Vol. 489 No. 1
3 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the plans, if any, he has to establish a Cabinet task force to handle the negotiations relating to the Agenda 2000 EU financing proposals; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7542/98]
The importance of the Agenda 2000 negotiations is such that key decisions in regard to them will be taken by the entire Government. The Ministers and Secretaries General group on EU policy is responsible for overseeing the negotiations. The group, which I chair, includes the Ministers dealing with the main areas covered by the negotiations and the Secretaries General of the Departments. Interdepartmental structures at official level have been put in place specifically to deal with the Agenda 2000 negotiations, including interdepartmental groups on Agenda 2000 and enlargement which are chaired by the Department of Foreign Affairs. I am satisfied that, taken together, these structures are adequate to meet the challenge posed by the negotiations.
One of the first challenges which faced a member of Government was at the York meeting last week and the newspaper headlines indicate the Minister for Finance surrendered Structural Funds, although he has not given a comprehensive report yet. If that is the opening gambit in the thinking and action of the Government in terms of preserving maximum benefit for Ireland, a change of tack is required. Will the Taoiseach outline what plans he has to ensure Ireland maintains maximum benefit into the new millennium?
I am not responsible for newspaper headlines but, as I stated, the Ministers and Secretaries General group will deal with the negotiations as we move forward. Any major aspects of policy will be dealt with by the entire Cabinet. The Agriculture Council meets next week while the Minister for Agriculture and Food will also meet Commissioner Fischler.
This item was not discussed at the ECOFIN meeting as the General Affairs Council is dealing with Agenda 2000. The structure to be followed as outlined last week is that the various groupings and bodies will deal with this. The General Affairs Council has overall responsibility. The COREPER 2 document of last week states:
The General Affairs Council will have overall responsibility for the Agenda 2000 dossier, in general for the interim report which will be prepared for the Cardiff European Council; the ECOFIN and Agriculture Councils will be called on to provide input on aspects of the package which concern them. In doing so, it is recalled that the Agriculture Council will, as in the past, examine the detailed aspects of the proposed agricultural reforms; the Presidency will also ensure that, where appropriate, any other relevant Council formations are kept informed about proceedings; COREPER 2 will have the usual responsibility for preparing the General Affairs Council in the normal way for Cardiff; and the next one and COREPER will be assisted by "Friends of the Presidency" Group for which the proposed remit is attached.
I referred to how that will operate through the Department of Foreign Affairs. These discussions are likely to be lengthy, detailed and evolving over the remainder of the year. We will continue to press during the negotiations for a level of funding for Ireland which takes fully into account the needs of our less prosperous regions. We accept we have long since gone past the 75 per cent criterion for objective 1 status but I am very pleased with the transitional arrangements. The next period will cover seven years from 2000-6. These arrangements are a good opening position. Of course, there are aspects with which we entirely disagree, many of which are in the agricultural area as outlined by the Minister for Agriculture and Food last week. I am sure he will answer questions in the House in due course. There are other issues involving Cohesion Funding on which we will also fight robustly to get the best deal we can. The negotiating position is a useful opening that will be built on in the months ahead.
While the Taoiseach has comforting words for the future, last week's newspaper headlines were not generated out of thin air. The Minister for Finance was quoted subsequent to the York meeting and indicated he, if not the entire Government, conceded Ireland will get reduced supports on a range of issues. The General Affairs Council is the controlling council but the Agriculture Council and ECOFIN are very important in terms of finalising proposals. If the attitude of the Minister for Finance is indicative of that of the Government, we should be very worried. Has the Taoiseach plans to take direct control to ensure a more robust defence of Irish interests is mounted than the one we saw last week? Is Ireland represented on the Friends of the Presidency group which, as is clear from what the Taoiseach said, will be influential in formulating the final proposals?
That will be linked to COREPER. Like taxi drivers, I will keep a close eye on everything that happens.
It behoves the Taoiseach to keep an eye on the proposals.
The Taoiseach got rid of the devolution committee by giving it to the Minister for the Environment and Local Goverment, Deputy Dempsey.
It is the right place for it.
The devolution committee is where it should be, in the capable hands of the Minister for the Environment and Local Government who will do more than draft reports.
I was involved in the negotiations in 1989 as Minister for Labour and in 1993 as Minister for Finance, and I am glad to negotiate again from a different position. I secured extraordinarily good deals for Ireland on both occasions.
It was under the Taoiseach's stewardship that we lost duty free sales. He took his eye off the ball on that occasion and he will forgive us for thinking he is doing the same now. Instead of running the taxi system in Dublin he should be watching the proposals in regard to Agenda 2000.
Cheap.
What positions have Ministers been instructed to take on the future of the country? Will the Government seek to retain objective I status for the entire country or will it seek the maintenance of objective II status for certain areas? Does the Taoiseach believe we will receive Structural and Cohesion Funding after enlargement?
The Deputy should convince Deputy Bruton that we need money from Europe. According to statements he made at the weekend, we do not need any funding.
He did not say that.
He did.
He said we were rich enough now to look after ourselves and should not be looking for money from Europe.
The Taoiseach is on his feet and Deputies should desist.
Has Luas gone completely?
Wait until the files are opened.
There will be taxis driving up and down the line.
Things are not that bad.
Order, please.
I am loath to become involved in the argument about duty free sales but it seems as if Deputy Owen has a one item agenda. Every time she gets an opportunity she raises the issue of duty free sales. However, I understand why she is miffed as I secured a seven and a half year extension, although the Labour Party recently tried to take credit for that away from me. The Government of which the Deputy was a member refused to raise the matter at the European Council where the matter could have been addressed.
That is not true. Both Deputies Ruairí Quinn and Alan Dukes raised it.
It was the Deputy's constituency which was mainly affected.
The Taoiseach should get his facts right.
I hope we can retain objective I status under Agenda 2000. The main point is the best position for us to hold in the discussions so that we draw down the maximum amount of funds. If it becomes clear during the negotiations that there is a preferred way of doing this then we can pursue that course. The decision at this stage is that countries like Ireland which have surpassed the 75 per cent requirement for objective I status will retain this status for the transitional period. However, we must take fully into account that it is the weaker sections of the community which must benefit. How this is played out during the coming year is a matter for discussion.
My question highlights to some extent how Deputies in Government can make accusations about what should have been raised without anyone being in a position to check the facts apart from the person in office. This indicates the lack of transparency on how council meetings are run and the matters raised at them. Does the Taoiseach propose to put in place a mechanism which will enable this House to maintain a watching brief over, and have an input into, the discussions on Agenda 2000? The negotiations are far reaching in terms of their impact on the funding we receive from Europe and it is important that all Members know what is going on and have an opportunity to put forward their opinion. This is how the democratic process should operate.
Will the European Parliament have a role in the negotiation process? If so, this Parliament should have a role in monitoring and overseeing how the process in relation to Agenda 2000 proceeds.
The discussions will take place in the Council and there is no need for me to repeat them. Some of what happens will be public knowledge, while negotiation positions will remain confidential to the Departments involved. During the previous negotiations I answered questions in the House on various aspects. Naturally one does not give away one's negotiating position as this would not be of benefit.
The Parliament is involved in that Commissioners make reports to it. The Parliament has more powers in this area, but not in terms of the negotiations. The Commission will set out its negotiating position and, as the discussions proceed, it will give more details. It has already done this in that it has set out its proposals on the various sectors, something it did not do on the previous occasions. It has stated there will be cuts in the beef, dairy and cereal sectors and outlined the areas where there will be negotiation. This has enabled us, the social partners and other groups involved to co-operate. There is no longer the same level of secrecy. I welcome this as these negotiations are very important from the point of view of the national interest. We must try to retain the maximum amount of Structural and Cohesion Funds possible. There is a general view that there will not be much action until the autumn, apart from the preparation of the detail for negotiation. This will be our last opportunity to get substantial Structural Funding. It will be a totally different ball game after 2006.
I welcome the opportunity to put questions to the Taoiseach in the House but it is not an appropriate form in that we cannot debate the issue or put forward policy statements. The Government should outline its approach at the Joint Committee on European Affairs, listen to the alternative approaches put forward by Opposition parties and construct its approach bearing these in mind. This is the democratic way to deal with the issues.
One would be forgiven for believing that the only thing at risk in the negotiations on Agenda 2000 is the Common Agricultural Policy. The worst case scenario is that there will be cuts of approximately £300 million out of a total figure of billions of pounds, whereas the cuts in Social and Cohesion Funding——
Will the Deputy put a supplementary question?
——are much greater. However, I fear that because of the furore about CAP, the cuts in Cohesion and Structural Funding — which will affect employment, anti-poverty measures, education and training — will take second place.
To reassure the Deputy, we will still be a significant net beneficiary of the funds but it is important that we fight on all fronts, so all relevant Ministers will be defending their corners. There are cuts in all areas which will affect the Regional Fund, the European Social Fund and the CAP, all of which must be defended. If the old rules had been applied — those which prevailed when I was last involved — this would have been the end of funding and we should not lose sight of that. We signed up to the position that once a country exceeded 75 per cent of GNP it lost objective I status. We have won a significant victory in securing transitional funds and that is what should have been in last week's headlines.
The Taoiseach should talk to the Minister for Finance about that.
We managed to get hundreds of millions of additional pounds which we would not have got under the previous scheme. I do not control the headlines but that is what I would have highlighted.
The Taoiseach does not control the Minister for Finance either, obviously.
I am not against the Agenda 2000 proposals being discussed at a committee. During all these discussions, it is important that we keep our negotiating strategy intact but there is a broad front on which people can put forward their views.
The Minister gave the strategy away at the weekend.
He did not.
That was a solo run.
The Taoiseach said one of the guiding principles in the negotiations would be to protect the weaker areas of the country. How does that tie in with the Minister, Deputy McCreevy's remarks last week that it may be necessary to divide the country for the purposes of future funding? I accept that this may be a good thing in that European thinking is moving from sectoral programmes towards integrated, spatially-based programmes but is dividing the country merely a euphemism for ring-fencing Dublin? I am sure the Taoiseach shares my feelings as a Dublin Deputy that it would be totally unacceptable that Dublin paid the price while the rest of the country benefited from European funds. Could that be clarified?
We have a Dublin based Government — the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste are from there.
There were not too many from the Border counties in the last Government.
The overall strategy is first, to draw down the maximum level of funds, and second, to take into account the less prosperous regions. As I said earlier, that has yet to be worked out precisely and as of now objective I status remains for everywhere. If in the course of discussions an alternative is seen to be possible we would have to examine it. Having been involved in these discussions on two previous occasions, I think there could be great difficulties in working out the statistical data required to pick out the regions and localities which were under 75 per cent of EU average income. It may be possible to do that in a large country like Germany but I do not think it is possible here. We must still be conscious of what happens during negotiations and how matters will progress.
About three weeks ago I sought to raise this issue in a question to the Taoiseach but it was directed to the Minister for Finance. I have a particular interest in that the Border region and the west should qualify automatically for objective I status in the next tranche of Structural Funds. Regionalisation is acceptable within Europe; is the Taoiseach prepared to state categorically that in the event of Ireland as a whole not qualifying for objective I status, he will divide the country into regions so that the Border counties and the west obtain maximum grants?
Do not forget Longford.
The NESC report for 1997 indicated the necessity of continuing this investment so that we catch up with the rest of the country, especially Dublin, will all due respect to Deputy Mitchell.
The Deputy is knocking his own side.
I do not want a battle to break out between my good colleagues in Fine Gael on this matter.
There will be as big a battle in the Government — the Taoiseach has no other Dublin TD with him in the House.
He is on his own.
The Deputy's question is wrongly based because we have achieved objective I status for the whole country at a reduced rate, so the argument has moved on. We were discussing that before we succeeded in December in providing transitional arrangements for objective I status. The issue may arise again after 2006 but until then the country as a whole retains objective I status. It is a question now of the best tactical way to draw that down but the Deputy can be assured that his region retains objective I status for this period.
What about after 2006?
