Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 1: To ask the Taoiseach if the agenda for the forthcoming meeting of the European Council in the United Kingdom has been finalised; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28677/05]

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 2: To ask the Taoiseach the agenda for the 27 October 2005 informal Heads of State or Government meeting in the UK; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30216/05]

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 3: To ask the Taoiseach if he has received the final agenda for the forthcoming meeting of the European Council under the British Presidency; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30323/05]

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 4: To ask the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the recent informal European Council meeting in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31335/05]

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 5: To ask the Taoiseach the bilateral meeting he held on the margins of the recent informal European Council meeting in London; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31336/05]

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 6: To ask the Taoiseach the agenda for the European Council meeting in Britain; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31430/05]

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 7: To ask the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the outcome of the EU summit held on 27 October 2005. [31494/05]

Joe Higgins (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 8: To ask the Taoiseach if he will report on the matters discussed and any conclusions reached at the EU summit held in Britain on 27 October 2005; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32461/05]

Joe Higgins (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 9: To ask the Taoiseach if he will report on bilateral meetings he attended on the margins of the EU summit held in Britain on 27 October 2005. [32462/05]

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 10: To ask the Taoiseach if he will report on the outcome of the 27 October 2005 informal European Council meeting in the United Kingdom. [34050/05]

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 11: To ask the Taoiseach if the agenda for the mid-December EU summit has been finalised; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34051/05]

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 11, inclusive, together.

As I said in my last answer on European matters on 28 September, the Hampton Court Palace meeting would be an informal one. There was no formal agenda and as such it did not adopt formal conclusions. I did, however, receive a letter from the UK Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, in advance outlining his thoughts on what the meeting should discuss. The Prime Minister proposed that the theme of the discussion be the opportunities and challenges of globalisation. In this context, the discussion focused on the competitive challenges we all face from the rise of China, India and other emerging economies. The European Commission also delivered a report entitled European Values in the Globalised World.

At the meeting, I emphasised the need for the Union to take the competition from third countries into account when making and implementing EU policies, particularly in areas such as state aids. At the suggestion of the Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, we agreed that there needed to be further work in key areas such as research and development, the demographic challenge and the development of our universities, energy, security and immigration. The European Commission is to bring forward preparations over the coming months.

The meeting also approved statements in support of the victims of the south Asian earthquake, condemning the appalling remarks about Israel of the Iranian President and calling on the Syrian Government to co-operate unconditionally with the UN investigation into the assassination of the Lebanese Prime Minister. Overall, the meeting was a useful opportunity for the Heads of State or Government to have an open discussion about some of the key challenges facing the Union.

At Hampton Court Palace, I briefly met the outgoing Prime Minister of Poland, Marek Belka, and former German Chancellor, Gerhard Schröder at what was the last meeting of Heads of State or Government they would attend. I wished them both well for the future. I have not yet received an agenda for the European Council due to take place on 15 to 16 December.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The newly elected first woman Chancellor in Germany, Angela Merkel, sees the European Union as a partner to Germany and not as an opposite bloc to the United States. Is it the Taoiseach's intention to meet with the new German Chancellor? Obviously the restoration of a strong economy in Germany is of major influence in terms of the European Union.

The Lisbon Agenda, to which the Taoiseach previously referred, is obviously not being completed in the way EU leaders had envisaged. The European entity is very much behind the United States in terms of job creation. In this country there are 300,000 people working in manufacturing services. That is the same number as seven years ago, except that almost a third of those jobs are new, demonstrating that one has to work very hard to stand still. In a European context and given the fact that we do not have any university in the top 250 on the world list, how does the Taoiseach see the pressures on manufacturing services being affected by European leaders' decisions in terms of making it easier for companies to do their business? Given the anti-competitive costings that now apply to many Irish manufacturing services, how does he see that challenge being addressed both in Ireland and from a European perspective?

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is good that the situation has stabilised following the early September elections in Germany. It is also good that Angela Merkel has been elected Chancellor and that an administration is in place. She has gone to meet President Chirac on her first visit, obviously to show that this strong axis of Europe that has been in existence for so many decades will continue under her leadership. That is the way it has been presented in Germany and in France this morning. I previously wrote to congratulate her and I wrote again yesterday following her election as Chancellor. I look forward to meeting her at an early date, as soon as that proves possible.

What Deputy Kenny said about the Lisbon Agenda is correct. We will now be heading to the Spring Council and even though it is six years since the then Portuguese Prime Minister, Antonio Gutierrez, started the Lisbon strategy, while there has been implementation of many aspects of it, employment has not been a good one in many countries in Europe, including the major economies where unemployment is in excess of 10%. These countries have not been able to get any kind of bounce out of the initiatives of the Lisbon Agenda.

Many of the issues have been completed but there are areas of deficiency where the Americans still have a clear lead on us, such as in research and development and in the range and way in which they manage to develop so many different aspects of their economy. They have done that very successfully and continue to do it. Manufacturing jobs in Europe will continue to decline for the simple reason that in Bangalore in south-eastern China people are working for a euro or two a day as compared to our equivalent rate. This will not happen anywhere in Europe. People are still working 12 hours a day, six days a week. The labour market and technology in China is top class due to the investment it has got from many parts of the world. Therefore, European manufacturing in many traditional sectors in particular will not be able to compete. There is no possibility that this will change. Therefore, we must continue to do what we have been successfully doing here, although it is demanding, that is to go up the scale, get value-added and upgrade skills.

Traditional manufacturing jobs must now become sophisticated technology jobs. This is the part of the world in which medicines and drugs are now being made. In all these categories we are up there with the top quality in the world. This is creating a different kind of job. Where one time we would have just been involved in packing and distribution, drugs, chemicals and surgical devices are being made in this country and moved around the world. This is also the case with information and communications technology in the wider world, in the new bio-pharma plants like Wyeth and the extensions to a number of others. This is where the jobs are for the future. Unfortunately, the days of manufacturing clothes, plastics, buttons, sweets and other such industries are gone and we will not be able to compete in these areas.

Deputy Kenny's last point was about competitiveness. We must strive to win in every area where we can be competitive. In the education sector our universities are still doing very well, as is the case with training and in our aptitude to work. I accept there are arguments about the top 250 universities. Many of these universities operate very tight faculties. They take just a few faculties and develop them at the expense of everything else. The facts can be overstated. If these universities were as great as the list suggested, how come the leaders of the world in business and banking are not graduates of those universities? I have my doubts about these issues. When one looks at some of the universities and checks around at where the top people in the world are, how come they are not graduates of those universities if they are all they are made out to be? The best of luck to them.

We have to continue to develop our universities in Europe to the best of our ability and have more collaboration between them. It is very important that people work together in research and development. In fairness to the universities on the island of Ireland they now all work far more closely together, which is good. They have moved away from the sensitivities of the past. Now, whenever we meet them in Government they are meeting together. They are working on joint programmes, research efforts, the programme for research in third level institutions, PRTLI, and Science Foundation Ireland. These groups are working and bidding for those universities in a very positive way that is working successfully.

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Listening to the Taoiseach I expect universities would say there is a need for improvement and things can be done. To listen to him one would think it was all fine. I wish to ask a question based on the outcome of the informal summit held in Hampton Court. As the Taoiseach stated, the summit did not have a formal agenda. It has been described in the media as a non-committal chat. It is more often referred to by virtue of the fact that it failed to offer solutions in regard to the ill-effects of globalisation or in progressing the issue of the EU budget. The Taoiseach outlined some of them in the previous reply. In that context, does he have a view on the European globalisation adjustment fund that the Commission proposed and that has been backed by the British Prime Minister but not at the time by the German and the Danish Prime Ministers?

Does the Taoiseach have a view on one aspect of the summit which people may have overlooked, namely a common energy policy that was backed by the informal summit? One central part of that which would be of huge concern to many people in Ireland is the approval given to nuclear power being "taken forward on a European basis". Did the Taoiseach offer a position on this? Will he indicate what discussions took place on this energy policy? Was any attention paid to the potential of other types of energy sources, such as renewables or biofuels?

I note the General Affairs and External Relations Council announced the formation of 18 battle groups involving 26 countries. Will the Taoiseach indicate whether Ireland is one of the countries involved and whether the December summit will include elaboration on this arrangement? The Minister for Defence promised a decision on this issue in December. Will that be announced at the mid-December EU summit? Will we have an opportunity to debate it here first?

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On the education issue, I do not mean more is not to be done. I stated that European universities get bad coverage because they are not listed among the top universities. There is a need for more resources and more people. World leaders of all faculties come from European universities and have done incredibly well in building up the business. That is the only point. As more of our young people go to university, more money is required for research and development. We invested hundreds of millions in PRTLI and Science Foundation Ireland and that must continue.

The EU meeting was not like the summer or autumn meetings. It was a debate on the challenges facing Europe today, and examined economic challenges such as whether Germany will get off the ground again economically and the problems in the French economy. It considered a broad view of China and India, as not only Europe but countries throughout the world are increasingly concerned about the strides they make. We identified it many years ago. The reality is they turn out more highly qualified people from their universities. More people carry out research and they receive investment from all over the world. This makes them far stronger. All of those issues were discussed.

Energy issues are taken into account because of costs, particularly this year when energy prices increased by approximately 20% everywhere. Concerns were expressed about that, and on issues surrounding ongoing needs for energy resources, such as gas from Russia. The nuclear issue was not discussed in great detail but it is raising its head and it seems the British Government will go down that road again. It is a strong supporter of nuclear energy. The former German Chancellor, Gerhard Schroder, went a different direction and closed nuclear energy stations. I do not know what the new Chancellor, Angela Merkel, will do. The French believe in it and continue to invest in it. They do not believe in anything else.

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

They are locked into it.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

They are, and other countries are re-examining it because they believe it is cost-efficient, competitive, safer, cleaner, and involves new technologies. All of the arguments——

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is the Taoiseach promoting it?

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am not. I do not agree with it, I am only explaining that it is out there. I am surprised at how the British Government is moving on it, but that is——

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is extremely costly. Will the Taoiseach find out about that?

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is the way it is going. I am describing the trend.

Battle groups were not discussed but Europe's readiness to deal with humanitarian matters under the Petersberg tasks remains a major issue. Kofi Annan made it clear that the only way to deal with conflicts is to have groups that can take action on a regional basis. He is pressing hard that people engage in this and commit to it. We are examining our situation. One way or another, the maximum number of people we can afford to have abroad is less than 1,000 at approximately 880 or 890. We have those commitments already and even if we did not, it would not add to the forces in a major way. We will reach a conclusion. Battle groups are necessary to deal with the type of humanitarian issues that have happened before and will happen again.

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

More than that is involved.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

They are necessary to deal with the issues. We must reach a conclusion on it.

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Taoiseach should have a debate before he decides.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does the Taoiseach agree an impression is abroad that the EU is treading water? Will he point out to the House any outcome of the London summit that would contradict that view? Will he raise the matter of the sugar regime at the mid-December summit? Does he agree with the serious concerns, particularly in the Mallow region, for the future of the facility at Mallow? I had the opportunity to visit it earlier this year. I presume the Taoiseach heard the same presentation from the company. The largest investment programme ever engaged in by Greencore is in the revamped factory at Mallow. Does the Taoiseach agree that whatever about the professionalism of management, the willingness of the workforce or the capacity of the factory that farmers will not continue to supply beet and it will not be economically viable for them to do so if the present proposals go ahead? Does he intend personally to bring this issue to the mid-December summit?

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On the first question, until leadership issues are resolved in Germany and Poland, which is a large and significant country, not too much business will be done. The British Government had to deal with that ongoing situation throughout its Presidency. The French, for numerous reasons, are not focusing on any major issue at present. Those reasons include their own difficulties, the aftermath of its constitutional vote and the fact that President Chirac was ill for a time. It is true that great initiatives were not taken during this six months. The major challenge will be to finalise the financial perspectives. That will be a crucial issue.

Having been involved for a long time, both as Minister for Finance and as Taoiseach, it amazes me how Europe does not put more energy into fixing this issue. I repeated that at meetings and to a number of colleagues in recent weeks. If it is not fixed by Christmas it will not be able to get through the process. It must go through the Parliament which takes quite a period of time, after which it must be placed in the programmes and then the entire issue must be debated and rolled-out in each country. Only a year remains to do that. It is a dangerous situation. When Ireland had the Presidency, I went into detail on how this system operates and works. If it is not agreed at Christmas, and I would not suggest that people put too much of their hard-earned euro on it, we will be in an extremely difficult position next year.

I will certainly raise the sugar issue if it is not already resolved one way or the other. The agricultural meeting takes place this week and reform of the EU sugar regime will dominate those discussions. We met the IFA last week, we had dealings with farming bodies, and many meetings with our departmental officials will have taken place prior to next week's meeting. The drive for this is linked to Mr. Mandelson and the WTO meetings in a few weeks time. Everyone accepts the need for reform and there are internal EU pressures to bring the sugar industry into line with other agricultural sectors. Unlike in most other sectors, the regime has remained unchanged for 40 years. The present regime will end in summer 2006 and arrangements must be put in place to avoid a legal vacuum at that stage. There is also international pressure for reform from those who favour helping Africa. They have lobbied on this all year and the everything but arms agreement brings this to the fore.

In the summer it was difficult to find space to express the view on Mallow, which is related to this, because we were all concerned with global issues. The everything but arms agreement gives duty free access to sugar imports from the less developed countries from 2009. The Doha round of trade negotiations and the ruling of the WTO panel against EU exports of C sugar, which must be implemented by 22 May next are further reasons reform must happen.

From the outset we have availed of every opportunity to highlight the serious repercussions the reform proposals would have for Irish industry. Beet has long been a valuable cash crop for Irish farmers, as well as playing a significant role in the tillage cycle. Some 3,700 beet growers and producers, whose representatives I met last week, and the 1,000 people employed in the processing sector could be wiped out if the Commission goes ahead with the proposals in this regard. Some take the view that this does not matter, but we take an alternative view. It is extremely difficult and while I do not want to discuss issues of pricing, the price offered would make sugar production unviable for farmers. It would wipe them out with very little warning or interim period and would create major difficulties.

We have made the case as best we can and have lobbied intensely on this matter at every source. There is not much sympathy for Ireland, as is usual on such issues, and the Presidency does not show much sympathy either. We have mounted a campaign as best we can and, as I stated consistently in the House, we must seek financial perspectives that bring us to the 2013 position and protect the 2002 CAP agreement as best we can. There is not much sympathy for this country because we are seen to have received €1.5 billion for 30 years — Deputies will be familiar with the arguments.

What will happen after 2013 will be horrendous for Irish agriculture and people in the industry must make changes. As we approach that time they cannot hold their hand to the gate. I do not expect to be making this point here after 2013 but as long as we keep objecting and not making the necessary reforms, many of our people will face this challenge. Those involved must face up to this period of change, which I have seen coming since the Essen meeting in 1992. The current arrangements will not last beyond 2013. The agriculture industry must be honest because prices offered will not be economically viable and the Exchequer will not and should not subsidise farmers. That will create major difficulties.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does the Taoiseach agree that the proposed EU budget as discussed in Britain, offers very little to the 98 million people at risk from poverty across Europe and more than 20 million unemployed people? The broad economic and political priorities, as laid out in the budget, are not geared to tackle these problems. The contrary is the case and the political and social thrust of what was discussed has contributed to the issues and problems to which I refer.

In that context did the Taoiseach use the opportunity of the European Council meeting to raise the issue, formally or informally, of the intention of Irish Ferries to dump its Irish-based workforce, to introduce a €3.50 per hour rate of pay, to exploit overseas nationals, to flout Irish industrial relations good practice that has been built up over many years, and to do that under a flag of convenience? Does the Taoiseach agree that the only way to deal with Irish Ferries is through international co-operation and legal changes and that the EU has a critical role to play in that regard?

Has the Taoiseach called and, if not, will he call on the EU to take the lead in this respect, particularly on intra-EU ferry crossings so that the EU would ensure all ferry services operating under flags of convenience are obliged to operate best practice in respect of industrial relations that apply across the EU? That must include pay and conditions and adherence to minimum standards applicable across the EU.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We did not discuss those issues at the meeting, which was on international trade and business.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Did the Taoiseach not raise it informally?

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I raised the issue of Irish Ferries and we have examined what can be done on a European and international basis. The EU has not agreed regulations on this, mainly because many international ferries coming in from large ports of the world are importing into Europe and exporting, but are not bound by conditions there. It is not seen as practical to control them. This is not inter-Europe trade without external involvement. That is the difficulty and it is felt it is not possible to control this.

I hope Irish Ferries will follow the Labour Court rules though it does not seem as if people want to follow the recommendation. Ferries are of major importance to us because we depend on them for imports and exports. People involved should attempt to resolve this matter rather than entering the dangerous position of conflict, causing major difficulties in terms of imports and exports. All issues in this matter should be resolved but I do not get a sense that people are prepared to do so.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Will the Taoiseach make a start on intra-EU regulations?

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This has been examined and I do not see the European Union introducing, certainly in the short term, a regime to control this. I do not see it as something that will prove practical. It has been examined many times but I do not think it will resolve itself.

Joe Higgins (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Taoiseach's appointee to the European Commission, Mr. McCreevy, is weighing in on the side of exploitative employers rather than protection for workers, as evidenced in the dispute in Sweden involving a Latvian construction company. What position will the Taoiseach adopt at the next EU Council meeting on the proposed services directive? With the Irish Ferries plan to replace trade union workers on decent wages and conditions with exploited labour from eastern Europe in front of his eyes, will he oppose the proposal that originated with the former Commissioner, Mr. Bolkenstein? That proposal attacks workers' rights within the European Union and endorses the replacement of jobs with decent wages and conditions, with exploited labour.

The Taoiseach and his Cabinet preached to us in the course of recent referenda about the great social charter, freedom and security and workers' rights within the European Union. How does he tally that with what he has just said? He virtually threw his hands in the air with regard to Irish Ferries and said nothing can be done within the European Union to prevent companies exploiting flags of convenience to ply EU waters with impunity. The Taoiseach must be mindful that the reason the working class in France rejected the proposed European constitution was because of its genuine fears about the undermining of proper jobs, wages and conditions and the abuse of migrant labour. Does he agree we have enough examples in this country of a cynical abuse of migrant labour? In that context, I am not even referring to the most blatant abuse, but that which takes place within the law. Will the Taoiseach stand up for workers' rights in Europe or will he be part of the neo-liberal attack on those rights and conditions?

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy is a few months behind because we joined with others in making sure the services directive did not go through in the form that he fears. We stopped the process from going ahead in early summer. The proposed services directive, which was withdrawn then, is under consideration in the European Parliament, where hundreds of amendments have been tabled. We are awaiting the Parliament's final opinion on the directive.

The Government has consistently supported the need for a services directive, which it believes is essential for the successful completion of the Internal Market. Ireland has much to gain from such a directive. At the same time we recognise that we must ensure the concerns that have been expressed, including those put forward by President Chirac and I — we were arguing this when very few others were — concerning the views of the ETUC about the directive's implications for workers, be taken fully into account.

The Vaxholm Laval case in Sweden, upon which Commissioner McCreevy commented, has been referred to the Swedish labour court and judgment is awaited. The matter is currently before the court and the issues relate primarily to a Swedish internal matter so I will not discuss those particular issues.

The 1990 Social Charter gives workers rights all over Europe. A total of 35 or 36 provisions in the charter have been implemented and that gives workers protection. However, there are difficulties in some areas and the flags of convenience is one such area. It raises the question of international waters as opposed to European waters. The flags of convenience are for international waters and have always been interpreted as such and the difficulty lies in trying to ring-fence something that is international as opposed to European.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have two suggestions for the Taoiseach on matters that he might consider raising at the European Council. The first is the development of a European perspective on wind energy. We face a €450 million fine for not complying with the Kyoto Protocol. There does not appear to be a European perspective on this issue. Engineers from various countries have come here and said that within 20 years we could be 80% self-sufficient in terms of energy contributed from wind. I spoke to Airtricity recently, which wants European backing to build a 50,000 kilowatt station off the north coast of England. This is worthy of consideration by European leaders. We need a European perspective on wind energy. Is this an issue that the Taoiseach would consider raising at an appropriate time during the EU Council meeting?

My second suggestion is that the European Heads of Government should put an initiative in place to deal with the scourge of paedophilia, which is trans-border in nature and a problem in every country. There should be a European perspective and analysis of paedophilia, its causes, genetic or otherwise, and how best the problem can be dealt with, not on a country by country basis but on a Europe wide basis. Is that something the Taoiseach would consider raising at the European Council meeting?

Joe Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does the Taoiseach agree that up to now we have been very good Europeans but the fact that we may lose our sugar industry means we must question our position? Is compensation an issue in the ongoing negotiations and does he agree there should be a sugar quota in place? We have had a sugar quota of 200,000 tonnes for the last four years. Does the Taoiseach believe that should remain in place because it is countries that have a quota assigned to them that can export into the European Union? I join Deputy Rabbitte in asking if the matter can be raised at the December meeting.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

With regard to Deputy Kenny's question on renewable energy, 13% of our energy is currently generated from renewable resources. We have progressed and pushed the wind energy agenda and we will reach our targets. The Government is very supportive of wind energy and there are many initiatives——

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Can we reach our potential? That is the question.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If we can get co-operation on the issue, we will progress further.

I do not know if there has been any initiative with regard to paedophilia. I will check, but Deputy Kenny is correct in so far as it is a problem everywhere because the individuals concerned move around. I will raise that matter at the meeting.

In response to Deputy Sherlock, compensation is an issue. However, we have argued that we would rather maintain our position, as difficult as that is. Different aspects of compensation have been raised but I am not sure it will cover adequately what the EU is trying to do. Perhaps compensation is a short-term mechanism to deal with the issue.

The argument within the WTO on the food area always sounds credible, although Europe is doing more than anywhere else, namely, that we should allow imports from everywhere else. Europe allows imports to a greater extent than others. When items such as sugar and fruit from African countries and elsewhere are allowed in, that has an effect on supply and demand and undermines trade. There is a knock-on effect. The simplistic view in the developing world is that it does not matter, the effect is not too big or small. However, Deputy Sherlock and I have to deal with the individuals who are affected by imports. The fact is that the decisions made and the lobbying done to date has led to a position where the price being offered for sugar will simply eliminate the industry here in its entirety. If we continue on that road other industries will follow.

Mr. Mandelson wants to agree everything in advance of the Doha round. There are other ways of negotiating and I would do it differently if I were in that position. We have made our point clearly and will fight to get an agreement on the sugar issue. Compensation is a major factor.