Vol. 685 No. 1
1 Deputy Brian O’Shea asked the Taoiseach his plans, in view of the cutbacks being imposed within the Defence Forces, to restrict the use of Air Corps aircraft by Ministers, particularly for travel within Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17774/09]
2 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach his plans to change the regulations governing the use by Ministers of Air Corps aircraft in view of the cutbacks in public spending; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22278/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.
Air Corps aircraft are only used by Ministers where I consider it appropriate. This has always been the case during my time as Taoiseach and the position has not changed. Procedurally, requests for use of the service are made by Ministers' private secretaries to my office and are dealt with, in the first instance, by the staff of my office. Requests are examined by my staff with regard to the need for and purpose of travel, the destination and other logistical details. Any necessary clarification or further information is sought at this point. All screened requests are then submitted to me for my consideration and approval, if deemed appropriate. Once approved, all operational matters are settled directly between the office of the Minister in question and the Department of Defence or Air Corps.
No changes are proposed in the procedures for the use of the ministerial air transport service. All applications for use of such services are considered in the context of costs and efficiencies.
Given the cuts taking place all over the public service, and specifically the cuts in the Department of Defence including the closure of Army barracks, is there any cutback in the use of air travel by Ministers within the country? Has the Taoiseach issued new guidelines in that regard? Can he inform the House of the number of times in the past year that Air Corps aircraft have been used by Ministers travelling within the country?
I will have to come back to Deputy Gilmore with that information, I do not have it to hand. The service is used sparingly, as required. I outlined the procedure in my primary reply. I have had to say "No" on occasion.
The cost of the ministerial use of the three planes, the Gulfstream, the Learjet and the Beechcraft, between 2006 and November 2008 amounted to some €9 million. This included a failed mission to Texas at a cost of €164,000. If the two Ministers involved had flown on a commercial flight it would have cost between €1,000 and €1,500 to fly business class.
Deputy Gilmore pointed out that military helicopters have been used on a regular basis by Ministers for internal travel. This racked up over 52.5 hours of travel and cost the taxpayer over €116,000 in 2008. The door fell off a helicopter in an infamous circling of Killarney golf club.
The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, who is not present and is never here——
He is doing his job.
——even though it is national bike week——
He cycled in today as well.
——said that most in Government are coming to the realisation that we can save money and that from speaking to other Ministers he knew that money could be saved by using commercial airlines. What has been the cost on commercial airlines as opposed to jet travel?
I remember flying in the Beechcraft over 12 years ago. I understand it is grounded because of old age, leaving just the Learjet and the Gulfstream.
Like all of us.
Deputy Kenny should be careful what he says.
I am sure the Ceann Comhairle was in it in his days as a Minister. The Gulfstream was out of commission for several months last year, due to essential maintenance and refurbishment that cost €1.8 million in the US. Three weeks after that it had to have further treatment and maintenance because of technical difficulties. What was the cost of the second operation on the Gulfstream? The cost of scheduled maintenance for the jet in 2009 is €2 million. It appears that a jet that is 17 years old costs more to maintain than when it is flying its passengers. Has the Taoiseach considered disposing of the craft if it is more feasible for Ministers to fly commercial airlines? We will not have the Presidency of the European Union for a number of years. The requirements of Ministers in these straitened economic times might be more feasible if they flew by commercial flights. Has the Taoiseach considered this?
I remind Members that statistical questions must be tabled because it is impossible for the Taoiseach to have answers to statistical questions when the initial questions are general.
These are matters that must be dealt with by the Minister for Defence. I do not have information that goes beyond the remit of the original question. One must be mindful of the costs involved in conducting Government business and that is done. It is not possible for any Government in modern times to do its business without the availability of its own craft. The idea that we should be unique in that respect by not having one is incorrect. It sends a nice populist message but does not increase the efficiency of Government business in terms of the demands on officeholders. They must be doing business at home and abroad. The Gulfstream is the longest serving of its type. It requires maintenance because we decided not to buy a replacement. It is important that it is safely used.
Does the Taoiseach consider it appropriate that officeholders are using Air Corps helicopters to go to provincial football finals? At the Connacht final last year I saw a Government helicopter arriving. The State car went around the back and brought the person in to attend a football match. I heard the hissing and booing and people giving out that this was their money. The Taoiseach should send out a directive to Ministers, the President and everybody in this country that they should not be using helicopters for Connacht, Munster or Leinster football finals. We cannot afford it any longer.
I do not believe they were used specifically for that purpose. If a person was on official business that Sunday——
The Connacht final was not official business. Or was it?
I am not suggesting it was but if Deputy Ring will listen to what I say he might have an understanding of my point of view. If people are on official business in the morning and the helicopter is returning to base and someone wants to be dropped off at a match I do not see that as outrageous. If people are using the helicopter for official business and it is going back to base people can be dropped home unless we insist that people return to the base and wait for a car to bring them back home. We can get quite petty about it.
Going to a football match in Castlebar on the third Sunday in July is not official business and the Taoiseach should condemn it.
I have not suggested it is official business. Helicopters are only used when Ministers are on official business but a person may be dropped off as the helicopter is returning to base.
On occasions there may be justification for use of these aircraft. What is galling is when the junior partner in Government, in the personage of Deputy John Gormley, who is the leader of the Green Party and who is given to flights of fancy——
He is trotting after Deputy Ó Caoláin.
——indicated that the Green Party Ministers do not use the Government jets. It was a clear, blunt statement in response to a question. The Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Eamon Ryan, indicated in response to a parliamentary question in March that he had used the Government jet on at least two occasions. I am not questioning his use of it and I have no doubt he would use it only if appropriate. It is not appropriate to make the claim that as a rule, one party in Government does not use the Government jet at all despite facts contradicting this.
In putting forward proposals to Cabinet for restricted use of the Government jet or jets, would the Taoiseach be good enough to ensure there is an acceptance of this in all parties currently making up the Government?
It is available for official business and we all have a view to use it to the minimum requirement. There are times when it is essential to doing business. That applies to all Ministers and all of us seek to utilise these facilities bearing in mind the taxpayer and the need to do one's job.
3 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the number of freedom of information requests received by his Department during March 2009; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18627/09]
4 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the number of freedom of information requests received by his Department since January 2009; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22279/09]
5 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the number of freedom of information requests received by his Department in the first four months of 2009; the way these compare with the same period in each year since 2002; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22355/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 3 to 5, inclusive, together.
My Department received two freedom of information, FOI, requests in March 2009, 31 in the first four months of this year and 37 between the start of the year and the end of May. In response to the second part of Deputy Gilmore's question, I have included a table showing the numbers of FOI requests received in my Department each month from January to May for the years 2002 to 2009.
All freedom of information requests received in my Department are processed by statutory designated officials in accordance with the Freedom of Information Acts 1997 and 2003. In accordance with the Acts, I have no role in processing individual applications.
|
Year |
2002 |
2003 |
2004 |
2005 |
2006 |
2007 |
2008 |
2009 |
|
Jan |
20 |
21 |
1 |
2 |
9 |
14 |
4 |
8 |
|
Feb |
12 |
29 |
8 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
5 |
14 |
|
March |
14 |
30 |
2 |
1 |
4 |
8 |
1 |
2 |
|
April |
10 |
10 |
4 |
2 |
7 |
4 |
5 |
7 |
|
May |
10 |
11 |
1 |
2 |
6 |
2 |
12 |
6 |
The number of requests in general increased by 18% last year and more than 12,500 requests were made in 2008, which was the first increase since 2005. I assume the Taoiseach's Department does not apply a ruling which has apparently occurred in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. It directed staff in July last year to stop approving citizenship applications until new regulations came into force.
That has nothing to do with questions to the Taoiseach.
I draw this to the Taoiseach's attention because it came to light under freedom of information material supplied to RTE. The reason for the instruction being given was indicated when an official at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform stated that approval letters should not be issued until further notice because of regulations due to come into effect shortly which will amend fees for naturalisation certificates. In Ireland, these fees range from €650 to €950. In Canada, the charge is Canadian $127 and in Australia it is Australian $136.
Will the Taoiseach make inquiries to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform as to why that kind of instruction was given to an official?
The Taoiseach will deal with matters relevant to his own Department.
It only became available under the Freedom of Information Acts.
The scale of fees is a matter for the Department of Finance. We have been through this before.
The delay in approval certificates for naturalisation was being used as a method of fundraising in the Department.
The Deputy should table a question to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The Taoiseach will not be able to help the Deputy.
I have asked my next question before. In 2005, the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service met representatives of the Information Commissioner and assessed the impact of fees on the Freedom of Information Act. The committee wrote to the Taoiseach when he was Minister for Finance to have the matter addressed by way of legislation at the first available opportunity as it considered, as a representative of the people here, that the fees were excessive. Nothing has happened since. Does the Taoiseach consider that the fees applied are excessive? Is he willing to change them?
The scale of fees is a matter for the Minister for Finance and unfortunately the Taoiseach has no role in it.
In my then capacity I did not believe them excessive, nor do I believe them to be excessive now.
The Information Commissioner has expressed on a number of occasions concern about charges, particularly those relating to appeals. She has suggested that there should be a fundamental review of the freedom of information legislation. What consideration has the Taoiseach given to the Information Commissioner's opinion?
This should be a matter for the Department of Finance.
The greatest extension we have ever seen of freedom of information took place during my time at the Department of Finance in terms of the number of agencies and organisations now subject to its requirements. We are in a position to consider many recommendations favourably but I do not agree with the commissioner on the question of fees.
6 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his participation in the Eastern Partnership summit in Prague on 7 May 2009. [18646/09]
7 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at last month’s EU leaders meeting in Prague; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19790/09]
8 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if the agenda has been finalised for the June 2009 meeting of the European Council; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19792/09]
9 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his participation in the Eastern Partnership summit in Prague; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20716/09]
10 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach his priorities for the June 2009 EU summit; if he has received an agenda for the summit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21027/09]
11 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach his plans to meet other EU leaders in advance of the June 2009 summit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21028/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 to 11, inclusive, together.
I attended the Eastern Partnership summit in Prague on 7 May. The summit marked the formal launch of the European neighbourhood policy, Eastern Partnership, by the heads of state and government of the EU member states and the six partner countries. Under the initiative, the EU will develop relationships, including trade, with the six partner countries and provide a framework to promote democracy; good governance and stability; economic integration and convergence with EU policies; energy security; and greater contact between our peoples. Ireland fully supports the European neighbourhood policy, ENP, including the Eastern Partnership initiative, and is particularly supportive of the objective of promoting reform in all ENP countries. We recognise that the differing capacities and needs of individual partner countries will of course influence the development of their individual relationships with the EU.
I recently received a copy of the agenda for the European Council, which I will attend tomorrow. The main topics for discussion are institutional issues; the economic, financial and social position; climate change and sustainable development; and external relations. The European Council will take a number of important decisions on future financial regulation within the Union. Ireland fully accepts the need and the urgency of putting in place the proposed new system. However, this view is not unanimously held. There will also be discussion of the European economic recovery plan and on employment in particular.
With regard to climate change, the main goal is in bringing the global negotiations to a satisfactory conclusion at Copenhagen in December and this week's Council will take important steps towards ensuring that the EU continues to give leadership on that front. The Council is also expected to discuss illegal migration.
From an Irish perspective however, the key focus will be on gaining agreement for the guarantees which form part of the agreement reached last December when I undertook that we would hold a second referendum on the Lisbon treaty provided we retained a Commissioner per member state and secured satisfactory legal guarantees. The guarantees are intended to provide reassurance to people about concerns which they were shown to have about the Lisbon treaty.
There are currently no firm arrangements agreed for meetings with other EU leaders ahead of the June European Council. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and I, as well as our officials, have been in intensive contact with our counterparts in recent weeks and I expect that we will have a busy few days ahead.
During the course of the Prague summit, Commissioner Spidla, who deals with employment matters, gave an interview in which he suggested the Government should follow the example of Austria, Denmark and the Netherlands in considering introducing innovative work practices and retraining schemes to combat unemployment here. Those suggestions are fairly similar to some of the proposals advocated by the Labour Party for some time. What consideration has the Taoiseach given to those suggestions?
With regard to the summit tomorrow and Friday, does the Taoiseach expect to have a conclusion that will provide the legal guarantees being sought over a number of areas? Will that be sufficient for the Taoiseach to propose the holding of another referendum on the Lisbon treaty?
Independent of Commissioner Spidla's views, which we welcome, we are involved in trying to work with social partners in devising a scheme helpful to viable but vulnerable businesses. We shall see how that can be developed and discussion is ongoing. We are trying to make some progress in the area. With regard to increased training places, we are providing an increased allocation of funding to the skills training area, which is providing tens of thousands of extra places in our training authorities' placement schemes and other skills programmes which have been devised to help those who have unfortunately lost their jobs recently. That is an ongoing challenge of which we must be aware at all times. We must continue to work with those involved in this area and assist as much as we can.
Regarding engagements with our EU partners concerning the requirements we have set for the Lisbon treaty, the decisions of the Heads of Government and State at the European Council and our guarantees will be legally binding and constitute an international agreement lodged with the United Nations. It will take the effect of the date of entry into force of the Lisbon treaty, if the second referendum is successful. The instrument of ratification by Ireland will be lodged with the Italian Government and will refer to both the treaty and that decision. It is also agreed that we would get legally binding guarantees at the European Council. This is not disputed by anyone and the proposed decision is part of this. We will be seeking to ensure further legal effect is given to it in due course.
The Taoiseach stated external relations would be discussed at the forthcoming Council meeting during which, I am sure, the issue of the recent Iranian elections will be raised. What is the Government's position on the conduct of the elections? What are the Taoiseach's views on the recent comments by the US President that the USA should not meddle in the Iranian election results?
It has been reported legislation will be introduced concerning Ireland's participation in the European Defence Agency. Accordingly, does the Taoiseach expect all Government parties to campaign for a "Yes" vote in the next Lisbon treaty referendum, unlike the last occasion when the Green Party failed to do so?
Concerning the members of Government who were in favour of the last referendum, there are internal party rules that must be adhered to for a party's position to be established. That is a matter that must be respected and understood. I appreciate the support of the Green Party's Government colleagues in our efforts on a range of European issues, including this particular matter.
The issue of the European Defence Agency was raised, and misinterpreted and misrepresented, in the debate during the last referendum. As part of the process of giving reassurance to those who voted "No" to Lisbon because of concerns relating to the maintenance of our neutrality and fears of European militarisation, the Government has decided to set out the parameters of our membership of the agency in legislation. To date, we have participated in an agency research programme, following Cabinet approval.
The proposed legislation will have the requirement of both Cabinet and Dáil approval along the lines of other aspects of our foreign policy engagements. Ireland will only participate in those projects that benefit and support our ability to provide peace support under the UN mandate, which is the current position of the Army. Ireland participated in one agency project on the improved protection of personnel and force protection. That has been the limit of participation so far. The Government wants to give reassurance in legislative form to the public and confirm our involvement in this aspect of common foreign and security policy is in line with our own traditions as outlined in the treaty texts.
One hopes it can be demonstrated clearly that the recent Iranian elections were fair and transparent and the result reflects the will of the Iranian people. The Iranian authorities have given a commitment to have at least a partial recount. One must wait to see how extensive and adequate this will be. There is a concern within Iranian public opinion about the accuracy of the election result. That is a matter that needs to be resolved by the Iranians themselves to their satisfaction. I noted the US President's concerns over the violence that has erupted in parts of Iran over the elections results and the need to ensure human rights and freedom of expression, which he regards as universal values — a view to which I subscribe, are respected in the working out of the democratic will of the Iranian people.
I thank the Taoiseach for the briefing he gave yesterday to me and Deputies Timmins and Creighton on the preparations for the Lisbon treaty referendum. Fine Gael will support approval of the Lisbon treaty referendum when the Government sets a date for it. I will travel to Brussels today for the run-up to Friday's EU Council meeting. As I said to the Taoiseach yesterday, I will undertake to speak to the Heads of Government who are members of the European People's Party grouping in respect of gaining agreement for the declarations put forward in Ireland's interests.
Yesterday, there was a successful meeting of EU ambassadors with almost unanimous agreement on the Irish proposals for what has to be done with the Lisbon treaty. What are the Taoiseach's hopes for Friday's summit and what does he expect to get from it?
I noted the US President's recent speech on the Middle East. Ireland has held a position on the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem. Has the Taoiseach read the recent speech by the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr. Netanyahu, in which he said the two-state solution is, in principle, supportable but with the Palestinian state being demilitarised? This condition was rejected by the Palestinian authorities. Was this raised at the recent Prague EU summit? The difficulties between Israel and Iran are real and will have consequences in the partial recount of the recent Iranian elections.
I thank Deputies Kenny and Gilmore who have indicated their willingness to speak to their respective EU colleagues at the meetings they will attend in the run-up to the European Council on Friday. It is important everyone understands the Irish position is about seeking substance and status of the language in the treaty and to provide reassurance to our people regarding certain concerns raised in the last referendum.
The Middle East issue came up at recent talks between the US President, Mr. Obama, the European Council and certain invited states. I was asked by the EU Presidency to say a few words on it. I emphasised the need for a comprehensive approach to include Syria. I believe engagement with Syria is important in finding a comprehensive solution to this problem. I welcome President Obama's recent statement in Cairo. It was an important statement with the clarity and balance required for the Untied States to be an effective partner in this process. It will put it centre stage with the influence it can apply. He was unambiguous in calling for a stop to the continuing expansion of settlements in the occupied territories, which I welcome. The Israeli Government needed to hear this message. I also welcome the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, publicly stating for the first time that he would support a two-state solution. However, as the Deputy noted, the conditionality attached to that statement drew a highly negative response from Palestinians. This conditionality seeks to impose conditions on the so-called state of Palestine that might deny Palestinians the right to defend their territory in the same manner that Israel would expect to be able to defend its own territory. The entire purpose of a peace process is to ease tensions and to find a just way forward. In my opinion, what one has heard from the Obama Administration thus far bodes well for its effective engagement in that process.
Following the people's rejection in the referendum of the Lisbon treaty, the Government's own research indicated that a considerable factor in the people's decision to say "No" pertained to concerns regarding workers' rights and public services. Why are so-called legally binding guarantees in the areas of neutrality and taxation being considered but only a declaration in respect of the areas of workers' rights and public services? How did it come about that there are two tiers in the approach to the critical issues that informed the people's choice in the referendum on the Lisbon treaty? How exactly will this twin-track approach work? Regarding the so-called legally binding guarantees, must they be approved by the parliament of each member state before gaining the status of legally binding guarantees?
First, the basis upon which engagement has taken place with colleagues is that there can be no re-ratification of the Lisbon treaty by other national parliaments. This, therefore, involves the Government obtaining clarifications and confirmation from its colleagues on what is the position in respect of the Lisbon treaty text on those important issues about which very different interpretations were put by the "No" side on the last occasion. Certain fears were raised and certain scenarios were painted suggesting that, for example, the Lisbon treaty meant an involvement in militarisation of the European Union and that our traditional policies of neutrality were being compromised and undermined. Moreover, it was suggested that the prospect of the privatisation of public services was imminent. Many worst case or false scenarios were painted by the "No" side in an effort to gain support. While I have no problem with the "No" side seeking support for its disagreements with the treaty's contents, I have no time for the intellectual dishonesty that characterised much of the argumentation from the "No" side. It now is being confirmed by these guarantees that such arguments have no relevance whatever to the treaty itself.
The Government will be able to state clearly to the Irish people that nothing in this treaty attributes legal status to the Charter on Fundamental Rights. Similarly, in respect of the provisions of the treaty on freedom, security and justice, there is nothing whatever that affects in any way the scope and applicability of the protection of the right to life in the relevant articles of the Constitution. The same is true in respect of the protection of the family in Article 41 and of the protection of rights in respect of education as provided for by articles of the Constitution. Nothing whatever in this treaty affects in any way the scope and applicability of those provisions as they apply in Ireland.
Second, it will be confirmed that the Treaty of Lisbon contains nothing that makes a change of any kind to the extent and operation of the competence of the European Union in respect of taxation. This was another matter that was suggested by the "No" side on the last occasion. This constitutes confirmation by all member states that were signatories to the treaty and which are in the process of ratifying it, that it contains nothing that affects the operation or competence of the European Union regarding taxation.
On security and defence, it will be set out clearly that the common security and defence policy is an integral part of our common security and defence policy. It gives an operational capacity to the Union to undertake missions outside the Union for peacekeeping, conflict prevention and for strengthening international security in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter. It does not prejudice the specific character of Ireland's security and defence policy. There is nothing in here in which Ireland is required to be involved about which it has any disagreement or problem. It is a completely permissible facility for Ireland to discharge its obligations in the international arena in a manner that is completely consistent with its traditional policies of neutrality. Ireland's policy of neutrality is not based on isolationism but on engagement. It is based on involvement, through the United Nations, with various activities of which as a people we all are deeply proud and which will continue. In a spirit of solidarity and without prejudice to that traditional policy, Ireland can determine the nature of aid or assistance to be provided to a member state that is the object of a terrorist attack, etc., or the victim of armed aggression. Consequently, nothing prejudices our policy in these matters.
As for the question of the solemn declaration on workers' rights and social policy, in respect of the political agreement that was reached last December, it was clear that such a solemn declaration was what was available on these matters. The European Union is not disposed, as a union of 27 member states, to engage itself in a protocol in this particular area. The benefit of the declaration is that it confirms what is contained in the treaty on these matters. I, of course, am aware that within the trade union movement in Europe, there are people who quite rightly wish to advance these aspects in due course in subsequent treaties and that argument and case will continue to be made. However, there are protections and there are issues within the Lisbon treaty itself on these matters, which again will be outlined in detail in order that there will be no misrepresentation as to what the treaty contains. Deputy Ó Caoláin should note that these will be the clarifications and statements that I hope will be forthcoming when the European Council arrives at its conclusions. They will be of considerable assistance to many who were given to understand that all these issues were affected by the Lisbon treaty when clearly they are not.
While I will try to come back to Deputy Ó Caoláin, I call Deputy Gilmore.
I had a supplementary question. Will the Ceann Comhairle accommodate me?
I certainly will. I will try to revert to the Deputy but Deputy Gilmore is next.
Does the Taoiseach expect there will be discussion at the summit about the appointment of the new Commission? I refer to two issues in particular. First, I understand the current President of the Commission has indicated his wish to serve a second term. Does the Government support such a second term? Does the Taoiseach expect that the issue will be discussed at the summit?
The second issue relates to the appointment of the wider Commission. My understanding is that it is intended that each member state will appoint a Commissioner if the Lisbon treaty is ratified. Does the Taoiseach expect there will be discussion with regard to the timing of the appointment of the new Commission? Does he expect that arrangements will be put in place for the appointment of an Irish Commissioner and, if so, when?
First, I have indicated my support to President Barroso in respect of his reappointment as President of the Commission. I believe he has been an effective President of the Commission and I support his candidacy. Second, it is envisaged that the method of appointment of the Commission will be proceeded with under the Swedish Presidency. It is envisaged that the Commission will be appointed on the conclusion of the tenure of the current Commission. Obviously, the question of the appointment of the President of the Commission is an important part of that process, because once appointed, he or she then will take on the role of working out the cabinet arrangements for his or her Commission. The question of President Barroso’s appointment at this Council is a matter that is under discussion at present and is one that I would support.
Is it the case, as has been widely reported, that were the so-called legal guarantees to be agreed at this weekend's summit, they would not have legal status and would not come into effect until the next European Union treaty but would be incorporated in a future European Union treaty? At this point in time, it is expected that the next treaty will be that providing for Croatia's accession to the EU in 2011. Can the Taoiseach clarify whether that is the case? What will happen if all member states do not sign off on the proposed legally binding guarantees and the much less reassuring declarations that are to be made in areas like workers' rights and public services? Does the Taoiseach have a contingency plan if circumstances arise in which the unanimous support of all the other member states is not secured? When I have raised this issue with the Taoiseach on previous occasions, I have not resorted to arguing why I and others voted "No" last year. By contrast, the Taoiseach has always been keen in his responses to bring his perspective to the "No" vote. I suggest, with respect to the Taoiseach, that his comments have been disrespectful to the majority of the people who voted "No" for sound reasons, based on their real concerns.
The Deputy cannot pre-empt the Taoiseach's answers.
It is not appropriate for the Taoiseach to continue to berate and lecture us as if the position we took made us lesser beings.
The Deputy cannot engage in a critique of the Taoiseach's answers.
That is far from the case. The Taoiseach's pursuit of legally binding guarantees, etc., must demonstrate to him that some elements of the original document were flawed and inappropriate.
I do not agree with Deputy Ó Caoláin's characterisation of the "No" campaign. It is not accurate to suggest that his view of events convinced everyone who voted "No". People voted "No" for many reasons. Some people were concerned about the doubts that were raised about various aspects of the treaty. It was claimed that certain things were in the treaty, but they were not in the treaty at all.
I have heard exactly the same thing said about people on the "Yes" side. The Taoiseach was certainly the least convincing proponent of the "Yes" position.
I ask the Deputy to allow the Taoiseach to proceed.
Before the Taoiseach throws a stone somewhere, he should examine his own role.
I intend to win the next referendum campaign.
I think Deputy Kenny reckons he is going to do it.
We will all do it. That is the whole approach we are taking to this issue of national importance, which goes beyond party politics. It is vital for the future of this country, particularly in the circumstances in which we currently find ourselves. Anyone who has a cursory understanding and knowledge of our economic situation will be aware of the role the EU institutions have played over the past six months. The many benefits that have accrued to Ireland since it joined the EU in 1973 are testimony of the importance of our decision on this issue. It is in our national interest to seek to ratify this treaty, on the basis of the assurances we are now obtaining.
We will be punished if we do not ratify it.
That will be the approach we will adopt.
Is that what the Taoiseach is suggesting?
I am saying, as Taoiseach of Ireland, that it is in our national interest to ratify this treaty. If we get the assurances we are seeking — I am confident we will do so — I will put that question to the people. It is not correct for the Deputy to suggest that what will be obtained by way of a decision from the European Council will not have legal effect. It will have legal effect. The decisions of the Heads of State and Government will constitute a legally binding international agreement. We will make it clear that the current situation, with respect to our national position on taxation, neutrality and ethical issues, will be unchanged by virtue of the entering into force of the Lisbon treaty. People will be able to vote "Yes" to that treaty with confidence that the protections they enjoy under the Constitution will continue after the Lisbon treaty enters into force. It is not correct to say that the Council decision will not have binding legal effect.
We will have to see.
It does have binding legal effect.
The Taoiseach has not presented us with the text.
I am setting out the international legal position, regardless of the text. If a positive decision on these matters is made by the Heads of State and Government at the forthcoming meeting of the European Council, that will constitute a legally binding text. That is what I am saying. The suggestion made by the Deputy in his opening question — that it is of no legal effect — is factually and legally incorrect.
I never said that.
I will refer the Deputy to the Official Report.
I did not say that.
The Deputy can send me a letter confirming he said that.
I have yet to see what the Taoiseach will get.
I listened attentively to what the Deputy said. Perhaps he was not listening to himself.
We will wait and see.
