John Bruton
Ceist:4 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the plans, if any, he has to prepare for the special EU Summit on employment in November, 1997. [14663/97]
Ceisteanna — Questions. - EU Summit and Foreign Visits.
John Bruton
Ceist:5 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the plans, if any, he has to travel overseas, in his official capacity, between 30 September and the end of December 1997. [14664/97]
John Bruton
Ceist:6 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with Prime Minister Juncker of Luxembourg; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14666/97]
Dick Spring
Ceist:7 Mr. Spring asked the Taoiseach the preparations, if any, being made by the Government in advance of the special European Summit on Employment. [14856/97]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 4 to 7, inclusive, together.
I met Prime Minister Juncker in Luxembourg on Friday 29 August. The meeting was a very useful one in that it enabled me to have a full exchange of views on the current European agenda with the President in Office of the European Council. During the meeting we discussed the Special European Council on Employment, the European Commission's Agenda 2000 proposals and the commitment of the member states of the Union to completing economic and monetary union on time.
The Special European Council on Employment will be held on 20 and 21 November. Prime Minister Juncker wrote to all Heads of State in July seeking their personal commitment to the success of the Summit and seeking examples of the best practices in member states for the creation of employment. I replied to that letter on 1 August 1997 and at our meeting I assured the Prime Minister that Ireland will play a full role in ensuring the Special European Council is a success. To prepare Ireland's input to the Council, an interdepartmental committee under the chairmanship of an official of my Department has been established.
At my meeting with Prime Minister Juncker I stressed the importance of identifying a number of concrete measures which could be recommended to member states for use in the fight against unemployment.
Regarding my travel plans for the period to the end of this year, I will travel to Strasbourg on 9 October for the second Summit of the Council of Europe where I will address the Council the following day.
I will attend the Special European Council meeting on Employment in Luxembourg and on the 12 and 13 December I will attend the European Council meeting, also in Luxembourg.
Did the Taoiseach fail to raise the Government's concerns about the proposed abolition of duty free and the effect that would have on employment here with Prime Minister Juncker? Does his failure to raise that cast some doubt on his ministerial colleague's public demonstrations on that matter in Brussels?
I raised the matter and discussed it with Prime Minister Juncker before and during that meeting. The position on the issue, as outlined to me by Prime Minister Juncker, is that the decision must be reversed at Commission level. There is strong support for an extension or a change in the position from the transport Ministers but the ECOFIN Ministers have not had the same enthusiasm over the past years. I urged Prime Minister Juncker, in his position as Chairman of the Council, to attempt to move the issue forward. The technical position, of which Deputy Bruton would be well aware, is that we would as a country attempt to receive support for this measure from the Commission. That matter is being pursued and Deputy Bruton would also be aware that a KPMG study is ongoing into aspects of this issue. I met officials in various Departments and across State agencies on this issue in July. I intend to raise the issue further in the context of unemployment as there is a reasonable case to be made. I am aware of the fiscal and tax harmonisation arguments against it but a reasonable case has been put forward by a number of countries on the benefits of duty free continuing into the 21st century. In spite of the arguments made against it, the issue is worth pursuing.
Given that the Taoiseach did not mention the duty free issue in his account of his meeting with Prime Minister Juncker, will he now indicate exactly what was the outcome of the discussions held with Prime Minister Juncker on the abolition of duty free? What commitments, if any, did he obtain from Prime Minister Juncker on the matter?
I did not seek commitments; I sought to explain the case in terms of a conference on unemployment. I have known Prime Minister Juncker for a long time and have served with him as a Labour and Finance Minister in my respective briefs over the past ten years. I discussed a number of issues at the meeting and I believe Prime Minister Juncker has some support for the duty free issue. However, the existing decision is a difficult one for ECOFIN Ministers to move away from.
A considerable lobby is being advanced by the transport Ministers and by a number of member states to the Commission. I intend to avail of any opportunities I have to advance those arguments.
Is it not the case that Prime Minister Juncker is also Chairman of ECOFIN as well as of the Council of Prime Ministers? Since the Taoiseach met the Chairman of ECOFIN and failed to get any commitments from him on duty free, would it not be fair to say that very little progress was made at that meeting given that he is the man who has the opportunity to put this issue on the agenda of ECOFIN?
Deputy Bruton has the capacity to turn every positive into a negative. At my meeting with Prime Minister Juncker I endeavoured to assist him in his efforts to have a successful employment conference. As well as outlining all of the considerations in relation to the various employment schemes I believed he should consider, I also took the opportunity to suggest that we should look at the duty free issue. Deputy Bruton is upset that his original tack that I failed to raise this issue has now been proved false.
I am not upset; I am merely asking a question.
I answered the question twice but Deputy Bruton insists on asking it a third time.
The Taoiseach is getting very tetchy, it is not like him.
The Taoiseach without interruption please.
Was the Taoiseach present at ECOFIN when this issue was raised?
The duty free issue was one of a number of issues in 1992 which was part of a very successful harmonisation package. Like many other things, it is open to member states to attempt to pursue derogation or change as time passes. That something was agreed many years ago does not mean one is committed to it forever. That is not the negotiating position I would adopt on these matters. I assure Deputy Bruton that it was in the context of seeing if we could win support for this. That support will not be won at ECOFIN alone because this matter is not within its remit. This is a function of the Commission and it must be changed by the Commission. I do not believe ECOFIN Ministers will be anxious to reverse this decision unless sufficient pressure is put on them. That is what I intend to pursue at the meeting in Luxembourg in November.
Will the Taoiseach agree that if he had opposed the decision to abolish duty free facilities in 1992 we would be in a much stronger position now? Will he inform the House that he will give full support to the Minister for Public Enterprise who is mounting a campaign at European level on this issue? On the other issues contained in the questions, will the Taoiseach agree to establish a committee of the House on employment prior to the European summit on employment and will he involve the social partners in that? Will he consider holding a domestic summit on employment in advance of the European summit?
A number of the committees of the House successfully dealt with the issue of unemployment. I do not know whether any proposals came from those. The configuration of the committees for the life of this Dáil is subject to debate. I have an open mind in regard to certain changes and the replacing of some committees with others. A number of suggestions have been put to me by former committee chairpersons which are currently being examined by the Whips.
In regard to the 1992 position, that was part of the overall tax harmonisation. We had a good opportunity last year, when we held the EU Presidency, to get some derogation to enable us move forward on this issue but it did not prove possible at the time. I understand the reason for that but we must continue to pursue the matter, and that is what I intend to do.
On the issue of establishing a committee of the House with the involvement of the social partners, will the Taoiseach agree that would give a focus to the issue and strengthen his hand and those of the Ministers at European level on the issue of unemployment?
Any proposals or reports emanating from committees of the House are helpful. The social partners, through their own structures, have an excellent mechanism in the NESF. They have undertaken beneficial work on behalf of everybody in this House. Members of this House form part of the NESF and the role they play within the NESF, as constructed in 1993, does not require amendment at this stage.
I am a little puzzled by the Taoiseach's strategy regarding the abolition of duty free concessions. He wants a long-term derogation for those facilities but surely he should be trying to persuade the powers that be in this area. The abolition of duty free concessions would be a disaster for employment and by referring to derogation the Taoiseach is merely postponing the issue. That will not have any effect on Ministers who totally object to the abolition.
Deputy Carey knows that when I raised this issue on a number of occasions in the House last year during Ireland's Presidency the then Minister, Deputy Quinn, tried to move the issue forward but he did not get any support. We are now at the stage where the EU Transport Ministers are uniting to bring about a change. We need to attack the issue on two other fronts — we must have change at Commission and ECOFIN levels. As I already stated in reply to Deputy Bruton, it is unlikely that any change will come from ECOFIN in the short-term unless ministerial colleagues can keep up the pressure. A campaign has been mounted both in this country and across the Community by those involved in duty free. There are probably those within the Commission who believe that campaign is too strong in terms of the amount of work being put into professional studies, preparing reports, etc. A substantial number of people here are employed directly and indirectly in the duty free sector and it would be worthwhile to obtain some changes in the present policy. I realise that will not be easy.
(Dublin West): Has the Government carried out a survey of the number of jobs that would be lost in the event of this decision not being reversed? What guarantees will the Government give to the workers whose jobs are at stake and who are very concerned about the present uncertainty?
A KPMG study is currently ongoing to identify the number of jobs and the amount of trade in this area. Similar studies are ongoing in other countries. While there is no direct commitment, a number of industries have expressed concern over several years that if they lose a substantial part of their business in duty free, which they have built up over many years, it will be impossible to replace. Clearly there will be job losses if the present policy remains to the end of 1999.
As the Taoiseach is probably aware, I had the pleasure of raising this matter at the Council of Transport Ministers when I dealt with marine transport matters in the final days of the previous Government. I was surprised at the level of support forthcoming from other member states in relation to the retention of duty free facilities. Will the Taoiseach agree that there is a need for a great deal of lobbying in this respect? The public do not seem to be aware of the effects this decision will have on transport, air and sea fare costs, for example. Will the Taoiseach consider lobbying our MEPs in a concerted effort to raise this matter at European Parliament level? Will he also consider providing information to the public so that the power of the people could get the message across to those who are adamant that duty free facilities be abolished that it is not the will of the people of Europe?
There is merit in what Deputy Barrett has said. The campaign is ongoing. Criticism of the Minister for Public Enterprise was expressed earlier in the debate for trying to do precisely that. The Deputy is correct in that it seems as if the Transport Council is moving into a position of unity on the issue. That is an important step. I have already spoken to some MEPs and I will take on board the Deputy's suggestion in regard to talking to all of them. I attended a conference recently in Galway of my party's group of MEPs, at which all the member states were represented, and I raised this issue. I will certainly try to make available information to all our MEPs so they can assist in this campaign. Deputy Barrett is correct in regard to mounting a campaign to put pressure on the Commission because ultimately it is from there that change must come.
Given the belated recognition of the effects of the abolition of duty free sales not just on Aer Rianta, which is the main player, but on the regional airports and on the ferry companies, will the Taoiseach assure the House that not only is he a convert to the need to retain duty free facilities — we know the Minister for Public Enterprise is a strong advocate of their retention — but that the Minister for Finance, who will attend future ECOFIN meetings where the critical decision will be made, also supports the position outlined by him today?
The Minister for Finance strongly supports the retention of duty free facilities. The problem is that the Ministers and I are not in the Commission. Following 11 years of debate in one form or another, decisions were made regarding that issue.
I will have a word with the man I appointed to the Commission.
I have already done that but I must have a word with a few more of them. This sector is important in terms of jobs. It is very easy to see from Aer Rianta's accounts the percentage of profits accounted for by the duty free sector. One can imagine the effect the loss of this business would have on the company. As an island nation the duty free sector is more important to us than to other countries.