Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Official Engagements.

Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 1 June 2004

Tuesday, 1 June 2004

Ceisteanna (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16)

Joe Higgins

Ceist:

1 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the matters discussed and conclusions reached on his visit to the 23 European capitals in the context of negotiations of the proposed EU Constitution. [15386/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Joe Higgins

Ceist:

2 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach the matters discussed and conclusions reached at the EU-Russia summit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15390/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Enda Kenny

Ceist:

3 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent discussions with other European Union Heads of Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15400/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Pat Rabbitte

Ceist:

4 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his meeting on 19 May 2004 with Chancellor Schüssel of Austria. [15611/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Pat Rabbitte

Ceist:

5 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his meeting on 19 May 2004 with Prime Minister Dzurinda of Slovakia. [15612/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Pat Rabbitte

Ceist:

6 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his meeting on 19 May 2004 with Prime Minister Medgyessy of Hungary. [15613/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Pat Rabbitte

Ceist:

7 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his meeting on 20 May 2004 with Prime Minister Spidla of the Czech Republic. [15614/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Pat Rabbitte

Ceist:

8 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his meeting on 20 May 2004 with Prime Minister Rop of Slovenia. [15615/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Pat Rabbitte

Ceist:

9 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the matters discussed and conclusions reached at the EU-Russia summit on 21 May 2004; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15616/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Ceist:

10 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his visits to EU capitals and his discussions with EU Heads of Government recently; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16267/04]

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 with the French Prime Minister, Mr. Jean Pierre Raffarin. [16322/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Trevor Sargent

Ceist:

12 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent discussions with other EU Heads of Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16446/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Trevor Sargent

Ceist:

13 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the May EU-Russia summit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16447/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Trevor Sargent

Ceist:

14 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his discussions with the French Prime Minister, Mr. Jean Pierre Raffarin, in May 2004; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16448/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Pat Rabbitte

Ceist:

15 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his recent visit to Mexico. [16555/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Pat Rabbitte

Ceist:

16 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the outcome of the EU-Latin American-Caribbean summit. [16556/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Freagraí ó Béal (37 píosaí cainte)

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 16, inclusive, together.

To date I have visited 17 of the 24 member states as part of my ongoing tour of capitals in advance of the European Council later this month. On the first leg, from 5 to 7 May, I visited Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland. On the second leg, from 12 to 14 May, I visited Cyprus, Greece, Malta, Italy, Portugal and Spain. I reported to the House on the first two legs on 18 May last.

On 19 and 20 May I visited Austria, Slovakia, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovenia as part of the third leg of this programme of visits. I had a useful series of discussions with my counterparts which provided the opportunity to outline in detail the Presidency's plans for the forthcoming European Council and the Intergovernmental Conference. This week, I will complete my tour of capitals with visits to France, Britain, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany and Denmark. I am also keeping my colleagues in Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey fully informed of developments in the run-up to the European Council. I spoke with Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey, Prime Minister Nastase of Romania and Prime Minister Saxe-Coburg of Bulgaria by telephone last week.

On the Intergovernmental Conference, we are sparing no effort to make progress on the outstanding issues ahead of the European Council. We are continuing to make good progress towards an agreement with which everyone can live. I believe we are still on track for agreement at the European Council on 17 and 18 June.

I will have a number of key meetings with colleagues later this week. So far, everyone with whom I have met has been constructive, positive and fully committed to early resolution of the outstanding issues. We are beginning to centre in on an agreed outcome on institutional issues. Naturally, people regard these questions — voting, the Commission and the Parliament — as inter-linked and I do not expect them to reach final judgments until there is a full package on the table. However, I believe that we are in good shape and know where we are going.

On the more technical issues, excellent work was done at the meetings of officials and foreign Ministers over the past month. While some small adjustments remain to be made, most of these do not need further discussion. On the overall balance between qualified majority voting and unanimity in the new constitution, this has obviously been a key issue in my discussions with colleagues. The areas involved are sensitive and complex. We need to find a balance acceptable to all. I will continue to explore how this might be achieved in my further meetings, including those taking place this week. I will then reflect before making a proposal.

On Friday, 21 May, accompanied by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, I attended the EU-Russia summit in Moscow. In the immediate aftermath of EU enlargement, this was a very welcome and timely opportunity to reaffirm the Union's strategic partnership with its largest European neighbour. We agreed on a number of measures aimed at taking forward work on developing the four common spaces for EU-Russia co-operation. These spaces were established at last year's St. Petersburg summit and have the capacity to transform the EU-Russia relationship.

A key outcome of the summit was the agreement reached between Russia and the EU on Russia's accession to the World Trade Organisation. This agreement is a significant and critically important step forward for open markets and trade liberalisation here in Europe. It also marks a major step towards the full accession of Russia to the WTO. We also discussed current international issues, including Iraq, Afghanistan and the Middle East.

I met Prime Minister Raffarin of France on Monday, 24 May, during his official visit to Ireland. Our meeting provided a valuable opportunity to discuss the issue of bilateral relations. We agreed there was considerable scope for further enhancing co-operation between France and Ireland, particularly in the fields of training, research, biotechnology and knowledge based issues which are central to the European Union's Lisbon strategy. We also had a useful exchange of views on the Intergovernmental Conference. I thanked the Prime Minister for his support for our efforts aimed at concluding negotiations on the draft constitutional treaty at the European Council later this month. We also had time to touch on a range of other issues, including the EU-Russia summit and the Middle East.

I travelled to Guadalajara in Mexico last week for the EU-Latin American-Caribbean summit, which I co-chaired with President Fox of Mexico. The main themes of the summit were social cohesion and effective multilateralism. A total of 33 Latin American and Caribbean countries were represented alongside the 25 EU member states. The main summit was followed by meetings between the EU and the Central American Association, the Andean Community, Cariforum, Chile and Mexico. It was a most productive meeting.

During my visit, I had a bilateral meeting with President Uribe of Colombia. In addition to EU and bilateral issues, we discussed the continued security and welfare of the three Irish prisoners held by the Colombian authorities. I expressed the hope that the appeal process could be expedited and that the case could be concluded as quickly as possible.

Following the three-legged race around the European Union that the Taoiseach has just described, with just over two weeks to go until the final major meeting of the Irish EU Presidency, will the Taoiseach say what the outstanding issues are in regard to agreeing a proposed EU draft constitution? Given such a short timespan, I imagine the main sticking points between the various states would now be clear. Will the Taoiseach elaborate on this? If agreement is reached before the end of the Irish EU Presidency, will the Taoiseach say when we might expect a national debate and a referendum on the proposed constitution?

The Taoiseach referred to the common commercial policy. The House knows he has been a strong advocate of the Lisbon Agenda. Does the Taoiseach not agree that this is a race to the bottom as far as European workers are concerned as the cut-throat rush for profits by the major transnational corporations means a huge squeeze on workers' wages, pension rights and working conditions?

Do the Taoiseach and the Government agree with the proposed significant change in the new constitution that will remove the existing power of veto over the commercialisation of health, education and cultural services that member states have at present and go along with the possibility that these services can, therefore, be opened up to competition and privatisation?

With regard to the Taoiseach's meeting with the President of Colombia, will he be more specific about what the President said about three Irish nationals who have been in front of the courts, cleared of the most serious charges against them and whose time in custody is equal to or has exceeded that for the less serious charges? What are the prospects of those people being released into a safe environment and allowed to travel home immediately?

On the outstanding issues, I still have to speak with seven countries, including some of the larger member states and those discussions will be extremely important. The opinions of every country are important but Germany, France and the United Kingdom, which has concerns about justice and home affairs, have all raised a range of issues throughout the Convention, never mind in the discussions of the last ten months or so.

On the major institutional issues a number of points remain. The Parliament is a major issue to small countries because the Convention says they should have four members but there has been a heated debate in these countries that they should have five or even six members. It would be easy to increase the numbers but the seats must come from somewhere and that would create difficulties.

The formation of the Commission in future is an issue, whether we stay at one Commissioner per member state or reduce to a smaller number. There have been long and heated discussions on that and we have tabled a proposal on the matter. There is substantial, but not total, agreement on the issue. Those countries that would like to see a Commissioner per member state in perpetuity are still arguing their case.

On qualified majority voting there are many areas under discussion. We have set out our stall but there are others who still argue for QMV as opposed to unanimity in several areas. Many of them are individual cases but they have not been agreed.

There are many technical issues, such as the budget, because the financial perspectives of individual member states can conflict with each other. For each one we solve, we open up another on a different side. There are probably a dozen such issues and they are very important for the countries involved. Many of them concern parliamentary committee issues similar to those dealt with by our own Committee on European Affairs Sub-Committee on European Scrutiny, which makes suggestions and proposals we must examine.

There are a range of outstanding issues and in all of these we have tried to narrow discussions. The British position on justice and home affairs is still difficult because Britain has a different legal system, as we do, where common law exists. There are four or five major issues surrounding criminal law aspects and a public prosecutor. Such issues are difficult to resolve.

The main protagonists are the three Governments I am meeting this week, namely, Germany, France and Britain. I will meet Germany, France and the UK in succession because the issues involve those three. If those three agree, most of the others can, except perhaps on one issue which also affects Malta, Cyprus and ourselves, being the common law countries. They are the most sensitive issues but the most difficult issue is weighted voting. There are still several different views on that issue. Smaller countries, which are in the majority, would like decisions to be supported by equal population and equal state size. That has been their position throughout. Other countries want a ratio 60 to 50 per cent. Spain wants 66 per cent, down from 70 per cent. I am doing my best to figure out what Poland wants. It is having some difficulty but its position is no longer the same as that of Spain.

That is one country with which Mr. Royston Brady is familiar. Perhaps he could give the Taoiseach a dig out.

I could do with one. We must try to resolve that issue. I hope I am wrong, but I believe it will involve very difficult negotiations. I am not quite sure how it can be resolved because the countries have different positions and there are at least five groups.

The Lisbon strategy is the strategy that has the support of trade unions and employers. It is a strategy I have also supported. Throughout the Irish Presidency and in the year preceding it we worked very hard with ETUC and UNICE to arrive at an understanding of how best to implement it. European trade unions collectively support it. Employers have also been supportive. Some aspects of it are contentious but, generally speaking, there is support for the process. The more of it we can implement the better. It would be good if it were all implemented by 2010. The Irish Presidency did good work in setting out in every category what we are trying to achieve and how we should try to achieve it in terms of time limits and so on. All of that work has been very well presented and this country and its various Ministers got credit for that. The project is ambitious but it is achievable and sustainable and we will keep on with it.

On the issue of Colombia, from the beginning the Government has treated this as a consular case. Our paramount concern has been and remains the safety and security of the three men, who are Irish citizens. The Department of Foreign Affairs, through its Embassy in Mexico, has from the outset sought to ensure the men's well-being and provide them with appropriate consular assistance. It will continue to do so. This case has been going on for three full years. It is in this context that I discussed this case, among other matters, during my visit with President Uribe. I met the vice-President earlier this year. In 2002 I met the former President. We have continued to be involved in this case over the past two and a half years since the former Deputy David Andrews reported on this issue.

The trial has concluded. The men have been found not guilty of the more serious offences of training terrorists with which they were charged. The Attorney General, at the last hour, lodged an appeal against this decision. There are concerns for the men's safety. They must remain in Colombia until the appeal is heard. It is therefore appropriate that we should, in the first instance, make known our concerns for the men's safety at the highest level, given the opportunity. The suggestions we put were, first, that they should be allowed to return home, since there is an issue of security, so long as they agree to return for the case. The second and better option is that the appeal be speeded up. There is a view that the appeal is based on very narrow grounds. However, that is a legal matter. Usually an appeal in Colombia can take between 18 months and two years. If that is the case, the men would be in prison for almost five years before their appeal is dealt with. From a consular and humanitarian perspective, the fact is that they have been proven innocent. There is an enormous detailed judgment on this, which is extraordinary for the Colombian system.

The President said he would examine the issues. Obviously, he must check the legal position but he will be in contact with the Department of Foreign Affairs in due course.

Will the Taoiseach outline when it is intended to circulate a new draft of the proposed constitution, incorporating any changes that have been agreed? How long in advance of the summit does he expect it to be circulated?

I am astounded that Deputy Joe Higgins refers to the use of a false passport as a minor charge. It is appalling that, while it is right and proper that the Government of the day would be concerned about the safety and health of our citizens abroad, the Taoiseach can give a guarantee to the President of Colombia, with whose country Ireland does not have extradition arrangements, of the return of three persons who have been convicted of using false passports when entering Colombia. Is the Taoiseach making this unique arrangement on the basis that these are Irish citizens or that they are members of Sinn Féin? Sinn Féin denied that one of these persons was its representative in Cuba.

The Minister for Defence is giving the Taoiseach advice as I speak but has the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform given his imprimatur to the Taoiseach’s proposal that a guarantee can be given to the president of another country of the return to that country of three Irish citizens who have been convicted of using false passports? What is the nature of this guarantee? The Irish people were given a guarantee that the killers of Detective Garda McCabe would serve their time but, according to reports, some type of deal was done last October.

A question, please.

It was not.

I thank the Minister for Defence. When he answered questions last week he did not pass five out of ten.

It was six and a half, I believe.

What basis and what criteria did the Taoiseach use to give a guarantee of this nature to the Colombian President, when Ireland does not have an extradition agreement with that country?

With regard to the first question, on two occasions recently we produced an amended version of the constitution on the issues on which we have made progress. That happened at the two Foreign Affairs Council meetings that took place in May. We have kept everybody up to date. The only areas in which we have not produced a text is where the issues are still under discussion, mainly those I mentioned earlier. However, we have produced a full text on the future of the Commission and the reduced Commission from 2014. With regard to the other issues, we still have to finish the tour of capitals and discuss them with the Council secretariat and the Commission.

Most of the issues will be put down for the foreign affairs meeting which is to be held earlier in the week of the Council meeting. If the remaining issues are not agreed, we will not produce a text but will wait for the Council meeting. However, we are narrowing down the issues and trying to get agreement. At the contact group recently we gave it a fair indication, although we did not produce a text, of where the Irish Presidency would like this to go, so the group would at least know our thinking. We have been even handed and up front. With 27 countries, plus the Commission and the Council secretariat, there is no point in trying to surprise anyone because it would be one bloc against another. There are many different groups of like-minded countries — the Benelux countries, the Mediterranean group and so on — as well as political groupings. That is why I have tried to negotiate on the basis of not giving anyone any major surprises.

On the second issue, I do not think it will be a shock to anyone to hear that this is a consular issue. I have discussed this a number of times over the years with the families involved. Obviously any charge is serious, but some of these charges were more serious than others. The people concerned were found innocent of these. The issue now is whether they should have to stay in jail for two years pending an appeal. This seems an inordinate amount of time and it would certainly not happen in this country or most other countries. If the appeal can be heard quickly, these matters can be dealt with quickly. It seems a reasonable request, from a consular point of view, that these people should not have to spend much longer in prison as they have already spent three years there.

It is a regular occurrence that if a person returns home pending an appeal, his or her family or legal representatives are asked to make a commitment to ensure he or she will turn up at a police station if requested to do so. These people are well represented by legal teams in Ireland and Colombia. If the guarantee were not made it would be a problem, but the families have told me there will be no difficulty with this. However, the three people, their families and their legal representatives would prefer that they stay in jail so the appeal may be heard quickly and the matter can be concluded. This is the better solution. In a case in which the judge came out strongly with the evidence — and one which has come to court so many times — it seems reasonable and fair that those involved should be released and either allowed to come back to Ireland under a guarantee that they will return if required or, better still, remain in Colombia while the appeal takes place quickly.

The Taoiseach made passing reference to Iraq. Has he had discussions with the President of France, Mr. Chirac, about his Government's response to the draft Security Council resolution for the UN? What are the views of the Taoiseach, the Irish Government and the French Government on Mr. Chirac's opinion that the draft resolution — which would transform coalition forces, which are mainly American, into a multinational force — would only be acceptable to him in circumstances in which they were subject to the dictates of the temporary Iraqi Government and, similarly, that the Iraqi Government should enjoy all aspects of sovereignty, including control over the natural resources of Iraq? What is our Government's position on this and what position is the Taoiseach advancing on behalf of the European Union?

I will be discussing this issue tomorrow with Mr. Chirac and I have already discussed it with many people. We welcome the decision of the USA to circulate a draft Security Council resolution on Iraq. A new resolution would be helpful in gathering broad international support, which could assist in stabilising the new Government that takes office at the end of this month. The draft resolution is a basis for negotiation and discussions which are now under way with other Security Council members. We hope a consensus can be achieved and that the unity of the Security Council will be preserved.

I had an opportunity to speak to a number of Latin American members — not full members — of the Security Council. The Government will welcome any resolution which endorses the earliest possible restoration of sovereignty to a democratically elected Iraqi Government which gains the requisite support and satisfies the concerns of the UN about the mission in Iraq. I understand that President Chirac said during a press conference that he wants to ensure any force is UN-based and that the UN will be the driving force in the area in the future. This is not very different from what others are saying.

I discussed the issue with President Putin who said that the Americans must be involved centrally because of the number of their people involved in the area. The UN mandate must be clear. I spoke to the President of Chile at the weekend who made the same point. People are determined to try to get this right for all sorts of reasons, not just because of the difficulties that occurred last year but because of the difficulties after the new interim administration takes up office on 1 July. That administration will have its own pressures and difficulties. The feeling is that it must have autonomy over its decision-making in as far as it is possible, which it must now work on. There is a need for cohesiveness not just on the part of America but of all the others involved in extending the force as time goes on. In the next fortnight or so there must be a consensus on the position the EU is advocating. To go forward without a consensus will result in a continuation of what has been happening for 15 months.

I understand this is not the content of the draft resolution. The draft resolution would still have the forces responding to the United States. In regard to control over oil deposits, in particular, the temporary Iraqi Government would not be able to enter into contracts and so on. There appears to be a major difference in this regard. As I am not entirely clear from the Taoiseach's answer where the Irish Government stands on the matter, I would like him to address that issue. I would also like him to address the growing feeling one detects in this country that a majority of people would be much happier if the European Union-United States summit took place in Brussels rather than Ireland. Has the Taoiseach a view on this matter?

Our position is that the draft resolution is the basis for negotiation and discussion, not the final resolution. We believe it is necessary to get a consensus on the issue. The position we have been advocating is that a consensus must be achieved and the unity of the Security Council must be preserved. I have made this point during several meetings. We would like to see a resolution which endorses the restoration of sovereignty to a democratically elected Iraqi Government which would gain the requisite support and satisfy the concerns of the UN on its mission in Iraq. This is our stated position. Everyone is putting enormous effort into the negotiations. Everyone one meets is very taxed on the issue. However, if it does not get support, there will be a continuation of the present position. The United States and everyone else must realise that there needs to be support for the draft resolution. If the new interim Government is to work, sovereignty must be restored to it. As it moves towards the elections, which people are determined to have in the spring, it has to act as a sovereign administration. I spoke to Premier Wen when he was here a few weeks ago, I spoke to President Putin, to Chileans and to members of the permanent representatives and they all say the same thing. I will speak to President Chirac tomorrow.

I answered questions on the second issue before. I am aware of the controversies and difficulties involved. This is an EU summit and the EU is on the agenda. It has always been the case that the summit is held in the country which holds the Presidency and nowhere else. That is the position regardless of difficulty that might arise. People have a right to peaceful demonstration and to express their views, and I have said that for months. It would be wrong of us not to have that summit in this country and I would not contemplate not holding it here.

Is the Taoiseach aware of the considerable concern and unease among many environmental NGOs at the lack of progress being made in the draft constitution on sustainability? Did last month's decision to insert price stability in Article 1(3) take into account the predictions aired on "The News at One" today that oil will cost $50 a barrel in five to ten years? In the Taoiseach's discussions with colleagues from other member states, is there an awareness that that needs to be confronted, given our reliance on oil and the impossibility of maintaining price stability in that regard? Will he tell the House what has happened to the proposal from Commissioner Wallström on the protocol on sustainability? Has it been pursued or dropped from his discussions with other Heads of State?

In the Taoiseach's discussions with Russia at the EU-Russia summit, was progress made in persuading Russia to sign up to the Kyoto Protocol? It might be wise not to mention Ireland's record on this as it does not give a great example to the Russians.

As it is a concern of many people in this country, what does the Taoiseach feel about the statement of the French Prime Minister that qualified majority voting on taxation is still an open question, given his own views on that? Are his views representative of the EU view in general?

The environmental aspects of the treaty have not been opened up since last year. The position has been maintained on everything other than the issue which the Deputy has raised a number of times with me and which I continue to support, the declaration on EURATOM. We have worked particularly with the Austrians on that issue.

Does price stability not have something to do with oil?

A request was made last year and earlier this year by Jean Claude Trichet, the President of the European Central Bank, that in the long term price stability should be included as a principle of the economic policies of the Union, as it has been for the past 50 years. It has nothing to do with oil. The oil issue is an enormous one which is being discussed today at the ECOFIN Council meeting in Brussels. I understand an OPEC meeting will be held this weekend but it is not related to the Constitution.

On Russia, one can only surmise on these matters but I believe President Putin is seriously considering moving on the Kyoto Protocol. He is facing a number of difficulties. There are a number of industries on which, if they were here, we would be 1% non-compliant and Russia would be 100% non-compliant but he is determined to move towards compliance. Russia is examining its position. It faces difficulties but if the Deputy is asking me to guess President Putin's views, I believe he wants to do this because he believes it is the right thing to do. Obviously Russia has a huge trading position because of its emissions and what it would mean to Russia but he appears far more likely to do it than not. The Commission pressed President Putin on the issue and while he did not give a certain answer, he was more forthcoming than I thought he might be. He believes it is the right thing to do and if Russia came in on this it would give the Kyoto Protocol campaign a major boost with the position of the United States. He would be very impressed with what we do here——

——but let us not compare his energy industry with ours since we hardly have one when one considers his position.

It is worth 29% over 1999——

Please, Deputy, allow the Taoiseach to conclude.

What was the Deputy's other question?

It was about the French Prime Minister and qualified majority voting.

If I have a fixation one way, the French have a fixation the other way. If I leave off my Presidency——

Which is the EU fixation?

We have to wait and see.

Deputy Sargent, Deputy Ó Snodaigh is waiting to ask a question. You are not entitled to continue to interrupt.

It is a major issue. The French will go into discussions arguing that it should be QMV and not unanimity. That is their position. They feel strongly about that. They are supported by others. In regard to the view we advocate, obviously in the Presidency we are trying to be even-handed but when it comes to taxation issues our views are well known and I expressed those again to Prime Minister Rafarrin. The French position does not hold up. I have no doubt I will have another discussion on that tomorrow, but I continue to disagree with that view. I agree that qualified majority voting should be used in the majority of cases but there are a limited number of areas on which we should stay with unanimity. Our view is that tax is one of those and it is a view shared by everyone in this House.

I want to raise two issues. First, I welcome the intervention of the Taoiseach on behalf of the three held in Colombia.

Deputy, I ask you to confine yourself to questions.

I was about to ask the Taoiseach if he would make Deputy Kenny aware of the consensus of human rights groups that nowhere in Colombia is safe for the three men. Can he confirm that is he aware of death threats against the lawyer and the men?

All the more reason they should not have gone there on false passports.

On the other issue, in any of his recent EU discussions has the Taoiseach or his colleagues raised the issue of the full official and working status of the Irish language because progress was promised after the Dáil and Seanad passed motions unanimously calling on the Government to avail of the opportunity of Ireland's Presidency of the European Union? What progress has been made, and an mbeidh stádas iomlán ag an Ghaeilge roimh dheireadh Uachtaránacht na hÉireann san Aontas Eorpach?

Has the Taoiseach had discussions with other EU leaders regarding their approach to Iraq during the EU-US Summit given that Britain is an occupying power in Iraq and that this summit will be held here? Will the Taoiseach tell the British and the US Governments to discontinue their brutal occupation, which is illegal and must end, and that Iraq's transition to democracy must be supervised by the United Nations?

On the Irish language, we have continued since January and have put forward our positions. We are getting a good hearing on this issue. An interdepartmental group is working on it. We have been trying to improve the position of the language but without going to full status which would create a number of practical difficulties. We will make some progress but I cannot say when.

Enhancing the status of Irish would have implications for the EU translation and interpretation service, which would have to be examined. We are doing that. There may be wider implications for other European languages which are recognised under the EU treaty of regulation of 1958, of which the groups involved in this issue are well aware. A change in the status of Irish would also need to gain unanimous support from member states. I believe we will achieve an enhancement of the status of Irish. I believe there is support for that. Commissioner Neil Kinnock has been helpful on this issue. We will achieve an enhanced position.

As I said to Deputy Rabbitte, there should be agreement and consensus on the resolution within the Security Council. That cannot be taken for granted. It must be negotiated and it will take a considerable effort. However, it must be done. It is much better that an effort be made behind the scenes. Our ambassador at the United Nations will continue his efforts until a consensus is achieved.

Barr
Roinn