David Norris (Independent)

I welcome the Taoiseach and the fact that I have just received in my pigeon hole the White Paper on the European Constitution, which will be very valuable and useful. It has arrived at a time when the European Union has formed a new plan D, which it calls "Dialogue, Democracy and Debate".

I am not sure I share entirely the Taoiseach's optimism regarding all the newly acceded states sharing the fundamental values of Europe. In this regard, consider in particular the countries that were in the former Soviet system. Poland has experienced a dramatic lurch to the right and some of the leaders of the countries in question have taken extremely regrettable positions on human and civil rights. In light of the great increase, by ten countries, in the size of the Union, I am not sure we can say with confidence that all of them share our views on fundamental human rights.

I know my distinguished colleague, Senator Ormonde, said the directives from the European Union will be sent here for ratification by Parliament. The Taoiseach and I both know, because we are cynical old birds, that this is just a rubber stamp. So much material is generated by Europe that it is impossible for us to monitor it accurately. When the regulations concerning copyright were being produced, I spotted the problems that would arise regarding the Joyce estate and asked to be told when the regulations were due to be introduced. However, they went through on the nod and nobody raised a peep; therefore we should be careful about assuming we have a certain kind of regulatory influence.

I am also worried about the biometric passports issue because of the undemocratic way in which it was rushed through. The procedures were rather odd. The European Council pressed the European Parliament to accept the relevant report despite the fact that it had been changed. The question of facial identification was in the initial report and that of fingerprints was not. At least fingerprinting was considered an option. In the second report, fingerprinting was mandatory. Normally when there is this much change in such material, there is a requirement to pass it again, but this was not done. The Council blackmailed the European Parliament by saying it would not pass instruments regarding immigration and asylum issues, in which it the European Parliament was interested, if it did not play ball. We should consider the legal analysis by people such as Professor Steve Peers, who questions the legal basis. I will not elaborate on it at this point. I am worried about the use of biometric identification for monitoring innocent, decent citizens and the impact of Eurodac on the asylum-seeking population.

I support Senator Quinn's remarks. It is very interesting that a major business person, with a very extensive interest in supermarkets and food, should take such a decent and idealistic position on the question of the Common Agricultural Policy and its effect on third countries. I noticed that the article the Taoiseach wrote in the Financial Times was picked up on because of some of the statistics contained therein, which I am sure the Taoiseach did not generate. These statistics could be challenged on the basis of the supports for agricultural producers both in the United States and Europe. They should be examined in both these regions. We must get the facts absolutely accurate or our position will be exposed. I thank the Taoiseach very much for coming to the House.