John Bruton
Ceist:8 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting with the President of the European Parliament, Mr. Gil-Robles. [6275/98]
Ceisteanna—Questions. - European Meetings.
Proinsias De Rossa
Ceist:9 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach the other European leaders he plans to meet in advance of the next EU summit; his priorities for the summit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6307/98]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 8 and 9 together.
I had a full and constructive discussion with President Gil-Robles on current European issues, including developments in the European Parliament. On the subject of Agenda 2000 and the enlargement process, I raised with President Gil-Robles Ireland's concerns about Structural and Cohesion funding and the necessity for adequate transition arrangements for regions which may no longer qualify for objective 1 status.
It is assumed the next EU summit the Deputy is referring to is the European conference on Thursday, 12 March. As I indicated in reply to a similar question on 24 February, the European conference will bring together the member states of the Union and the European states aspiring to accede to it. While arrangements for bilateral meetings have not yet been finalised, it is likely I will hold a short informal meeting with Prime Minister Buzek of Poland during the course of the conference.
May I take it from the fact that it was omitted from the reply that the Taoiseach did not raise with President Gil-Robles the question of the abolition of duty free sales? Does the Taoiseach propose to raise that matter at the forthcoming EU summit or at bilateral meetings with EU leaders in the context of that summit?
I raised that matter briefly, as I do as a matter of course at all such meetings, and I will raise it with European leaders at every opportunity. I am glad to note that, internationally, the campaign is somewhat successful, although not with ECOFIN. There is increasing pressure on this matter. Some UK papers had headlines this morning to the effect that pressure was growing for a U-turn on duty free. It is well worth it for this country and others to take up the campaign. Of course it has now become an election issue in Germany, with the leader of the opposition there bringing substantial pressure to bear to change the position on it.
On the duty free issue, given that he was appointed Minister for Finance on 14 November 1991 and the decision to abolish duty free was made at the Council of Ministers, at which no Irish Minister or official from the Department attended on 11 November 1991, two days before the Taoiseach became Minister for Finance, could he explain how he has repeatedly stated in the House that he fought the good fight on duty free, made the arguments and got a derogation until 1999 when, in fact, the decision was made before he was appointed?
The Deputy knows that I was not there on that date because I was not appointed. However, the discussions on duty free went on in the ECOFIN Council for some time.
What has this to do with Mr. Gil-Robles?
There was a long discussion on those issues at my first ECOFIN meeting on 8 December 1991. Those decisions were put forward, supported and strongly pushed by a Government of which I was a member then.
I am glad that you are showing more latitude on this question than you did on the last one, a Cheann Comhairle.
Deputy Stagg raised the duty free issue. Maybe I should have overruled him at that stage. I am sorry now I did not.
No. My question, relating to the meeting which took place last week, was entirely in order. However, I will leave it.
Would the Taoiseach regard the reports in this morning's newspapers of what occurred at ECOFIN as somewhat humiliating and almost a setback in terms of the fact that the Minister for Finance was not even able to get a proper audience for genuine concerns on this issue? Might the Minister for Finance have laid the ground a little better before he raised the matter to avoid the sort of damaging newspaper reports which we saw this morning?
I do not write the newspaper headlines, but it is amazing how the headlines in the UK took a very different view this morning on these issues. All of the articles stated that the signs of the first breakthrough regarding duty free shopping in Europe had begun to emerge. The Minister, Deputy McCreevy, assisted in that and we should congratulate him on raising the matter yesterday. We should congratulate the ongoing work of the Minister for Public Enterprise in her meetings over recent days with the UK, German and French Ministers.
If we are serious about trying to address this issue, we should continue this campaign. The original decision will not be changed easily because of the circumstances of which we are all aware in relation to the Commission. Raising the matter yesterday and arguing the case is a very useful development.
Is the Taoiseach saying that the reports of ECOFIN in the Irish newspapers were actually inaccurate?
No. They are correct, but the fact is the issue has been raised and people are beginning to address it.
Does the Taoiseach agree that there is a limit to the merits of the confessional approach which the Minister for Finance adopts, that making reference to by-elections, as he apparently did, was not a very clever way of raising this issue and that he would have been better off to raise the matter on its merits? The leaders of other EU countries do not care who wins the by-elections because they are interested in the substance of the question. The Minister for Finance might have been better off to have adopted a more conventional approach in raising this issue.
I do not know if any reference was made to by-elections, but I can assure the House that I, the Minister for Finance and others have been raising this issue. Deputy Bruton is quite right. None of our colleagues in Europe would know whether there was a by-election, and they could not care less.
This has been raised in the context of the Minister, Deputy McCreevy, outlining that the KPMG report which he commissioned is almost ready. The British are apparently moving their position now. At a meeting in Strasbourg last week Mr. Prescott voiced doubts about the wisdom of abolishing duty free sales.
Hull is affected.
All politics are local.
Exactly, that is how one deals with these issues. This matter has become an election issue in Germany and Mr. Schroeder has called for a study, similar to the one being carried out by the Government. We did not have this support four weeks ago and we should continue our efforts.
The message seems to be that elections are good for us.
I remind the Deputy that he visited London recently in connection with this issue and spent a number of days working hard on it.
To good effect.
In his initial reply, the Taoiseach stated that much discussion took place, following his appointment as Minister for Finance on 14 November 1991, on the issue of duty free sales. Will he clarify that the only matter discussed after 11 November 1991, three days before his appointment, was the implementation of the derogation up to 1999?
I apologise, I neglected to mention the derogation.
Will the Taoiseach confirm there was no issue of substance concerning duty free sales to be decided after 11 November 1991?
Is the Deputy playing full back for his party?
He is the sweeper.
Where are the other members of his party?
They are having lunch with the Lord Mayor.
Will the Taoiseach explain why he has repeatedly stated that he was involved in obtaining the derogation when it was granted before his appointment as Minister for Finance?
The Deputy is obsessed by the fact that we obtained the derogation.
I am not.