Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Official Engagements.

Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 6 April 2004

Tuesday, 6 April 2004

Ceisteanna (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46)

Joe Higgins

Ceist:

1 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the matters discussed and conclusions reached at his meeting with the president of the Union of Industrial and Employers’ Confederations of Europe; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3694/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Joe Higgins

Ceist:

2 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the World Economic Forum in Davos; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3698/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Joe Higgins

Ceist:

3 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the matters discussed and conclusions reached at his meeting with the French Foreign Minister, Mr. Dominique de Villepin; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3700/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Enda Kenny

Ceist:

4 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting in Dublin with the Portuguese Prime Minister, Mr. Durao Barroso; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4593/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Pat Rabbitte

Ceist:

5 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the matters discussed and conclusions reached at his meeting with the German Chancellor, Mr. Gerhard Schröder, on 9 February 2004; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4626/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Pat Rabbitte

Ceist:

6 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his participation in the World Economic Forum at Davos in Switzerland. [4627/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Pat Rabbitte

Ceist:

7 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the outcome of his meeting on 12 February 2004 with the Italian Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi. [5050/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Enda Kenny

Ceist:

8 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the agenda for the March 2004 meeting of the European Council; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5584/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Enda Kenny

Ceist:

9 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting in Rome with the Italian Prime Minister, Mr. Berlusconi, on 12 February 2004; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5586/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Enda Kenny

Ceist:

10 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting in Dublin on 16 February 2004 with the Estonian Prime Minister, Mr. Juhan Parts; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5690/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Pat Rabbitte

Ceist:

11 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the outcome of his meeting in Dublin on 16 February 2004 with the Estonian Prime Minister, Mr. Juhan Parts. [5711/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Pat Rabbitte

Ceist:

12 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the outcome of his meeting in Dublin on 16 February 2004 with the UN special adviser on Cyprus. [5712/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Trevor Sargent

Ceist:

13 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the Davos World Economic Forum; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5886/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Trevor Sargent

Ceist:

14 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his 12 February 2004 meeting with the Italian Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5888/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Trevor Sargent

Ceist:

15 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his February 2004 meeting in Dublin with the German Chancellor, Mr. Gerhard Schröder; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5889/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Pat Rabbitte

Ceist:

16 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he has received a letter from Prime Minister Blair, Chancellor Schröder and President Chirac on the outcome of their tripartite meeting in Berlin on 18 February 2004; his views on the call made at the meeting for the appointment of a European Commission vice-president to drive the Lisbon process; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6064/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Trevor Sargent

Ceist:

17 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the contents of the letter received by him on 18 February 2004 from the leaders of Britain, France and Germany, following their tripartite summit in Berlin; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6105/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Joe Higgins

Ceist:

18 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach the matters discussed and conclusions reached at his recent meeting with the Estonian Prime Minister, Mr. Juhan Parts, in Dublin. [6695/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Joe Higgins

Ceist:

19 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach the matters discussed and conclusions reached at his recent meeting with the German Chancellor, Mr. Gerhard Schröder. [6697/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Joe Higgins

Ceist:

20 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach the matters discussed and conclusions reached at his recent meeting with the Portuguese Prime Minister, Mr. Durao Barroso. [6698/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Joe Higgins

Ceist:

21 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach the matters discussed and conclusions reached at his recent meeting with the Italian Prime Minister, Mr. Silvio Berlusconi. [6699/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Joe Higgins

Ceist:

22 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach the matters discussed and conclusions reached at his recent meeting with the Finnish Prime Minister, Mr. Matti Vanhanen. [6700/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Joe Higgins

Ceist:

23 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach the matters discussed and conclusions reached at his recent meeting with the UN Secretary General’s special adviser on Cyprus, Mr. Alvaro de Soto. [6701/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Joe Higgins

Ceist:

24 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if Prime Minister Blair, Chancellor Schröder and President Chirac have communicated with him regarding their tripartite meeting in Berlin on 18 February 2004; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6703/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Joe Higgins

Ceist:

25 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the correspondence he received from the Prime Ministers of Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, Portugal, Poland and Estonia regarding the Lisbon Agenda of economic reforms; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6708/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Pat Rabbitte

Ceist:

26 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the outcome of his meeting on 23 February 2004 with the Finnish Prime Minister, Mr. Matti Vanhanen. [6717/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Trevor Sargent

Ceist:

27 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting with the chairman of the Convention on the Future of Europe, Mr. Valéry Giscard d’Estaing; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8595/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Pat Rabbitte

Ceist:

28 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the outcome of his meeting on 10 March 2004 with the Danish Prime Minister, Mr. Anders Fogh Rasmussen. [8600/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Pat Rabbitte

Ceist:

29 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the outcome of his meeting with the Prime Minister of Slovakia, Mr. Mikulas Dzurinda on 12 March 2004. [8601/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Trevor Sargent

Ceist:

30 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with the European Environment Bureau, the European Trade Union Confederation, and the Social Platform on 2 February 2004 concerning the agenda for the spring EU Summit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8605/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Pat Rabbitte

Ceist:

31 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the steps he proposes to take in his capacity as President of the Council of Ministers, arising from the bomb attacks in Madrid on 11 March 2004; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8954/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Pat Rabbitte

Ceist:

32 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the discussions he has had, or plans to have, with other EU leaders arising from the bomb attacks in Madrid on 11 March 2004; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8955/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Pat Rabbitte

Ceist:

33 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the contact he has had with the Spanish Prime Minister elect, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, following the Spanish general election on 14 March 2004; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8956/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Joe Higgins

Ceist:

34 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach the matters discussed and conclusions reached at the European Council meeting in Brussels on 25 and 26 March 2004. [9086/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Joe Higgins

Ceist:

35 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his contacts with EU leaders following the terrorist atrocity in Madrid; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9092/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Joe Higgins

Ceist:

36 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach the matters discussed and conclusions reached at his meeting with the French President in advance of the European Council meeting in March 2004. [9093/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Joe Higgins

Ceist:

37 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach the matters discussed and conclusions reached at his meeting with the chair of the Convention on the Future of Europe, Mr. Valéry Giscard d’Estaing. [9101/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Joe Higgins

Ceist:

38 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach the matters discussed and conclusions reached at his meeting with the Slovak Prime Minister, Mr. Mikulas Dzurinda. [9102/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Trevor Sargent

Ceist:

39 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the contacts he has had with the new Spanish Prime Minister, Mr. José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9110/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Pat Rabbitte

Ceist:

40 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his participation in and the outcome of the spring European Council on 25 and 26 March 2004. [9563/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Pat Rabbitte

Ceist:

41 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his visit to Madrid on 24 March 2004. [9567/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Ceist:

42 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with the president of the Union of Industrial and Employers’ Confederations of Europe; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9770/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Ceist:

43 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his visit to Madrid on 24 March 2004; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9817/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Enda Kenny

Ceist:

44 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the outcome of the March 2004 meeting of the European Council; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10542/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Enda Kenny

Ceist:

45 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his bilateral meetings on the margins of the recent European Council meeting in Brussels; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10544/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Enda Kenny

Ceist:

46 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his address to the European Parliament in Strasbourg on 31 March 2004; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10545/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Freagraí ó Béal (26 píosaí cainte)

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 46, inclusive, together.

As part of our current Presidency of the European Union, I chaired the European Council meeting held in Brussels on 25 and 26 March. The Council conclusions and the declaration on combating terrorism adopted at the meeting have been laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. As Deputies are aware, on Tuesday, 30 March, the earliest opportunity following the European Council, I made a comprehensive statement in the House on the outcome of the Council. I also answered questions on the Council following the statements. I do not, therefore, propose to go into too much detail again.

Briefly, the spring European Council was a successful one for the European Union and significant progress was achieved. We adopted a declaration on combating terrorism; agreed to resume our negotiations in the Intergovernmental Conference and reach agreement no later than our next meeting in June; identified what needs to be done to promote sustainable growth and more jobs; and discussed a range of foreign policy issues and adopted conclusions, including on the Middle East, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Balkans and Russia. While I had no bilateral meetings on the margins of the European Council, I did have a joint meeting with the President of the Commission and the President of the Parliament before the Council.

On Wednesday, 31 March, I presented my report on the outcome of the spring European Council to the European Parliament in Strasbourg. I received positive feedback from MEPs on the progress achieved so far by Ireland's Presidency.

Once again I condemn in the strongest possible terms the appalling atrocity that took place in Madrid on 11 March in which nearly 200 people lost their lives and many hundreds were injured. I was struck by the wonderful sense of solidarity displayed by people throughout the European Union who participated in the three minutes' silence on 15 March which had been requested by the Irish Presidency in commemoration of those who died or were injured.

On Wednesday, 24 March, I attended a ceremonial Mass for the victims of the bombings in Madrid. It was a moving event which allowed us to pray for and pay our respects to the victims and show our solidarity with the Spanish people at this difficult time.

The challenge for us as holders of the Presidency has been to respond to these terrible events in an appropriate way. An emergency meeting of Justice and Home Affairs Ministers took place on 19 March and, as holders of the Presidency, we dedicated the first session of the spring European Council on 25 March to a discussion on the European Union's response to the terrorist attacks in Madrid. As I have mentioned, the European Council adopted a declaration on combating terrorism and a related declaration on solidarity against terrorism, which comprise a range of practical measures aimed at greatly enhancing our ability to better protect our citizens.

We also appointed the former Dutch interior Minister, Mr. Gjis de Vries, as the EU's first counter-terrorism co-ordinator. I have undertaken an intensive round of consultations with my counterparts on the Intergovernmental Conference over the past three months. Since I last reported to the House, I have met a number of EU leaders in Dublin, including Prime Minister Barroso of Portugal on 4 February, Chancellor Schröder on 9 February following his meeting with President Chirac in Berlin earlier that day, Prime Minister Parts of Estonia on 16 February, Prime Minister Vanhanen of Finland on 23 February, Prime Minister Juncker of Luxembourg on 2 March, Prime Minister Spidla of the Czech Republic on 3 March, Prime Minister Rasmussen of Denmark on 10 March, Prime Minister Blair on 11 March and Prime Minister Dzurinda of the Slovak Republic on 12 March.

On 12 February, I travelled to Rome for a meeting with Prime Minister Berlusconi. We reviewed the substantial progress made on the IGC under his chairmanship. I underlined our determination to build on this progress during the Irish Presidency. The Prime Minister set out Italy's views in a clear and positive way and I welcomed his insights. We also reviewed a range of issues on the EU agenda, including the Lisbon agenda, the Commission's proposals on the financial perspectives and a range of foreign policy issues of mutual interest.

I met the former chairman of the European Convention, Mr. Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, during his visit to Dublin on 11 March last. We had a useful meeting and I was interested to hear his perspective on the key issues outstanding in the IGC.

On Monday, 22 March, I travelled to Paris for discussions with President Chirac. This meeting was a key element of the consultation process I have been undertaking. I briefed the President on my extensive contacts since the beginning of the year and he provided me with an important insight into the latest French thinking on the IGC. I was encouraged by his wholehearted support for our efforts and his determination to see the IGC concluded by the June European Council on 17 and 18 June.

All these discussions, in both person and by telephone, were both useful and informative in terms of developing a better understanding of the concerns which remain and of assessing the possibilities for progress. The clear message which has come through is one of commitment to moving forward with a view to finding a reasonable solution.

I made a report to the European Council in Brussels on Thursday, 25 March. My report contained a summary account of the work done to date based on the extensive consultations that have taken place both at political and official level. It also outlined our overall assessment of the state of play, as well as our understanding of where scope for compromise and agreement might lie. Over dinner, we discussed how best to take matters forward over the coming months and, as I have mentioned, we agreed on the objective of concluding the IGC at the European Council in mid-June.

There is consensus that the new constitution will be good for Europe. It will contribute to greater understanding of what the Union is, what it does and why. With ten new countries joining on 1 May, it contains provisions necessary to enable the Union to develop and grow further in this new context. As I made clear to my European Council colleagues, I believe that early agreement is possible if we have the collective imagination to keep the wider picture in mind. The universal message I have received from partners is that delay will not make matters any easier. It is in all our interests to reach agreement on the constitutional project as soon as possible, particularly in view of the difficult discussions on other issues, such as the future financing of the Union, which lie ahead.

On 22 January, I met a UNICE group led by its president, Dr. Strübe. The group presented me with a short paper which outlined UNICE's main areas of interest in regard to the Irish Presidency of the European Union and, in particular, for the spring European Council. The discussions focused mainly on European competitiveness and employment issues. In addition, we discussed the forthcoming enlargement of the Union and institutional issues. I had a further meeting with UNICE prior to the European Council on 25 March. I also had a meeting with a delegation from the European Trade Union Confederation on 13 January. Meetings of this kind with social partners are critical to boosting the role that social dialogue can play in progressing, and ultimately achieving, the overall Lisbon goal.

The French Foreign Minister, Mr. Dominique de Villepin, paid a courtesy call on me in Government Buildings on 30 January. We discussed a range of issues, including the Intergovernmental Conference and the Lisbon agenda.

I met the United Nations Secretary General's Special Adviser on Cyprus, Mr. Alvaro de Soto in Dublin on 16 February last. I congratulated Mr. de Soto on the excellent work carried out by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and his team in New York the previous week which resulted in the announcement on 13 February that the Greek and Turkish Cypriots had committed to negotiating in good faith to achieve a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem before 1 May 2004. I assured Mr. de Soto that the EU would continue to support strongly the central role of the UN Secretary General.

I had a further opportunity to meet Mr. de Soto in Government Buildings yesterday. He briefed me on the outcome of the recently concluded UN-led negotiations. I acknowledged the long-standing effort of the UN Secretary General to create a unique and historic opportunity for a settlement to the Cyprus problem. The decision on the plan for a settlement as presented to the parties by the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan on 31 March now rests ultimately with the people of Cyprus who will vote in separate simultaneous referenda on 24 April.

I addressed the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos on 24 January in my capacity as President of the European Council. In my speech, I outlined the priorities which the Irish Presidency is addressing in the context of the Lisbon agenda, as well as my determination to step up its implementation. The full text of my speech can be viewed on the Irish Presidency website. My attendance at the forum afforded an ideal opportunity to inform an international audience of business leaders about the Presidency's ongoing agenda in regard to the ongoing economic, social and environmental programme that is the Lisbon agenda.

On 2 February, I addressed a conference on sustainable development co-hosted by the European Environment Bureau, the European Trade Union Conference and the Social Platform, and co-sponsored by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. I outlined to the conference the Presidency's approach to sustainable growth as part of the Lisbon agenda.

On 18 February, Prime Minister Blair, Chancellor Schröder and President Chirac wrote jointly to me and President Prodi outlining the issues discussed at their trilateral meeting that day. The letter contained a number of proposals and suggestions on how best the European Council might pursue the Lisbon agenda in the areas of innovation, employment and social cohesion. Many of the issues and suggestions referred to are ones that the Irish Presidency had been progressing in the context of the spring European Council. The proposal by the three leaders for the appointment of a vice-president of the Commission recognises the need for a co-ordinated and integrated response to the competitiveness challenges facing the European Union at all levels.

The Irish Presidency has consistently underlined the importance of coherence in addressing the many reforms and targets which make up the Lisbon agenda and the need for a well co-ordinated approach. This need was reflected in the Irish Presidency's approach to last month's spring European Council, which called on the incoming Commission President to consider how to ensure the competitiveness agenda is effectively supported. Of course, it would be a matter for the incoming President to consider the precise mandate and functions of the College of Commissioners.

On 16 February, I received a joint contribution to the spring European Council from the Prime Ministers of Spain, the Netherlands, Italy, Portugal, Poland and Estonia. This contribution affirmed the support of the six leaders for the approach being taken. It also outlined their thoughts on specific areas, including innovation, research and development, competitiveness and macroeconomic stability.

I spoke to the new Greek Prime Minister, Mr. Costas Karamanlis, by telephone on 22 March. I congratulated him on his election success and briefed him on the Irish Presidency's approach to the spring European Council and on my consultations on the IGC.

I spoke to José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, Spain's incoming Prime Minister, by telephone on 16 March. I offered my sympathies on the recent tragic events in Madrid and I briefed him on the Irish Presidency's response.

Does the Taoiseach agree that the proper response to the murderous atrocity in Madrid was shown by the Spanish people the following day when some 12 million demonstrated publicly, including native people and immigrants together, and that this, rather than lurching towards blunt, repressive legislation within the EU, shows the way forward? As we know, this type of legislation will often hit the innocent rather than the guilty.

It is obvious from the Taoiseach's response that he has been busy and has spoken to many European leaders. Will he state the present position after all the discussions regarding the proposal for a constitutional treaty for the European Union? What are the net issues outstanding and is he of the view that such a treaty will be agreed before the end of June?

The Taoiseach stated that there is consensus among European leaders but no such consensus among many of the ordinary people of Europe, including those in this country. If the Taoiseach concludes the negotiations for a constitutional treaty before the end of June, when will the Irish people have an opportunity to debate in full both the issue and its far-reaching implications and vote on them in a referendum? Has there been any discussion at EU leadership level of whether the same right will be given to the people of Europe generally, in other words, to have a common popular referendum in every country in the EU on what by any standards is a far-reaching development within the Union?

The short answer to the first question is "yes". The action of the Spanish people on the Friday night in Madrid, throughout Spain and in cities throughout the world where there are Spanish people, including this city and many other cities throughout Ireland, was to show their solidarity with those families who lost people and to try to do something practical to show their support for the families. I think they would also want European leaders, Ministers for Justice and everybody else to co-operate in an effort to prevent what happened to their people ever happening again.

On the second issue, this was discussed at the European Council, in the European Parliament and in the European forum where we discussed this issue for some hours last Thursday. People want to see a European constitution. More than 200 parliamentarians worked hard and put in a major effort to bring about a conclusion to the Convention on the Future of Europe last year, and this has been brought forward by the IGC. There is a general wish for agreement and I hope that can be achieved. We must take it forward as best we can and do everything humanly possible. I hope it can be concluded. There is never any certainty in these issues. As I outlined last week, a number of issues are outstanding, such as weighted voting, qualified majority voting, QMV, the issue of a Commissioner per member state and the number of members in the European Parliament. There are many other outstanding budgetary and financial issues. Some countries still have concerns about issues and these have not been resolved. There are approximately 30 issues outstanding. We will do all we can in the remaining months of the Irish Presidency to bring it as far as we possibly can.

It is a matter for every country to decide for itself whether to hold a referendum. There will be a referendum in this country. The normal time to hold a referendum is within 18 months to two years of the end of an IGC, but it has not been decided yet. As I stated to the House last week and at the forum, we should do our utmost to explain the issues although the work of the Convention greatly helped people to understand the issues, and that was quite clear from the meeting of the forum held a few days ago.

Arising from the Taoiseach's comments at the European forum last Thursday, has the Taoiseach firmed up his view in respect of the central problem of qualified majority voting? How does he expect this issue to evolve? Does he, for instance, plan additional meetings with the Polish Prime Minister in view of the incoming Spanish Prime Minister's statements that he would like Spain to be more integrated with Europe and will adopt a more conciliatory approach to majority voting?

In respect of his Presidency of the European Union and the seriously worsening crisis in Iraq, does the Taoiseach share the view that in many cases the Palestinian-Israeli problem is an alibi for terrorism in surrounding countries? In his capacity as President of the European Union, does he expect to raise with the United States President the issue of returning to the blueprint for peace which was published following the meeting in the Azores?

The Deputy's second question may be more appropriate to the next group of questions.

Since my remarks in response to Deputy Kenny last Thursday, I have spoken to the Polish Prime Minister again to try to make progress. I am conscious he will leave office in less than a month and there is still considerable uncertainty about what will happen afterwards. While there are divergent views on the matter, it could be some time before a new Prime Minister takes office and it is not clear exactly how that process will work out. I went through matters with the Prime Minister with whom I am due to speak again before the end of this week. I have put some proposals to him, including proposals from the Council secretariat that have been in the public domain.

I am not due to meet the incoming Spanish Prime Minister until he assumes office. I have been in contact with him but it is not appropriate from his point of view to have a formal meeting until he takes office. I hope to have such a meeting and I will continue to explore the issues.

There is still an extensive divergence of views within the political system in Poland, depending on whom one talks to or what one reads. One cannot know at this stage what will happen after the election of the new Prime Minister. Prime Minister Miller has been very helpful — he cannot read what will happen either — and both he and the President are trying as best they can to help the Presidency. I will return to the other issue the Deputy raised.

In terms of what the Taoiseach described as the key outstanding issues, is it correct to assume that whatever their nature at the end of the Italian Presidency, these issues remain but that there is a mood to move towards conclusion, and that it is not the case that some of the issues in question have been disposed of already? Assuming he will be successful in concluding a treaty, and I hope he will be, what are the Taoiseach's views on the process of ratification? Does he consider it likely that a referendum will be held this year?

I have a question on a specific key outstanding issue. In his capacity as representative of Ireland as distinct from his role of President of all Europeans, as my colleague, Deputy Michael D. Higgins, describes it, what is the Taoiseach's attitude to the retention of a Commissioner by all member states?

In reply to the Deputy's first question, the difficulty with the way the Council meeting ended in December was that many of the issues discussed from 5 October onwards were not tabled or discussed at the Council meeting. The issues addressed at bilateral and trilateral meetings involving the Italians and many other member states, particularly in November, were never tabled. People had concerns, problems and difficulties. The Naples document was published but it was never discussed at the European Council. Therefore, one can never take it there was agreement on those issues. That complicates things further. It took us some time in January to try to figure out the Italian position and each member state's understanding of the Italian position. I am not blaming anybody for the process because it was a pointless exercise. The starting position was not the position that was portrayed when there were only four items and that is the difficulty. I am now clear on everybody's understanding but there is no agreement on that. All of those items, as the Deputy stated, are still in play and not agreed by anyone. Then there are the other big items, and we are clear on those.

Another complication, which I already mentioned in the forum the other day, is that while much of the consultation was carried out in January and February, three new prime ministers attended the last European Council meeting and two others attended for the last time. Since I carried out the consultation in January and February, a fifth of the Council has changed, which makes life a bit difficult.

That is something which rarely happens in this country.

I hope it does not happen in the middle of the Presidency.

It happened in the middle of the last Presidency, unfortunately. That was a big mistake.

I think the Deputy can appreciate how that makes things slightly different. With regard to ratification, the Polish situation worries me. I am trying to deal with a prime minister who is sincerely trying to be helpful. Unfortunately, this is not a clear process. My major concern is to have a Polish Government with which I can deal. Ratification takes between 18 months and two years. The forum urged that we do not rush it and have a period of consultation. To answer the Deputy's question directly, I do not think it will be ratified in 2004.

What about the Commission?

I have long held a view that each member state should still have one Commissioner. This should continue for quite a while, some have mentioned 2012 or maybe even 2014. Ultimately, my own personal view is that it will change. The IGC group already consists of 27 members. Some countries are debating whether they should join, some countries have made their applications. Norway and Switzerland will review the situation again over the next few years. We are going to end up with a European Union of over 30 member states. How many more than 30 is a debate for the future. I hope it does not go too much further than 30. Having 30 or more Commissioners would be unwieldy and I support a small Commission as long as there is strict equality of rotation. Some have said 18, others have said 15, but I do not have any difficulty as long as there is strict equality of rotation. It looks like we will wait another decade before that decision is made. God knows what decision an IGC may make on that issue.

I share in the sympathy expressed by him and others to all the relatives of those who died and were injured in the Madrid atrocities. In light of that and following the visit by the Taoiseach to America during the St. Patrick's festival, did the Taoiseach discuss security arrangements for the visit of President George W. Bush? Were non-Irish security measures discussed, particularly with regard to the US airforce?

That question does not arise in this group of questions. It will arise in the next group.

The 46 questions were pretty comprehensive.

Yes, but there is another group of questions following that group, to which the Deputy's question would be more appropriate.

Allow me, a Cheann Comhairle, to move on to the Lisbon Agenda. The Taoiseach mentioned the stepping up of its implementation. In light of his meeting with the Union of Industrial and Employers' Confederations of Europe and given that he spoke about sustainability, does he regard the Kyoto Protocol as being subject to a cost benefit analysis from the point of view of the Lisbon Agenda? Given that he talked about sustainable growth rather than sustainability per se, will he state whether the Lisbon Agenda is to supersede the targeting of the Kyoto Protocol? I ask this because in his address at the Davos World Economic Forum in January, he did not refer too much to the goals of the EU summit in Gothenburg in 2001. Is he purposely leaving these out? When he mentions the environment, he mentions it once and in the context of the business environment.

Will the Taoiseach take the opportunity to talk about corporate responsibility and the failure of the Millennium Declaration, which established goals on health, education, security and human rights to be reached by 2015? Will this be part of the agenda the Taoiseach is setting for the EU Presidency on behalf of Ireland or is it to be left out intentionally?

The Lisbon Agenda is based on the economy and social and environmental issues. I agree that the Gothenburg conclusions are parts of that. My second meeting with the employers — the one prior to the Council — was very much on Kyoto. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Cullen, has been pressing very much at the other Council meeting the idea that we must proceed and that we should not be waiting to see what will happen in the United States or dwelling on its concerns about what will happen in Russia. From an overall economic and environmental point of view, I would rather see the United States and Russia make the appropriate decisions. That is an issue we will be raising with both the US and Russia in both our summits from an EU point of view. It is a key issue on which to try to press them.

I can assure the Deputy that we are continuing to state what the responsibilities are. I made it very clear to the employers that I do not think it a good tactic for them, irrespective of the arguments we are making, to defer these decisions to the second block, which is the block from 2008 to 2012. I stated they would do much better to make the policy decisions early on and phase it in because they will not escape it. As Deputy Sargent knows, there is an inclination to defer decision making but we have been indicating to the employers that this is the wrong thing to do. We have made this very clear in both the workshops at the Davos World Economic Forum and at the full meeting, where I met the executives of all the employers' groups of all 15 countries.

When the Taoiseach met the president of the Union of Industrial and Employers' Confederations of Europe, did he raise the issue of trade union recognition? Does he recognise that this issue is of growing concern in Ireland, the rest of Europe and globally? Effectively, trade unions are being pushed out of the workplace and employees are being denied their basic right of representation by trade unions. Does the Taoiseach agree that while the right to membership of trade unions may be covered in law, it is rendered null and void if employers refuse to recognise the union as the body that represents workers and negotiates on their behalf? Did the Taoiseach discuss this issue with the president of the employer's confederation? As President of the EU, does he have plans to launch any initiative in the course of the Irish Presidency to improve the situation and to address the difficulties with trade unions and the employer's confederation to copperfasten union recognition?

I join other Deputies in expressing once again my abhorrence and that of my party at the Madrid atrocities. Does the Taoiseach agree that the subsequent result of the Spanish general election was indicative of a rejection by the Spanish people of the Aznar Government's spin and, I suppose, deception during the war in Iraq and following the bombings in Madrid when it sought to lay the blame at another's door? Does he believe that in his capacity as EU President and from his experience of the Irish peace process, he now has an opportunity to recommend to the new Spanish Government that it address the Basque-Spanish conflict through an inclusive dialogue, the opportunity of people having the right to freely express their positions and through exploring the resolution of the difficulties that are clearly there by the same means as we have sought to address our age-old conflict? Does he agree that must also include the unbanning of political parties so that an inclusive process can get under way?

At European level, union recognition is not a major item on the agenda. Countries have different positions, both constitutional and legal, and have different operational ways of working it, so it has not been a big issue. The rights of members has been an issue as has the issue of negotiation which has been the issue here and with which the Tánaiste has been dealing.

On the Spanish issue, I am sure people will reflect for some time on what happened in the remaining days of the last government. It is not something on which I will dwell. It would be good and useful if there could be an overall, peaceful settlement to the Basque question. As a first step to that, if people were to move away from all forms of violence, it would help. Mr. Aznar has been a hard fighter against ETA for many years, and he expressed his views on this. I suppose he had good reason to be since ETA almost killed him. That helps to focus the mind and he has continued to take a strong line. There seems to be some indication of efforts to try to establish a ceasefire, reach a peaceful solution and to move on. That would be helpful but it is a matter for the incoming Spanish Government to try to make progress, as Mr. Aznar has worked hard to do over the years.

In regard to the role of Gijs de Vries, who is to be the EU terrorism co-ordinator, how exactly will his functions fit in with those currently exercised by Europol and Eurjust? Will he have any authority over those bodies or over whom will he have authority? Is this just an appointment for the sake of one in the wake of an atrocity?

On the battle against terrorism, does the Taoiseach agree that progress has been extremely slow in terms of passing legislation following the decisions he took at the Tampere summit in 1999 on the battle against cross-border crime? Does he agree one of the reasons progress has been extremely slow is because of the insistence on continued unanimity by his Government and others on these matters and that as a result, we have not been able to live up to the Tampere agenda which the Taoiseach and others set as far back as 1999? Does he agree that the proposal in the Italian Presidency compromise to introduce an emergency break, which would neuter the proposals of the Convention on qualified majority voting on crime, will ensure the deadlock on this matter will continue for the next five to ten years?

On the voting issue, in the event that the Dublin majority formula cannot be a solution, will the Taoiseach consider examining the formula used for allocating seats in the European Parliament as a basis for weighting votes in a single majority system in the Council, namely, degressive proportionality? Is he aware of mathematical studies which show how degressive proportionality could be used as a comprehensive weighting system which could be incorporated in the treaty, which would not have the difficulties that the Dublin majority has, which would be automatic every time there was enlargement and which would not require a fundamental renegotiation? Will the Taoiseach examine degressive proportionality, which the Convention has already agreed to with the parliament, being used as a way of breaking the deadlock in regard to the Council weighting?

On the role of the counter-terrorism co-ordinator, the EU high representative, Javier Solana, has appointed Gjis de Vries to the role of terrorism co-ordinator. He will be a central figure who will work with the Council secretariat and Mr. Solana. He will be the central figure in taking forward the measures agreed at the European Council. His key task will be to ensure co-ordination between the different bodies, including Europol, Eurojust, the member states and the institutions in implementing a comprehensive EU strategy to combat terrorism. He will be delegated the power and authority to try to co-ordinate the effort. The difficulty identified in the past is that people sign up to do something, not just because of qualified majority voting, and then they do not get on with it. He will try to co-ordinate the effort, which is not being done at present. His primary role will be as an internal co-ordinator. There will also be an important external dimension to ensure the EU counter-terrorism priorities in political dialogue with third countries and international organisations are consistent with the priorities in the internal fight.

It is not true to say that the Tampere agenda has not been implemented. A significant amount of that agenda has been completed. One of the initiatives of the Irish Presidency is to draw up a report on what has been implemented of the action programme. Part of it relates to what was done at the spring European Council and another to what we must do going forward. I agree with Deputy Bruton that the unanimity issue has delayed matters. I do not think there is a chance of the Italian proposal being agreed to. It was a good try but I do not think it will work. I have indicated strongly everywhere that we must be more forthcoming in this regard because the Deputy is correct in his analysis that we will not make the necessary progress.

On the weighted voting system, I will consider what Deputy Bruton said. We have considered many suggestions. This is not a crystal clear issue but I believe the debate is an acceptance of the double majority principle. There may have to be some variation of the issue to reach a final resolution. While people accept the double majority principle, there are a range of arguments, including issues such as percentages, the number in the blocking minority and population levels. The numbers being mentioned range from 12% to 25% of the population and two to four countries. There is not an agreed position on the matter, particularly from Poland and Spain, which continues to be a problem. I am examining some of the initiatives——

Proportionality might be easier for Poland and Spain to accept.

It could be. The major difficulty they have is that they continue to think negatively and the only issue they consider is their ability to block. Going forward with the new constitution, it is very difficult to get them to see that they should be looking at the positive aspects and how to move forward. The whole debate with both countries centres around their ability to block. Smaller countries do not look at it in that way, they look at making the system work. I have said at Council, at press conferences and straight to the countries that this is an entirely negative way of proceeding. We must try to find a resolution and I will look at what the Deputy suggests.

Barr
Roinn