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

Question 1: To ask the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the signing of the European reform treaty in Lisbon; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34469/07]

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

Question 2: To ask the Taoiseach if he report on his attendance at the December 2007 meeting of the European Council in Brussels; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34470/07]

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

Question 3: To ask the Taoiseach the bilateral meetings he held on the margins of the December 2007 meeting of the European Council; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34471/07]

Billy Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 4: To ask the Taoiseach if he will report on the recent EU-Africa Lisbon Summit, held on 8 and 9 December 2007; the fringe meetings that took place; the items that were discussed at these; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34685/07]

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

Question 5: To ask the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the EU-African Summit in Lisbon; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35015/07]

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

Question 6: To ask the Taoiseach if he addressed the EU-African Summit in Lisbon; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35016/07]

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

Question 7: To ask the Taoiseach the international visits he has scheduled for 2008; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35289/07]

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

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 7, inclusive, together.

I attended the second EU-Africa Summit in Lisbon on 8 December, accompanied by the Minister of State with responsibility for overseas development, Deputy Michael Kitt. The overall aim of the summit was to strengthen the partnership with Africa and to mark a new phase in EU-Africa relations. I think it broadly achieved that aim. The leaders adopted a joint EU-Africa strategy and action plan which commits Europe and Africa to developing closer political dialogue and to work together to address common global challenges, including climate change, energy and migration.

The Minister of State, who has special responsibility for overseas aid, addressed the summit during the Sunday session under the theme of trade, infrastructure and development. The Minister of State referred to the millennium development goals as the framework of Ireland's overseas aid programme and the excellent progress we have made in striving towards the millennium development goals target by 2012, and he encouraged other summit participants to increase their efforts in this regard. He outlined the key priorities of Ireland's aid programme including health, education and the fight against HIV and AIDS, and how Africa is central to it. The Minister stressed the need for coherence between aid, trade, environmental, agricultural, migration and security policies and he also emphasised the importance of human rights and good governance in the overall promotion of African development. During the summit, I met briefly with President Mbeki of South Africa and discussed my forthcoming visit there next January.

I travelled to Lisbon to attend the signing ceremony of the reform treaty on 13 December. I was accompanied by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, and the Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs, Deputy Dick Roche. The Reform Treaty will provide the Union with the means to meet the challenges facing it in a fast changing world. It will allow Europe to do more for our people in the years ahead. Ireland has been a beneficiary of EU integration and the Union is crucial to our future well-being. That is why a more effective EU is in Ireland's best interests. It is why the ratification of the reform treaty will be a priority for Ireland.

I attended the European Council on 14 December in Brussels, accompanied by the Ministers for Foreign Affairs and European Affairs. As I will make a statement to the House on the Council later today, I will now give only a summary account of its proceedings. The European Council welcomed the signature of the reform treaty on 13 December, thereby signalling that the Union will have a stable institutional framework for the foreseeable future. The European Council also agreed to establish a reflection group which will help the Union in identifying and examining the challenges and opportunities it will face some 15 to 20 years from now. The Council also adopted a declaration on globalisation.

Otherwise, discussions at the European Council focused on three areas — freedom, security and justice; economic, social and environmental issues; and external relations, including the issue of Kosovo. While at the European Council in Brussels, I had a bilateral meeting with British Prime Minister, Mr. Gordon Brown. Our discussions focused on Northern Ireland, where we agreed on the need to continue to work closely together, as well as on current EU issues.

On official visits abroad in 2008, I will attend all the European Councils during the year. I propose, along with appropriate Ministers, to visit South Africa and Tanzania from 14 to 18 January 2008. The primary focus will be to visit Irish Aid programmes and supported projects operating in these countries and to see at first hand how Ireland's official aid programme is helping to combat disease, hunger and poverty in African communities. In South Africa, I will also lead a trade mission of up to 50 Irish companies to further develop business links with Ireland.

In addition, I propose to attend the fifth summit of the Heads of State and Government of Latin America, the Caribbean and the European Union in Lima, Peru on 16 May 2008. I also propose to attend the EU-Asia Summit which will be held in Beijing, China in October 2008.

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

The Taoiseach will have a busy and varied series of visits next year. During the European-Africa Lisbon Summit, was the Taoiseach able to contribute when Mr. Robert Mugabe was present? We had an argument about this before the Taoiseach went out there. Some felt it might have been better if he did not attend, while others on the Government side argued that it was an opportunity to give Mr. Mugabe a clear message by speaking out in his presence. I saw only the Taoiseach's contribution on television from some hallway where he made the point about the 14,000% inflation rate. Did he deliver his comments to the gathering when Mr. Mugabe was present?

Does the Taoiseach agree that we are reaching a point where we, and the Taoiseach in particular, should be able to fix a date for the EU reform treaty referendum, either alone or with the referendum on children's rights? Anti-European campaigns in various forms are already beginning and the people of this country have to be as well-informed as possible in view of the fact that 500,000 million people are watching them and that the future of the populations of Europe depend greatly on the decision to be made by them.

Does the Taoiseach have a view on how we can have a positive impact on the tinder box that is Kosovo, with its impending declaration of independence? From the discussions around the table at which I sat this will be difficult and sensitive. Whatever decision is made, we do not want Serbia and Kosovo to repeat the situation in Macedonia, which might severely disrupt Europe's opportunity for peace and harmony. The Taoiseach is aware of the importance of that.

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

Deputy Kenny probably knows it was decided at the European Council that rather than letting Mr. Mugabe take over the summit, we would make one trenchant statement, delivered by the Chancellor of Germany, Ms Angela Merkel. She did that well, and thereafter we kept to the business of Africa, rather than allowing the summit to degenerate into everyone from Europe having a cut, and the Africans having a cut back. It worked out well and he did not get the same level of attention he got at the last summit. We had not had a summit for seven years because of that issue but it was well handled and we moved on to the important business of the considerable interests between Africa and Europe. It is unfortunate that issue is there, but when one takes 60 or 70 countries there will always be issues. To Ms Merkel's credit she made the statement trenchantly and effectively.

We need to get our tactics right on the date of the reform treaty referendum. We do not need to make up our minds over the next few days, but we will have to decide so that we can focus our campaign on the period necessary. There is considerable difference of opinion on whether we should have the two referenda together or on separate days, and that is across many of the pro-European groups outside this House. I have listened to their views extensively and we will have to come to a conclusion early in the new year. As Deputy Kenny said, this is a major issue for the country and our standing.

Rather than looking at the need for a referendum in the negative, we should look at it as a positive, although I am not sure it is a good thing for the distant future that any time there has to be any change we need a referendum. From 1987 to date, every time there has been a change we have always needed a referendum. It has always been that way during my time and Deputy Kenny's time here, but whether it is right forever more is another question. Looking at the judgment of 1987 and the Attorney General's recent judgment on this as I interpret it, to change a single line of the European Treaty, which is a bulky document, would require a referendum. Whether that is the greatest thing for this country over the next, 20, 30 or 40 years is a matter for debate. There is no argument on whether we should have a referendum on the reform treaty, and we should gladly face into it. This time there are many changes and it is a different position. There is no doubt on that.

Maybe the people on the streets in Mayo or Dublin are not getting themselves in knots over Kosovo, but around Europe they are. Yesterday's lunch meeting went on for three hours. Deputy Kenny and I have seen that this will be the major international issue in the early months of 2008. We discussed the report from the contact group of the Kosovo troika on the conclusion of the status talks that have gone on for a few years. The troika was thanked for its efforts and regretted that a solution, which is required for regional stability, could not be found. That is a disappointment. Mr. Martti Ahtisaari, a former president of Finland, worked hard on that in this group, but it is a difficult issue, as we both saw in the various discussions. The Council discussed at length the position to be adopted by the EU in the aftermath of the conclusions of the troika process. There was a strong emphasis on the importance of a unified EU approach — that is why the meeting went on so long — and for the EU to make clear its willingness to take the lead internationally and to help them manage and resolve the European problem. This country made the point that we are ready to play our full part. We have remained committed to playing an active and positive role in Kosovo. We have been in there from the start, with our soldiers and some very good gardaí and other personnel on the administrative side charged with the task of trying to set up an administration. There has been a substantial and enhanced Irish commitment to a KFOR military presence all the way through from 1999. The gardaí are highly thought of in the job they do, which is very much at the administrative end.

I agree with the Deputy it is clear that the absence of a new resolution raises many difficulties. It would not be helpful for anyone to speculate at this stage on the question of recognition. When the Troika process is formally concluded the matter will first be referred to the UN Security Council for discussion, early in the new year. It would not be wise to predict the timing and sequence of events thereafter, but regardless of the outcome, I believe that the European Union cannot and will not shirk its responsibility to deal with the challenges that this difficult process may yet present. We obviously have to be very careful. I stressed the other day that we must continue to talk not just about Kosovo, but Serbia and how we maintain relations with that country and with the wider Balkan region. It is an extremely difficult, tense and important issue for everybody, particularly the large number of countries directly concerned. What surprised me the other day was the number of countries involved and the strength of their views. Some of these countries do not normally express strong views, but this major issue was the exception. It is inevitable that for the first quarter of 2008 it will be a regular news item.

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

I want to make one observation in that regard. I share the Taoiseach's view that the fundamental issue arises, in one sense, from the Helsinki Accord where borders cannot be changed without consent. The question for Deputy Bertie Ahern as Taoiseach and his counterparts is to determine how best Serbia may be helped if a declaration is made. In one sense, it is international politics, but with Russia playing games with the European Union over Serbia and while the Troika is determining where to go as regards Kosovo, the US Government is declaring its formula for a declaration of independence. In an EU sense it is a collective challenge for the leaders of the member states. I hope that reason prevails and that what emerges is a demonstration of collective strength from the European Union in the interests of the peoples of both Serbia and Kosovo. It certainly will not be easy to get a resolution to this situation.

As regards Irish Aid, I commend Government progress in reaching the targeted commitment of 0.7% of GNP in respect of aid for developing countries. There has been much comment along the lines of corruption being endemic in African countries. I have noted the strident comments by John O'Shea on a number of occasions as he warned against spending money in developing countries where dictators or corrupt regimes apply. Does the Taoiseach have a view on this and is he happy that the taxpayer gets full value for the moneys we pay into this? Everybody has a human principle of wanting to help others and it is only right and proper that the Government, on behalf of the people, should be fully assured that the best results are achieved for the money being spent by the taxpayer. Does the Taoiseach have a view on whether we should continue with the current format of involving with some of those regimes in Africa, payment through NGOs and whatever, and does he intend to visit any of the areas concerned to see the value on the ground that is being achieved for what we spend?

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

I have discussed this issue a number of times with John O'Shea of GOAL and other agencies. I have discussed it with Mr. O'Shea more than anyone else and I have great regard for his efforts and commitment. Anyone who meets him will appreciate that. He has a particular issue with Uganda. We note that and the people involved in it. On the whole Irish Aid programme, the senior official who heads the initiative outside Ireland has vast experience in working with the United Nations. We take these issues very seriously.

One advantage for Ireland — I take nothing for granted and we always have to be careful — is that our aid is untied, which means it is directly targeted towards individual programmes. We are getting the aid directly to the people on the ground, both religious and missionaries from times past and increasingly NGOs in current times. Much of our aid goes, too, from UN organisations, in which case the control is not as direct. However, I am assured that every consideration and effort is made. Nonetheless, we are dealing with difficult enough regimes and positions. The budget now is very large and the section is growing. These issues are debated in a committee of the Houses and there is more focus on this area. Because of the substantial amounts of money involved, the position is not like it was ten years ago so we have to watch the situation carefully. As regards Irish Aid, we have a good reputation. I very much favour those programmes where we can intervene directly through our people on the ground. I am not saying there is anything wrong with the manner in which aid is distributed through the UN agencies, but we do not have direct control and involvement.

Direct involvement means people on the ground and that is not always possible. The €9 million initiative is one programme that is very much Irish orientated. People are out there all year making plans in that regard. That is not the only one and there are other programmes involving people on the ground, which we can control because of the presence of Irish committees. I prefer that model because control is not moved away from us. The entire aid programme is something we are very conscious of because the moneys and resources involved are very substantial. It is difficult to keep a direct handle on it, but every effort is being made to do that.

Billy Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

To re-emphasise the point Deputy Kenny made, in the Government's efforts to reach the 0.7% of GNP target, it is vitally important we do not lose sight of the fact that the money gets to where it should, particularly to the programme countries. A mechanism must be put in place. The Taoiseach indicated that perhaps it is difficult to keep track of expenditure in the absence of people on the ground. I noted advertisements recently for professionals in that area. Any moneys spent on project managers and accounting for aid expenditure is well spent.

I want to take up a few matters relating to the legal status of Kosovo and I appreciate that the Taoiseach is reluctant to outline the Government position in this regard. He indicated, however, that Europe is aware of its responsibilities in the area. If there is a unilateral declaration of independence in Kosovo, has he legal advice on UN Resolution 1244? Will that resolution be void and are there implications for Irish personnel in the area? If so, we will have to face reality as regards the commitment of Europe to the area, as the Taoiseach has outlined. If, as appears most likely, there is no resolution because of a Russian veto, we shall not be able to make a contribution in the area notwithstanding what we have done and continue to do there. I am sure the Taoiseach, in his quieter moments, questions the so-called triple lock policy.

Another issue I want to raise is the reform treaty. I note the European Court of Justice yesterday made a decision in a case brought by Britain, which was joined by Ireland to the effect that we would have no input into the shape of justice or home affairs matters. Perhaps the Taoiseach does not have advice on this judgment. Does he have any regrets about the fact that we opted out of the justice and home affairs aspect of the reform treaty? Are the implications of this decision more far-reaching than he thought at the time?

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

Deputy Timmins and I would be of the same view on the first matter he raised. We face difficult decisions in the absence of a new resolution. It raised complex legal and political issues for the individual and collective consideration not only of us but a large number of member states. I hope to be able to maintain a presence in KFOR to contribute members of the Garda Síochána to any security and defence policy mission and support the future economic development of Kosovo. This is where I would be coming from. We will have to deal with the issue. There is no doubt that it raises problems but we should be working on them and not be diverted by any of these issues. We should follow the process which is back in the UN framework on the basis of the report of the contact group. We should do all we can to ensure we play a role in it.

Having listened to President Tassos Papadopoulos, the Greek Prime Minister and others, it is clear member states have many difficulties with this. It is not an easy issue to hold unity on and they are not the only two who have difficulties. The weeks ahead could be a difficult enough period with the Serbian election finished and what Kosovo does. It is clear what Kosovo is intent on doing and it will create a difficult period. I am clear in my mind that we should maintain our presence there. We should work to do so and try to achieve that.

With regard to our influence and the JHA, in deciding to opt out of the JHA opt-in opt-out arrangement we were very conscious to preserve our influence within the Union. We have succeeded totally in doing that. We made a strong declaration affirming our commitment to working with partners to combat cross-border crime and our intention to participate in future measures. We have taken a very different position from the British and it has been seen that way. It does not create any difficulty for us. In three years we can review the situation.

The declaration makes it plain that our decision on the JHA was taken reluctantly. It does not stem from any inhibition about closer EU co-operation, particularly police co-operation. We made clear our intention to keep the arrangement under active review and to consider this in a few years. We have not got into any difficulties about the European Court of Justice. The British were unwilling to commit to giving the European Court of Justice a role in JHA matters. We take the opposite view and we have no such reservations. We will also differentiate ourselves by making a strong political statement of our intention to participate to the maximum extent possible in JHA proposals, specifying in particular the area of police co-operation. The British would not make that declaration and we are not aware of any intention on their part to do so.

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

Does the Taoiseach accept that a common tax base is a priority objective of the European Commission and that this priority is supported by the majority of member states, including the big players of France and Germany? Is it the case that as part of the strategy of the President of the Commission, José Manuel Barroso, to progress a common tax base he shelved this proposal until after Ireland's EU reform treaty referendum? Will the Taoiseach tell the House whether the proposition has been shelved? Is he aware this is only a temporary arrangement until after we have our referendum? What is the Government's position with regard to the common tax base proposal?

Does the Taoiseach still intend to invite the President, Mr. Barroso, to be an active campaigner in his pursuit of a "Yes" vote in the EU reform treaty referendum campaign during the course of 2008? Given Mr. Barroso's outlook and penchant, does the Taoiseach see him as someone with whom he has common cause in this area?

With regard to the water framework directive, did the Government support the introduction of the water framework directive in 2000? Did it seek exceptions for schools and other not-for-profit public services from the directive? The Lisbon treaty will give 105 new competencies to the European Union and a further 68 areas will move from consensus decision making within the European council to majority voting. Given the Government's inability to secure the national interest in the instance of the water issue in our schools, what is the position with regard to such measures in the future? Does the Taoiseach share the concern of many citizens with regard to the new powers being vested in the European Union and in the Council whereby we will have matters foisted upon us without the opportunity of veto?

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

José Manuel Barroso is very much of my view on the taxation issue. As Prime Minister and Minister and now Commissioner he has always been very supportive of my views on this issue. There is no ceasing of work on this. What is going on is that in the Commission, here and in other member states work is continuing in advance of any legislative proposal being brought forward. The work being done now is of a purely technical nature and to date there has been no substantive political level discussion or endorsement of it. We have no difficulty with that ongoing work to try to come to a technical understanding of what happens.

I do not believe the common consolidated corporate tax base, CCCTB, is the type of grand project that will ever progress into a policy area. Our view on this is that there is preparatory work to get an understanding of what is happening across 27 member states. I have no difficulty with that. If it moves back, as has happened a lot over the past 20 years, to some individual countries bringing this to a harmonised tax base, that is a different issue. I do not see that difficulty now and I do not think it would be supported.

My position on this has remained as it was since 1992. I would be the best-known member of the present European Council for my views against this. To be frank, one does not have to state them too much as they are well known now and there are plenty of supporters. They can go ahead with their technical work all they like and we will co-operate with it. Deputy Ó Caoláin's question was whether this would turn into a tax harmonisation issue. I do not think it will and if I did, I would not support it. We still have our own protections. Tax sovereignty is an area over which we have a veto. I do not see it coming to that in the foreseeable future and I am talking about years ahead not to mind the short term.

One of the great things about the treaty is that for the next 20 or 30 years it is now agreed it must be 55% of member states and 65% of population in favour of any proposal. The double majority system was a major success in ensuring for the long-term that small and medium sized member states would not be rolled over on issues, as they have never been in the European Union. The double majority voting mechanism is a huge stride. With respect, those like Deputy Ó Caoláin who have concerns that this might happen some day should be the first to go out canvassing to make sure it does not happen.

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

I know it is the final sitting day before Christmas but the Taoiseach will have to dream on.

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

I used the Deputy's logic.

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

I am a little confused by the Taoiseach's first response. Perhaps he will offer some clarification. There is no question that the ceding of tax sovereignty would have very serious consequences for the State. While the Taoiseach indicated he and Commission President, Mr. Barroso, shared a broad outlook on this issue, that is not my understanding of Mr. Barroso's stance on the common tax base proposal. Is it not the case that the shelving of this issue is related to the upcoming referendum? Did the Taoiseach play a role in having this particular proposition shelved until after the treaty referendum? Did he and the Government seek to have it shelved because they are anxious as to its impact in terms of Irish voter thinking regarding the EU reform treaty proposition, which is a constitution by any other name?

The Government states that the European water framework directive is forcing the Departments of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and Education and Science to levy schools with a water charge. While the Taoiseach's intervention yesterday is welcome and the action he intends to take has been broadly welcomed across the sector, clarity is nonetheless required on this matter. I asked the Taoiseach whether the Government supported the introduction of the water framework directive in 2000 or sought to have schools and other not-for-profit public facilities and services excluded from the directive. I would like to know the factual position regarding the Government's record on both these matters. As regards the absence of clarity, this was a train that was always going to hit us, as it did recently. I ask the Taoiseach to provide clarity on the questions I posed on the common tax base and water framework directive.

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

I will be very clear on the first question. The Deputy keeps saying the ongoing work on the CCCTB system has been shelved. It has not been shelved and technical work is ongoing. Will this turn into a legislative proposal to bring in tax harmonisation? I do not believe it will and I do not believe President Barroso wants to do that. If it was tried, the Deputy knows the issue could not be in safer hands because I have successfully opposed such measures on four occasions since 1992. Will efforts be made to re-introduce it under another guise? They probably will but we will oppose it again. I do not want the Deputy to worry about CCCTB over the Christmas holidays. He should not be concerned.

On the water framework directive, we have operated on the basis that we would not introduce new exemptions while we retained our exemption for domestic households. Our position in various discussions since 1999 has been to exempt residential users and charge all other users. The Deputy will be aware that the European Union takes the view that everybody should pay for quality water. The Government is investing more than €1 billion per annum in improving water quality and supply. An enormous amount of resources have and will be put into this area in the previous development plan and the current plan, which covers a period of seven or eight years.

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

The Taoiseach is telling the House that the Government supported the directive and did not lobby for an exemption for schools and other not-for-profit public services.

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

We operated on the basis that we would not introduce new exemptions while we retained the exemptions we had secured. That is the position we took.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have a couple of questions arising from the summit. While it may not be significant in terms of the content of the outcome, people are puzzled about the reason the summit was held in two venues, with the signing taking place in Lisbon after which everybody headed off to Brussels for the summit meeting. Why could everything not be done in one venue?

With regard to the treaty referendum, the All-Party Committee on the Constitution has recommended that there should be a period of 60 days between the enactment of a referendum Bill and the holding of the referendum. Is it the Taoiseach's intention to stick with this 60-day requirement for the reform treaty? If so, what timetable does he envisage in the new year leading up to the referendum? While I appreciate that the treaty signing and so on has been completed, I am concerned that discussions have still not taken place between the Government and main Opposition parties supporting the treaty to discuss preparations for the referendum.

A European Union police and civil administration mission for Kosovo has been proposed. Would this lead to an increase in the Irish commitment and participation in Kosovo in terms of gardaí and civilians?

Yesterday, on the Order of Business, I asked about the implications of the Laval case, on which the European Court of Justice issued its decision yesterday, for pay and conditions of employment in this State and our industrial relations system. I also asked that the issue be discussed in the House at an early date. Has consideration been given to my request, given that it is desirable that the House discuss the implications of the Laval case and the extent to which the inclusion of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the new treaty will influence future European Court of Justice decisions in areas protecting workers' rights well in advance of the referendum on the reform treaty?

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

I will deal with the Deputy's final question first. As he stated, the judgment in the Laval case was issued only yesterday and we will need time to study and consider the ramifications, if any, for Ireland. Unlike Sweden, Ireland has a statutory minimum wage and it is illegal to pay anyone below the minimum wage, which currently stands at €8.65. Ireland, because of its industrial relations framework and social partnership model, also has registered employment agreements which are binding. The position here is, therefore, different from that in Sweden.

Under Towards 2016, the ten-year framework agreed last year between the social partners and Government, new legislation, the employment law compliance Bill, will be introduced. We have already established the National Employment Rights Authority whose chief executive is Ger Deering. Some 60 labour inspectors have been recruited and 30 inspectors interviewed. By October this year, more than 3,000 workplace inspections had been carried out, which is double the figure for 2006. The Government will not tolerate abuse of workers and we are committed to building a statutory framework to prevent any possible displacement of workers. The Laval judgment will have to be considered very carefully by the social partners and I hope this will be done. If debate in the House is required, we will examine that matter at a later date.

I was speaking with the officials this morning on this issue. They have already commenced their judgment on it. We have a very different position from Sweden because we have the statutory minimum wage and the registered agreements.

In regard to Kosovo, if the UN mandate issue was sorted out it could well be that more people will be required. We have been in there and have played a very good role from the start, including the Garda. The new group will try to deal with the administrative side. There are some 17,000 soldiers there but some day they will have to move towards setting up a structured society. The Garda has been doing a good job in that area and is well respected there. Hopefully the position will not get out of control. It is obvious there will be considerable tensions in the new year. In the EU, it is important to keep close to Serbia as well and try to avoid any heightening of tensions in so far as that is possible.

It would have been better if the meetings in Lisbon and Brussels had been in one place or the other. That was not possible as Lisbon wanted the treaty signed and Brussels wanted its European Council meeting and the rest of us had to travel. That is how it is. That is because Brussels was not prepared on this occasion to let up on its mandatory position on the Council meetings being held in Brussels, which was agreed many years ago. That was for obvious reasons but it is not an ideal way of having to arrange a diary. We did make that point and we were not the only country who made it but there was no agreement between Portugal and Belgium. Belgium had its election the same time as we did but still has not formed a Government. This would not have helped to form it either. I think the Deputy asked another question.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I asked about the timetable for the referendum because there was a meeting yesterday.

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

I understood there was a meeting yesterday.

Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

One of the interesting decisions taken at the Council meeting was the decision to set up the independent reflection group of the so-called dozen wise men, the brainchild of President Sarkozy. I understand from reports that the Taoiseach put forward the name of Pat Cox for chair of that group but that it was not a runner because Felipe González, the ex prime minister of Spain was successful in achieving the chair. I am somewhat disappointed that no soundings were made of the Opposition parties in regard to an agreed candidate for membership of what will be a very important body because its function will be to look at the issues and challenges facing the EU up to 2030. Can the Taoiseach tell us the reason he did not consult with the Opposition parties and whether, at this point, there is any prospect of Pat Cox becoming a member of that group?

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

Perhaps I can correct Deputy Costello. We never put forward the name of Pat Cox as chair of the group. We put forward the name of Pat Cox as a member of the committee. We were asked in September for somebody with competent and qualified European experience. We did not think there was anybody who was better qualified in that regard, having just been the past president of European Parliament. Pat Cox never lobbied or looked for the position of chair. As a matter of fact, he did not seek membership either but we approached him. In the last week when there were differences between various groups about Felipe González and Vaire Vike-Freiberga, the former president of Latvia, they started to look at other names. One of the names that was mentioned was Pat Cox. That is where it came from. Pat Cox was in the United States and was not in any way involved in that issue. We have continued with what we set out to do which was to put forward the name of Pat Cox as a member of the committee. We will continue to lobby for that.

Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What is the likelihood of him achieving it?

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

We remain hopeful. He is eminently qualified and of current times to be in this position. That is not to take from any of the others but, to be frank, I am not a big supporter of going back 20 years when one wants to move 20 years forward. To me that sounds strange that if one wants to plan Europe for 2030 one goes back to someone who was around in 1980. Sometimes people make strange decisions.