Mary Harney
Ceist:1 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with the President of the EU Commission in Madrid; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16670/95]
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Taoiseach's Meetings.
Mary Harney
Ceist:2 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the discussions he had with the Prime Minister of Luxembourg during their journey to Israel. [16671/95]
Mary Harney
Ceist:3 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting in Israel with the President of France; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16672/95]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, together.
I had a meeting with the President of the European Commission, Mr. Jacques Santer, in Madrid on Sunday 5 November. We had a wide-ranging discussion on key items on the agenda of the European Union in the perspective of the December Madrid European Council, the forthcoming Irish Presidency of the union and the longer term. The specific items which we discussed included the 1996 inter-governmental conference economic and monetary union, employment and future enlargement of the Union. The discussion was extremely useful and enabled me to ascertain Mr. Santer's current thinking on a range of important issues.
I also had a substantive discussion with Mr. Jean-Claude Juncker, Prime Minister of Luxembourg during our flight from Madrid to Tel Aviv for the funeral of Prime Minister Rabin. I was particularly glad of the opportunity to have such a discussion at this time with a Prime Minister of a fellow small member state. My discussion with the Prime Minister ranged over bilateral matters and some of the issues which I have already referred to in my meeting with Mr. Santer. In addition we discussed the situation in Central and Eastern Europe and relations between the European Union and Turkey.
I had a very brief conversation on the issue of economic and monetary union with President Chirac at the funeral of Prime Minister Rabin. The President confirmed his determination to ensure that France will qualify for participation in European Monetary Union in 1999.
Does the Taoiseach agree with the German Finance Minister, Mr. Waigel's comments that there will be tighter controls on economic and monetary union after it comes into being, than those proposed at Maastricht?
The matters to which I have referred concern a meeting with the President of the Commission, the President of France and the Prime Minister of Luxembourg. I have had no discussions lately with the German Finance Minister, Mr. Waigel or with Chancellor Kohl so I would require notice of any questions that address the question of policy of the Federal Republic of Germany.
I am not raising the policy of the Federal Republic of Germany but what I am anxious to discuss with the Taoiseach is economic and monetary union in so far as it affects Ireland. In his reply the Taoiseach said he discussed economic and monetary union with the President of the Commission and with President Chirac. In that context would the Taoiseach agree that controls tighter than the controls laid down at Maastricht would not be achievable by the Irish economy? Is he concerned that this it the intention of the German authorities in relation to the European Monetary Union?
I am satisfied with the criteria for economic and monetary union laid down in the Maastricht Treaty. I do not believe there is any need to add to those criteria and that they should be applied in full. The more detailed reference scenario for the application of the treaty provisions will be agreed at the Madrid Summit but I am satisfied that the decision thereon will be a reasonable one and I am satisfied with that. I am not willing to become involved in speculation about views that may have been expressed by individual members of other governments of member states. I have stated the Irish Government's position, which I think is reasonable and I will confine myself to that.
Did the Taoiseach make it clear in his discussions with President Santer that Ireland would not be joining the Western European Union and we do not favour any merger between the Western European Union and the European Union in the context of the Intergovernmental Conference and Central and Eastern Europe.
I outlined the position in regard to Ireland's traditional policy of neutrality and I also explained to Mr. Santer that any change in that position that might be necessitated by any decisions taken at the intergovernmental conference could not take effect without the approval of the people if they involved a change in that traditional policy.
While stating the traditional regard the Irish people have for military neutrality did the Taoiseach emphasise that it was the strong wish of the people that the position would not change and that he could not envisage an outcome from the intergovernmental conference which would necessitate a referendum?
Obviously any decision of the intergovernmental conference has to be taken unanimously at the intergovernmental conference so that anything that we as a Government deem to be unacceptable would not go ahead as far as it affects this country and possibly generally as the changes have to be agreed unanimously.
I outlined to the President the strong views on neutrality of the Irish people and Governement policy which is that any change in that position would require to be approved by the people before it would be made. I was also willing to listen to his point of view. We have stated our position quite clearly but I do not think we should be unwilling to listen to what others have to say.
During his discussion with President Chirac did the Taoiseach raise the question of nuclear testing in the South Pacific?
My meeting with President Chirac took approximately three minutes and it was at the funeral of the late Prime Minister of Israel, Mr. Rabin, and, obviously, I was not able in that time to cover all issues of concern to Irish-French relations.
My own position and that of the Government on nuclear testing by France has been made very clear. My conversation with President Chirac, which was extremely brief, was confined to the subject to which I referred in my reply, namely, economic and monetary union.
In his previous response to the question on neutrality, the Taoiseach outlined to President Santer that it was Government policy that if there were to be a change the matter would be put to the Irish people. That is right and proper. Did the Taoiseach emphasise to President Santer that we as a nation do not envisage putting our troops into an extended Western European Union as the leader of Fianna Fáil and I explained when we met him?
I am not aware of any proposal at this juncture that would involve any such eventuality and I do not see it as my function to become involved in speculative discussions about things that have not yet been proposed. That is not necessarily the best way to proceed in the national interest. What I did, and this was proper, was to outline the strong attachment that the Irish people have to neutrality. I explained also the historical reasons for that to both the President of the Commission and the Prime Minister of Luxembourg. It was not wise of me to anticipate proposals that might never be made, but to the extent that they might be made I outlined the viewpoint of the people on the matter and stated that any decision to change that policy would have to be made with their consent.
On the occasion of these meetings did the Taoiseach raise the issue of Irish Steel? Luxembourg dropped its opposition to the proposal, but did the Taoiseach take the opportunity to speak to the British Prime Minister, and is he in contact with him on the matter?
That seems to be a separate matter.
The position in regard to this matter is well known. I raised the issue of Irish Steel with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in Majorca. I also raised it with Prime Minister Juncker during our lengthy discussion. I am glad that whereas Luxembourg previously joined Britain in opposing the proposals for Irish Steel, it has now withdrawn its opposition, and that is very welcome. Obviously, a problem remains in regard to the position of Britain, but questions tabled to me today do not relate to bilateral discussions with Britain; they relate to the Commission and Luxembourg. I assure the House I will continue, as will the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Enterprise and Employment, to do everything possible to get the necessary unanimous agreement at Council for the Irish Steel proposal. At this point the only country whose consent is required is the United Kingdom.
With your indulgence, a Cheann Comhairle, I wish to be somewhat parochial. Did the Taoiseach take the opportunity to make representations to President Santer on the siting of the EU veterinary office in my constituency, which is also the constituency of the Taoiseach?
——and if not, why?
I agree the question is becoming parochial.
The Deputy could have added a preliminary statement on why the area was proposed in the first place, but we will not go into that now. I did not raise that matter at the meeting in Madrid because I had done so at the meeting in Majorca and I was satisfied with the assurances I obtained on that occasion. I also raised the matter subsequently in meetings with the Secretary General to the Commission, David Williamson, and I was also satisfied with the assurances given on that occasion.