Bertie Ahern
Question:1 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his meeting with the President of the EU Commission on 29 March 1995. [6830/95]
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - EU Commission President's Visit.
I met the President of the European Commission, Mr. Jacques Santer, on Thursday, 30 March 1995. I was accompanied at the meeting by the Minister of State for European Affairs. Deputy Gay Mitchell.
I had a wide-range discussion with President Santer. The main items of discussion were the current agenda of the European Union with particular reference to the June European Council in Cannes, the 1996 Intergovernmental Conference, the Irish Presidency of the European Union in 1996 and of course Northern Ireland.
I took the opportunity to stress to President Santer items which will be of concern to Ireland in the context of the 1996 Intergovernmental Conference. I especially underlined the importance which Ireland attached to the role of the Commission in European institutions and our desire that this role should not be diminished but, if possible, enhanced as a result of the Intergovernmental Conference. In this regard I also stressed that Ireland would not in any circumstances surrender its right to appoint a member of the Commission. In addition I expressed my concern that ways be found to reinforce the democratic mandate of the Commission.
Overall I had a most useful exchange of views with President Santer. I look forward to receiving him in Dublin on 11 April for further discussions.
Can the Taoiseach inform us whether his suggestions made in Brussels last week — that the President of the European Commission be directly elected and be answerable to national parliaments — constitutes a change of Government policy in this matter; whether they represent proposals which the Taoiseach, or Minister of State, Deputy Gay Mitchell, will put to the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference during the course of the Irish Presidency or whether they were made off the top of the head?
The subject matter of the Deputy's supplementary question is dealt with in Questions Nos. 9 and 10 and it would be more appropriate to deal with them then.
Did the Taoiseach raise the £75 million fine or disallowance against Ireland in relation to intervention with the President of the Commission?
That matter was discussed with the Commission but not particularly in the course of my meeting with President Santer. Obviously, it is a matter of considerable concern. It has been and will continue to be discussed at every available opportunity.
Did the Taoiseach discuss the matter with anybody in the Commission? Given that Ireland is a net beneficiary of European Union aid, would he agree that our country's image will be damaged by virtue of this imposition?
I discussed it with a representative of the Commission. It was discussed over that two-day visit. Ireland is not the only country which has come under notice because of irregularities, which I deplore and which took place here in 1990 and 1991. Obviously, those who were responsible, including those politically responsible, have a lot to answer for. Its consequences are potentially serious but I can assure the House the Government is doing everything it can to minimise the level of fine to be imposed and is using all influence available to it to so ensure.
Did the Taoiseach discuss the coming into effect of the non-passport control area by some member states, as it were, leaving others high and dry? Has he any thoughts on how we might make progress in that regard?
The Deputy is referring to the well known Schengen agreement area which is of concern to us because it means we are in a different position to other European countries. If we were entirely free agents in this matter I have no doubt we would be part of the Schengen area. We did not want to create circumstances in which there would be the possibility of people having to produce passports to travel from say, Dundalk to Newry, a possible consequence of Britain remaining out had we gone in. Here I must emphasise the word "possibly". This is a matter we must keep under review. It is desirable that Ireland be part of a passport-free area within Europe. One of the ways in which Europe was and is sold to its people is on the grounds of free movement within the Continent — that is the concept of a people's Europe. It is regrettable that, because of the decision of another member state, with which unfortunately, or fortunately, we have a land boundary, and through which we share a lot of contacts cross-Channel, we were not in the position to be among the early members of the Schengen area. I hope that policy will change and that soon we will be able to be part of the passport-free area.
Would the Taoiseach agree with the inappropriateness of a member of the European Court of Auditors, former Deputy Barry Desmond, commenting, as he did here over the weekend, on the nature and extent of the fine of £75 million which was grossly damaging to our national interest?
Let us not range too widely over this subject.
Your restrictions are very judicious in this matter, a Cheann Comhairle, since I could be drawn into commenting on everything reported in yesterday's newspapers if this precedent were to be allowed. If the Deputy has concern about that I suggest that he either take it up with some members of the European Parliament of his party who will be able to raise it in the appropriate place. It is not an appropriate matter for discussion here. I would not care to make any comment without notice.
It is certainly very damaging to our national interest, coming from a former Member of the House.
Since it has been reported that the Taoiseach correctly raised the issue of co-ordination of efforts to combat drugs and the trafficking in them, did he consider President Santer was supportive of that endeavour? I am aware from meetings of ECOFIN Ministers that for a long time they have been endeavouring to devise methods of progressing on this issue. What was the conclusion of the Taoiseach's discussion, or are such discussions continuing?
This is a very important matter, ours being a country with an extensive coastline, an area within which there is the possibility of drugs being imported for onward shipping to other parts of Europe. It is my view that there should be a co-ordinated European approach, not merely in the matter of detection and sharing of information, but also in the guarding of our coasts. It is an issue that should be looked at in the context of the intergovernmental conference where the powers of the Union come up for discussion again. It would be useful for us to discuss this matter publicly as well because it is an issue of considerable public importance. One of the difficulties is that it is felt that Europe frequently is seen as remote from the daily concerns of people. Obviously, if Europe can be seen to take effective action on drugs on an agreed basis that will help create a greater identity between the citizens of Europe and the European institutions.
The Belgian Government supported Ireland's request for aid. It comes down to the cost of trying to protect and defend our coastline against drug smugglers and the huge lucrative market for them. Has progress been made on that issue? Does President Santer agree it is a European issue which requires funding? Certainly the issue received substantial support from three or four countries in the past.
I do not want to mislead the Deputy. This is a matter I raised generally and publicly and about which I am concerned but I did not raise this specific question in my meeting with President Santer. I cannot give the Deputy an answer to a matter I did not raise with him specifically at that meeting. It is a matter the Government intends to pursue. I would welcome parliamentary questions from the Deputy either to me, the Minister for Justice or an appropriate Minister about this matter because it is an issue we should follow up.
Given that the question of economic and monetary union will be high on the agenda when Ireland holds the Presidency during the second half of 1996, did the Taoiseach avail of the opportunity to raise this matter in his discussions with the President of the Commission? Furthermore, did he discuss the possibility of the President of the Commission initiating some international action which might benefit Ireland which has problems when speculators attack our currency?
The question of economic and monetary union was discussed in general terms. There was not any specific discussion about what can be done to limit speculation in currencies. The Deputy will recognise that one of the realities of removing exchange controls — a decision taken by a Government which I believe he supported at the time — is that money can move freely across the exchanges. One of the concepts that underlies the European Union is the free movement of currencies. Once there is free movement of currencies the almost inevitable next step is a move to a single currency. Europe has agreed to free movement of money across the exchanges but it has not yet taken the next logical step which is a single currency.
We should not dwell unduly long on this question.
While I agree with much of what the Taoiseach has said about exchange control would the Taoiseach in his discussion with the President of the Commission consider it appropriate, as do other countries that the President of the Commission would initiate some international action with other countries throughout the world? As I and the Taoiseach know it is not possible even for members of the Community to guard against speculation as this is truly a global issue.
I am sure Deputy McCreevy is aware that the Prime Minister of Norway suggested in regard to this matter at the World Poverty Conference, some form of transactions tax. I have doubts about that proposal, but it is one that could be looked at. In deference to Deputies raising the matter I give an assurance that I will raise this issue with President Santer on 11 April when he comes to Dublin. When the traditional question is tabled by the Deputy's leader after that meeting I will be able to let him know the position.
The Schengen agreement points out the reality for Ireland in dealing with practical matters. In regard to monetary union, it points out the reality of our relationship with the United Kingdom. In the context of discussions with President Santer or directly with the British Prime Minister has the Taoiseach any plans to point out the realities of co-operation for this country with regard to our full participation within the European Union, for example, that matters to which the United Kingdom are not committed have an effect on our ability to be practical participants in the EU?
That is essentially a repeat of the question posed by Deputy Brennan which I already answered.
Did the Taoiseach discuss domestic issues such as the extensive flooding in Ireland and the £250,000 aid which Minister of State, Deputy Jim Higgins secured?
Yes, I did and I expressed my appreciation to the Commission for the flexible and considerate way in which it dealt with Ireland's request in this matter.
Did the Taoiseach seek more funding?
Did the Taoiseach discuss at length with the President the work of the Reflection Group — the think tank — to which we have entrusted our future and on which committee we are represented by the Minister of State, Deputy Gay Mitchell? What type of mechanism does the Taoiseach envisage for reporting to the Dáil on its work, as after all, it will make fundamental decisions on our future?
I discussed this matter at considerable length with the President and it would be fair to say the lead-in to the Intergovernmental Conference it was probably the principal item on our agenda. I would make the point that the Reflection Group is just a reflection group. It will not make decisions but obviously there will be plenty of opportunities for the Dáil to be kept up to date about ongoing preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference. We will avail of those to give the House the latest information at all times. Indeed, we would welcome suggestions from other parties in this House as to how the treaties can be improved.