Austin Deasy
Question:3 Mr. Deasy asked the Taoiseach if there have been any developments to report from his visit to the United States and his talks with President Clinton.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Ministerial Visits Abroad.
Austin Currie
Question:4 Mr. Currie asked the Taoiseach whether, at his meeting with President Clinton on St. Patrick's Day, the reported comments (details supplied) of the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives on the International Fund for Ireland were discussed; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Austin Currie
Question:5 Mr. Currie asked the Taoiseach whether, at his meeting with President Clinton on St. Patrick's Day, the reported comments (details supplied) of the Speaker of the United States House of representatives on the suggested appointment of a special envoy to Northern Ireland and on the McBride principles were discussed; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Jim Higgins
Question:6 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach the details of the meetings he had with industrialists in the United States during his recent visit there; the membership of his entourage; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Proinsias De Rossa
Question:7 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach the discussions, if any, he had during his recent visit to the United States with US business and commercial interests regarding investment in Ireland; the commitments, if any, he received regarding new jobs arising from such investment; if he will give details of the companies and the proposed start-up dates; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Proinsias De Rossa
Question:8 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach the issues discussed with President Clinton during his recent visit to the United States; if he discussed the situation in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
John Connor
Question:9 Mr. Connor asked the Taoiseach if he will give details on the statement he made at a press briefing in the United States last week suggesting that Roscommon would be one of three locations in this country where there would be major industrial investment in the coming year leading to significant job creation outlining particularly the amount of investment promised, the type of industry or industries to be established and the likely number of jobs to result.
John Bruton
Question:10 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement following his recent discussions with the President of the United States.
Austin Deasy
Question:11 Mr. Deasy asked the Taoiseach if the US President divulged to him the reason he was not sending an envoy to Northern Ireland as he had indicated prior to the US Presidential Election.
Austin Currie
Question:12 Mr. Currie asked the Taoiseach if his attention has been drawn to comments (details supplied) by the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives on the suggested appointment of a special envoy to Northern Ireland and the McBride principles; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Desmond J. O'Malley
Question:13 Mr. O'Malley asked the Taoiseach the attitude of the Government to the suggestion that the US President might appoint a special peace envoy to Northern Ireland; whether the Government has had any discussions with the US Administration about such an appointment; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Jim O'Keeffe
Question:14 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Taoiseach whether he has had or intends to have any discussions with US President Bill Clinton on the proposal to appoint a peace envoy to Northern Ireland; and his views on this proposal.
Jim Higgins
Question:109 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach the countries recently visited by him in connection with St. Patrick's Day celebrations; the countries visited by the Ministers of State at his Department; the composition of the official party; and the total cost to the Exchequer in each case.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 3 to 14, inclusive, and 109 together.
I made a very successful visit to the United States from 11 to 18 March 1993. I met President Clinton on three occasions — at the White House where we had discussions on St. Patrick's Day, at a lunch of the Friends of Ireland in the US Congress on Capitol Hill later that day, hosted by Speaker Tom Foley, to which the President and I travelled together, and on the occasion of a dinner of the American-Ireland Fund in Washington, the previous evening, 16 March. In Washington, I had separate meetings with Vice-President Gore, Speaker Tom Foley and Mr. Dan Rostenkowski, Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Representatives, as well as chairing the meeting of the Ireland-America Economic Advisory Board. I also attended and spoke at a reception for the Irish-American community and at the annual dinner of the Washington Chapter of the Friendly Sons of St. Patrick. I also gave interviews on CNN television and on the Larry King radio programme which is widely syndicated across the US.
Earlier, in Los Angeles from 11 to 15 March, I, accompanied by senior IDA executives, met executives of a number of US industrial corporations that were considering establishing plants in Ireland, spoke at an IDA reception for about 30 other corporations, some already with a presence in Ireland, others that were IDA targets for future investment here, met the Governor of California, Mr. Pete Wilson, attended and spoke at a reception for the Irish-American community in southern California and met the editorial board of the Los Angeles Times. I also attended a fund-raising function of the International Breast Cancer Foundation, for Ireland, and a dinner hosted by the directors of Hilton Hotels. In the course of my visit, I made seven public speeches.
I was accompanied on my visit by my wife, Messrs Pádraig Ó hUiginn and Walter Kirwan, respectively Secretary and Assistant Secretary at my Department, Mr. Seán Duignan, Government Press Secretary, Mr. Donagh Morgan, programme manager at my Department and Mr. Terry Blessing, security officer. For the Washington leg of the visit, I was also joined by Mr. Seán Ó hUiginn, Assistant Secretary, Department of Foreign Affairs and by my Private Secretary, Mr. Colm Butler. As to the cost of the visit, invoices are not yet to hand for some elements but if the Deputy concerned wishes to put down a question after a suitable interval, I can give a comprehensive figure for the cost. None of the Ministers of State at my Department visited other countries for the St. Patrick's Day celebrations.
I had two principal objectives for this visit, mirroring the two top priorities of this Government. First, I sought to explain Government policy in regard to Northern Ireland and to enlist US support for it and, in particular, to explore how the strong and very encouraging interest of President Clinton and of the US Congress could most constructively be harnessed and channelled to help advance a durable and balanced settlement that would end the agony besetting Northern Ireland. Secondly, I aimed, in direct contacts with leaders of US business and in discussions with political leaders on such matters as world growth, taxation and the Uruguay Round, to bring forward action that would help expand employment in Ireland and to pre-empt any steps that would have the contrary effect. The visit was extremely successful in respect of both these aims.
My discussions with President Clinton covered Northern Ireland, possible new initiatives to increase world growth and trade, the Uruguay Round, Somalia, the Irish economy and US investment in it; and ideas under consideration to amend the provisions of the US taxation code in regard to deferral of taxation on certain earnings and assets of US corporations operating in other countries. My discussions with Speaker Foley covered broadly the same area while some of the subjects listed also arose with Chairman Rostenkowski and Vice-President Gore, with whom I also discussed global environmental issues and sustainable development.
On Northern Ireland, I found President Clinton to be very well informed about the situation and sensitive to its different dimensions. He is most anxious and ready to do whatever the United States can do constructively to help resolve the problem. I brought the President through its history, the Irish Government's analysis of it and our approach to bringing about a durable and balanced settlement. I briefed him on the talks held last year and the Government's efforts to bring about an early resumption and a successful outcome. This I indicated was our priority and it would be best advanced at this stage if all parties adhered to the previously agreed basis for talks and refrained from setting unsustainable and unattainable pre-conditions. I welcomed the President's interest and concern for Northern Ireland and the wish he had expressed to see a resumption of the talks process and to have the US play a constructive and supportive role.
In our discussions, we explored how the potential for benefit of such a role could best be realised, given the position of the US as a friend to both Governments concerned and to what the President called "the two great traditions in Ireland" and the importance attached by both Governments to resumption of the talks process and to a successful outcome. We agreed that, as indicated by the President in his public statements after our meeting, he would closely monitor the situation, that he would maintain the closest consultation with our Government and with me personally, and that all the options that have been mooted as to how the US might contribute to the search for a solution remain open.
I believe that the outcome of our meeting in Northern Ireland is just what was needed. It demonstrated support for the co-operative efforts of the two Governments to bring about a settlement through, as we hope, a resumed talks process, or in whatever other way may be necessary. Our meeting also provided a focus for democratic politicians and all those with a constructive concern in the US and thus help to marginalise the tiny minority of proponents of violence and terrorism. I know that it is an outcome very much welcomed by Speaker Foley who shares that latter objective. When I met him, he gave me his views on all relevant aspects of the Northern Ireland situation. The Government attach great importance and value to his views since he is a very committed and consistent friend of Ireland and occupies a most influental position in the US scheme of government.
My discussions with the President and with the Speaker also covered the International Fund for Ireland. I expressed the appreciation of the Irish Government and people for the very generous US contributions to the fund, which, with those of other supporters, have enabled it to undertake such valuable work on a cross-border and cross-community basis. I am very happy to acknowledge, with great appreciation, the announcement made by President Clinton at the Capitol Hill lunch that, for the 1994 US budget, the Administration will itself propose an appropriation of $20 million for the fund. In previous years, it was through the support of Speaker Foley and other friends of Ireland in Congress that such appropriations were added to the budgets proposed by the Administration.
At our meeting, and in his subsequent public remarks, President Clinton expressed American admiration and appreciation for the generous response of the Irish people to the needs of Somalia and for the wonderful work being done there by the Irish non-governmental organisations. The President also conveyed his sincere sympathy on the deaths of Valerie Place and Seán Devereaux, while engaged in that selfless endeavour.
Following my meeting with the Danish Prime Minister and current President of the European Council, Mr. Paul Rasmussen, in Dublin on 10 March, I conveyed to President Clinton the strong desire of the European Community for a concerted and co-operative approach by the EC, the US, Japan and others in order to stimulate growth in the international economy, an approach I first advocated at the Birmingham Summit last October. The President was very receptive to this idea and undertook to pursue it positively with the Danish Presidency.
We also discussed the Uruguay Round of GATT talks and agreed on the strong desirability of bringing them to a successful conclusion as soon as possible and on the stimulus this would give to growth throughout the world. The President confirmed that he would be seeking from Congress a relatively short extension of the ‘fast-track' authority for these negotiations.
In my meetings with the President and vice-President, with Speaker Foley and with Representative Rostenkowski and other public representatives, I raised the concern of the Government about an idea that was mooted during the presidential campaign and has now been taken up in the US Treasury. The idea in question involves a limitation on the deferral of tax liability, now enjoyed by US overseas subsidiaries, so long as they have not repatriated their profits earned abroad. I explained that this idea, if followed up, could have disproportionately adverse effects on Ireland, while very likely failing to realise any significant increase in revenue for the US. In addition, I pointed out that there are specific reasons why Ireland should be exempted from any such legislation. In the course of my meetings, I received a number of sympathetic indications of understanding for our concerns and a readiness to take them fully into account. In particular, President Clinton agreed that the two Governments and their experts should work closely together on the matter, with a view to avoiding any adverse impact on US investment in Ireland.
Securing further such investment was my principal objective in California. Following my meetings with US corporations, two of these companies confirmed their intention to locate here, in Mullingar and Roscommon. A third company, which will take a decision within, perhaps, four months, indicated that the meeting had strongly influenced it towards a positive decision quite likely for Dublin. The employment potential of the companies who are considering locating or expanding their existing operations at a number of locations here is 2,000 people, many in high-quality jobs. There is extremely keen competition for mobile international investment, including for the firms in question. Against this background, it has never been the practice to give names of companies or other particulars which would serve to alert our competitors and suggestions that I should do so are disingenuous. More seriously, allegations that the jobs in question are bogus are thoroughly reprehensible and reflect very poorly on Deputies who made them. The IDA know the companies in question, their potential employment and the present status of negotiation, and they are in full agreement with the indications I gave while in California.
Other firms whom I addressed in Los Angeles include a number of prime IDA targets which are contemplating the establishment of new plants or businesses in Europe. I have every confidence that the contacts I and my party had with them will ultimately be reflected by new plants and jobs in Ireland, in a significant proportion of cases.
The same objective will be advanced by the very valuable second meeting in Washington of the Ireland-America Economic Advisory Board attended by some of the top people in American business. The meeting identified a number of significant opportunities for Ireland in investment trade and tourism, particularly in the context of this country's unique advantage to the US as a gateway to Europe. The meeting laid a basis for an active interaction between our promotional agencies and the extremely well-placed and well-connected members of the board. I have no doubt that it will lead to concrete results in investment and positive developments in trade with the US and in the whole area of tourism, leading ultimately to an increase in the number of jobs on the ground.
The visit as a whole was a tremendous success which amply vindicated the point I made in reply to a question on 9 March, that St. Patrick's Day provides an invaluable opportunity for Ministers going abroad to promote Ireland as an attractive and profitable location for investment, trade and tourism. In the Irish-American extended family in the United States we have an immense asset of 44 million people of Irish descent who cherish feelings of identification with Ireland. Many of these people have risen to the highest positions in Government, in business and other fields.
And Irish dancing.
If Deputy Owen feels so badly about a visit that was so successful——
This is an abuse of Question Time. The length of the Taoiseach's reply is——
The Deputy will have all the time he wants.
Another boring diatribe.
The Limerick region would be a poor place without American investment. These people are part of the wider Irish family in whose achievements we can take pride and whom we should mobilise to the maximum extent possible in order to advance the interests of people of Ireland both North and South. The great strength and potential of that resource was nowhere better exemplified than in Washington last week when at the American-Ireland fund dinner and at the Friends of Ireland lunch on Capitol Hill I was joined in addressing those assembled by the President of the United States, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Majority Leader of the US Senate, all statesmen of Irish heritage and all of them proud of that.
A number of Deputies have tabled questions on this subject and I propose to call them in the order in which their questions appear on the Order Paper. I observe that Deputy Currie who has a number of questions tabled is offering.
May I have your guidance, a Cheann Comhairle? Will you give me ten or 15 minutes in order to reply to the statement made by the Taoiseach?
The Chair has no control over the replies of the Taoiseach or his Ministers but he does have control over Deputies' supplementaries.
I know the Chair will be as lenient as possible because I wish to ask some specific questions. I know, I speak on behalf of all Members in saying how grateful I am for the supportive attitude adopted and reported by President Clinton, Speaker Foley in particular and others. We owe them a debt of gratitude. Would the Taoiseach agree that one of the matters that arose out of the discussions and the press conference was the extent of the briefing the President had in relation to affairs in Northern Ireland, which is a good augury for the future?
In relation to my questions which refer to Speaker Foley, who has always been an effective, responsible and consistent supporter of constitutional nationalism on this island, would the Taoiseach agree that the comments to which I refer in my questions, as reported in our newspapers last week, from that source have to be given very careful consideration? For example, did the Taoiseach — in his reply he did not refer to this matter — discuss with President Clinton, Speaker Foley or anyone the criticisms by the Speaker of elements in Sinn Féin, for example, who are opposed to the International Fund for Ireland? That fund has been a great example of practical patriotism and ought to be supported by all of us. I suggest to the Taoiseach, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, that on an all-party basis we should state our support for the International Fund for Ireland and our criticism of those in the United States and elsewhere who are opposed to it.
I want to assist the Deputy elicit information.
I am going into my second question.
The Deputy may not take up the greater proportion of time here. A large number of Deputies have tabled questions and I want to facilitate them also. Let us have some equity in the matter.
I will be as brief as possible, although there is much that I could say——
We cannot debate the matter today.
Would the Taoiseach share my concern that pro-Sinn Féin elements in the US, according to Speaker Foley, are supporting the McBride principles for the purpose of harming US investment in Northern Ireland? Is that not a matter of serious concern to someone who professes also to support the McBride principles?
I ask the Deputy to bring his questions to finality.
I share the Taoiseach's gratitude to the Speaker for his emphasis that a special envoy or a peace envoy is not a substitute for the talks that have been taking place and which I hope will shortly take place again between the two Governments of these islands and the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland.
I thank the Deputy for his sentiments in relation to the success of the visit and the very important role that can be played by the US President, the Congress and the Senate. I agree that we should all openly proclaim our full support across party lines for the International Fund for Ireland.
In relation to my discussions with Speaker Tom Foley on the International Fund for Ireland, we discussed the fringe elements that exist in the US who are and have always been against that fund. By and large they are supporters of violence in Northern Ireland. Mr. Foley conveyed his abhorrence of people who support violence and I agreed with him on that. In relation to the International Fund for Ireland, the Speaker asked me to raise with the President the question of putting it into the budget rather than having to fight on the floor of the House to have it added. After lunch on Capitol Hill the following day the President responded by saying that it would be in the 1994 budget. We are fully conscious of the need for investment in Northern Ireland to tackle unemployment. Speaker Foley's sentiments are such that he does not want any opinion voiced which might be a disincentive to investment in Northern Ireland.
Do you share that view?
I pointed out to the Speaker that we are monitoring the Fair Employment Act and that this Government would not defend discrimination anywhere in relation to employment or anything else. Deputy Currie should understand exactly where the Government stands on this issue and that it is a new beginning for an Irish Government to have such active support from the US President in trying to get the talks process back on the rails. The President sees that as a prerequisite in trying to find a new peace formula for Northern Ireland.
I am answering 13 questions on this. If the Opposition parties had chosen to put down a few questions today and a few tomorrow they might have had shorter replies, but I am trying to give the maximum information.
The Taoiseach could take them separately.
In his discussions with potential job creators, did the Taoiseach find that the Clinton campaign proposal which is now a definite Treasury proposal to tax the profits of US subsidiary companies would be a major deterrent to US companies locating here? Is it a fact that the proposed 2,000 jobs depend on that measure being waived?
We should all understand that this tax proposal has not come out of the Treasury yet and that it must go through the Ways and Means Committee. It is for that reason that I had a long meeting with the chairman and other members of that committee on this proposal which could adversely affect US investment in Ireland should it become a reality. This type of proposal is nothing new. As Minister for Industry and Commerce I had to go to Washington on two occasions, and again as Minister for Finance, to study similar type proposals coming from the Treasury and which have not found their way into legislation. Deputies should understand that Ireland is one of the few countries with which the US has a trade surplus. I leaned heavily on that aspect and said that we are entitled to consideration when any adverse tax proposals are being put forward. American companies have been locating here for years. They are not just companies which close down in America and relocate here. That is a real problem in America, especially having regard to the new trade agreement with Mexico.
I will address my supplementary questions to Questions Nos. 7 and 8 in my name. The Taoiseach indicated that it would be disingenuous of anybody to expect that he could indicate were the jobs would be, who would provide them and when the start-up date would be. Could the Taoiseach at least indicate a possible start-up date for the 2,000 jobs announced in the US? If he is not able to do so would he not agree that what he is doing is returning to the bad old days when the IDA announced job proposals and job approvals which never bore any relationship to the actual job start-ups, and that what he engaged in in the US were no more than St. Patrick's Day pipe dreams? If the Taoiseach announces 2,000 jobs in the US, this House is at least entitled to an indication of when those jobs will start.
The Deputy has made his point.
The unemployed are also entitled to the same information, particularly in the areas the Taoiseach identified — Roscommon, Mullingar and Dublin.
In relation to my other question the Taoiseach indicated that he had agreement from President Clinton that one of the major objectives of any assistance which the US might offer in relation to Northern Ireland would be to get the talks about Northern Ireland going again. In view of the statement by Mr. Molyneaux at the weekend that he regards these talks as dead, could the Taoiseach indicate what steps it will now be possible to take to revive them since they are so important in terms of any attempt to end the violence in Northern Ireland?
In relation to the latter part of the Deputy's questions, he may not be unaware that local elections will take place in Northern Ireland in May and that consequently we are hearing statements that we might not normally hear. The Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs has issued invitations for meetings to all the constitutional political parties in Northern Ireland. He has already met the Alliance Party and he awaits an opportunity to meet the other parties. We have heard before, statements that the talks are dead and that they will never be reconvened, and we have to take such statements in the context in which they are made. We would all deplore an attitude that would not take us back to the negotiating table for the resumption of the talks process. It is precisely in this area that President Clinton pointed to his support for a resumption of the talks process. The President is a friend both of the British and Irish Governments and he spoke warmly of the two great traditions in Northern Ireland. He wants to see the talks being given a chance. He is leaving open his other options in relation to fact finding missions and a peace envoy and will keep in touch with the Irish Government and indeed, with me personally as he said in public. That is the aspect in relation to the talks. Let us hope that the invitation extended by the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs will be responded to positively and that there can at least be bilateral talks before we all get around the table again.
In relation to the question of jobs, I am sure the Deputy, as an experienced TD, is aware that there are two reasons the specifics are not given at any particular time. The first is that because international investment is so scarce and there is a tough battleground to get it, the IDA, until it is absolutely satisfied that a company are prepared to announce start-up plans, do not make specific announcements.
What about the 2,000 jobs?
The 2,000 jobs will come both from new investments in Ireland and by way of the expansion of existing ones. The jobs will be provided over a period. In fact, today, the first announcement in relation to Roscommon is being made with the full consent of the company. It is a matter for them to agree with the IDA as to when the actual detailed announcement can be made. The first announcement is being made today and I do not think one could ask for a quicker response than that.
I am glad the Taoiseach has said something about investment in Roscommon but perhaps he would elaborate. It is regrettable that immediately before the general election his name was put to job promises which did not materialise. If the Taoiseach does not wish to tell the country he may wish to tell his own constituents in a little more detail what is envisaged in the announcement for Roscommon. Let us confine it to Roscommon for the purposes of my question.
The announcement has already appeared in the Roscommon Herald, in the Roscommon Champion and in a few other newspapers so I am sure the Deputy will be able to read the details.
I just hope it is a little better than the announcement in November.
Can the Taoiseach not tell us here?
The Deputy should rush out and get the papers before he hears the announcement from the Tánaiste.
A Deputy
Has the Taoiseach informed Deputy Seán Doherty of this?
Is the Taoiseach aware that Fortune magazine in the United States has identified Ireland, Singapore and Malaysia as the three locations likely to suffer most from the proposal for a change in the taxation of deferred profits of US multinationals? Can he say if he got a clear indication that that proposal would be withdrawn? Also, can the Taoiseach give any idea of what was the approximate amount of money the President expected such change to contribute to the deficit reduction package? Can the Taoiseach indicate, too, what the McBride principles are and how he believes they apply in the case of Northern Ireland?
If Deputy Bruton does not know that the McBride principles relate to discrimination in relation to employment and investment——
Does the Taoiseach know what they are?
——I will write him a long letter, explaining all the details but I will not waste the time of the House on the matter.
What is the Taoiseach's programme manager doing?
The taxation provisions proposed by the US Treasury are expected to bring in $700 million over a five year period which, I am sure Deputy Bruton will agree, is a very small sum in relation to US total revenue collection. The Deputy is correct in saying that Fortune magazine has identified the three areas to which he has referred. There is also another tax provision that could be advantageous to Ireland. It envisages possible changes in taxation for companies set up in Puerto Rico, so it is not all a minus factor. The Deputy can take it from me, as I said in my reply, that President Clinton did say the two administrations should get together so that there would be no adverse effects on investment in Ireland. I pointed out to him in relation to the other areas that the United States enjoy a trade surplus with Ireland — I do not know whether any of the other areas do better but I doubt it very much — that US investment in Ireland, because of the importation of raw materials, services and other areas, is responsible for sustaining 35,000 jobs in the US economy and that, consequently, the argument about run-away plants does not stand up in relation to the criteria being spoken about. There is room for discussion to ensure that Ireland could be spared, in so far as possible, the disadvantages of any change.
(Limerick East): A Cheann Comhairle——
I want to bring in Deputy Jim O'Keeffe who has tabled Question No. 14.
On St. Patrick's Day eight members of the Cabinet were in North America. Can the Taoiseach confirm to the House that a cost benefit analysis will be conducted as to the relative benefits arising from such a mass invasion, more than half the Cabinet, of North America on that occasion? Secondly, is there any validity in the Taoiseach's claim to have secured 2,000 jobs for the country? Would he consider that he might best serve this country by going back to the United States within the next four or five weeks and securing some 10,000 jobs? Lastly, may I specifically ask the Taoiseach to deal with the matter of the peace envoy to which I alluded in my question? I am not asking for the view of either President Clinton, Speaker Foley or anybody else but for the view of the Taoiseach on the American proposal. I have tried to get this from him by way of a Dáil Question I tabled on 17 February which he transferred to the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs on 23 February and which the latter, ping-pong like, transferred back to him on 22 March?
That is called rotation.
Yes, indeed, rotation of questions. Those are three issues which I should like to have clarified by the Taoiseach.
The Deputy is far more experienced than I at travelling abroad. He will recall that he made 25 trips abroad in 1983, 29 in 1984 and 19 in 1985. I did not have time to calculate the remainder. No matter how much I travel I will never equal that. I do not know what kind of cost benefit analysis the Deputy may have carried out in relation to those trips but I should like to inform him, the House and the Irish taxpayer that I am absolutely satisfied that the Irish economy and Ireland in general will get more than value for money as a result of the most recent trip to the United States.
I hope so.
When did any other Irish leader have the most powerful man in the world, the President of the United States, attend an Irish function on the eve of St. Patrick's Day, have a full hour's meeting on St. Patrick's morning with the President, travel on to another Irish-sponsored lunch and meet with the Speaker of the House of Representatives?
There were eight members of the Cabinet in the US.
There are leaders of countries around the world who would give their right arm to have such access to an American President but if Deputy O'Keeffe wants to be little that access in front of the Irish people, so be it.
Answer the question. I was not referring to attendance at EC Council meetings.
That is what the Deputy is doing. He should be careful about what he says.
Deputy O'Keeffe asked some questions, he must listen now to the reply.
He does not want to listen because in all replies like this the truth hurts. I think we would be better off if Deputy O'Keeffe were to refrain from bringing in the question of travel abroad.
I have no intention of doing so.
Perhaps that is the reason he was not promoted but that is his business. In regard to the jobs in question, I have clearly enunciated the position. I was asked here the last day to name one company that came here from the west coast of the US subsequent to my previous visit to that area. I named one and I could name another. I named another multinational that was going to invest $46 million in this country. You will get all the details in due course. I know it is frustrating to sit there and try to think of what questions one should be asking for the coming four years. Wait for the results, they will come in due course as they have always done. That has always been my position.
Has Deputy Jim Kemmy been sent to the US?
In relation to our approach——
What about the peace envoy?
——to Northern Ireland and what is the best way forward we have clearly enunciated that we believe in the resumption of talks and of the talks process. Dialogue is the way forward, not violence which we condemn out of hand. We have started out with two top priorities, one of which is to find a new formula for peace in Northern Ireland and the second to attack the unemployment problem. Both of these are interlinked. If we could get rid of violence in the North of Ireland and get a peace formula we could create 75,000 jobs in this country. The violence in the North is a major contributor to the unemployment problem here.
What is the Taoiseach's attitude to the peace envoy?
What about the McBride principles?
The options in relation to fact finding missions are all left open for decision later, when the appropriate time arrives and when the President of the US thinks it is appropriate to make such decisions.
The Taoiseach has no further plans?
(Limerick East): I thank the Taoiseach for his very long reply. I welcome, in particular, the fact that his commitment of 2,000 jobs for this country has now been watered down to a statement that companies on the west coast of the United States are, according to his answer, considering establishing or expanding in Ireland and if they all decide favourably up to 2,000 jobs will be created here. I regard it as progress that the Taoiseach has clarified this point. May I put it to the Taoiseach that the mood of Hollywood gave rise to a certain hyperbole which he probably now regrets?
Most certainly not. I met with representatives of a range of companies——
Name them.
The Scottish development board, the Welsh development board or some other development board would love me to name them——
Why did the Taoiseach announce these jobs?
If the Deputy is trying to undermine investment in jobs here he is going the right way about it by trying to help our competitors. I am not in that business.
Why announce these jobs? The Taoiseach started the ball rolling. Why did he announce these jobs?
I thank Deputy Noonan for his comments on my long reply; I am glad he appreciated it. However, trying to misrepresent a portion of my answer is of no help. I have stated clearly that new investments will be made in Ireland and that some——
Are being considered.
(Limerick East): They are being considered?
——have been decided, some are being considered and some companies are looking at Ireland for the first time.
How many of the 2,000 jobs——
(Interruptions.)
There are three different ranges. There will be expansion. Some of the companies here will expand and new investment will come in. Those factors combined will, on a very conservative estimate, create some 2,000 jobs.
I have the flu so I cannot shout. May I ask a brief supplementary?
I will facilitate the Deputy.
Thank you. I wish to ask the Taoiseach a question in respect of the multinationals in Ireland at present. Does he accept that if the American Congress requires multinationals to make up the difference between the tax regime here and what would normally be the corporate rate in the United States it could have a devastating effect on this economy? With regard to his statement to the effect that there were special reasons which could be made for Ireland, will he enumerate what those special reasons for Ireland are? Is he saying that he thinks it is possible a law may be enacted by the Congress which could exclude Ireland? I put it to the Taoiseach that this is simply not realistic.
We are having separate questions here.
The Deputy should be aware of an amendment tabled a few years ago in the names of three good friends of Ireland which sought to do precisely what he says is not possible and is unthinkable. I will leave it to the friends of Ireland and Congress to deal with this matter. I was in the United States to give my views on how the issue of tax in relation to Ireland could be addressed and looked at. I have enumerated the special reasons in regard to Ireland. First, the United States has a trade surplus with Ireland, specifically arising out of the extensive investment in Ireland which sustains approximately 35,000 jobs in the US. This point is well recognised, and has been highlighted by consultants here. That is the number of jobs sustained in the US by American investment in Ireland. There needs to be American investment in Europe to benefit from the Single Market. Consequently, Ireland is a good base for many companies. Ireland does not suit some companies for various reasons, for example, market share and so on, but in regard to the companies already here and those who are looking at Ireland, there are very solid reasons why they should invest here. The American Administration should take into account the factors I have enumerated in regard to this issue. If this tax legislation was introduced in the manner being talked about — it has not been passed by the Treasury yet — it is possible that some multinationals here might decide to set up on mainland Europe where the corporate tax rate would be more or less equivalent to the United States rate. Consequently, the benefits of the 10 per cent corporate tax rate here could be negatived. That is the type of position which could arise, and we want to guard against it. There are other opportunities in relation to other aspects of American taxation which could be beneficial to Ireland if we grasp them in time.
I wish to advise the House that I will be proceeding to deal with Priority Questions not later than 3.30 p.m. I was hoping to get on to other questions.
In view of the fact that the Taoiseach had a very hectic schedule in Los Angeles and Washington, may I ask him if he will give Nashville a call on the occasion of his next visit to the United States?
No, but I was very proud to be Irish in Los Angeles and around Hollywood in the presence of Noel Pearson, Neil Jordan——
Did they offer the Taoiseach a part?
——and many people who have made Ireland better known internationally for film production. President Clinton's love of music does him no harm either.
The Taoiseach will come back to "The Crying Game".