Alan M. Dukes
Ceist:5 Mr. Dukes asked the Taoiseach if he proposes to make a statement in Dáil Éireann on the outcome of the European Council meetings on 25 and 26 June 1990.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - European Council Meetings.
Proinsias De Rossa
Ceist:6 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the outcome of the recent Summit of EC Heads of Government in Dublin Castle.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 5 and 6 together.
I intend to make a statement in the House in the normal way about the European Council meeting of 25-26 June. The Presidency Conclusions of the Council have been laid before the Dáil and Seanad.
Would the Taoiseach indicate when he intends to make the statement he has referred to in the House? Does he intend to make it this week, next week or at what point in time?
The matter is being considered but it will probably be next week.
In view of the fact that it appears the Government will have to present a paper on their position on political union and related issues do the Government propose to publish a position paper which can be debated in this House, or perhaps the Taoiseach will consider establishing anad hoc Dáil committee of some kind to address the issues involved, and then present a report to the House on the issues?
I do not know on what grounds the Deputy made the first part of his statement, namely, that it now appears the Government will have to submit a paper. I do not know of any such obligation. The inter-governmental conference will take place on 14 December.We will have plenty of time between now and then to discuss the issue in this House.
I did not wish to imply that there was such an obligation as obviously there is not. The Government if they so wish, do not have to present a position paper to the inter-governmental conference, but one would assume that they will do so and it is in that sense that I indicated they would be required to do so. Would the Taoiseach address my suggestion that a Dáil committee be established to look at the various aspects of political union, monetary union and related issues?
I am not sure if that would be helpful. There are different views about the whole concept of political union which I do not think would make the establishment of such a committee very fruitful.
(Limerick East): I wish to ask two supplementary questions. First, will the Taoiseach consider the request made by the Leader of Fine Gael this morning to have a debate on the Summit by way of motion rather than statement? Would the Taoiseach give that request some consideration as many important decisions have been made and will be made, during the next six months? There are many Deputies in the House who would like to have an opportunity to debate the issues involved. I understand that Ireland is now committed to some form of political union. As even a minimalist form of union would involve a willingness of the partners to defend the intrigity of the union, will the Taoiseach explain in his statement next week how our commitment to political union equates with the statement made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs on television last night that this has absolutely no implication whatsoever for Irish neutrality? Will the Taoiseach undertake to deal with this matter in his statement?
The Deputy had better wait and see the statement.
The Deputy is raising a very specific matter, worthy of a separate question.
(Limerick East): It is a key issue which arises immediately. If we cannot tease out the implications by way of motion in the House, we must rely on the statement of the Taoiseach. I am asking him in advance to deal with this specific point.
I will take note of the request.
Given the momentum which surrounds the discussion on European political and monetary union, would the Taoiseach consider it desirable that there should be a common Irish position on these questions, shared by the membership of this House? If he accepts that, would he consider allowing the Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the EC to look at the question of the changes which are necessary in Irish law in relation to European political union? Given his reluctance to set up a foreign affairs committee which would have been able to deal with these matters, would the Taoiseach consider allowing the committee to look at the question and try to establish a common position in this House in view of the huge changes that will be taking place on the European front?
I would have no objection to that committee looking at all aspects of the matter, through whatever procedure they would wish.
In advance of the Government position?
Concurrently perhaps.
Would the Taoiseach agree that the declaration made yesterday at the end of the Summit was a load of waffle in that it did not mention anything about the banning of CFCs, the importation of tropical hardwoods or the renewable energy debate?
I do not know if the Deputy has read the declaration, which fully covers all these matters. The declaration has been welcomed by environmentalists everywhere as a major declaration and a commitment by the Community to an enlightened policy on the environment. The conclusions only refer to the declaration, but the full text of what the Community decided is in the environment declaration. If the Deputy has not got it, I will be very happy to provide him with a copy.
I have it.
I do not understand the Deputy's statement. The tropical forests, hard timber and CFCs are all dealt with in that declaration.
In response to Deputy Spring the Taoiseach indicated that he would have no objections to the Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the EC addressing the questions of political and monetary union. Would the Taoiseach therefore agree to whatever changes are necessary in the terms of reference of that committee to carry out that function? The terms are quite narrow and the Dáil has only once debated a report from that committee. The terms of reference should be adequate to deal with the issues concerned and we should be given an undertaking that the report will be debated here prior to the inter-governmental conference.
I do not intend to go into any of these areas. There will be plenty of time between now and 14 December for the Dáil to deal with these matters in whatever way we think most appropriate. I have no wish to inhibit discussion on the questions of political union or economic and monetary union.
The Taoiseach is aware that an assizes is being organised in Rome which will have representation from the parliaments of the twelve member states and the European Parliament.Would the Taoiseach ensure that the interparliamentary committee here has sufficient resources to enable them to send representatives from this Parliament? I understand their budget has been fully spent.
Sin ceist eile.
(Limerick East): The Taoiseach saw his role as that of chairman trying to seek a consensus and he did that very well. This had the unfortunate result of fudging the Irish policy position. When will the Taoiseach be in a position to spell out clearly and in detail the Irish position on economic and monetary union and on political union? It is not clear, which is perhaps understandable in that the Taoiseach was seeking a consensus. When can the Taoiseach give the detail necessary for debate?
We will have plenty of time to deal with the matter in the next session before the IGC in December. Our position on economic and monetary union has been explained. We fully support the Delors report and the process leading to economic and monetary union. Regarding political union, that is a matter we can return to between now and 14 December in whatever way we think most appropriate. There is still some preparatory work for the IGC which will almost certainly settle its own agenda. We will have to keep in touch with developments as they arise.
(Limerick East): Would the Taoiseach agree that the marks of political union would include a common head of State, a common security policy, a common constitution and a common foreign policy? Even on these issues of principle, is there an Irish position or is everything as yet open?
I do not think there has to be an Irish position on those matters because I do not think any of them will arise.
(Limerick East): It will be a very peculiar political union if there is not a common security policy, a common foreign policy and a basic constitution to underpin the rights of all citizens. It is a very peculiar idea of unity.
I think the Deputy is running ahead of the rest of Europe.
(Limerick East): The Taoiseach is running behind. It is like Alice in Wonderland.
The Deputy is indulging in a little fantasy at the moment.
(Limerick East): I am surely entitled to a day's fantasy after the Taoiseach's six months' fantasy.
Alan M. Dukes
Ceist:7 Mr. Dukes asked the Taoiseach if, in the margin of the European Council meetings on 25 and 26 June 1990, he discussed Anglo-Irish affairs with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
I had a full meeting with the British Prime Minister during the course of my recent tour of EC Capitals in preparation for the European Council, and we were in contact regularly during the Council. In these circumstances, a special meeting as suggested by the Deputy was not considered necessary.