Mary O'Rourke
Question:3 Mrs. O'Rourke asked the Taoiseach if he will give details of his meeting of 4 March 1997 with the EU Commission President and other Commissioners. [6604/97]
Ceisteanna — Questions. - Meetings with EU Commissioners.
Michael P. Kitt
Question:4 Mr. M. Kitt asked the Taoiseach if he discussed the question of Objective 1 status for Ireland with members of the EU Commission; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6624/97]
Mary Harney
Question:5 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach if he will give details of his meeting with the President of the European Commission, Mr. Jacques Santer, on 4 March 1997. [6667/97]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 3 to 5, inclusive, together.
I had separate meetings with the President of the Commission, Jacques Santer, Commissioner Wulf-Mathies, Commissioner Fischler and Commissioner Bonino in Brussels on 4 March. The meetings were extremely useful in the context of the Intergovernmental Conference and in developing a common understanding of the measures needed to tackle the BSE crisis. They were also very useful in making the first contacts in relation to the financial perspectives for the European Union post-1999.
In my meeting with President Santer I reviewed developments at EU level, with particular reference to the Intergovernmental Conference. In this context I stressed that Ireland will strongly oppose proposals which suggest that small member states should forgo their Commissioner.
My meeting with Commissioner Wulf-Mathies consisted of an early exchange of views on possible developments in relation to the financial perspectives and Structural Funds after 1999. We did not have a detailed discussion on the amount or nature of Ireland's Structural Funding post-1999.
Commissioner Wulf-Mathies and I also discussed the need to ensure continued funding for the EU peace and reconciliation fund. I pointed out in this context that it was essential that the concept of additionality of EU funding be maintained in relation to the Northern Ireland peace process.
In my meetings with Commissioners Bonino and Fischler, I discussed the latest state of play in the fight against BSE and I offered full support in putting in place the new food safety arrangements at EU level.
The Taoiseach referred in his reply to the right of small countries to have their own Commissioner. In any of his meetings, did the Taoiseach put forward his own idea of a federal Europe, referred to by him in the Dáil on 28 January and earlier in his New Year statement, which, in effect, would diminish the powers of small countries?
My position on this matter is well known, as are my convictions. There was no need for me to repeat them on this occasion.
Are the Taoiseach's convictions shared by all the members of his Government, particularly his view on a federal Europe with a common defence policy which he wants to make his principal goal for this year? If it is shared by the other members, why was it not referred to in the White Paper?
I support the ever closer union of the peoples of Europe which was agreed to at Maastricht and endorsed by the Irish people. I believe in that vision as agreed at Maastricht. It is important, in the interests of a country like Ireland, that we have a closer European Union.
We know the Taoiseach's view.
One of the difficulties Ireland has faced historically has been that it was overshadowed by a large neighbour. Our closer accession to Europe and an ever closer union in Europe gives Ireland a capacity to play on a much larger stage and not be overshadowed, as we were in the past, by our nearer neighbour.
Is that Government policy?
I believe in a closer Union based on a federation of the peoples of Europe because that is the best way forward for this country. It will enable Ireland to take its place more fully among the nations of the earth than it can do in any other model.
Will the Taoiseach accept it is now unlikely that Ireland will qualify for Objective 1 status? That being the case, does the Taoiseach believe it would be better to pursue a regional approach if we are to continue to get EU funding?
I do not concede that point, nor should we concede that point. We are not in the same position in relation to GNP as we are in relation to GDP. GDP is a particularly inaccurate measure of Irish relative wealth because it includes profits which are repatriated and do not remain here. Also, it is important to emphasise that Ireland's increase in income is very recent and there is no accumulated wealth here which can be drawn down for capital projects or for unforeseen eventualities, whereas other countries have that facility of accumulated wealth. Therefore, simple measurements of income on an annual basis do not state the true relative position of Ireland vis-à-vis other countries. Furthermore, Ireland is a peripheral nation of the European Union. We are the westernmost part of the Union, and we are an island. Those are factors that also tend to justify special consideration for this country. The Deputy can be assured I will use all the resources of this Government, and all the resources that we have evolved and developed during our Presidency, to ensure that we retain Objective 1 status in the negotiations post-1999.
Since the Taoiseach is unlikely to be there to negotiate, I will not worry too much about his analysis. From what the Taoiseach said, our growth rate is clearly exaggerating the performance of the economy.
Was economic and monetary union discussed with the Commission, and has the Taoiseach any plans to have fuller consultation with the private sector before we make any further decisions on a single currency?
The Deputy should not make inaccurate political predictions at Question Time. There may well be a certain element of whistling past the graveyard on the Deputy's part, but I will not be drawn into a discussion on that.
There is zero tolerance for the Government.
The secret of this Government is that it is tolerant of all, including the Opposition. That is one of the reasons it is a success. Zero tolerance was tried by the Deputy's party between 1989 and 1991 and it was not successful. It possibly contributed to the downfall of the Government in which it was participating, so zero tolerance in Government is not a particularly good principle.
The Taoiseach has no support.
The issue of economic and monetary union is one upon which Ireland has taken a position. We did not look for opt-outs at Maastricht. We took the view that if we qualified we would go in, and go in we will.
In his reply the Taoiseach said this was a preliminary meeting at which he was laying out his stall, so to speak. What agenda is there for further meetings to press home the case of Ireland to continue to be regarded as an Objective 1 region? Is there a timetable, an agreed agenda, whereby that case can be pushed? What arguments are being used to rebut the proposition that if we are fit to enter economic and monetary union we are fit to be cut loose from Objective 1 status?
The criteria for participation in economic and monetary union under the Maastricht Treaty and the criteria for Objective 1 status are completely different. The criteria for economic and monetary union relate to levels of borrowing and convergence in regard to interest rates and exchange rates. The criteria for Objective 1 status relate to income. It is quite consistent for a country to qualify under the criteria for economic and monetary union and still retain Objective 1 status. No responsible politician in this House should concede that point. There is no inter-relationship between the two sets of criteria. As to the action we propose to take to deal with the matter, the Government, following my meeting, is working on a programme of action to deal with this matter to protect the good investment the European Union is making in this country, which gives the best return to Europe on investment by the European Union anywhere within the Union.
The Taoiseach is speaking to the converted on our need to maintain Objective 1 status. Are we to take it the Government has no fallback position in the event of us not achieving Objective 1 status? Deputy Harney referred to regionalisation. Is it not the case that in the event of us not achieving full status, the Government should have a view on looking after disadvantaged areas around the country?
I will not take up the Deputy's invitation to state a fallback position because I am looking for the retention of our existing position. I acknowledge that it will be a difficult negotiation, but we will be well prepared for it. As to the reasons for the stance we are taking in regard to Objective 1 status, I have set those out in some detail in response to a question from Deputy Harney.