Bertie Ahern
Ceist:7 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach if he plans a tour of capitals prior to Ireland's EU Presidency in the first half of 1996. [18589/95]
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Tour of Capitals.
It is normal practice for Heads of State or Government to hold a tour of capitals in the run up to the European Council meeting held towards the end of each Presidency and I would intend to follow that practice. It is not normal for a Head of State or Government to hold such a tour of capitals prior to its Presidency. I will of course seek to hold bilateral meetings with as many EU Heads of State as possible prior to the commencement of our Presidency. The work programme of the Irish Presidency will be an item for discussion at these meetings.
It appears that the Reflection Group has not managed to reflect positively on anything other than the fact that there is disagreement on most issues and it cannot put forward constructive proposals that will have an effect on Ireland's Presidency. As we are approaching the run up to the commencement of Ireland's Presidency, will the Taoiseach indicate the themes that should be brought forward during our Presidency? As he is aware from previous experience the issues that need to be highlighted should be put on the table, but the Reflection Group has done nothing to assist him in that regard.
I do not accept the implication of the Deputy's question. He seems to suggest that the Reflection Group did not do valuable work.
Correct.
The Reflection Group did exactly what it was asked to do. It was asked to outline the problems that exist and need to be solved at an Intergovernmental Conference. It did that. It was not intended to be a negotiating group. If it attempted to be such, it would have operated outside its brief. The Deputy's criticisms of the Reflection Group are not justified in that context.
The Deputy asked what would be the priorities of the Irish Presidency. Admittedly it is somewhat early days to answer that in a definitive sense, but I will outline my view of the Irish Presidency priorities in general terms. The European Union has become distanced from its citizens. That is reflected most clearly in the difficulty experienced in a number of member states in securing ratification of the Maastricht Treaty. Failure in one case to ratify it and a close result in another are not related to the content of the Maastricht Treaty, but to a sense that Europe is being taken for granted. It has major achievements to its name, but they are being taken for granted by people at this stage. People would only engage with them again if those achievements were at risk. I refer particularly to the Common Market, the absence of conflict within Western Europe and the tremendous social advances in many countries, including equality, which have been achieved as a result of EU law and the respect for human rights all over Western Europe. However, that has not tended to engage the enthusiastic support of Europe's citizens. To address that subject Europe needs to become an institution that is not simply market driven, but one that is also value driven. We need to have truly European values reflected in all the actions of the Community. The Union will not win full potential support among its citizens if it presents itself as an institution for making micro-economic decisions in regard to a variety of matters, regardless of how important they may be to the people involved. There is a need for Europe as an institution to engage public support for the political, democratic and social values it seeks to realise as an institution. It is important that the emphasis should be on the wider picture of the role of Europe as an institution expressing certain social and human values rather than simply on its economic efficiency which is undoubted.
During the Irish Presidency we will wish to give expression to that in the way we run our business. We will wish to deal expeditiously, effectively and in a fair manner with the Intergovernmental Conference which will represent a large part of our work. We will also be dealing with the question of moving towards economic and monetary union. In the second half of next year we will deal with issues regarding relationships with Eastern Europe, particularly with Russia in the aftermath of the Russian presidential election. That will be a major focus of the Irish Presidency.
It is important that the European Union should be seen to be an institution that can act on issues such as crime and drugs which, unfortunately, touch virtually every family in the European Union in one way or another. That relates back to the earlier point I made about the need for Europe to be close to its citizens. I accept these are areas where member states have jealously guarded their individual international prerogatives. That is the case in regard to the difficulties in securing ratification of the EUROPOL Convention, a simple one, which has been held up by one member state which does not accept the role of the European Court of Justice on that matter. If Europe is to be close to its citizens and to express those democratic and human values inherent to the European construction, it must be capable of taking action in areas such as crime and drugs, which have a strong transboundary dimension but which also directly affect citizens in their daily lives.
Broadly speaking, those are the priorities I see for the Irish Presidency in the second half of the year and I hope we will be able to fulfil them. Obviously, as time goes by we will be seeking to refine them in greater detail and work out the exact instruments needed to give effect to them. We will be acting as one member state in conjunction with all the others and we will not be able to do everything we would wish. This is a co-operative exercise.
I thank the Taoiseach for his lengthy reply. I asked about the priorities of the Government and it is clear from the Taoiseach's reply, probably because the Reflection Group is not moving in a positive direction and the fact that all his colleagues in Europe are saying nothing will happen on that issue other than moving it on during the Irish Presidency, that is the reason he played down the intergovernmental conference in his lengthy reply. Clearly, the vision being spelled out by the Taoiseach is in direct conflict with the Economic and Monetary Institute. What it is trying to achieve, following the Maastricht guideline of economic and monetary union, is a narrow definition of how Europe should move forward from an economic point of view and the single currency. It does not relate to any great degree to issues affecting people and the EMI acknowledge that. Do I take it from the Taoiseach's reply that he does not believe that the statements from the EMI on European Monetary Union or the principles of the intergovernmental conference, as already set out, are priorities for the Irish Presidency?
I do not agree with the underlying assumptions in the Deputy's questions, for the following reasons. First, I am not playing down the intergovernmental conference. However, if most members of the public were asked about the intergovernmental conference they would not have any possibility of answering because they would not know. If we are to get European citizens to support the European project we must present what Europe is doing in the sense of values and political objectives rather than bureaucratic instruments. I regard the Intergovernmental Conference as merely a means to an end and it is important that the citizen should understand what the end is. The end is a truly democratic Europe where people feel part of decision-making. It is very important that we present in our Presidency — which will give us an opportunity to present the European idea to a wider public than is possible for us in the normal course — the end we want to achieve rather than talking constantly in terms of Intergovernmental Conferences, QMVs, CEECs and so on. That is a very important consideration that should inform the way we debate Europe. Let us concentrate on what we are trying to achieve and what we are trying to do for our citizens rather than be constantly drawn back into this discussion about instruments, bureaucratic procedures and so on which, though important, are subsidiary.
To come to the second part of the Deputy's question, I do not agree with him when he seems to imply that there is a conflict — he even used the words `a direct conflict"— between the single currency and the wider social and human objectives in Europe. My view is that stable currencies lead to low interest rates and stable currencies and low interest rates lead to more investment. More investment leads to more jobs and more jobs lead to a better social position for everybody. The creation of a single currency for Europe is a social project which, if achieved, will improve the well-being of European citizens. It will make travel and transactions within the European Union much easier but it will also contribute to making Europe a zone of monetary stability which, in turn, will make it a zone of low interest rates, high investment, high employment and good social outcomes. I do not believe we should present the European single currency as some sort of banker's charter or something designed for the benefit of the financial sector or the financial world. It is not. The European single currency is being advanced for the social purposes it can achieve. Part of the problem in debate about Europe and part of the reasons for alienation of people vis-à-vis it is that Europe's activities are not presented in terms of the beneficient social outcomes they create. In my outline of the Irish Presidency's priorities at this early stage I hope I have done something to redress that imbalance.
I remind the House about the time factor in dealing with questions to the Taoiseach on Tuesdays. We are clearly well over time. I must, of necessity, bring matters to finality. I observe three Deputies offering. I will hear them and then proceed to deal with questions nominated for priority.
Thank you for the additional time. If the Taoiseach gets an opportunity at one of the sessions over the weekend, I am sure his colleagues would be interested to hear what he just stated. I think they believe the Irish Presidency will actually fulfil what the other 14 countries would like to do. Obviously, it is not the Taoiseach's priority. The purpose of the intergovernmental conference is to look at the structures and how the ordinary people in Europe will be cared for over the next ten years and the procedures that will be followed. I hold the view that the people in Europe understand that quite well. Because of a number of amendments to the Single European Act and the Maastricht Treaty the people had an opportunity to reflect on it. They are also clear on the issue of enlargement. Whether there will be 15, 20, 25 or 30 countries is an issue that will have to be resolved either during the Irish Presidency or directly afterwards. Everybody understands the funding issue for the future under the Regional and Social Funds.
I appeal for brevity.
While all the issues raised are of interest and will, no doubt, get a great audience at the meetings, will the Taoiseach also take account of the intergovernmental conference?
I am sorry if I have not communicated what I am saying to the Deputy. Of course the Intergovernmental Conference is important but it is a means to an end. The end which it is seeking is a Europe which will engage the full hearted support of its citizens. I believe, as I have said already, that the Intergovernmental Conference must be informed by certain values. It must not simply be an exercise of negotiation of interest only to insiders who know all about the various treaty provisions and the various ruses and advances that can be made by one country at the expense of another. If we approach the Intergovernmental Conference on that basis, we will have more problems with the next ratification process than we had with Maastricht. For the construction of Europe there has to be that wider vision of what Europe is seeking to achieve. That is a view I advocated strongly at the Majorca informal summit with my colleagues. It is a view which, I believe, is widely shared by my colleagues and it is a view which must inform the work of the Intergovernmental Conference. It does not mean that the detailed work does not need to be done but it should be informed by a wider social view of what Europe is supposed to achieve. I expect that that would be a view that would command widespread support in this House.
In relation to values of a European kind, is the Taoiseach aware of the debate on proposals which are now being discussed and floated in relation to a closer relationship between the EU member states and the European Convention on Human Rights and the court in Strasbourg and whether the Convention on Human Rights is to be incorporated into domestic laws of member states? Will he indicate if that is a priority for the Irish Presidency — making progress on more closely binding the EU member states to the European Convention on Human Rights?
That is an issue which, I am sure the Deputy is well aware, was raised in the context of the negotiations on the Maastricht Treaty, it is an area I support. It is important, for the reasons I have already given, that Europe should be seen to be more than simply an economic zone, that it has a wider role in regard to the promotion of democratic values and human rights. I compliment the work of the Council of Europe in this area since its foundation in 1949. It is easy to take the work of the Council of Europe for granted because it is part of the furniture of Europe but a part that we could ill do without.
Will the Taoiseach ensure that the Irish Presidency will maintain a focus on Northern Ireland? This could be done within the context of conflict resolution from an international or even a global dimension considering the role of Europe in Bosnia or South Africa. Given that we are commemorating the 150th anniversary of the Famine, will the Taoiseach ensure there is a focus on the developing world?
The answer to both questions is "yes". I agree we should do everything possible to continue the constructive role the European Union has played in promoting the peace process. It is very important to show not only in financial terms but more importantly in political terms that there is support in the wider European Union for the work being done by many people in regard to the peace process in Northern Ireland.
I also agree with the points made by the Deputy about overseas development aid. This is an area where the European Union can do more than it has done in the past. Strictly speaking, this is not a matter which will come up for discussion at the Intergovernmental Conference. However, it will be dealt with in the financial perspectives, the next task to be undertaken by the European Union after the completion of the Intergovernmental Conference. Obviously the Government will continue its policy of supporting improved European contributions in the overseas development area, with particular emphasis on Africa.
That disposes of questions to the Taoiseach.