Vol. 453 No. 3
16 Mr. Callely asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs the discussions, if any, he has had regarding the financing of an EU common foreign and security policy; the likely costs to Ireland; the agreements, if any, which were reached; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9259/95]
The question of the financing of operational expenditure for actions taken under the common foreign and security policy has been discussed at the General Affairs Council of the European Union on a number of occasions, most recently on 22 January last. Under the Maastricht Treaty, such expenditure may be financed from the budget of the European Communities or in whole or in part by national countributions by member states. Where the option of national contributions is used, the shares payable by each member state are normally calculated by reference to a key related to their respective gross national products. On this basis, Ireland's share is currently 0.65 per cent of total expenditure financed by national contributions.
Member states, including Ireland, have generally indicated their willingness to agree to Community financing for actions arising from the CFSP. However, this is on the understanding that the Council's responsibility for decision-making under CFSP, as provided for in the Maastricht Treaty, is respected and that the European Parliament's scrutiny role in the Community budget procedure is exercised in a manner consistent with the Council's prerogatives in relation to CFSP expenditure. Discussions are continuing with the Parliament with a view to reaching a general understanding in this regard. In the meantime, the Council is deciding on the source of financing of common foreign and security policy measures on a case-by-case basis.
Pending the conclusion of discussions with the Parliament and bearing in mind that CFSP measures may need to be formulated in response to international situations and events not yet foreseen, it is not possible to predict accurately the cost of national contributions that Ireland may be required to pay. Against this background, an allocation of £500,000 has been provided in Subhead A1 of the 1995 Vote for International Co-operation for expenditure which may arise out of our commitments under the common foreign and security policy.
Ireland has contributed £19,300 and £200,000 to election monitoring in Russia and South Africa in 1993 and 1994 respectively. We also contributed £118,345 to the cost of the European Union administration of Mostar. Ireland is committed to a contribution of £34,809 to the restoration of the Sarajevo-Mostar-Ploce railway line as part of the Bosnia-Hercegovina joint action. It is also possible that some expenditure arising from the joint action in support of the Middle East peace process may be partially financed by contributions from member states.
Do I take it that the Vote for International Co-operation was for £500,000? Are there any longerterm strategic proposals in the pipeline in respect of our contribution to the common foreign and security policy, other than the percentage of gross national product to which the Tánaiste referred?
While discussions are continuing, an allocation of £500,000 has been provided. The resources required are difficult to predict. At present the Council is deciding on financing the common foreign and security policy on a case by case basis.
Is there a relationship between the Vote of £500,000 for International Co-operation and the percentage of gross national product to which the Tánaiste referred, or was the £500,000 a token figure?
The £500,000 would have been the amount calculated in the course of our discussion of the Estimate with the Department of Finance.
Was that on the principles of the——
No, they are separate.
Within the broader context, is it not the case that the financing of the European Union common foreign and security policy includes funds paid unwillingly by Irish taxpayers for the promotion of the nuclear industry through EURATOM? Would the Tánaiste avail of this opportunity to bring about the winding down of the nuclear industry by withholding those funds notwithstanding the other contributions to which he referred?
We are now going beyond the bounds of this question.
I think we are. The expenditure I have just accounted for was the information the Deputy sought.
I would argue that this would fall under the heading of security.
The subhead with which we are dealing is A1 of the 1995 Vote for International Co-operation for which I accounted in my response to Deputy Callely.
On the matter of international co-operation, would the Tánaiste agree that the whole of Europe is subjected to the importation and trafficking of drugs? Would he agree there has to be a role for security policy in respect of our western coast in particular? Has he submitted any proposals to our European Union partners for the establishment of a fund for the protection of our coastline, to assist this State and to help to defend the remainder of Europe from the illegal drugs trade using the Atlantic and our coastline?
There is a serious problem in terms of our vulnerability to the illegal drugs trade. The Government is examining possible initiatives to be taken in the course of our presidency of the European Union in 1996. All Government Departments with an interest and involvement, ranging from Justice, Health, Education, and Foreign Affairs to the Taoiseach's Office, are examining what needs to be done by the interdepartmental committee to draw up proposals our Government can put to our European Union partners on the drugs issue. The matter has been raised by the Taoiseach at international level and has been on the agenda of a number of European Union Council meetings in recent years. It is a matter on which we would find a lot of common ground with our European partners because of the scourge of the drugs threat all over Europe.
Having read the files, the Tánaiste will recall that, during our last Presidency, the arrest of the illegal drugs trade featured prominently in the communiqués issued following the various Council meetings held in Dublin. These formed part of the programme for action agreed at the Trevi meeting of the Interior and Justice Ministers in Dublin at that time. I suggest that the Tánaiste examine the details of that agreed programme. Is the Tánaiste suggesting that specific support and extra resources will be sought for our Naval Service in tackling this drugs problem?
Until the interdepartmental committee has reported to us, on the basis of work undertaken in recent years, it would be premature to specify such details, but that is one aspect we will have to examine because we are vulnerable to international drug trafficking. Obviously better security of our shores will be a feature of our battle against the importation of such drugs.
I support our spokesperson, Deputy Ray Burke, on the need to take urgent and radical action on the drugs issue, recognising that measures already taken have failed. I, support the call for additional funding for the protection of our coastline under the heading of security policy. The Tánaiste referred to the common foreign and security policy and mentioned Ireland's share as being of the order of 0.64 per cent of total expenditure—
Almost 0.65 per cent.
Would the £500,000 allocated under the Vote for International Co-operation be representative of that share, or be greater or less?
I will communicate with the Deputy on that matter.
That concludes Question Time for today.
