Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 2 Dec 1998

Vol. 497 No. 6

Ceisteanna—Questions. - Official Engagements.

John Bruton

Question:

1 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his visit to London on 27 November 1998. [25432/98]

I undertook three official engagements during my recent visit to London. The first was a visit to the Safe Start Foundation in West Hendon. The foundation caters for the needs of young Irish emigrants in search of accommodation, training and jobs. It does excellent work in the interests of our emigrants, and I was happy to have an opportunity to visit the foundation and see for myself the services they are providing. I was met by Mr. Mahesh Singadia, Director of the Safe Start Foundation, and his fellow Directors Mr. Seamus McGarry and Mr. Tom Biesty. Also present were the Leader of Barnet Council, Councillor Alan Williams and the Deputy Leader of Brent Council, Councillor Anne John.

My second engagement was a visit to the Irish Studies Centre in the University of North London. I was invited to visit the centre by its Deputy Director, Dr. Sarah Morgan. I met there a number of people, including Mr. Brian Roper, the Vice-Chancellor of the University; Mr. Jonathan Moore, Principal Lecturer in Irish Studies; Mr. Paul Sheehan, Subject Tutor for Irish Studies; Mr. Tomás Mac Stiofan, Lecturer on the Irish Language and Dr. Bronwen Walter.

In the course of the meeting, I was given a detailed summary of a report entitled "Discrimination and the Irish Community in Britain", by Dr. Mary Hickman and Dr. Bronwen Walter. It contains a report of research undertaken for the Commission for Racial Equality in Britain. The main findings of the research are that there is an extremely strong resistance to the recognition of the distinctiveness of Irish experience in Britain which results in a lack of acknowledgement of Irish needs and rights, but that at the same time there is a widespread, and almost completely unquestioned, acceptance of anti-Irish racism in British society. The broad policy recommendations which the report makes include the need to make Irish issues more visible so that their existence and legitimacy is acknowledged. Fundamental to this is the collection of accurate data so that the nature and scale of problems faced can be measured and change can be monitored.

On the positive side, it was pointed out to me that the Irish experience in Britain is becoming more assured particularly as a result of the peace process, the success and high profile of some Irish writers and musicians, as well as by the success of the Irish economy. This centre's contribution, through undertaking research and analysis into the issues which affect the Irish community in Britain, is of immense benefit in determining our policy objectives in relation to emigration.

My third engagement was to launch a book entitled Passion in Exile — 100 years of London Irish RFC. This book marks the centenary year of the London Irish Rugby Football Club which over the past century has offered a home from home for many Irish men, from both North and South, living in England.

I thank the Taoiseach for all this information. However, was not the principal purpose of his trip to attend a Fianna Fáil fundraiser in London? What was the cost to the Exchequer of the trip?

The engagements I had included a Fianna Fáil function, which was a successful night. I do not know if any money was made, I will tell the Deputy in due course.

That is all right. The Taoiseach is not accountable to the House for that — he is for travel costs.

These were engagements I was due to fulfil and I did so — I do not consider that as a cost to the Exchequer. If I had only been attending the Fianna Fáil function I would have done what I have done in the past, which is to go on a scheduled flight paid for by the party.

I would advise the Taoiseach to keep these events separate.

It is a far more efficient use of my time if I can attend outstanding functions together.

Does the Taoiseach agree that as a public office holder travelling, as he is entitled to, with all the facilities attributable to a head of government, that it is not wise for him to mix party political activity with that during overseas trips? There is something of a conflict.

I would not argue with Deputy Bruton as I do not ever want to abuse those facilities. However, if it was an issue, I would rather do it the other way around — to travel and still conduct my official duties rather than take separate trips. I find it hard enough to get a free day in my diary as I am sure the Deputy did, to attend functions for his party.

I kept them separate.

I have done very few. This is the first function I have attended for the party outside the country this year, even though I have been asked to attend a number of them. I have not followed the practice of previous Taoisigh, including Deputy Bruton, members of my party and his party, who hopped back and forth across the Atlantic.

I thank the Taoiseach for his reply and will refer to his official response. He met Safe Start, visited the University of North London and launched the book Passion in Exile — 100 years of London Irish RFC. Both of us were Ministers in the Department of Labour in our political past. Was the Taoiseach convinced on the basis of the presentations made to him and the depth of the antagonism towards Irish people and those of Irish descent in the UK, of the necessity to increase the grant to DÍON? If so, will we see that this afternoon? Do I take it the Taoiseach is of the same opinion as I am, that the people who attended the Fianna Fáil function would be better off giving their money, discretionary and all as it is, to DÍON's activities in the United Kingdom rather than to the Taoiseach's activities in the Republic of Ireland?

As Deputy Quinn will be aware, many of these people make great contributions. A few nights ago I met members of the Mayo association which has done an enormous amount for the Irish and which is comprised effectively of Irish construction workers. The association has three or four houses, which they paid for and renovated without funding from other sources, where the Irish live.

I will not claim they are all Fianna Fáil supporters but many of them are.

There are Labour Party supporters among them.

The Labour Party councillors and representatives are strongly behind the Irish community.

Naturally.

Does the Taoiseach consider a help line for isolated elderly Irish people in the United Kingdom is worthy of support given that there is a successful help line, which happens to be located in my constituency, staffed by senior citizens? It provides a listening ear for Irish people in the Irish telephone area for the price of a local call. Would it be worthwhile for the Government to fund, at a comparatively modest expense, such an operation to be staffed by people of Irish birth who live in Britain? It would enable Irish elderly people to talk to other Irish elderly people in Britain if they feel lonely, and there are many in that situation. Does the Taoiseach consider this would be worthwhile given that I have already made representations on the matter to the Minister for Foreign Affairs?

I will certainly raise the issue with the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I would not be against the concept because clearly these people are lonely. The reason I included the piece in my reply is that the people who are working on this in the UK believe more research should be carried out in this area. Of course there is the big issue of the census to try to find the exact position.

One of the saddest things I have ever seen was retired Irish building workers sitting looking into the middle distance and not talking to their neighbours in a pub in north London. There is the sense of complete isolation in not being able to afford an air ticket to go home, not having relatives at home while living in an alien culture in Britain, and not being able to work because the only work they know is so physically demanding they cannot do it at their age. These are a bereft generation of people whom we, as a nation, have let down. We should do something for them now before it is too late and they have passed on to their eternal reward in the next world, where undoubtedly they will have a happier existence than they have at present.

Seamus McGarry, who would be known to most Members for his long association with, and former chairmanship of, the Federation of Irish Societies, introduced me to many of the people described. I also met the chaplain services which are involved in Camden Town and elsewhere.

It would be wrong to say we have done nothing because in Camden Town much of the work was done by FÁS people with Irish people's money and money collected here by the Oblate Fathers in Dublin and other cities. I want to pay credit to them and to the Mayo association. Many of the other county associations give their annual dinner receipts to various housing trusts, but there are not many housing projects. We need to foster greater collaboration between the Irish groups and the various councils such as Brent and Barnet.

Perhaps we could encourage Irish employers in Britain to pay their taxes and to protect their workers.

Yes. That is clear, particularly from the 1950s and 1960s.

There was gross abuse.

There are different regulations now.

For at least the past 12 years for which I have responsibility for the Federation of Irish Societies or DÍON, the kind of initiative to which Deputy Bruton referred has taken place. Clearly there is a requirement to do more. Most of these people would have gone abroad in the 1950s. These people, even when they get their proper welfare entitlements, still live a lonely existence in inner city areas. We should give them any help we can.

John Bruton

Question:

2 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting on 27 November 1998 with the Austrian Chancellor, Mr. Klima; the issues discussed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25433/98]

John Bruton

Question:

3 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting with the EU Transport Commissioner, Mr. Kinnock, when he visited Dublin recently. [25435/98]

Ruairí Quinn

Question:

4 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with the Austrian Federal Chancellor; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25550/98]

Ruairí Quinn

Question:

5 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he has received a full reply to his letter to the French Prime Minister in relation to ending duty free sales for persons travelling within the European Union; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25552/98]

Ruairí Quinn

Question:

6 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the issues he will raise with the German Chancellor when he meets him on 15 December 1998; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25553/98]

John Bruton

Question:

7 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he has received the agenda for the European Council meeting in Vienna on 11 and 12 December 1998 and the proposals from the Austrian Presidency on the way it envisages handling the Structural Funds negotiations at the meeting in view of his reply to Parliamentary Questions Nos. 1 to 5 of 18 November 1998. [25607/98]

John Bruton

Question:

8 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the countries he will visit in the Middle East in January 1999; the schedule of events he will undertake; and the preparatory meetings he will hold before his departure. [25853/98]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 2 to 8, inclusive, together.

I met the EU Transport Commissioner, Mr. Neil Kinnock on Thursday, 19 November. We discussed a variety of issues prior to his formal meetings with the Ministers for Public Enterprise and Marine and Natural Resources.

I briefed him on the current developments in relation to the Northern Ireland Peace Process. I outlined the importance of the Peace and Reconciliation Fund and the International Fund for Ireland and highlighted the valuable European and international context which they provided in terms of support for the peace process.

I took the opportunity to outline the background to the Government's decision to seek EUROSTAT approval for regionalisation and the need for further regional development in terms of infrastructure and the industrial base. I also stressed the importance of regional airports and in that context raised the issue of duty free and the Irish Government's pursuit of a re-examination of the issue at EU level.

I met Austrian Federal Chancellor, Viktor Klima, on 27 November as part of his tour of capitals in advance of the Vienna European Council. We discussed a number of issues such as Agenda 2000, including Cohesion Funding, CAP reform and own resources; Northern Ireland; co-ordination of economic policies; and common foreign and security policy.

In relation to Agenda 2000, I pointed out that although we accept the inevitability of a reduction in receipts, the proposed transitional arrangements will affect Ireland more significantly than any other member state and the overall outcome must be an equitable one. I emphasised once again that a key element for us continues to be the need to ensure adequate transitional arrangements under Objective One.

I expressed our strong support for the Commission's view that participation in the single currency should have no implications for continued eligibility for the Cohesion Fund. In our view there should also be provision for transitional arrangements for any member state which ceases to qualify as a result of any mid-term review in 2003.

We also discussed in general terms the current proposals on CAP reform. As I have indicated to the House previously, while we accept the broad thrust of the Commission's proposals, the proposals as they stand would damage the Irish agriculture industry and the economy as a whole.

On the issue of own resources, I indicated that we are aware of the different concerns of our partners. We agree with the Commission, however, that the net balance concept fails to take account of the wide ranging benefits that accrue to member states from Union membership and participation in the Single Market particularly. I stressed once again that we are totally opposed to national co-financing of CAP expenditure on direct payments. It would do little to address the position of net contributors, while placing a cost burden on some of the less prosperous member states with a high dependency on agriculture, who can least afford it.

I have not received an agenda as such for the European Council in Vienna, but I expect the work to centre on the issues I discussed with Federal Chancellor Klima. I have not as yet received a response from Prime Minister Jospin of France to my recent correspondence on duty free.

I am meeting German Federal Chancellor Schroeder in Bonn on 15 December. The meeting is part of my round of bilateral meetings with the other EU heads of state or Government in advance of the conclusion of the Agenda 2000 negotiations. I expect our discussions to focus on ways to progress the key issues under Agenda 2000 as considered at the Vienna European Council the previous weekend.

I am currently considering conducting an official visit to the Middle East from 17 to 21 January of next year. However, it is not appropriate to announce such a visit until all aspects of the itinerary are agreed with the relevant parties. At this point, it is likely that, if the visit goes ahead, I will visit the Lebanon, Israel and Palestine.

Is the Taoiseach aware of proposals to introduce new common taxes for the European Union to provide own resources to the Union in addition to value added tax and contributions from member states? What is the Taoiseach's view on the wisdom of having, for example, a carbon tax as one of the own resources of the Union?

I am aware of the discussions and proposals. I indicated our position, that there is a need to co-ordinate national taxation policies consistent with the principles of subsidiarity and within the terms of the Treaty.

However, the energy tax will come forward not at the Vienna European Council but some time in advance of the Cologne meeting or the special meeting in February or March. Many countries are in favour of an energy tax. It was tried some years ago but it came to nought. There has been little discussion among the heads of state on it but I envisage that we will see some formulation of an energy tax in the early months of 1999 emanating from ECOFIN.

Is the Taoiseach aware that in the past two days the European Commission issued statistics on inflation figures for the euro zone which indicate that Ireland has the highest rate of inflation in the euro zone at 2.6 per cent as against an average rate of inflation of 1 per cent and rates as low as 0.5 per cent in France? Is this a matter of concern to him in view of the requirement for monetary stability in the euro zone?

We must always be very conscious of price stability. It is and has been for several years an anchor to our economic policy. We must be very careful not to do anything which unnecessarily pushes it up but we are still within the range. Looking to the next few years, we need not be over worried about the figures but we must be conscious of them all the time. A few years ago we were the lowest or the second lowest in the Community. It did not create a great stir one way or the other in terms of people's perceptions nor will this create a great stir as long as we keep within the Maastricht criteria. We should always do our utmost to keep inflation at the lowest level as it would not be prudent to do anything which would drive it upwards.

Is it the case that Ireland not only has the highest rate of inflation in the euro zone but that the rate of increase in Irish inflation is also the highest in the euro zone, increasing from 0.8 per cent to 2.6 per cent today?

Deputy Bruton will recall the early headlines of the economic gurus in our society at the beginning of this year all forecasting that we would hit 6 per cent in mid year and that we would be unlikely to get out of it. There was a national consensus on the reviews. I remember doing a programme at the beginning of the year at which there was unanimity among the experts who shared that programme with me that we would surpass 6 per cent before midsummer's day.

I did not join that consensus.

No, the Deputy did not. There was no other politician on the programme. I am glad we know a little more about these matters than those in full-time employment giving reviews on these matters.

I think the Taoiseach meant permanent employment.

Sorry, permanent employment. Having said that, price stability must remain one of the key anchors of Government policy in the long-term. I cannot see a time when that will not be the case. While our rate is high, the Deputy will agree that we have the highest level of economic growth and employment. It is inevitable that there would be some increase. Some increases have been brought to my attention in recent months in some sectors of the economy. I cannot see the justification for these increases. I have raised the matter but I have not got a satisfactory answer to why these price increases were implemented.

Does the Taoiseach agree that had it not been for the indecision of his Minister for Finance in failing to signal to the markets the rate at which Ireland would enter the euro, the punt would not have fallen against the value of sterling and that consequently we unnecessarily imported many inflationary pressures in the first quarter of this year, which have happily gone? I share his perspective that we are now looking at a lower rate of inflation in the future than that which would have been forecast this time last year.

My Question No. 5 relates specifically to the Taoiseach's correspondence with the French Prime Minister on duty free sales. Bearing in mind the meeting which took place in Brussels yesterday, the optimistic statements being made by the person who has no responsibility for the matter, his colleague, the Minister for Public Enterprise, and the fact that the Capet report produced by the French which suggested a five year phasing out of duty free facilities appears to have received some support from a number of countries, what is the Taoiseach's impression as to the prospect of duty free facilities being phased out on a gradual basis as distinct from being eliminated from June of next year?

I have not got direct reports from the meetings of the past two days but some brief reports. Perhaps I will get detailed accounts tomorrow. I discussed this matter on 13 July with Prime Minister Jospin. At that stage, no real effort was being made by anyone other than ourselves to get this debate going. Prime Minister Jospin told me he would act on the basis on the Capet report. I stated in this House on two or three occasions that I supported that initiative.

Since the German elections Chancellor Schröder said he would honour his commitment. I believe I read that statement here two weeks ago in a reply to Deputy Quinn. I raised the issue with the UK at the meeting last week and I am grateful that after putting the case to him Prime Minister Blair has indicated his support. It is the first time the UK has come on board and that is directly related to our efforts. Other countries have also come on board.

I have said before that people need to be mindful that the Commission, whatever its views on the matter, does not see duty free facilities being in place in the long-term and would totally resist it. Its belief is that any border taxes would be an affront to the Single Market. I have never argued against that but advocated giving the sectors in the industry and the duty free area generally an opportunity to adjust. This applies not only to the private sector companies involved in duty free and their staff, about whom I would be more concerned, but also to regional airports which have not got together to deal with this situation. Although they should have done so, the reality is they have not and this is a problem elsewhere as well.

We must endeavour to convince the other countries. I will turn my energy, as I did at the beginning of the year, to the Nordic countries where duty free facilities on ferries rather than in airports are an issue. It is extraordinary that those countries have not come on side. Rather than jumping up and down, we need to redouble our efforts as regards those countries. We have moved from a position of having one country and maybe a second on side to having six or possibly seven. We need to move on the bloc of Nordic countries which would place us in a very strong position. That is where we should apply our energies.

Does the Taoiseach agree that what is required is a commitment from the Commission to undertake a study of the employment consequences of the instant elimination of duty free sales across the EU? Will he indicate — he did not do so in response to a previous question — whether he raised this issue with President Santer or Commissioner Monti? The German Presidency cannot put this issue on the agenda unless there is some degree of support from the Commission. Will the Taoiseach give an undertaking that at the forthcoming heads of government council meeting in Vienna he will actively seek to have the Commission put in place a report on the employment or unemployment consequences of the instant abolition of duty free facilities next June? In the context of the conclusions of such a report, will he seek to get some form of phased derogation along the lines set out in the Capet report?

I am glad people are revisiting the issue. I was told in the House a few months ago that I should forget it so I am glad the situation is changing.

That is only because my colleagues have been elected in other parts of Europe.

They have played some part in that. I was pleased to be part of the campaign to remind them of what they said in Opposition.

If the Taoiseach's friends had been re-elected, we would not be facing this issue.

Was the Taoiseach there?

I raised these issues with President Santer on numerous occasions, particularly at the meeting I had with him when he addressed the Seanad a few weeks ago. The Commission's view is that if member states want to revisit this issue in sufficient numbers, it will be put back on the agenda but unanimity will be the rule. I would not like to see it on the agenda of the first meeting of the German ECOFIN Council as some work needs to be done between now and then.

The Deputy's question on the study is more appropriate to the Minister for Public Enterprise and the Minister for Finance who have been involved. I understand the Commission commissioned a study and brought forward some of its conclusions.

The Taoiseach is wrong.

The row in the Transport Council was about the way the study was formulated and the fact it was not just about the employment issues but about how it would cover the fiscal issues. I will continue to raise it tactically and I will work with those countries which are driving it forward. Whether we do it in Vienna, we will continue to operate with the countries in favour of trying to get this maintained over a period of time as we have in recent months. The best we will achieve is an extension. The idea of overturning it altogether went off the agenda a long time ago.

We are talking about phasing it out over a gradual basis.

That is the better way to go.

A 20 per cent reduction over five years.

Please allow the Taoiseach to reply without interruption.

The report spells it out and that is the proposal people are following. I will work with the other countries in whatever way is best. We will discuss it informally in Austria. We will decide then if we want to try to do something formally.

Is the Taoiseach aware of the serious income situation facing the farming community? Is he further aware that if the Agenda 2000 proposals, to which he referred in his reply, are implemented, virtually no form of agriculture would be profitable, in the sense of a person being able to make a living from the marketplace, without reliance on cheques in the post? What is his perspective on the future for farming in Ireland? What type of future does he see for farmers in light of the Agenda 2000 proposals and the financial framework within which these must be negotiated, which is a limit on overall EU expenditure?

We opposed the Commission's document of 18 March because it would hit this country far worse than anywhere else, particularly in the beef and milk sectors which represent 4 per cent of GDP. The Commission's proposal would be devastating for our resources. If that gained a foothold in the Commission and the European structures, it would create great difficulties.

Our concerns and our position have been outlined at several Agriculture Council meetings and we will continue to outline them. I outlined them with President Santer recently and at all meetings I have had with heads of state during 1998. Detailed discussions will start immediately after Christmas. Discussions are ongoing in the Commission, but we will have a tough battle to try to change this decision.

I know Deputy Quinn will take credit for some of the decisions changed by Chancellor Schröder. However, he has set out a different position on agriculture, which is not good for Irish agriculture. In this case we must work closely with Mr. Jospin and our French colleagues. I have raised these issues with Mr. Robin Cook, the British Foreign Secretary, and others, but we will have great difficulties in this regard. It will take long and tough negotiations to change what is proposed and to get a good deal for this country.

Does the Taoiseach agree that any young person considering farming as an occupation is facing a continuous drip of bad news, which indicates there is no future in this business? Does he agree that this is a genuine crisis not so much for existing members of the community who must live their lives out as farmers, but for young people who want to become involved in farming and that it will continue to be so as long as this industry is constantly under the threat of an ever worsening political situation as a result of the way the EU is doing its business in terms of farming?

I hope that is not the case and that young people continue to become involved in agriculture, although the numbers are declining. We must try to get the best deal we can for them. We must help them in restructuring the agriculture industry. While the farming bodies are trying to deal with a difficult year, they are also putting forward some constructive suggestions on how to restructure agriculture in the future. There is a reduction in the number of full-time farmers and an increase in off-farm incomes. We must try to deal with the changes as best we can.

Deputy John Bruton is correct about Europe. The Common Agriculture discussions at the GATT round are not showing a bright future. However, we must negotiate with the hand we have been dealt and we have made clear our position. There is a unity of purpose between the various farming bodies, the Government, Departments and agencies. They are working together to try to negotiate the best position for agriculture from 2000 to 2006.

I am concerned that the Taoiseach in his initial reply stated that he has not yet received the final agenda, although it is just less than ten days away from the summit in Vienna under the first Austrian Presidency. I presume he has a fair idea of the agenda because these matters do not fall from the sky.

Apropos the Agenda 2000 discussions and the necessity to have these put in place by March of next year, does the Taoiseach recognise that, given the fact that all forms of economic activity within the European Union have opened up to market economic pressures, whether it is industrial or service production or financial services, agriculture has no divine right to be protected from that form of market activity to which the Fine Gael Party in particular is wedded? Will he outline his view to the House on the apparent anomaly where 80 per cent of the benefits of the Common Agricultural Policy price support system go to 20 per cent of farmers?

If we are looking at a transition from a command economy price support system for output to a market driven price support system, we must separate serious problems of rural depopulation and the need for people involved in agri-business to have access to genuine markets. Because of Ireland's unique dependency on agriculture — I am not just talking about farmers in the field but about workers processing the produce of farms, whether in creameries or meat factories — how does the Taoiseach intend to protect the needs of the agri-business sector on the one hand and deal with the problems of rural depopulation on the other?

Those questions are nearly as broad as the last ones, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. While I do not have a formal agenda, the issues I raised will be discussed. Chancellor Klima was with me early on, but he is moving around this week. I assume the issues I mentioned will be discussed along with perhaps some common foreign and security issues. I have continually stated that the resources should be more evenly spread. We will not get the resources if we do not adopt that approach. I would not feel comfortable arguing that we want to save Irish agriculture while resources are given to fund less than one fifth of agriculture. I have made it clear to farm leaders and others that I will not get any support from the Commission, not to mention other countries on that basis.

People would be ill-advised to ignore Commissioner Fischler's statements that he sees an opportunity in the restructuring of agriculture. The one area he favours is the development of properly structured, rural development policies. That is the way to go, considering this in its broadest sense.

The Government and the farming organisations have linked themselves to a number of those proposals. I see merit and a good opportunity for negotiating on that basis. It is a better arrangement. I have already stated that this involves a sizeable part of the economy. The milk and beef sectors comprise 4 per cent of GDP and they are extremely important to farmers and related industries.

The European Commission is trying to give positive advice. There are negative areas, such as own resources, but we should take the opportunity to try to build on these positive areas.

Top
Share