Gay Mitchell
Question:10 Mr. G. Mitchell asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the date of the latest discussions he has had with the President of the EU Commission; and the nature of these discussions. [4547/99]
Priority Questions. - European Commission.
The British Foreign Secretary and I met with the President of the Commission on 25 January on the occasion of the General Affairs Council. The President of the Commission was accompanied by Commissioner Wulf-Mathies, the Commissioner responsible for regional policy.
Mr. Cook and I had sought the meeting to underline the importance of continued EU support for the peace process and to set out some ideas in that regard. As the Deputy will be aware, the Cardiff European Council in June 1998 warmly welcomed the Good Friday Agreement, noted the Commission's commitment to go on finding new, creative ways to support the peace process and invited the Commission to make proposals accordingly. Those conclusions were reaffirmed by the Vienna European Council in December.
We took the occasion to express our appreciation to President Santer for the Commission's consistent support for the peace process in the past. The importance of maintaining an adequate level of structural funding in Northern Ireland was emphasised. I underlined, in particular, the importance of building on the current cross-community and cross-Border initiatives such as INTERREG, the Peace and Reconciliation Programme and the International Fund for Ireland.
The Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister subsequently wrote to President Santer developing our joint thinking in the matter. Moreover, Mr. Trimble and Mr. Mallon have also reiterated to President Santer the importance of continued EU support and have set out their shared thinking in that regard.
The support of the European Commission, the European Parliament and all our EU partners for the peace process has been very significant and deeply appreciated. The Commission is currently reflecting on the points which have been made. I have no doubt that the situation in Northern Ireland will be recognised by specific and generous treatment in the context of Agenda 2000 and beyond.
Given the day that is in it and the decision announced by the Commission, why did the Minister not seek to raise the question of duty free sales with the President of the Commission? Given the Government's stated position that this is a priority for it and the impression given by the Minister for Public Enterprise – one would think they were storming heaven in this regard – why did the Minister not raise the duty free campaign?
Did the Minister raise with the President, or did the President raise with him, the matter of accountability of European Commissioners, given what happened in the European Parliament and the views expressed by the Parliament on the need for Commissioners to be more accountable? Specifically, did the position of Commissioner Flynn and the domestic controversy surrounding him come up in discussion? If so, in what context did it arise?
I did not raise the issue of duty free on the occasion I met with President Santer and Commissioner Wulf-Mathies, who is the Commissioner responsible for regional policy. My mind was set on one message, which related to the peace process in Northern Ireland. I did not think it was appropriate to raise the matter of duty free at that time.
I feel very strongly about the duty free issue because it is a nonsense to abolish it. I have expressed that personal position in the past. Wiping out thousands of jobs at the stroke of a pen flies in the face of what we are preaching about the number of people unemployed in the EU. However, that is just my personal point of view. In reply to the Deputy's question, I did not raise the matter of duty free because I left that matter entirely for the Minister, Deputy O'Rourke, to deal with in her very capable manner.
In regard to the accountability of the EU Commission, given that we were looking for something for the North of Ireland, it would have been impractical to raise with the President of the Commission and his colleague, Commissioner Wulf-Mathies, their appearance before the European Parliament. That would have been inappropriate on the basis that Mr. Cook and I sought the meeting to discuss the peace process.
The matter of Commissioner Flynn was dealt with by the House last week. To answer Deputy Mitchell frankly, I did not mention him one way or the other.
What was the genesis of the joint approach made by the Minister and the British Foreign Secretary? Did this cover British-Irish affairs or simply North-South affairs? Did the question of the new invented regions which the Irish Government is putting up for consideration come up for discussion?
I reject the Deputy's suggestion that the regions are invented. They are nothing of the kind. There is a legitimate application before EUROSTAT in relation to these regions, one of which is for Objective One in transition and the other is Objective One. This application should be supported. It is an utterly legitimate request and nobody has said otherwise, other than the observations made by Deputies Mitchell and De Rossa.
Mr. Cook and I sought the meeting to underline the importance of continued EU support for the peace process and to set out some ideas in that regard. We met with President Jacques Santer, who has been hugely helpful to the North and South of Ireland since he became President and is very positive in response to requests made to him on any matter. He has been particularly helpful to the peace process, in terms of the funding of INTERREG, the Peace and Reconciliation Programme and the International Fund for Ireland. I did not mention these matters at that meeting. However, I wish to put on the record our continued appreciation of his interest in that and other matters.
Did the Minister raise Ireland's intention to participate in the Partnership for Peace? Did he explain why his party has done a U-turn on Partnership for Peace?
What was he doing with a NATO member anyway?
No, I did not raise Partnership for Peace at that meeting.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.