John Bruton
Question:1 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the plans, if any, he has to meet the President of the European Commission. [3064/98]
Ceisteanna — Questions. - EU Meetings.
Ruairí Quinn
Question:2 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he has had a meeting recently with Mr Jacques Santer, President of the European Commission; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4135/98]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.
I had a meeting with President Santer in Brussels on 18 December last. We had a full discussion of the issues on the current European agenda. We focused in particular on the Commission's Agenda 2000 proposals and their implications for Ireland. The necessity for further meetings or contacts with the Commission President is kept under constant review.
Has the Taoiseach's attention been drawn to the statement made by Commissioner Flynn last week? He said Irish GNP as a percentage of the average per capita GNP of the Union is now 103 per cent or approximately 90 per cent based on GDP. In view of the fact that the gross national product of the 11 applicant states equates to the GNP of one medium sized state, the Netherlands, and the challenges which that presents for future enlargement, did the Taoiseach seek an undertaking from the Commission President that Ireland would continue to receive transfers beyond 1999 and that they would not end suddenly? Will the Taoiseach be able to give such an assurance to the electorate during the ratification procedure for the Amsterdam Treaty?
I am aware of the European Commission's figures. They have been quoted by a number of commissioners during recent meetings. The Government's objective in the negotiations on Structural Funds, which will commence in a few months, is to secure continued access for the country to Objective I status and to ensure there are satisfactory transitional funding arrangements. Our argument is that they should apply over the next full funding period from the end of 1999 to 2006. These issues will have to be discussed.
The Commission's policy since 1989 has been that a country should try to achieve the average GNP of the Union and then sustain it. A quick cut-off point would jeopardise the ability of a country to sustain it. While Ireland has done remarkably well over the Structural and Cohesion Funds period, it needs an adequate phasing out period. I hope that argument, which is Ireland's negotiating position, will be agreed to by the EU.
I have a number of questions for the Taoiseach. The first relates to the point raised by Deputy Mitchell. Did the Taoiseach explicitly raise with President Santer the unique difference in the Irish context between GNP and gross domestic product? The difference between gross domestic product and gross national product in every other country is marginal, if insignificant, whereas in Ireland, because of the repatriation of profits from multinationals, the difference can be substantial. Did the Taoiseach explicitly raise this point with the Commission President? Did the President respond and did he concede there was a unique difference in the circumstances of Ireland compared with similar countries? The relevant measure of comparison for per capita income in Ireland relative to other member states is not GDP but GNP. Did the Commission President say this would be taken into account?
I have been using that argument successfully since 1988 in discussions with the EU. I negotiated both rounds of funds in 1989 and 1993 in two different ministries. However, the argument is not as strong as it was in 1988 and 1989.
It is still valid.
It is a valuable argument and repatriation still has a significant effect. It will probably continue because of the extent of the multinationals' effect on trade figures, particularly exports, and the wealth creation capacity of the Irish economy. I raised this as part of our case in discussions over the years and President Santer is familiar with the argument.
As Deputy Quinn knows from the ECOFIN data, we have done remarkably well. The median figures of the 11 countries likely to be included in enlargement create a huge imbalance. The central point of our stance in negotiations is a fair transition arrangement for Ireland under Objective One status, particularly where there are regional imbalances and many parts of the countries fall below the status statistics. That argument is for another time. The central issue now is the transition arrangement for Objective One status for the entire country. We will do far better on that argument.
Does the Taoiseach agree that as we will shortly begin the procedure for ratification of the Amsterdam Treaty, enlargement presents great opportunities, such as the continuation of peace and stability in Europe, which is a prerequisite for prosperity? There are great challenges as 106 million people, with an equivalent GNP of the Netherlands, will join the union.
Will the Taoiseach assure the House that in any negotiations on Objective One status, the arguments put forward to exclude Dublin will not be tolerated? These arguments do not stand up because some of the greatest poverty in the country is in Dublin, some of it barely south of the Liffey. Some people think all poverty is north of the Liffey although there is a great deal in the north, south, east and west of Dublin. Will the Taoiseach assure us that those areas will not be excluded from Objective One status as a result of enlargement negotiations?
Does the Taoiseach's reply mean the Government's negotiating strategy is not to isolate parts of the country which are still deemed to qualify for Objective One status? Will they be separated from other parts of the country which are now over the median level as measured by the commission? For a variety of reasons set out in the documentation available to any Minister or Minister for State, will the Government argue for a unique, once-off period of transition in which the entire State will be deemed to qualify for transitional, structural and cohesion funds, depending on the label they are given?
If we are given transitional funds, as distinct from the traditional and institutional form of Objective One status, who will be the deciding body in the allocation of those funds?
(Mayo): When we negotiated Objective One status in the golden age of Structural Funds, we used the poverty stricken areas referred to by Deputy Gay Mitchell and the west, which has suffered graphically from depopulation and economic dehabilitation, as trump cards with which to negotiate the maximum amount of Structural and Cohesion Funds. As soon as the funding came on stream, these areas were discarded, apart from occasional initiatives and pilot projects. There has been no specific targeting of resources in those areas. The demographic trends in the west are downward and show no sign of stabilising. There are huge poverty traps in inner city Dublin. If the Government seeks Objective One status for the entire country, will it institutionalise poverty in these areas? It is obvious that unless specific targeted measures are introduced in these areas we will not convince the European Union and they will be discarded.
First, in reply to Deputies Mitchell and Quinn, the Government's objective in the Structural Funds negotiations is to obtain continued access for the entire country under Objective One status, funding over the duration of the next financial perspective, 1999-2006, and satisfactory transition arrangements.
In reply to Deputy Quinn's second question, the Commission must agree to any change in a country's single region status and the overriding objective of maximising Structural Funds to Ireland in the next round. In reply to the Deputy's third question as to how they will operate, if we obtain the agreement which will be negotiated in the next 12 months, this round of the next financial perspective will be delayed until elections in Germany and other countries are completed. The next round of the Agenda 2000 proposals put forward by the commission will be next month. They will state their negotiating position and talks will continue. That is our negotiation stance and we will have to see how it pans out, especially the 75 per cent argument and the regional imbalances. It will be better for the country to obtain Objective One status transition arrangements.
In reply to Deputy Jim Higgins, in 1989 and 1993 we did not argue on the basis of the exclusively peripheral and marginalised areas in rural or Northern Ireland. We negotiated on the basis of the status of our national figures vis-à-vis other countries. The fact that we were below the European average entitled us to Objective One status. This worked well.
I do not want to get into regional arguments. As I have said all week at another forum, I believe in an inclusive society and inclusive talks. That also applies to this issue. I do not want to break up the country as it beats my negotiating stance on Objective One status. It is true that some parts of regions have not done as well as others. However, regions have done well and when the CAP and the Structural and Cohesion Funds are taken into account, it is interesting to see the extent of funds.
They have not gone to inner city Dublin. There is not much headage in Crumlin.
The figures are readily available.
When I threw a few bob their way I got into trouble.
We have a considerable backlog in relation to infrastructure and social development. We must continue to pursue negotiations to deal with that. After 2006, and certainly around 2010, the Union will comprise in excess of 600 million people from approximately 25 countries. It will include some very poor regions which will not be on this island. Therefore, we have only a short period to deal with the infrastructural backlog and that is what we must concentrate on now.
During his meeting with President Santer, did the Taoiseach raise the question of institutional reform and the lack of democracy in the way many decisions are made? Did he press on him the urgent need to reform our institutions before taking on board a large number of new members when it will be virtually impossible to operate under the existing institutional arrangements? Did he also raise with thePresident the size of the budget projected to the year 2006 which will be too small to cater for the large number of very underdeveloped countries which are about to accede to the European Union? Will he address the financial contribution that Ireland might make to a budget to assist those underdeveloped countries?
I did not discuss institutional reform on that occasion. That was discussed at a recent European Council meeting. Many of the reforms the Commission would like implemented were dodged in the negotiations on the Amsterdam Treaty. Member states did not agree to the proposals which would have meant a better structured enlarged Europe in the future. That was not the fault of the President of the Commission who felt they were desirable and useful changes.
I hope the Taoiseach is not suggesting we were party to the document.
I am saying that member states dodged it. I am sure this country would have been pleased to see those changes implemented because a streamlined system would benefit smaller states.
I would not like the record to be confused.
The Deputy should not be so sensitive.
The record will not be confused. We are on the one side in regard to Amsterdam.
We hope.
We are. In terms of the size of the projected budget, at this stage it is unlikely that the financial perspective will alter the percentages. The major contributors believe it is unlikely that new countries will be in for the next round. The former cohesion countries argue that the 1.27 per cent rate will not meet the needs. I do not believe France, Germany, the Netherlands and others will change their negotiating position on that matter in the short term. As the enlargement discussion moves forward and we know the beneficiaries of the new Structural Funds, the position may change. As of now, however, the financial perspective will remain in the 1.27 percentage points category on the basis that the enlargement process will not have reached the stage where there would be a drain on the funds. That is satisfactory if that is the case, but we are putting forward arguments in that regard.
If the budget is not increased and funds are required to support underdeveloped countries, surely significantly less money will be available, even if we retain our Objective One status.
We would have to see how that operates over a period of time. I do not see any great difficulty, but we have put down the proper marker to avoid that happening.
The Taoiseach will be aware that the Amsterdam Treaty provides for a more efficient and effective common foreign and security policy and for the conduct of CFSP in regard to the appointment of the Secretary General of the Council as high representative, a planning and analysis unit and a new troika arrangement. Does he agree a common foreign and security policy has been lacking in the European Union in regard to the Iraqi position and that the Presidency has made its own decision with no common hymn sheet from which the 15 member states could sing, as arranged at the Amsterdam Treaty in June?
I stated earlier that some issues were dodged in negotiations on the Amsterdam Treaty, but they did not dodge this one. The mechanism set out in the Amsterdam agreement for a common security policy, particularly for dealing with international issues in an efficient and coherent manner, will improve after the ratification of the Amsterdam Treaty.