Bertie Ahern
Question:2 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach the principal decisions which require to be taken at the Amsterdam European Council in June 1997. [10568/97]
Ceisteanna — Questions. - European Council Meetings.
Bertie Ahern
Question:3 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach the commitments in principle, if any, made to attend major international conferences or formal foreign engagements, other than European Council meetings, to be held at Head of Government level before the end of 1997. [10569/97]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 2 and 3 together.
As the member state holding the EU Presidency, it is for The Netherlands, in the first instance, to propose the matters for discussion at the Amsterdam European Council. The Presidency has not yet finalised its proposals in this regard.
The Dublin European Council in December reaffirmed the importance of completing the Intergovernment Conference at the Amsterdam Council. It is clear, therefore, that the Intergovernmental Conference will be the principal item on the agenda at this Council. It is likely that a special meeting of the European Council will be held in advance of the Amsterdam Council to assist the objective of concluding the Intergovernmental Conference but this has not yet been officially confirmed by the Presidency. Other items likely to be on the Amsterdam Council agenda are economic and monetary union, employment, the report of the high level group on organised crime and the Union's external relations.
As regards my 1997 commitments to other formal foreign engagements at Head of Government level, I will attend the United Nations General Affairs Special Session in New York in June and the Council of Europe summit meeting in Strasbourg in October. I will also be representing Ireland at the 500th anniversary celebrations in Newfoundland — a part of Canada with which we have significant historical links — in June. In addition, arising from my meeting with the Russian Prime Minister, Mr. Viktor Chernomyrdin, in Shannon in February, I have accepted his invitation to pay an official visit to Russia in 1997 at a date yet to be arranged.
Without referring to the war of words about Europe, does the Taoiseach believe the new British Government will be in office long enough to conclude the Intergovernmental Conference and the Treaty negotiations? Will he indicate the tentative date being considered for the preliminary meeting between Heads of State to discuss the Intergovernmental Conference?
I believe the new British Government will be in office a sufficient length of time to conclude the agreement in Amsterdam. The subject matters for discussion and decision are well known and have been set out in clear terms, most recently in the draft Treaty prepared by the Irish Presidency for the Dublin summit. They are currently the subject of lively debate in Britain. There is no possibility, therefore, of an information deficit on these issues. One would expect the incoming Government in Britain, whether it be the existing Government or a new composition, to be fully informed of all the issues for decision. I am, therefore, confident that we will be able to conclude the Treaty in Amsterdam as agreed in Madrid. This was reaffirmed in Dublin.The most likely date for the informal meeting is 23 May.
Does it sound like a suitable date?
The Taoiseach may cast his vote in Dunboyne.
The date being suggested for the informal summit is suitable.
That knocks another date off the calendar.
The posters may not be correct.
Which ones? The Fine Gael posters in County Meath?
Did the Minister of State not see the posters in Punchestown which read "Back a Winner"?
But the horse came last.
The Deputy is always gambling.
They are expensive posters. We can only afford to use twine, the Minister of State's party can afford to use rods and iron.
Let us get back to the question, please.
The Minister of State is heckling me. Does the Taoiseach believe, as stated in some British newspapers, that the negotiations on the next round of Structural Funds will commence at the Amsterdam summit?
That is not the case. We have not completed the review of the first half of the current round of Structural Funds. There is no question, therefore, of that issue being opened in Amsterdam. Following the conclusion of the Intergovernmental Conference, there will be, however, as agreed, a preparation of financial perspectives by the Commission. It will be some time after that before it will be open to be considered by any Council.
The Taoiseach gave a list of items to be discussed in Amsterdam. Will he raise with member states the need to keep in place and honour the principle of the free movement of persons and goods? Some 500 Irish trucks carrying 12,000 tonnes of goods, much of which are perishable, are being held up because of a dispute by French fishermen. This is not the first time Irish trucks have been held up at the French border because of internal disputes. This is hardly in keeping with the spirit of the Maastricht Treaty and the principle of the free movement of goods. Will the Taoiseach raise these matters and seek assurance that this will not be a feature of the future?
The Deputy has raised a particular matter worthy of a separate question. If the Taoiseach wishes to intervene, however, he may do so.
The free movement of people and goods is one of the fundamental pillars of the success of the European Union and it is probably fair to say that France has benefited more than most countries from that principle. France is visited by a very large number of tourists from all parts of the European Union availing of the free movement principles created by the Union and this is of great benefit to that country. French goods can be exported without interference to all the other states of the European Union which is the largest market in the world for French goods. France is a significant beneficiary of the free movement of goods and persons and it is important for all French people and other Europeans to realise that it is in their interests in terms of the law and in terms of individual practice in the pursuit of disputes to respect the free movement of goods and persons.
Has the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs taken any steps with the French Government to resolve this dilemma with which Irish exporters are confronted today and stand to be confronted with tomorrow and which involves tonnes of perishable goods?
I have allowed the Deputy some latitude in this matter but it requires further consideration and could be raised at a more appropriate time.
I would prefer to have notice of the matter so that I could give the Deputy a definitive answer. I have already indicated the importance I attach to the principle to which the Deputy referred and I have no doubt that my remarks will be noted in the appropriate quarters. I cannot give the Deputy precise information at this juncture but I will be in touch with my colleagues about the matter.
What are the major outstanding issues for the Intergovernmental Conference and what stumbling blocks remain in the negotiations?
A range of issues has not been settled definitively. These include qualified majority voting, the employment chapter, institutional arrangements generally and the arrangements for foreign policy. There are varying degrees of consensus on different matters but, as the House is well aware, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. In that sense, all the issues are still open for conclusion. On the basis of past practice, I have no doubt that the final agreement will not occur until the last moment in Amsterdam.However, I have no doubt that agreement will be reached at that point.
Does the Taoiseach believe it is essential to have a preliminary meeting before the Amsterdam summit?
Yes. One cannot bring Heads of Government cold to a meeting like the Amsterdam summit and expect agreement to be reached in a few days unless some preliminary work has been done at that level. This does not in any sense show a lack of respect for the work being done by Foreign and other Ministers at Council level. The point is that at the end of the day the treaty will be signed at Head of Government level. It is important from the point of view of the dynamic of the discussions that a meeting between the Heads of Government should take place close to the final meeting so that they have a sense of collective achievement being within reach and a sense of collective purpose to reach that agreement.
I agree with the approach of the Dutch Presidency to call a meeting at this time. I have been in favour of such a meeting for some time and have urged the Dutch Presidency to call it around this time. Holding the preliminary meeting a month ago would not have served very much purpose as it must be held fairly close to the date on which we intend to reach final agreement. The date chosen, which is less than a month from the date of the summit, is about right.
It will be a good photo opportunity.
Is there a definitive Irish position on the issue of foreign policy and security and defence? I appreciate the work done by the Irish Presidency but the information in many of the documents was vague. Will the Taoiseach outline our definitive position on these issues before the Amsterdam summit and does he envisage that the conclusions will be meaningful or that there will be some sort of fudge and opt-outs for different member states?
I have said publicly and privately that I abhor the concept of opt-outs as it is contrary to the principle of the European Union and the principle of the community approach. There should be a community approach and even if it is not as ambitious as some people wish it is better than a patchwork of opt-outs.
One of the issues which remains to be considered is the notion of a flexibility clause which would put a structure on the situation whereby some member states move forward at a greater speed than others. This is a potentially contentious issue but it is preferable to ad hoc opt-outs. At least it provides collective rules for regulating varying speeds towards a common destination rather than establishing the principle that there is not any common destination and there is just a mixture of opt-outs on an ad hoc basis.
The Government's position on this matter has been set out in considerable detail in the White Paper on Foreign Policy. The Deputy will be aware that the Government is protecting Ireland's interests very strongly on a range of issues, notably the Irish Commissioner position and other important issues. I do not wish to go through them as I do not want to suggest that those mentioned are more important than others which are not mentioned. The House can be assured that the national position will be very strongly protected in these negotiations right through to the Amsterdam summit where I believe decisions will be reached. During the second half of the year we will hold a referendum to ratify the Amsterdam treaty.
The Taoiseach rightly said that he does not favour opt-outs under any heading. Does the same principle apply to EU directives, particularly environmental ones? Will the Government seek an exemption from upcoming environmental directives?
The Deputy is endeavouring to draw me into a controversy which has caused particular difficulty for her party.
No.
I do not wish to cause the Deputy any more difficulty than she is already facing on this matter——
The Taoiseach's monitor is ticking away; for whom the bell tolls.
——by engaging in a lengthy polemic with her. Draft directives are like draft legislation which in every legislative process, whether it is European or national, is open to amendment and is frequently not adopted until there is unanimity. Draft directives should not be invested with any status above and beyond that which they have.