, contrary to the expectations of the former Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, are about far more than simply competitiveness. It is a balanced package that respects the European social model, the competitive nature of the European economy and sustainable development. Given that they are two legs of the same stool, one depends on the other for coherence to be maintained.

In the time available, and I hope my brevity will not be taken for simplicity, I suggest that there is in the history of the European Union a model that might be usefully reconsidered. I refer to the implementation of the Single European Act when under the Presidency of Jacques Delors, Commissioner Cofield identified 311 specific measures that had to be achieved to be in accordance with achieving the completion of the Internal Market based on the Cecchini report. Notwithstanding the fact that the Lisbon Agenda and process are in the main the responsibility of national governments, unless we have some explicit and much more "in your face" system of peer group pressure, we will not get the progress Wim Kok has said we need. Therefore, I invite the Taoiseach and his colleagues in Cabinet, based on the success of the Irish Presidency, to consider, as we prepare for the mid-term review next spring five years into the Lisbon process, that something stronger must be given to national parliaments to enable them in turn to force national executives to achieve that part of the agenda which is the Lisbon process. It is not sufficient, for example, for the European affairs committee of this House to try to struggle through a less than clear and less than stark set of objectives, on the one hand, and progress reports on the other. It may be uncomfortable for member executive governments to cut a stick by which they can be beaten, but if this is not achieved at national government level, which is the preference given the Lisbon process, then we will have to examine returning to the Commission to give it those powers to drive the agenda, which is not what any national government necessarily wants.

If it is predominantly the responsibility of national parliaments to ensure that national governments achieve the process. National parliaments must be given more clear instrumentation to drive it. If we can do that in conjunction with the European Parliament and, I hope, with President Barroso who has indicated that he will take responsibility for this, then we can begin to regain some of the progress that is clearly needed if we are to achieve the 2010 objective.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh

Ba mhaith liom mo chuid ama a roinnt leis na Teachtaí Joe Higgins and Gormley.

Acting Chairman (Dr. Cowley)

That is agreed.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I congratulate the Members of the European Parliament who stood up for equality and against bigotry in the EU by voting down and ensuring the resignation of the proposed right-wing nominee, Rocco Buttiglione, as Justice and Home Affairs Commissioner, from the proposed Commission. We now have a new Commission, which I hope will abide by the decisions of the European Parliament and reflect the views of the peoples of the member states of the European Union.

Unlike others in the establishment parties, Sinn Féin did not welcome the recent official signing of the EU constitutional treaty in Rome. We demand that the Government does not repeat its anti-democratic behaviour during the Nice treaty campaign. We call on it to be honest with the people in the first instance about the treaty's provisions and implications. We insist it is crucial that the Government commits at the outset to accepting the verdict of the people, even if they say "No", and to take that position back to Brussels.

I have concerns about next year's Lisbon Agenda, the mid-term review, which was the subject of Wim Kok's interim report at the Council last week. The national action plans on competitiveness must not ignore the social cohesion and sustainability aspects of the Lisbon Agenda in favour of the neo-liberal approach. I reject the assertion of the EU Competitiveness Council that the EU needs to move towards a US social model if it is to close the productivity gap with the US. The Irish model of growth is not the right one for EU partners to follow as it has widened the gap between the rich and the poor here.

During the debate on Sinn Féin's Private Members' motion on universal child care provisions last week, I argued that we needed to learn from the Nordic social model. Comprehensive social provision by Nordic countries has not damaged their competitiveness. They were placed at the top of the global competitiveness ranking last week. That puts that myth to rest.

It is not acceptable that the Government not only agreed to the introduction of biometric passports but has also signed up to the Hague programme without our having an opportunity to debate it. That programme will establish a common EU migration policy by 2010. From next year all decisions in this area will be by qualified majority voting and many of the aspects and proposals in this area within the EU have already been heavily criticised by human rights groups and organisations. Part of those proposals include the prospect of asylum processing camps in north Africa. We are unequivocally opposed to the creation of a fortress Europe. The Government has no mandate on this issue.

I want the Government to pay particular attention to the conclusion of the European Democratic Judges' Association which last month stated that the EU's importation of a security culture from the US in the name of the so-called war on terror is putting basic rights and democratic freedoms at risk.

On 17 December the Council will decide on the Commission's recommendations to open accession negotiations with Turkey. Sinn Féin supports Turkey's accession in principle. However, its membership must be contingent on it fulfilling the Copenhagen criteria. We are not convinced that enough durable and systemic change has yet taken place to warrant the opening of membership negotiations with Turkey at this time. For example, Turkey must resolve its Cypriot and Kurdish occupations before it becomes a member of the EU. All EU accession negotiations should be subject to suspension in view of human rights violations. We accept this aspect of conditionality as recommended by the Commission. French parliamentarians will debate the issue of Turkey's application in advance of that decision. There should also be a decision and a debate on that matter in this House prior to that decision on 17 December.

Mr. J. Higgins

The published conclusions of the EU Presidency following the EU leader's summit of 4 and 5 November leave me seriously wondering if the European Union leadership is in outright denial of the realities of our world or, worse and more likely, deliberately trying to deceive the people of the European Union. The first paragraph of the section on external affairs reads:

The European Council warmly congratulated President George W. Bush on his re-election as President of the United States ... Our close transatlantic partnership, based on shared values, is fundamental for Europe's approach to building international peace, security and prosperity. Our deep political, economic and cultural ties make us each other's natural and indispensable partners.

Can we be clear on this matter? Is the Government saying that it shares with the United States Government a belief that it has the right to launch an imperialist conquest of another country, to ruthlessly use its position as the most wealthy and powerful country on the planet to invade Iraq, corral its oil resources and establish military control over the Middle East? Of all the days to credit the United States with being a partner in building international peace and prosperity, this is not the one when the United States' military, as we speak, is battering the daylights out of the city of Falluja with all its monstrous arsenal of armaments and its victims include hospital workers, medical personnel, women and little children. Is the Government saying it shares the values of an administration that has built a gulag on its own doorstep in Guantanamo whose methods would rival any of the infamous gulags built by the Stalinists in eastern Europe in their heyday? The United States justifies the kidnap of suspects from around the world, interning them and subjecting them to systematic torture without recourse to human or civil rights. Is the Government saying it shares these values?

The Council declaration on Iraq, a five page document, contains not a single mention of the imperialist occupation of Iraq by states, including member states of the European Union. The Council says it "warmly welcomes the restoration of sovereignty to the Iraqi Government", dignifying as a sovereign Government a clutch of crooked exiles and hand-picked CIA stooges put in place by the occupying powers. Is there any end to how far the Government will debase itself in favour of American foreign policy? No doubt, the Taoiseach will shortly be preparing to go to Washington on St. Patrick's Day, one hand clutching a bowl of shamrock and the other tugging his forelock to Mr. Bush. That is shameful.

The Lisbon strategy, which is the other major issue, is simply the agenda of European big business dictated by the European round table and other lobby groups which have an open door to the European Commission which, in the neo-liberal policies pushed by the European Commission, acts as their agent. It is a race to the bottom for the European working class involving a savage assault on their pension rights in country after country. At a time when the world never had more technology and resources, it is ironic that people's working lives must be lengthened. Let us remember that some of the greatest struggles of the international working class were for shorter working days, weeks and years to give some dignity to the lives of working people. The Lisbon Agenda also has at its centre the privatisation of our public services. It is probably not surprising that the Government cheers on this big business agenda since it implements it itself. It is no wonder the Taoiseach was greeted with derision in the Dáil yesterday when he said he was the friend of those on the margins.

European workers will have their say. German workers are having their say by protesting in their hundreds and thousands against this agenda. We can expect this to increase and intensify.

Mr. Gormley

The European Council warmly welcomed the re-election of President Bush. I do not share that view. The re-election of President Bush is bad for the United States and for the world community. His first decision on being re-elected was to carry out the attack on Falluja. Before the war, I predicted that the war would destabilise Iraq and that entire region. I said the war was unjustified and would be entirely counter-productive. Every day on the streets of Iraq we see that view vindicated.

Regrettably, this country is implicated because we are assisting the American war effort by allowing Shannon Airport to be used as a military stop-over. Each day, hundreds of American troops pass through Shannon. The Minister for Transport has boasted about the amount of money we are earning but, as far as many Irish people, including me, are concerned, that is blood money. We see the number of people who are dying on the streets of Baghdad and elsewhere. As many as 100,000 people have died in that war and there is no end in sight. President Bush is looking for an exit strategy. He will be calling on us and on others to assist him in that strategy. We should have said at the European Council that we will not assist this imperialist war, for that is what it is.

There are those who say the election of President Bush has been a good thing. I refer to those, particularly within the European Union, who want to see the emergence of a European super-state. This was recently referred to by Deputy Stanton in a perceptive article. The judgment of these people is extremely flawed. In seeking to build up what they see as a counter weight to the United States they simply emulate the United States. That is wrong. We have seen how super-states come and go. We saw the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the consequences of that. I do not understand those who want to build up what they call Europe's own defence identity. It is a very wrong path to pursue.

This aspiration is plain to see in the new EU constitution. Whereas previously we talked about a common defence policy which might lead to a common defence, we are now told it will definitely lead to a common defence should the council unanimously decide so. This is a step towards that common defence. Similarly, member states must now undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities and a European armaments research and military capabilities agency will be established. This is another step towards the militarisation of Europe. There is also a solidarity clause, which is to prevent a terrorist attack. Where have we heard that before? President Bush would argue that what he is doing in Iraq is preventing a terrorist attack. We are copying the United States in building our own united states of Europe. It is completely ill advised to pursue that path.

The question of Palestine has been raised. President Bush is not seen as an honest broker in this instance. In the same way he is not seen as liberator in Iraq but as an occupier and the United States as an occupying force. Part of the solution to the Middle East problem is to look carefully at the Palestinian problem and towards bringing forward a real solution to it. The Government should pursue this goal instead of kowtowing to the United States.

Acting Chairman

The Minister for Foreign Affairs will now take questions. I ask Deputies to be brief and concise.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern)

I had intended first to deal with some of the issues raised by Deputies.

Mr. Quinn

Can we invite the Minister to do that?

Mr. D. Ahern

I am happy to do so. I can then take questions. I cannot say I will cover everything raised but I will deal with a number of issues.

Deputy Kenny referred to paedophilia and the Hague programme. At Ireland's suggestion the programme includes the development of a Europe-wide register of sex offenders. It is hoped this will ensure that criminals accused of serious sexual offences will be placed on national registers and that there will be an EU-wide sex offenders register. This would prevent sex offenders avoiding surveillance by changing their state of residence. This issue needs to be cleared up.

Deputy Quinn and others raised the issue of the Lisbon Agenda. During the Irish Presidency we focused on this issue and as a result, Wim Kok's report was made available. I understand a copy has been placed in the Oireachtas Library. I agree with Deputy Quinn's assertion that we must take a harder look at how we deal with the Lisbon Agenda. It is not just a case of examining what each member state is doing, it is also important to benchmark the EU as a whole in comparison with Asia and the US. In my previous incarnation as Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, I travelled to Japan and Korea and saw how much further ahead they are than Europe in developing telecommunications and other new technology.

At the European Council meeting we welcomed the new Commission's key role and the commitment of the President-designate, Mr. Barroso, who said that the Lisbon Agenda would be a central priority of his tenure in office. I agree that member states should play a more active role. During our EU Presidency we obtained agreement on the national reform partnerships in the hope that the main actors in each member state would bring a tougher line to bear on governments and would place a higher priority within their own organisations towards achieving a partnership approach to the Lisbon Agenda. Ireland has been successful in building on that partnership approach and we want to see that happening increasingly at EU level.

It must be accepted that the Lisbon Agenda is not a waste of time. Even following enlargement, it provides an important focus for the EU to ensure that in less developed EU countries, particularly the new member states, there is tremendous potential for growth and productivity. Higher growth rates presuppose better social cohesion and investment in human capital, as we have seen in the transformation of our labour market which has improved people's lifestyles. We welcome the national programmes on implementing the Lisbon strategy and the European Parliament must become more focused in that respect.

I do not agree with Deputy Gormley about EU-US relations. We must accept the democratic process in America. This side of the House accepts the democratic process but the Deputy seems unable to do so.

Mr. Gormley

No. I accept the democratic process, although I do not welcome President Bush's re-election. I would have preferred John Kerry to have been elected.

Mr. D. Ahern

The Deputy has an opinion on that but obviously the EU must deal with the US as a whole. Despite the fact that there might be differences occasionally on particular issues, by and large we have the same types of goals concerning trade and security, including the worldwide fight against terrorism. The USA has the same views as we do on democracy and human rights issues. It is important to have a strong transatlantic axis, while accepting that occasionally there will be differences, as there have been on issues such as Iraq.

Deputy Gormley raised the issue of Shannon Airport but it must be emphasised that the multinational force in Iraq has the sanction of UN Security Council resolutions 1511 and 1546.

Mr. Quinn

Yes, that is right.

Mr. D. Ahern

It must be emphasised that the force is there as a result of those resolutions. As regards the operation in Falluja, the view of all member states is that everything must be done to minimise fatalities, particularly of ordinary civilians. We hope the operation will come to an end as soon possible. Mr. Alawi strongly articulated the view that the only possibility of having elections in Iraq was if the chronic situation in Falluja could be dealt with. The EU's hope that minimum force would be used was articulated strongly by Javier Solana on behalf of the EU after last week's meeting.

Acting Chairman

This item must conclude at 1.20 p.m. by an order of the Dáil this morning.

Mr. Allen

There is much focus on the Middle East, and in particular Israel and Palestine, because of the Iraq situation. Were there any discussions at the European Council on the so-called security wall that Israel has constructed in some areas? Has the EU had discussions with Israel on the negative impact the wall is having on the people of the area?

I realise it is a sensitive issue but can the Minister provide an update on the situation regarding Margaret Hassan?

The Minister answered the question posed by Deputy Kenny concerning paedophilia but more could be done about that problem. Since it has major international consequences, merely drafting registers of paedophiles is insufficient. Are other steps planned by the European Union in this regard?

Given the varying tax rates that apply in the new EU states, does the Minister believe that Ireland will be able to maintain its 12.5% rate of corporation tax, which is so vital to our industrial development and investment?

The UK, France and Germany have been working to allay people's fears concerning the development of Iran's nuclear facilities. Were the EU leaders briefed on what discussions have taken place with the Iranian authorities? Threats against Iran will not achieve anything in this regard. Delicate diplomatic moves would be much more effective.

Acting Chairman

There are more Deputies offering so the Deputy should conclude.

Mr. Allen

I do not like the hints of heavy-handedness coming from some sources that countries should either comply with international rules or else. That approach has not worked in Iraq. I hope that delicate diplomacy will achieve its objective in what is a potentially dangerous situation in Iran. There are many other issues I would like to raise but time is restricted.

Mr. D. Ahern

The EU has declared that the Israeli security wall is illegal and I have previously articulated that point in the House. Israel is obviously entitled to defend its citizens as it sees fit but the positioning of the wall, as far as Ireland and the EU are concerned, is not in accordance with international law. The International Court of Justice has also made that clear.

The Deputy asked whether discussions had taken place with Israel concerning the effect of its policies in the region. The EU is dealing with a number of countries on its periphery, including Israel, in conjunction with what is called the European neighbourhood policy. While discussions with all the other countries have gone very well, the discussions with Israel have slowed down. That is the subject of constant discussion at EU meetings on general affairs and external relations issues. It will obviously be included in the discussions at the next meeting in that respect.

The Deputy also asked about the 12.5% rate of corporation tax. As far as the Government is concerned this was one of the successes of our Presidency. We ensured that in the treaty on the constitution, the issue of taxation would only be dealt with on the basis of unanimity. As far as we are concerned, the 12.5% rate is in situ and will remain so.

I accept what the Deputy has said about Iran and that dialogue is the better way. At a previous meeting of the General Affairs and External Relations Council the outlook for the discussions looked pretty gloomy. However, in the run-up to the European Council meeting last week and since, however, we have seen strong indications that the tripartite discussions on Iran will bear fruit.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh

Will the Government give a clear and unequivocal commitment to accept the verdict of the people in the referendum on the EU constitution? When is that referendum likely to be held? Other countries have already indicated when they will hold their referendums.

Has the Government made a decision to participate in the EU battle groups yet? If not when will a decision on that matter be made?

I reiterate a question I asked in my earlier contribution. Will the Government allow a debate on the Commission's recommendations on Turkey's membership before a decision on negotiations is made on 17 December? Does the Government agree that a referendum on Turkey's membership is not appropriate?

Mr. D. Ahern

The Government has made no decision on the timing of the referendum. As the Deputy will be aware, the decision of each member state must be made before 1 November 2006. Obviously we will need to wait to see how that process rolls out. A number of countries will make decisions fairly promptly and others will do so later on. I do not envisage the Irish people rejecting the constitution. It is a fair and balanced document, as we said in the documents we published in the past week or so. On a number of the key priorities for this country, we are endeavouring to ensure that our interests are looked after, including the issue of taxation. While I know Sinn Féin has declared that it wants to increase corporation tax, we want to retain the ability to keep corporation tax at 12.5% so that thousands of people employed in corporations here will have the benefit of that employment in the years to come.

The Deputy is aware of the position on Turkey's discussions with the EU on possible accession. At the December Council meeting a decision will be made on a start to negotiations and obviously we will need to wait and see what will happen then.

Acting Chairman

As only five minutes remain, I ask Deputies to be brief and concise.

Mr. Quinn

The formal communiqué refers to communicating Europe. Does the Minister or the Minister of State, Deputy Treacy, have specific plans to elaborate the programme of communicating Europe from now through to the date of the referendum and beyond?

Mr. D. Ahern

Yes. We are meeting to discuss the wording of the proposed constitutional amendment. We plan to make available as much information as possible. Obviously the referendum commission will have a huge part to play. We will ensure that the referendum commission will be functioning with plenty of time to fulfil its statutory role in that respect.

Mr. Quinn

I compliment the Minister on the explanatory guide to the European constitution issued by the Department of Foreign Affairs.

Mr. Gormley

As the Minister is considering the wording of the constitutional amendment, is it not strange that the Government has not yet considered a possible date, given the importance of the European constitution for the country? I have twice asked the Taoiseach to give the House a possible date for the publication of the legislation. When does the Minister anticipate this legislation will be published? Will we see its publication next year so that the referendum commission can be activated?

Mr. D. Ahern

I can go no further than the Taoiseach. No decision has been made on the timing of the referendum. However, we will have plenty of time for all views, both for and against, to be articulated.

Mr. J. Higgins

When the English language is used in European Union communiqués do the words have the normal meaning with which we associate them in everyday life? What does "natural and indispensable partners" mean in the context in which it is used? Does it mean the Government considers itself a partner in the illegal and brutal invasion of Iraq, which has seen the slaughter of 100,000 people and its ongoing occupation? What is meant by "shared values"? Does it mean that we share the belief that we can concoct a monstrous lie on the strength of which it is permissible to launch an invasion of another country?

In backing the United States assault on Falluja does the Minister really believe this will mean the end of the insurgency any more than, for example, the operation in Hue in Vietnam in the 1960s finished the insurgency there? Can we not think independently of the propaganda of imperialism? Does the Minister agree that the Israeli Government continues its brutal repressive and murderous assault on the Palestinian people and their territories while standing firmly behind the Israelis is the Bush Administration? What did the Minister say about that matter at the EU summit?

Mr. D. Ahern

While I do not know about the Deputy, as far as I am concerned this country has and always has had a good relationship with the US and has shared values with the US over the years. We share the same views on the freedoms it holds very dearly. I listen to the Deputy bleating on every day about workers. At least 100,000 people working in this country get their employment from American-backed companies. I make no apology for my position on this matter.

On Israel, we have clearly articulated our opinion, as has the EU, on the overreaction and excessive use of force by Israeli forces on Palestinian positions. We have equally said that we condemn the suicide bombings of Hamas and others and we will continue to do so. Only when a unilateral ceasefire becomes effective will proper dialogue based on the roadmap and the two-state solution, which we all desire, take place.

Mr. J. Higgins

I remind the Minister that sheep bleat and socialists articulate ideas.

Mr. Allen

While the Minister may not wish to comment, I asked about Mrs. Margaret Hassan.

Mr. D. Ahern

My Department has been in continual communication with our contacts in Iraq and Mrs. Hassan's husband, as well as her family here and in the UK. I have nothing further to report. Obviously there is sensitivity on these kidnappings including that of Annetta Flanigan. The UN is primarily the body responsible for any discussion taking place in her case.