Mary Harney
Ceist:2 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the discussions he had with the Spanish Prime Minister during his meeting with him on Monday, 4 December 1995. [18529/95]
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Madrid European Council Meeting.
Bertie Ahern
Ceist:3 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his meeting with the current EU President, Prime Minister Gonzalez. [18583/95]
Bertie Ahern
Ceist:4 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach if the Heads of the Government at the European Council will be discussing the report of the Reflection Group; and if so, if he will outline his approach to that discussion. [18585/95]
Bertie Ahern
Ceist:5 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach the decisions, if any, he anticipates will be taken at the European Council meeting of 15 and 16 December 1995, relative to transition to the final phase of Economic and Monetary Union. [18588/95]
Bertie Ahern
Ceist:6 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach if he has received a joint letter from Chancellor Kohl and President Chirac in relation to the forthcoming European Council Meeting; and if so, his response to that letter. [18801/95]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 2 to 6, inclusive, together. I met the Prime Minister of Spain and current President of the European Council, Mr. Felipe Gonzalez, in Dublin on 4 December last. The meeting was part of the tour of EU capitals undertaken by the Spanish Prime Minister in preparation for the European Council in Madrid on 15 and 16 December next.
At the meeting Prime Minister Gonzalez briefed me on the agenda for the Madrid European Council and his objectives for the Council. He confirmed that the main agenda items at the Council will be the 1996 Intergovernmental Conference including the report of the Reflection Group, economic and monetary union, employment policy and the future enlargement of the Union.
At the meeting, I set out the Irish priorities for Madrid laying particular emphasis on the issues of employment policy, the fight against drug trafficking, the importance we attach to a successful Intergovernmental Conference and the need for the Council to agree the Reference Scenario for the introduction of economic and monetary union. The groundowrk in regard to the latter has been laid by the ECOFIN Council and I anticipate that the Madrid European Council will adopt the Reference Scenario charting the way to the commencement of the final stage of European Monetary Union with effect from 1 January 1999.
The report of the Reflection Group is being submitted to the European Council and will be considered in the context of the discussions on the 1996 Intergovernmental Conference. I believe that the report of the group represents an important input to the work of the Intergovernmental Conference. It is very satisfactory from Ireland's point of view. While the Reflection Group was not a negotiating forum the group's report clarifies the issues which are likely to arise at the Intergovernmental Conference and sets out a number of options for consideration by the conference itself.
Finally, I have received a copy of the joint letter from Chancellor Kohl and President Chirac to the President of the European Council in relation to the Madrid Council. This letter concentrates mainly on the 1996 Intergovernmental Conference. In a number of respects it echoes the ideas in the Reflection Group report, notably the need to bring the Union closer to its citizens, to prepare the institutions of the Union for the next round of enlargement and to strengthen the internal and external security of the Union. The detailed consideration of how to address these challenges will be for the Intergovernmental Conference itself. The joint letter will be an important input to the discussions on the Intergovernmental Conference at Madrid.
I am delighted the Taoiseach had meetings with these individuals because it presents the only opportunity to ask questions. I again object to the Taoiseach transferring all the questions on Northern Ireland. It is difficult to believe that Deputy John Bruton, the champion of openness and transparency is behaving in this way. In the context of the Madrid Summit will the Taoiseach support the development of closer links between the Western European Union and the EU.
The matter to which the Deputy referred in the latter part of her question will be discussed at the intergovernmental conference which will probably not commence until March. Obviously all such proposals will be considered in the context of that conference. I do not expect we will go into detail in Madrid on matters of the kind referred to by the Deputy.
The fudging is not good enough. Various signals have been given by different members of the Government on this matter and I would like the Taoiseach's view on it. Does he support the development of closer links between the Western European Union and the EU?
I refer the Deputy to the Jean Monnet lecture in UCC in which I set out in some detail Ireland's approach to those matters, which is similar to statements made elsewhere by the Tánaiste.
It is not good enough for the Taoiseach to refer me to a lecture I did not attend. This is the national Parliament and the Taoiseach is accountable to the House. I am entitled to ask a question and get a reasonable answer rather than be referred to some lecture which I did not have an opportunity to read.
I object to the nature of the Deputy's remarks. Not one of the questions put down refers to the Western European Union.
The Deputy is not asking the right question.
The Deputy has sought to introduce a question about the Western European Union.
The Taoiseach is afraid to answer it.
There is no reference to the Western European Union in these questions. I have set out my position in some detail. Ireland's view is that in general we should move forward on a number of tasks that can be conducted short of an article 5 commitment under the Western European Union Treaty. There are a number of other areas of common action Ireland can consider which are not covered by article 5 but where we can join in common actions of a peace-keeping nature in conjunction with other members. Policy-making of the Western European Union in terms of foreign policy is influenced greatly by the policy-making decisions taken in the European Union. There is already a very close working relationship between the two institutions. The Western European Union Treaty will expire within two to three years and obviously the question will then arise of whether a new Western European Union Treaty will be negotiated or whether that should be subsumed into some other instrument. That is a matter upon which there is a wide range of views among member states. The Government's position is well known on that issue in so far as we have made a clear statement that we will not enter into any binding common defence commitments without reference to the people.
The Taoiseach is very uneasy with his reply.
Is the Government at one on that issue?
I thank the Taoiseach for his detailed reply. Can I take it from the reply to Deputy Harney that the Government, at the intergovernmental conference, will oppose a full merger of the EU and the Western European Union? What policy will the Taoiseach put forward at the Madrid summit on enlargement of the EU?
The Government is in favour of enlargement of the European Union but obviously we do not want such enlargement to occur in circumstances which involve the dilution of the acquis communautaire, that is the existing community achievements in the areas of law, the Common Agricultural Policy, Cohesion Funds and matters of that nature.
The Taoiseach did not reply to my first question. Can we take it from his reply to Deputy Harney that at the intergovernmental conference, and at the weekend where, I am sure, the matter will arise, he will oppose a full merger between the EU and the Western European Union?
As I explained to Deputy Harney, I do not expect the question of the Western European Union will arise at the Madrid summit any more than there is a question on today's Order Paper about that matter. In reply to Deputy Harney I provided a good outline of Ireland's approach to this matter and the Deputy should leave it at that.
There are a number of Deputies offering and I want to facilitate them. Let us have regard to the time factor in dealing with questions to the Taoiseach.
The Taoiseach sometimes becomes upset when I misinterpret his statements and lest that should happen in this case I will repeat my question: what approach will the Government adopt at the intergovernmental conference? Will it oppose or agree to a full merger between the EU and the Western European Union?
The Western European Union will cease to exist when the treaty expires.
The Chair has allowed some latitude in this matter. Membership of the Western European Union is a separate and distinct matter which is worthy of a separate question.
If a separate question is put down will the Taoiseach answer it?
We would be ruled out of order.
In regard to Ireland's attitude to enlargement of the EU, is it the case that we are in favour of it as long as it does not adversely affect us?
I have ruled on the matter.
The question refers to enlargement, not the Western European Union.
Will the Taoiseach spell out, as he did at the Jean Monnet lecture, that Ireland will have a specific role in defence terms in providing humanitarian peace-keeping and will not be involved in any military or nuclear alliance? That is a question in which the public will be interested. This is the forum in which to explain the position that will be taken in Madrid. The Taoiseach must put down a marker at Madrid; if the matter is left to the Intergovernmental Conference it will be too late. I hope he takes this opportunity to deal with it.
As I outlined in the relevant speech, to which I referred Deputy Harney, the view of the Irish Government is that we should take part in a Western European Union context. We are already observers at the Western European Union as a result of a decision taken by a Government of which the Deputy's party was a member. I indicated that Ireland could and should take part in humanitarian peace-keeping measures without becoming involved in article 5 commitments, that is military commitments of the kind to which the Deputy referred.
Does the Taoiseach intend holding a bilateral meeting with the British Prime Minister at the EU summit and, in particular, will he raise why Paddy Kelly was not transferred in view of the fact that last week it was confirmed that his cancer has spread? We drew attention to his condition in a report presented two months ago. Will the Taoiseach ensure that the British authorities apply a standard of European human rights to this case which is a public disgrace?
The Deputy is raising a very specific matter worthy of a separate question.
A Cheann Comhairle——
The Deputy should raise that matter at another time.
This is a matter of grave urgency. The person concerned has a life threatening illness which requires urgent medical treatment, but nothing is being done about it. Every week we are told something will be done the following week.
I am anxious to facilitate the Deputy. He should raise the matter with my office. It is not in order now.
It is a very urgent matter.
I appreciate that. I want to help the Deputy in the matter, but we must deal with it in a proper manner.
I am sure the Taoiseach will take account of the matter raised by Deputy Ó Cuív during his meeting with the British Prime Minister on Friday. Will the Taoiseach agree with the view of the Institute of European Affairs that majority voting on foreign policy is problematic, given that the Commission does not have a function in foreign policy in respect of the sole right of initiative? What is his position on this matter, which may be raised on Saturday?
I agree with the view expressed by the Institute of European Affairs on that matter for the reasons outlined by the Deputy. There are definitional problems as to what constitutes foreign policy. In the area of economic relations the Commission has a competence, but regarding foreign policy in the pure sense of the term, I agree with what the Deputy said.
Does the Taoiseach intend to raise the issue of Irish Steel with the British Prime Minister?
That question was transferred.
It is a good question.
I indicated to the House that I am in daily contact with the Office of the Prime Minister on this matter. Regarding prisoners' issues, I advise Deputy Ó Cuív I avail of every discussion opportunity with the British Prime Minister to raise my concerns about the position of Irish prisoners.
Does the Taoiseach intend to raise the issue of the disastrous price of sheep, the subject of a Dáil and Seanad debate, with the British Prime Minister?
The question I tabled on Irish Steel was transferred. The Taoiseach has not been showing much steel lately regarding the Estimates. Does he accept that an agreement will be made on the parameters for enlargement of the European Union in Madrid this weekend? Does he accept that post-enlargement Ireland will lose its Objective I status?
The answer to the first part of the Deputy's question is no and, therefore, an answer to the second part of her question is not required.
Does the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry agree with the Taoiseach on that?
Deputy Harney is out of favour, she is not asking the right questions.