Bertie Ahern
Question:1 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting on Tuesday, 11 June 1996 with President Santer of the EU Commission. [12573/96]
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Report of Meetings.
Bertie Ahern
Question:2 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his meeting with the Heads of Government of Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg and Spain on 11 June 1996. [12673/96]
Bertie Ahern
Question:3 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach whether he has publicly stated that the President of the European Commission should be directly elected by the people of Europe; and the effect, if any, this might have on the balance between the institutions of the EU. [12675/96]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 together.
I visited Brussels on Tuesday, 11 June to have meetings with the President of the European Commission, Mr. Jacques Santer, Prime Minister Prodi of Italy who is the current President of the European Council, Prime Minister Aznar of Spain and the President of the European Parliament, Mr. Klaus Haensch. In addition, I attended a meeting of the European People's Party where the Heads of Government of Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg, Spain, Malta and Italy were also present.
At my meeting with President Santer the main topics discussed were the BSE crisis and the Pact for Confidence and Employment proposed by President Santer. On the BSE crisis, we both agreed the only workable solution would be one that would restore consumer confidence in the beef industry. We also agreed that every effort should be made to resolve the issue in a way that ensures the Florence European Council can fully address the other key items on the Union's agenda. I assured President Santer of Ireland's broad support for the Confidence and Employment Pact proposed by him. Consistent with the Conclusions of the Florence Council, we will seek to progress the pact proposals during the Irish Presidency.
The European People's Party meeting included the current EPP Heads of Government. There was general concern at the meeting that the BSE crisis should be brought to a workable and rapid conclusion based on the restoration of consumer confidence and an early end to the policy of non-co-operation by the United Kingdom. A public declaration to that effect was issued by the five Heads of Government whose parties are members of the European People's Party.
The European People's Party meeting also considered the question of how the European public could be engaged more fully with European institutions. I did not make any public comments on the matter on this occasion. Various options for bringing the citizen into closer involvement with European business were considered at the meeting. However, as this meeting was a private party meeting, it would not be appropriate for me to report to the Dáil on it.
Is the Taoiseach confident we can achieve a resolution of the dispute about BSE and the British blockage of progress before the Florence summit which will be held this weekend or do we face the prospect in the early months of the Irish Presidency of the negotiations on various issues being seriously hampered?
As the House is aware from my replies last week, I am very concerned that the issue should be resolved in advance of the Florence summit, if that is possible, and this is one of the reasons I had the meeting with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Major, and the subsequent meeting with the President of the Commission and the President of the European Council, Prime Minister Prodi of Italy. In the course of our discussions we looked at the possibility of having a framework agreed which would be acceptable to all concerned. As I speak, we have not reached a point where I can be in any way confident that the matter will be resolved, but work is continuing.
There have been various reports in Irish and British newspapers about the framework and I would like the Taoiseach to spell out his understanding of the basis of the framework and the content of it and whether it will be concluded before the Florence summit or at the summit.
That matter was considered at the Foreign Ministers' conclave yesterday. I do not have a copy of the documentation considered at that conclave and I have not had the opportunity during the short time since the Tánaiste returned to have a detailed discussion with him on the outcome of the conclave. I would prefer, therefore, not to attempt to answer a question without having full information. However, I am aware that the Italian Presidency is doing all it can to resolve an extremely difficult problem. The perceptions of this issue in various countries differ very widely and the view held in Britain about this matter is not held in many other continental countries. There is a wide gulf of misunderstanding between the various parties here but I am not in a position, for the simple reason of the recency of the meeting in question, to give detailed answers in regard to the possible outline of a framework at this juncture.
Did the Taoiseach use the opportunity to brief his colleagues on the peace process and the opening of the all-party talks in Northern Ireland last week?
Yes, in general terms.
I understand why the Taoiseach cannot tell me what took place at the Foreign Ministers' conclave yesterday but I thought he said he had agreed a framework with the British Prime Minister.
No. If the Deputy wishes I will clarify the matter.
I am not asking loaded questions, I am simply trying to find out what is proposed.
The matter is very serious and it is important to be accurate. If I was not accurate then I am glad of the opportunity to correct what I said. We discussed the concept of a framework and the British put forward the idea of such. The content of the framework would have to be proposed by the Commission and perhaps be the subject of a compromise devised by the Presidency. No framework existed last week in documentary form. There was a meeting of the veterinary group on Friday last which did not reach unanimity on the matter. The question of a possible framework was discussed yesterday at the Rome conclave of Foreign Ministers. All I was discussing with my colleagues was the concept and procedure for resolving the difficulty. The detail and-or content of the framework, or of the steps that might be taken as part of the framework, are matters on which I cannot report in detail to the House.
I urge the Taoiseach to use whatever persuasion he and his Government can on the European Council at its meeting on Friday and Saturday next to resolve this issue, which is crippling Irish agriculture, and, if not resolved now, will lead to huge losses for Irish agriculture in the autumn. I am concerned that an issue of such importance as agriculture ends up on the Foreign Affairs agenda. Indeed I am not too sure of the relationship of BSE or CJD and the cattle crisis in the autumn to foreign affairs issues when, presumably, talks will focus on Bosnia and the Russian elections but I am sure they know more about the matter than I do. I ask the Taoiseach to use whatever influence he can to resolve this issue before the Florence Summit.
As the Deputy is well aware, the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs, representing a rural constituency, is very familiar with the position of the beef industry and understands the problem fully. I take the point the Deputy made on the need to ensure that any solution is technically and scientifically solid and commands consumers' confidence. There are two issues involved here, first the agreement of a procedure for dealing with the British issue. Second, there is a wider question, in some respects independent of that, of restoring consumer confidence in beef products generally because, unfortunately, the controversy which has emanated from Britain has done great damage to beef consumption in other countries. For example, a 40 per cent fall in the consumption of beef in Germany represents a much greater fall of consumption in German beef in Germany than the fall in consumption of British beef in Britain. The effect of the loss of confidence arising from the difficulties concerning BSE in Britain has been felt disproportionately in other countries. The difficulty lies in restoring continental European consumers' confidence in beef in general, not just in British beef.
In view of the fact that the Taoiseach briefed his colleagues about the peace process, will he brief this House on the outcome of the Government review of contacts between Sinn Féin and the Government and say whether the Government has changed its policy in this regard?
I did not brief my colleagues on the content of today's Government meeting because my meetings with European Leaders took place last week prior to that Government meeting and the Manchester bomb. What I did brief them on was the general approach we were taking in regard to the talks. I indicated we were happy that the talks had started, that we had reached substantial agreement on procedures and on the Chairman of those talks. With regard to the Government's consideration of the outcome of the bomb in Manchester and the admission by the IRA of the involvement of some of its units in the events in Adare, a Government statement on that matter will be issued later today.
In regard to question No. 2, the French Minister for European Affairs who visited here recently said that the Intergovernmental Conference would appear to be heading for a bad start since it had not yet begun. Does the Taoiseach agree with that statement? Will he say what proposals his Government has for injecting some momentum into the Intergovernmental Conference?
I outlined to our colleagues our ambition to ensure that substantial amounts of Treaty language are ready for consideration by the Dublin European Summit toward the end of our Presidency. We want to see progress on a number of issues on the Intergovernmental Conference agenda. During our Presidency we propose to focus the work of the Intergovernmental Conference on reaching contingent or tentative agreement on Treaty language over a wide range of issues. Of course, we would like to complete the Treaty-making process during our Presidency but that is unlikely. Nonetheless we intend to ensure that we go as far as we can in that direction and will have drafted a considerable amount of Treaty language for consideration.
Arising out of the Taoiseach's reply to Deputy Ahern on the matter of BSE, will he agree that the primary objective must be to restore the confidence of consumers throughout Europe on this issue? Furthermore, does he agree that the revelations on last night's "Panorama" and "World in Action" programmes are hardly likely to restore confidence, if their contents become generally known to the people of Europe, since they indicated a great deal of misplaced complacency on the part of the British authorities as to what is happening there in relation to the BSE scare?
I already indicated I strongly agree with the first sentiment expressed by Deputy Michael McDowell, that the crucial question is the restoration of consumer confidence. I also said publicly that will not be restored by political statements or threats. Consumer confidence in beef will be restored by patience, scientificallybased reassurance and improved systems of quality control — something very important in itself — in fact more important than the present type of political consideration being allowed enter into this debate as between Britain and some of our other European partners. I did not see the programmes on BSE to which the Deputy referred. I would prefer not to comment on programmes I did not see.
Notwithstanding the heavy schedule of the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs, is the Taoiseach aware of the disappointment on the part of the Iranian authorities that a meeting of the Joint Commission, of which the Tánaiste and Mr. Velyati are co-Chairmen, has not been possible? Is he aware that one method by which matters could be advanced is the convening of a meeting between the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Gay Mitchell, and Mr. Velyati's Deputy, ensuring that that market is reopened more expeditiously given its importance to the beef processing industry? Will the Taoiseach give the House an undertaking that he will take up the matter with the Tánaiste and, bearing in mind his forthcoming busy schedule during our Presidency, arrange for the Minister of State, Deputy Gay Mitchell, to have a meeting with his counterpart in Iran to advance the many issues, including beef, the Iranians would like to discuss with us in the advent of our Presidency?
While that is an interesting, constructive suggestion, it does not arise directly in the context of the questions tabled to me today. My meetings were with Leaders of continental European countries, I was not involved in any meetings with Iran, but I have taken note of what the Deputy has said, will consider it carefully and discuss it with the Tánaiste.
On Question No. 3, since the Taoiseach had a number of high level meetings with European Heads of State, did his proposal for the direct election of a Commissioner or President with a higher status than the European Council — which I note is not repeated in the Government's White Paper on Foreign Policy — receive any significant support among other Heads of Government? Indeed the arguments contained in that document were against the delicate institutional balance of the Union. Is this the Taoiseach's proposal, that of his party or of Government and what does he intend to do about it?
As leader of my party and a member of the Christian Democratic family of parties in Europe, a group that has among its membership five or six prominent European leaders, I expressed views on this matter at party meetings. Any proposals I put forward on introducing more citizens' involvement in the selection of prominent persons involved in European affairs were made in a party, not a governmental context. Comments I made in that regard were clearly made in a party not in a governmental capacity.
I accept the introduction of a new elective element in any area for any institution will affect the balance of influence and power between institutions. In discussions with my colleagues I have been careful to draw that to their attention because it is a potential difficulty concerning any proposal in this area. It might also be acknowledged that unlike the United States, where citizens, irrespective of where they live, are directly involved in the selection of one federal officer once every four years and have a sense of direct personal involvement, that does not exist in Europe and that is a deficiency. I am not certain as to the best way to remedy that deficiency, but in the context of a broadranging debate that is possible in a European political party, it is not unreasonable to discuss these matters in a general way. In recent discussions with my colleagues I suggested several options, not only the one to which the Deputy referred, which might be considered by my party colleagues.
The Taoiseach does not speak as the Taoiseach, the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, does not speak as the Minister of State, and Ministers and Ministers of State speak as individuals. This is a fairly new concept that appears to have been introduced under the principles of openness, transparency and accountability. There is not a democratic deficit given that national governments are elected more often than every four years and they, in turn, appoint Commissioners. Is the Taoiseach unaware of the benefits gained by this country from the present institutional balance between the Commission, the Council of Ministers and the Parliament and that we should be loath to make suggestions which would play into the hands of those who would want to damage the Commission's strong initiation power which has been of great benefit to a small member state of the Union, like Ireland?
I agree with the Deputy that the balance of power and influence between the institutions is not only good for this country but for the European Union. It has the effect of ensuring there is specific responsibility for initiative in one place and for disposal of decisions in another. That balance is quite good in many respects, but most people who reflect on the position of Europe at present would recognise, as was shown in referenda in various countries and might well have been evident here were it not for the fact that the financial benefits this country derives from the European Union are so great, that there is a sense that the ordinary citizen does not have much direct say or input into European decisionmaking. Citizens elect members of the European Parliament, but I am sure the Deputy will recollect that frequently European elections are fought on national rather than European political issues and a direct sense of voting on a European platform is not available to the average citizen. That creates something of a democratic deficit and is a problem that it is appropriate for parties to discuss. The Deputy can discuss it with his European allies who may have a different view from my European allies, but that is all to the good in terms of the debate.