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

Question 1: To ask the Taoiseach if an agenda has been received for the June 2006 EU summit; his priorities for the summit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14869/06]

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

Question 2: To ask the Taoiseach if he will report on his 12 April 2006 meeting with the President of Croatia, Stjepan Mesic; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15132/06]

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

Question 3: To ask the Taoiseach if he has received an agenda for the June 2006 meeting of the European Council; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16023/06]

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

Question 4: To ask the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting with the President of Croatia; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16024/06]

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

Question 5: To ask the Taoiseach his priorities for the June 2006 EU summit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16091/06]

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

Question 6: To ask the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with the President of Croatia; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16092/06]

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

Question 7: To ask the Taoiseach his priorities for the June 2006 EU summit; if an agenda has been received for that summit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16193/06]

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

Question 8: To ask the Taoiseach his priorities for the June 2006 summit of the European Council. [17720/06]

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

Question 9: To ask the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with the President of Croatia. [17721/06]

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

Question 10: To ask the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the recent EU-Latin America summit in Vienna; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19089/06]

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 11: To ask the Taoiseach if he will report on the Vienna summit and his meeting with President Chávez of Venezuela. [19373/06]

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

Question 12: To ask the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his attendance at, and the outcome of, the recent EU-Latin America summit in Vienna. [19449/06]

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

Question 13: To ask the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the outcome of his meeting with the Australian Prime Minister, Mr. John Howard. [19450/06]

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

Question 14: To ask the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with the Prime Minister of Australia, Mr. John Howard; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20683/06]

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

Question 15: To ask the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the EU-Latin America summit in Vienna; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20709/06]

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

Question 16: To ask the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with the President of Venezuela, Mr. Hugo Chávez, in Vienna; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20710/06]

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

Question 17: To ask the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with the Australian Prime Minister, Mr John Howard; the topics which were discussed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20711/06]

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

Question 18: To ask the Taoiseach the official foreign travel he has planned over the summer recess; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20713/06]

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

Question 19: To ask the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with the Prime Minister of Australia, Mr. John Howard. [20847/06]

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

Question 20: To ask the Taoiseach the matters discussed and conclusions reached at the EU-Latin America summit in Vienna. [20848/06]

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

Question 21: To ask the Taoiseach the bilateral meetings he held on the margins of the EU-Latin America summit in Vienna. [20849/06]

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

Question 22: To ask the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting in Dublin with the Prime Minister of Australia, Mr. Howard; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20934/06]

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

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 22, inclusive, together.

The June European Council will consider a wide range of issues. In particular, it will examine how Europe listens and works for its citizens and how the future of Europe debate and the period of reflection on the European constitution are to be carried forward. I expect to receive the finalised agenda following discussions on the draft conclusions for the Council by the General Affairs and External Relations Council on 12-13 June 2006.

I met the President of Croatia, Mr. Stjepan Mesic, on 12 April. We focused our discussions on the growing bilateral relations between our countries and Croatia's negotiations for accession to the EU and the current situation in the Balkan states. I reassured the President of Ireland's continued support for Croatia's accession to the EU.

I attended the fourth EU-Latin America-Caribbean summit in Vienna on 11 and 12 May. The summit was co-chaired by Chancellor Schüssel of Austria, as President of the European Council, and by the President of Mexico, Vicente Fox. The 58 countries from both regions were represented at the summit.

In preparation for the fourth summit, the EU and Latin American-Caribbean, LAC, sides compiled a joint report outlining progress on the commitments made at the last summit in Mexico, which I co-chaired in 2004. The report confirmed that there has been significant progress across the broad agenda of EU-LAC relations, including progress in the areas of democracy and human rights, trade and development co-operation, promoting education and research, energy and environmental protection.

The summit opened with a plenary session that included a key-note address by United Nations Secretary General, Kofi Annan. The work of the summit was then conducted in working groups. I was invited to make an opening statement at the morning working group session on democracy and human rights. In my address, I stressed that the Vienna summit presented a valuable opportunity to assess how best to enhance co-operation between the two regions on key international challenges. Central to the strategic relationship between the EU and the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean is our promotion and protection of democracy and human rights and our mutual commitment to multilateralism in international affairs. I met the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair, on the margins of the summit. At that meeting, we discussed the imminent return of the Northern Ireland Assembly on 15 May and our hopes for the restoration of the executive. I had no other bilateral meeting at the summit.

On Monday, 22 May 2006, I was delighted to welcome the Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard, on his official visit to Ireland. This was an ideal opportunity to further strengthen the close political and cultural links between our two countries. In the course of our discussions, Mr. Howard and I noted our excellent bilateral relations, which are positively influenced by historical and family ties. We discussed the strength of our bilateral economic relations. In 2005, two-way trade between our two countries was valued at almost €1 billion. We were also pleased to note that our people to people contacts continue to grow. I mentioned the working holiday visa scheme, which continues to be very successful with more than 10,000 Irish young people visiting Australia every year. We agreed that greater potential exists to further develop our trade, economic and tourism links. I briefed the Prime Minister on the current situation in Northern Ireland and I thanked him for Australia's support. I told him that we are also grateful for Australia's support for the International Fund for Ireland over the years.

The Prime Minister and I also discussed the ongoing WTO negotiations, which are now at a critical stage. I stressed in this context that there was a need now for significant advances on the non-agricultural aspects of the negotiations. On the international front, we noted the development of both our countries' relations with India and China. Other international issues including the Middle East, Iraq, UN reform and regional issues in south-east Asia, including East Timor, were discussed in more detail at the meeting between the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs later that day. For our part, the Prime Minister and I strongly welcomed the formation of the Iraqi Government of national unity and expressed the hope that it would help bring stability and unity to Iraq and its people.

I will travel to New York tomorrow to attend the UN high level special summit on Aids, and will attend a meeting of the European Council on 15-16 June in Brussels. I will travel to Helsinki on 30 June for a bilateral meeting with the Prime Minister of Finland, Matti Vanhanen, who will assume the EU Presidency. I will also attend the ASEM VI summit in Helsinki on 11 September.

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

I am unsure if I heard the Taoiseach correctly but he appeared to say that the agenda for the June meeting of the European Council is not yet clear. Does he agree there is a danger now that we have entered a period of drift in the EU? Judging from the latest reports, the majority of the electorate in France is still opposed to the EU constitution and it appears nobody believes the question can be re-opened before 2008. Will the Government take any initiative in this regard or bring any proposal to the June meeting?

What is the Government's response to European Commission President Barroso's proposal, which linked the debate on the constitution to the planned review of the budget in 2008? Does the Taoiseach expect the admission date for Romania and Bulgaria to be decided at the summit? Will their admission proceed on 1 January? Has the Government considered the issue of giving them open access to Ireland's labour market on their admission and what is the Government's position in this regard?

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

Deputy Rabbitte asked a number of questions. On the constitution, following the French and Dutch referendums, the June 2005 European Council decided to initiate a period of reflection. It will clearly be a significant item on the agenda. While the matter has not been circulated yet, it must come back to the Council this June.

The intention was for member states to avail of the opportunity to hold national debates on European issues, which happened among a great number of organisations, at conferences, the National Forum on Europe, in the House and elsewhere in this country. Under the Austrian Presidency, we must take stock of the outcomes of these national debates and reflect on the future of Europe.

Since we last discussed this matter in the House, two or three more countries have ratified the constitution. A total of 15 states comprising a clear majority of the Union's citizens have ratified it. Finland is likely to ratify it shortly, bringing the number to 16. The pressure on the existing constitution is being maintained. As the Deputy said, the French are having some debates on how to deal with this issue. The Netherlands is not having a debate because it has said it will not return to this issue.

To answer the Deputy's question on the Government's position, during recent months I have consistently argued that we need to convince our people that the European Union is dealing with their daily concerns. This means we must see progress in such areas as jobs, social solidarity and the fight against drugs and crime. I have supported the Austrian Presidency's programme in this regard. Rather than bring our own proposals, I will support what Chancellor Wolfgang Schüssel has been doing and the initiatives he has picked up on, including ours from last autumn.

It is not possible to divorce the debate on the European constitution entirely from day-to-day business in the Union. If we can show citizens that the Union is working to address their issues and concerns, it improves in the broad economic climate, confidence is recovered and we create more jobs, which is a major issue in many European countries. In this way the prospects for a European constitution will improve.

I contend that the constitution is far from dead. The majority of people in Europe support it. The reality is that the constitution cannot enter into force without being ratified by all member states. The decision of the Netherlands means ratification is not imminent. Deputy Rabbitte is correct in that I do not see anything major occurring in 2007 because the German Presidency will have a short period after the French presidential election to bring forward any initiative. Germany's chancellor has indicated that her country continues to be firmly in support of the constitution.

I will not fall for linking the constitution issue with the mid-term financial review, nor should anyone. That would be an attempt to broker an arrangement to have a more extensive review in 2008 and 2009. The position should be bluntly put: we have finished dealing with the issue until 2013. We should not get into discussions with the minority of people who lost badly last year and are trying to have a review carried out before 2013. I was glad to hear the Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development state that position clearly here a few weeks ago on Europe Day.

Deputy Rabbitte is right, some people never lie down on these issues and will continue to pursue this. They do not have a leg to stand on in their argument, however, and we should not get into that. As I have said many times, there are some groups that ignore the fact that on the other side of 2013 there will be a fundamental review of the whole financing and agricultural arrangements. That is clear.

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

In 2013.

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

It will not take effect until 1 January 2014 but all of those issues must be faced. It will be a fundamental review; there is no doubt about that, as I have said consistently to agriculture groups here for some years. It is important that people do not think there is some way to avoid it. The agriculture lobby is now a small group and it will be even smaller when President Chirac steps down because he has been a strong component of it. This country will always have that agenda but the argument is limited. It will come back to a fundamental review. We can see what is happening at the WTO, where many of our colleagues have moved substantially beyond the strong line we have held in the small group within the European Union.

Bulgaria and Romania must be looked at carefully. The conclusions in June will probably state that 1 January 2007 will be the accession date, provided they have fulfilled the criteria and there are still doubts about whether that will happen. One way or the other, as that becomes clear, we will have to reflect on opening up our labour market. There are issues to influence that. We must watch what happens in the UK carefully because the common travel area means it will have a huge effect on us one way or another. We must also take account of what others are doing. We have taken an open, fair and positive line on this and we must reflect on what everyone else has done. We should not state our final position until we see what happens in Britain, where there will be far greater numbers.

I have said many times that people should not automatically assume that we will take exactly the same attitude as Britain. There are different ways of dealing with this. We have seen how other countries have dealt with it and we should reflect on it. I have kept in touch with the British side on this and they have moved up and down several times in the past year. We will have to take into account where they will ultimately go because of the common travel area. Even if we said "no" the common travel area would have a significant impact.

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

How much did the case cost that went to the UN about the closure of Sellafield? Does the Taoiseach not consider this a very embarrassing episode, where the advice given to the Government to take this route to the UN was deemed a breach of the law by the European Court of Justice, which stated that European matters should be dealt with within European structures? Why did the Government decide to go to the UN when it surely understands that? Is there a cost involved?

Does the Taoiseach have a view on the position of Montenegro following the vote of the people there for independence from Serbia? Is that matter likely to be discussed at the next leaders' meetings in terms of further expansion of the European Union? They have said clearly they want freedom and independence.

The services directive has to be discussed again by the Parliament. Is the Taoiseach happy with the changed draft in so far as country of origin is concerned, which gave rise to serious concern here from business interests in that it would have made it easier for countries in new member states to undercut rivals in more developed or richer states? Is the Taoiseach happy that the references to country of origin in the services directive will not lead to the possibility of what might have happened before in the Irish Ferries case, as raised by Deputy Rabbitte and others?

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

On the first issue, I am not aware of the legal costs around it, but it was the right thing to do. The reason we took the case is obvious. Both the United Kingdom and Ireland are parties to the convention and, as correctly urged, we were proactive in this matter. If we are party to a convention we should abide by the convention and our view was that the British were not doing that. It is not unreasonable to seek to avail of the speedy dispute resolution mechanism that it provided. The other main reason is that it was unclear where competency lay on this issue. The European Union sat nicely on the fence on some of these issues and, thankfully, it is now nicely off it. The implications of the EU treaties for international conventions are only now being clarified by this judgment, and the legal team is very happy that it forced that position. Both the international tribunal hearing and Sweden, which strongly supported our case at the European Court of Justice, shared our view, as did their lawyers.

We welcome the clarity now provided by this judgment for the first time. The Commission has now placed itself at centre stage, which it avoided doing for many decades. We have an obligation to co-operate with the EU institutions and we will certainly do so. The Government will now seek to determine the Commission's response to the judgment and explore how we will handle this issue in the future with the Commission in the driving seat. We remain fully committed to utilising all the legal and diplomatic avenues open to us to bring about the safe and orderly closure of Sellafield. This judgment does not alter that position. The court's decision is being studied by the legal team which has been reviewing the potential future litigation strategy open to the Government. It is important to remember that the EU Commission is seeking to establish its competence through this case. It has now placed itself at centre stage and the Government will seek to ensure that the Commission exercises its competence in respect of the continued operation of the Sellafield plant by the UK Government, a situation which has not pertained to date. It always avoided that position.

On the issue of the Balkans, a number of countries were committed including Croatia, Bulgaria and Romania. There are probably about ten other countries, in one form or another, interested in European Union membership. In the debate we have had over the past year on the financial perspectives, the issue of the constitution arose. It must be remembered that the reason for the constitution was to ensure Europe could administer itself properly in a far wider Union than under the old system, which was the Union of 12. That issue must be addressed. In its financial and administrative systems, the Community will not be able to take on any more members. I have, for a good few years, emphasised to colleagues at every hand's turn — as I am sure the Deputy has heard within his group — that we should look at initiatives such as the new neighbourhood policy and dealing with new member state applications in that regard. This would be in preference to charging ahead and running into difficulties. It has slowed down a bit, and some of these countries which believe this to be the solution to everything have been hauled back a bit. It is not just not possible to do it. It will only end up with grief for everyone if people continue to do that.

Deputy Kenny asked me a third question.

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

I asked about the services directive.

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

Much progress has been made since the beginning of this year on the services directive. Most of the issues we were concerned about have been addressed. We continue to support at the meetings the services directive with safeguards to ensure there will not be a race to the bottom. That was our central point throughout. The directive, as amended by the Commission, is now being considered by the Competitiveness Council. That meeting was held yesterday, but I did not get a brief.

In excess of 70% of Europe's economy now comprises trade in services, so a services directive makes complete economic sense. Most people agreed on this in the European debate. We must work to dispel the myths surrounding the services directive, of which there are many. We must convince the social partners that a directive, properly drafted, is in Europe's long-term interests, which it is. That is accepted by most of them.

With regard to the debate on the issues which the Commission put forward, most of the amendments have been taken on board. There is a broad consensus on the directive. Subject to what occurred at yesterday's meeting of the Competitiveness Council — I did not get an opportunity to see the debate — there was broad consensus on the current draft of the directive.

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

Is the Taoiseach aware of the growing concern among the public, given that the Government has recently presided over the extension of genetically modified crop development in this jurisdiction, something which the majority of the people would oppose?

Last week, the EU's Agriculture Ministers discussed the GM issue. Will this matter be included on the agenda of the upcoming European Council meeting in June? It is clearly an issue of great import to the people of this island. Will the Government revise its own policy and proactively seek to encourage a GM-free——

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is a question for the Minister for Agriculture and Food. The Deputy should confine himself to questions relating to the European Union at this stage.

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

My question concerns the European Council meeting. The questions do not relate only to the European Union. I would prefer if the grouping of questions did confine us, but the Taoiseach has——

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We will not have a debate on that.

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

For the Chair's consideration, we also have questions in the grouping on the Australian Prime Minister, Croatia and a raft of other issues.

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Chair would like the Deputy to confine himself to the subject matter.

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

I will not confine myself as the Ceann Comhairle seeks. I will confine myself all too gladly, however. Once again, there were no interjections on any of the other Deputy's questions. Mine are just as valid and relevant.

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy should confine himself to the Order Paper.

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

Here we go for another week. Is the Taoiseach prepared to revisit the Government's policy on this matter and bring it to the attention of the European Council, encouraging not only an Ireland free of GM foods but also a Europe free of them? That is very important.

Is the Taoiseach aware the Government, on behalf of this State, last week signed a deal between the European Union and Morocco which will allow EU factory ships to plunder — not too excessive a word — the waters off the western Sahara? The consequence of this is the further impoverishment of the poor people of Morocco. Does the Taoiseach accept it is hypocritical of the Government to be party to the exploitation of those waters while continuing to recognise the right of the people of the western Sahara to sovereignty and independence? Morocco is not a country with which Ireland or the EU should make international agreements, whether they be in our own interest or in that of Morocco, which is an unwelcome invading force in that region of Africa.

Did the Taoiseach raise the current troubles in East Timor with the Australian Prime Minister during his visit last week? Did he avail of the opportunity, in recognition of the significant awareness among Irish people of events there, not least because of the deservedly acclaimed work of Tom Hyland, to ask the Prime Minister about Australia's continued exploitation of Timorese gas and oil rights? What response, if any, did the Prime Minister make?

It struck me, as it did other Deputies, that the Taoiseach almost boasted in Mr. Howard's presence about the Government's role in facilitating the US forces' occupation of Iraq through the use of Shannon Airport. It came across as a most distasteful utterance on the Taoiseach's part. He should chew very carefully on such matters before boasting about them because, like the people of Australia——

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy will restrict himself to questions or I will call another speaker.

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

——a majority of people on this island reject the illegal occupation of Iraq.

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

Genetically modified food is not on the agenda; it is an issue for the EU Agricultural Council. We support the EU agreed approach on agricultural issues, to be discussed at the World Trade Organisation talks which will seek balanced but ambitious measures across the core areas of the Doha development agenda. The main focus has been on obtaining tariff reductions on agricultural and industrial goods, under the Non-Agricultural Market Access, NAMA, Agreement. Ireland is keen for a development dimension to remain to the fore, especially in service liberalisation and in a strengthening of WTO rules. Genetically modified food is not relevant to the issue.

I raised the issue of East Timor with the Australian Prime Minister. The Australian Government did much to bring peace to that region. Irish soldiers, in the form of Army rangers, were stationed on the Indonesian border at the start of the decade and played a prominent role. They carried out a few terms of mission in the area and Australian troops continue to serve in the area. The issues centre on the rights to the national reserve assets, for which the local Timorese Administration is fighting, as is its right.

Our position on western Sahara has always been very strong, which has been acknowledged by the UN. We have always been committed to assisting the region and will continue to be so. An EU position on the situation in Morocco has been agreed by the General Affairs and External Relations Council.

Deputy Ó Caoláin suggested I was boastful about our position on Iraq. I was asked a question, namely, why I did not take the same view as Prime Minister Howard, and I explained that the Irish Government did not take that view because we believed there should be a clear UN resolution before there was a war. That was our position throughout. I stated that was the Irish Government's position and that once there was a resolution that we accepted — one was passed some time afterwards — we would consider that the coalition forces had a UN mandate but not until then. I mentioned that our only involvement during the interregnum or since concerned the use of Shannon Airport. There was no question of being boastful and the Deputy could not take that attitude if he had watched the press conference. I said no more than that.

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

It is very unsatisfactory that EU questions have again been lumped in with questions on more general international issues, each of which deserves a separate reply.

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy is taking up time.

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

This point was made previously by other Deputies and the situation improved for a period but we are back to the unsatisfactory earlier position.

With regard to the proposed European Union constitution, two trains of thought are clearly emerging in the EU member states. One is that no suggestion of a change in the proposed constitution should be tolerated, while the other, which is apparent particularly in countries such as France, is that changes will be essential if the proposed constitution is to be put to the people again. Leaving aside the suggestion that deciding not to call it a constitution next time around might do the trick, which I doubt, what is the Government's view on this critical issue? Will it side with those who favour no change or seek a renegotiation?

On the services directive, what position will the Government take at the forthcoming summit on the suggestion that the European Commission should be able to vet all national legislation with regard to services to determine whether it is in compliance with the Commission's view? Does the Taoiseach see the problem that will arise if the European Union, which favours neoliberal policies, privatisation and attacks on workers' pension rights, adjudicates on whether providers of services in this country should have decent wages and conditions for their workers, rather than operating to the lowest common denominator? What is the Taoiseach's view on this matter?

Two camps also emerged at the European Union-Latin American summit. Did the Taoiseach make his views known at the summit and, if so, with which countries did he side? Did he side with Bolivia, for example, which has insisted on re-taking control of its natural resources, such as water, gas and oil, from the multinational corporations which had taken them under previous regimes, in order that it might use them for the benefit of its people, or with those who want to continue the theft by multinational corporations of the natural resources of the Latin American people? I doubt the Taoiseach told President Chávez he had given all the oil and gas off the west coast to multinationals for nothing.

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

The President was asking for the Deputy.

On the European constitution, the issue is that 15 countries — the figure will soon be 16 or 17 — have ratified the constitution. France and the Netherlands have strongly indicated their positions. The Netherlands have said they will not return to the matter, while France said it would in certain circumstances, but it did not outline those circumstances. It said it would seek renegotiations. Obviously, a country could come back, as Ireland did, and we got the Seville declaration, which changed some of the issues from our point of view. If somebody was to come back with that kind of arrangement for something that was important to their economy, it would be examined. Hopefully that will be what happens. If somebody wanted to totally renegotiate the European constitution, that would put back the project for four or five years. The work on the convention started in 1999 and ran until 2001, while the convention continued for two or three years after that. It would create a major difficulty for the Union for the next ten years if that happened.

If somebody tries to cherry-pick and take out those aspects they like and which suit them — there are those who would like that, too, although not many in number — that is the worst of all. They would just take out parts that would suit their own interests but would move away from all the balances that were in the constitution. I would certainly be totally against that. If France or the Netherlands say there is some important issue for them that they need as an annexe to the agreement, I do not see that as a great difficulty, depending on what it is. We cannot predetermine that. However, if somebody wants to start on the constitution again I am totally opposed to that because I think it would be unworkable. If somebody wants to cherry-pick, I would be even more opposed to that. That is the Government's position. As I told Deputy Rabbitte, I do not think that debate is going to happen until 2008. We will not return to that issue.

I have already said that we support a services directive with safeguards to ensure there is not a race to the bottom. It has been agreed by practically all groups — there is consensus — that the amended directive, which is being considered by the competitiveness council, takes into account the key issues. As I told Deputy Kenny earlier, we will have to await what will happen in that debate, which will continue for much of the summer, on the issues under consideration by the competitiveness council. The services directive has proper balances to protect our interests and is not against the long-term interests of workers in Europe. That is what we have argued for throughout this process.

The major issue at the EU-LAC Summit was not resources. I attended the two sessions with the Latin-American Council and took the lead in one of those debates. The concern of the Caribbean countries in particular and smaller countries generally was that the European Union should help them. They have major difficulties as trade liberalisation has affected many of their crops, while climatic change has affected their land base. They are under severe threat from global warming and other issues. They genuinely require support and need Europe to interact with them on trade and infrastructural matters. Their big complaint about Europe is that even when we designate resources for them they are supplied over too long a timespan to get the resources in place quickly. They have a fair point in that many of those countries are small with low populations and they need resources swiftly from Europe.

We supported that line and many of those initiatives emerged from the Irish EU Presidency which did this work over two years ago. The initiatives were in the 2004 agreement but its implementation has been very slow. President Barroso undertook to examine why these delays occur and why more progress is not made on these issues. That was the countries' central complaint, although they are fighting other issues with multinationals at home. The European Union has nothing to do with those strategies, however.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As regards my Question No. 11 on the Vienna Summit, did the Taoiseach have an opportunity to have a proper meeting with President Chávez? The Taoiseach said earlier he was asking for Deputy Joe Higgins. Will the Taoiseach consider inviting President Chávez to Ireland to develop trade and diplomatic relations? Did the Taoiseach raise with President Chávez the issue of natural resources, how Venezuela uses its natural resources to assist the poorer sections of society, and whether there are lessons we in Ireland can learn from that?

The Taoiseach referred to challenges with regard to education and health. Did anyone at the summit come up with new and constructive ideas to tackle poverty and educational disadvantage? Did these issues arise?

Did the issue of the elections in Colombia arise at the summit? The Taoiseach will note thatColombia has a population of 41 million.

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy should give way to the Taoiseach. It is past 3.15 p.m. The Deputy submitted three questions. I would like the Taoiseach to have an opportunity to reply.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Some 60% of the people did not bother to vote in the election.

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

The Taoiseach is way to the left of Hugo Chávez.

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

I had two short discussions with President Chávez. I did not include them in my reply as comprehensive meetings. He is anxious to see the European Union working with him on some of the central issues he wants progressed. He would hold the view that Europe has not done that to a sufficient degree. It is an issue on which he campaigned strongly before and since the LAC meeting.

On issues of educational disadvantage, we have been very strong on the EU-UN agenda and have invested significant resources in it, and many of our models are considered to be very good. To be fair, in the first instance we took some of our models on these issues from the OECD, which did much good work in this regard. A number of these countries have in recent years examined issues with which Deputy McGrath will be very familiar, moreso than I, including with regard to the training institutes in St. Patrick's, which has developed many projects for disadvantaged education, and the Department of Education and Science, which has been very good at exchanging programmes.

People in these countries experience horrendous difficulties, disadvantage and marginalisation. One hears the horrendous plight of people in these countries in the submissions. These countries are still very underdeveloped and face huge difficulties. Without help, many of them will face an appalling future. That was their real plea to Europe.