John Bruton
Ceist:1 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent visit to Austria. [13376/98]
Ceisteanna — Questions. - Official Engagements.
John Bruton
Ceist:2 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the preparatory meetings, if any, he had before the European Council meeting in Cardiff, Wales in June 1998; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13377/98]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:3 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent visit to Austria; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13394/98]
Proinsias De Rossa
Ceist:4 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his visit to Austria and his meeting with the Austrian Prime Minister. [13403/98]
Proinsias De Rossa
Ceist:5 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach his priorities for the summit of EU leaders in Cardiff, Wales; if he met other EU heads of Government in advance of the summit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13507/98]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:6 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach when the next Irish Commissioner to the European Commission will be nominated by the Government to the Commission; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13689/98]
John Bruton
Ceist:7 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent visit to Portugal. [14013/98]
Proinsias De Rossa
Ceist:8 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his recent visit to Portugal. [14145/98]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:9 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his visit to Portugal; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14228/98]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:10 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach his proposed visits outside the country over the next three months; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14233/98]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:11 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the issues he raised at the European summit at Cardiff, Wales, on 15 and 16 June 1998; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13398/98]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:12 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the European Council in Cardiff, Wales; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14229/98]
John Bruton
Ceist:13 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his attendance at the EU heads of Government meeting in Cardiff, Wales, on 15 and 16 June 1998. [14329/98]
John Bruton
Ceist:14 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the official engagements, if any, he undertook on his recent visit to Wales. [14330/98]
John Bruton
Ceist:15 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, at the EU summit in Cardiff, Wales. [14331/98]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 15, inclusive, together.
On 4 June last in Vienna I met the Austrian Chancellor, Mr. Viktor Klima, who will become President in office of the European Council on 1 July. We discussed a wide range of European issues, including the Cardiff European Council and the priorities for the Austrian Presidency of the European Union during the second half of this year. The Austrian Presidency will have the task of completing the final stages of preparations for the introduction of the euro. This commenced on 4 June last with the inaugural meeting of the Euro XI group in Luxembourg.
It will fall to the Austrian Presidency to make substantial progress on the Agenda 2000 negotiations. I outlined to Chancellor Klima Ireland's position on the Commission's current proposals on Structural and Cohesion Funds. I re-emphasised the need for generous transitional arrangements for Ireland under the Structural Funds and our opposition to the Commission proposals for CAP reform as they currently stand. It is the Government's intention to pursue real improvements on the terms on offer.
I met Prime Minister Guterres of Portugal in Lisbon on 9 June last. I had discussions on the European agenda with the Prime Minister. In particular, we identified areas of common interest in the Agenda 2000 negotiations, including the need for generous transitional arrangements for those regions which no longer qualify for Objective One status.
My discussions with Chancellor Klima and Prime Minister Guterres were a continuation of a structured programme of consultations with the leaders of other member states, including Prime Ministers Lipponen, Aznar and Blair, on a range of European Union issues in preparation for Cardiff and the detailed negotiations on Agenda 2000.
I attended the European Council in Cardiff on 15 and 16 June. The outcome of the Cardiff summit represents a successful conclusion to the UK's Presidency of the European Union. Items for discussion at the Council included the Agenda 2000 negotiations, broad economic guidelines for the Union and the national employment action plans, EU enlargement and the future shape of the Union. Other important issues covered included the progress being made on the Union's policies on drugs and organised crime. The conclusions of the European Council have been laid before the House. I intend to make a full statement to the House on the Cardiff summit next Tuesday, 23 June.
I met the South African President, Mr. Nelson Mandela en marge of the summit and I have placed in the Library a copy of the press release issued after that meeting.
The term of office of the current European Commission does not expire until the end of 1999 and, as such, this matter will fall for consideration by the Government.
I will attend a ceremony in Frankfurt on 30 June to mark the establishment of the European Central Bank and I will visit China the week beginning 14 September 1998 at the invitation of Chinese Prime Minister, Zhu Ronji.
As regards the discussions on Agenda 2000 which concerns the Union budget, does the Taoiseach agree with the statement by the German Finance Minister, Theo Waigel, that we can enlarge the European Union to bring in the existing applicant countries and still keep the Union budget within the existing ceiling of 1.27 per cent of GDP?
That is the stated position of Theo Waigel and a number of other countries. However, some countries disagree because they believe that as enlargement proceeds, the 1.27 per cent will not be sufficient. The current position, with which we agree, is that in the unlikely event that enlargement will greatly affect the Agenda 2000 period, the 1.27 per cent is a satisfactory basis for discussions. That is the way it was left at yesterday's meeting.
Is the Government accepting 1.27 per cent as sufficient?
As I stated, 1.27 per cent is what all countries are saying is sufficient at this stage. A decision has not been made and nobody is requesting one. What will finally happen next March under the German Presidency is another matter. However, 1.27 per cent is on the table for the basis of discussion.
I am sorry the Taoiseach is not able to unambiguously say he regards 1.27 per cent as completely inadequate to deal with the needs of the countries which will become members of the European Union. I do not regard 1.27 per cent as sufficient and the Government should also state that. Theo Waigel said that 1.27 per cent would suffice after enlargement.
There is no discussion on what happens after enlargement. What is being discussed is the position now and for this round. It is the view of the European Council that there will not be enlargement in the Agenda 2000 period.
I do not believe that is the case.
It is the view of the European Council.
Is it not the case then that the current examination of the dossiers on enlargement, which has not yet been concluded, has been prejudged and that the countries which have applied for enlargement are being told the present process is of no relevance in so far as timing is concerned because that has already been decided? That appears to be the case from what the Taoiseach said.
Is it planned that the Austrians will have a special summit on the principle of subsidiarity next October? Is the Taoiseach aware that some of the big countries, notably Germany and France, are trying to unpick the Amsterdam Treaty, are calling into question a number of EU policies which have long been settled as part of the Acquis Communautaire and, under the guise of subsidiarity, are trying to dismantle existing policy and undermine the authority of the court and the political authority of the Commission?
It was decided that there would be a special one day meeting in November during the Austrian Presidency. This arose from the discussion, among other things, of the letter sent by President Jacques Chirac and Chancellor Kohl to the Council at the Avignon meeting. The subject matters of that letter are fairly well known but clearly there was not great support for following its contents. In fairness to the two countries involved neither of them was pursuing it. I was asked the reason the letter was sent, I will not go into that, but it was not pursued.
Countries made it absolutely clear that the Amsterdam Treaty has just been ratified in the first few countries; Finland ratified yesterday in the parliament. Over the next year other countries will ratify. There was agreement — if not majority, close to it — that to start negotiating anything new, in addition to that or matters that were not resolved in Amsterdam would be incorrect. It was also felt that we should look to the process of implementation for Protocol 1 matters agreed at Amsterdam, nobody has any problems with them. Apart from the letter from the chancellor and the president, the Commission is carrying out a detailed examination of a document entitled "Tomorrow's Commission" which deals with making the Commission, the Council, more effective by ordinary sensible management structures. Nobody has a difficulty with any of that. The Commission will report on that matter at the meeting in November. We discussed how we can move on to make the workings of the European Council more effective without any treaty changes.
The third aspect, the General Affairs Council, which will be discussed in November concerns countries even more than the first two issues. The General Affairs Council was meant to be the co-ordinating council for all the other councils and to deal with the nuts and bolts or the management work but that is not the case. I am not totally familiar with all the meetings of the Council but it always deals with foreign and security issues. While it meets more often it never gets to any of its other work. There is more concern about that matter than with the other two. It was considered that another mechanism should be devised. The suggestion was that there should be a committee of Ministers, at senior level — not foreign affairs Ministers and not heads of State — who would make it their business to deal with the ongoing workings and the day to day issues of the Council to push matters forward. Those three areas will be discussed at the November meeting.
With all due respect it is not acceptable that the reply to 15 questions, in which he significantly omitted to respond to a number of questions, was delivered by the Taoiseach in four minutes. I have a number of questions but I do not propose to ask them all together. I attempted prior to today to raise questions in advance of the Cardiff summit which were ruled out of order. I am now attempting to get responses to what issues were raised by the Taoiseach. I sought to ask the Taoiseach in advance of the Council what issues he would raise. In my question on today's Order Paper I asked him specifically what issues he raised in Cardiff. He avoided, on political instruction, answering the questions prior to Cardiff. His reply made no reference to the points I raised in Question No. 11 which asked the Taoiseach the issues he raised at the European summit in Cardiff. Did he raise anything?
I contributed to all the issues on the agenda.
I asked the Taoiseach the issues he raised.
The European Council is not a question and answer session. I am aware the Minister may have attended in his ministerial capacity but it is not a question and answer session. In terms of the informal lunchtime issue — as in ECOFIN of which the Deputy has experience — of course issues were raised in the normal course. At the meeting itself I contributed to and raised questions on all the issues I mentioned, the economic guidelines, the national employment action plans, EU enlargement, the future shape of Europe and the 2000 negotiations.
The vast majority of the questions from the three Opposition leaders were about Austria and Portugal. I presume the Deputy did not expect me to answer those questions separately. The Deputy mentioned another question about a matter that does not arise until late next year. I have no difficulty in answering questions individually but the Deputy would complain about that. I see nothing wrong with the grouping taken today.
I specifically put down a question to the Taoiseach, in light of the poor turn out in the recent referenda and the historically low support in the vote on the Amsterdam Treaty, asking if the Irish Government would raise two issues that might address the democratic deficit within the European Union operations: the public election or selection of the future president of the Commission and the televising of Council of Ministers meetings. On political direction, from the Taoiseach's office, those questions were transferred to the Minister for Foreign Affairs who is not involved in any decision making process of that kind. I specifically gave advance notice that it was necessary to raise these issues. It would appear from what the Taoiseach said that none of these matters was raised at the bilateral meetings he had either in Finland, Austria or Portugal or with the Prime Minister, Mr. Blair. Certainly, those issues do not appear to have been raised by the Taoiseach in the course of the debate. Does the Taoiseach share my concern that there is a democratic deficit in terms of the perception by the citizen of the proceedings of the European Union, which has been trumpeted by the Prime Minister, Mr. Blair? Specifically was the question of the election or some process of election of the future president of the Commission raised and discussed, because it is not apparent from his reply? Was the question of full coverage by the media of all Council meetings raised and discussed in Cardiff?
Neither of these issues was on the agenda and neither was discussed either formally or informally in Cardiff, nor were they meant to be. At this stage there is no proposal with the European Council about the presidency. There has been some talk about a way of dealing with it. What was discussed — the turnout for the election here was quite substantial but nevertheless not high enough — in the debate on Monday was how to make the Community more relevant to the people, how the people can be more involved in the issues. There were 14 or 15 suggestions on how that could be done but televising the debates is not one of them. Deputy Quinn will be aware that for some years some Councils, including the Social Affairs Council have been televised. I was present when the first meeting of that Council was televised many years ago. I was also present at a number of ECOFIN Council meetings which have been televised.
Fifteen minutes.
The Deputy is asking whether I am in favour of European Council meetings generally being televised. Given that I have participated in a number of Councils over the years, I do not have a difficulty with that.
If that is the Taoiseach's view, since that concern was clearly signalled in questions which were declined by his Department and since Prime Minister Blair is trumpeted in the newspapers today about bringing the institutions of the European Union closer to the people, why did he not articulate that view by engaging in some kind of open participatory process in the selection of the next president? More specifically, having the fourth estate media, both in physical form and in electronic form at every Council meeting, why did he not raise that issue if he believed in it?
I do not believe televising the debates will do a great deal to bring people out at elections. The Deputy may think that is the resolution to the problem.
It is a contribution.
Yes, but it would not be the highest one on my agenda. If we want the people of Europe to be more interested we have to deal with their day to day issues and the 18 million unemployed, drugs trafficking and the security issues that concern many people in Europe. These are the kinds of issues which people want to hear us addressing. They are the ones which will change people's view, not showing 15 minutes or half an hour of it on television. As the Deputy will be aware, at the end of every Council the better part of 1,000 journalist are present to bring back the story of the Council. If the Deputy seriously thinks that is a priority, it worries me.
I am grateful to my colleagues for allowing me a last supplementary on this issue. Would the Taoiseach not agree it is preferable that the media should be present at Council meetings as they are here, looking at the process of how we deal with everyday issues rather than the outcome, and instead of the spin being run around the corridors and chambers of the Justus Lipsius Building in Brussels? Would he agree that as a first step to opening up the process of the EU as distinct from its focus of attention, that might be a small but significant step? If he shares that view, why did he not raise it in Cardiff?
I have answered already as to why I did not raise it. I believe there are far more effective ways of helping people than through a television debate.
The media——
The Deputy obviously believes——
The Taoiseach is in opposition to everything.
One cannot be obsessed with the media.
The Deputy should not try to mislead. From the media point of view, what happens at a European Summit is usually around the world before anyone comes out of the room.
I am talking about all Councils.
There are so many people coming out of the Council from the member states explaining what is going on that there is no media deficit. It would probably be just as handy if the press were inside.
They should have been at the 11 hour lunch. That would have been good.
As the Deputy will be aware, what happened at the 11 hour lunch was that there was no meeting. Everybody was out with the media.
It was some lunch that lasted 11 hours.
It was a good lunch.
Was there discussion of the mechanism for bringing about institutional change and of how reforms of the treaties, which would be required as a result of any proposed institutional change, would be brought about? Was there discussion of whether national parliaments as distinct from national Governments would have a role in such a process? It is my view that much of the disenchantment with or disinterest in European affairs is due to the fact that people see Brussels as being too far away. People want to see things going on here. Did that issue arise?
On the statement from the Council with regard to Kosovo, did the Taoiseach raise the question of suggested military action? The statement is carefully worded and refers to a stronger response of a qualititively different order, which one must assume means military action. Did the Taoiseach seek to ensure that any such military action would be taken only under a United Nations Security Council resolution because that would at least provide a legal basis for such action and would obviously have a much broader base of support?
There were two questions. On that latter question, Minister Andrews addressed the issue. That is precisely the point he made, that there should be a UN mandate.
There was no recommendation, nor is there likely to be, for institutional change or change to the treaties for the next few years. What is being spoken about is improving the operation of the European Council, the Commission and the various other bodies around it through the more effective streamlining of the decision process, working from a detailed document which was given by President Santer in a verbal presentation to the Council on tomorrow's Commission and on the workings of the Council/Commission into the future. It is unlikely that any treaty changes will be proposed.
I am glad that the attempt at Avignon to change the conclusions of Amsterdam in regard to subsidiarity did not succeed. With regard to one part of the conclusions, which is to the effect that the Council welcomes the ECOFIN declaration of 1 May with regard to the budget for each country, will the Taoiseach confirm that Ireland's budget for 1999 will conform fully with the section on Ireland contained in the declarations of ECOFIN?
The ECOFIN Ministers met on that particular issue, but it is the Government's intention to adhere to all aspects of what we stated at the ECOFIN Council and what was stated on the revaluation issue statement, which was also agreed by ECOFIN some months ago.
On the appointment of the next Irish Commissioner, will the Taoiseach confirm that the Government has decided not to reappoint Commissioner Flynn for a second, or what would amount to a third, term?
No consideration of any matter to do with the next Commissioner will be discussed until nearer the date, which is towards the latter half of next year.
(Interruptions.)
I thank the Taoiseach for the letter he sent me regarding the matter I raised last week with him——
Deputy Quinn would like to get rid of some too.
The Tánaiste would make an excellent replacement.
——concerning the stopping of funding by the Commission for demonstration projects to combat poverty, and I note the comments he made. Has he checked since then whether any Irish projects are affected by the stopping of the funding? My understanding is that the European Anti-Poverty Network, which has a section based in Dublin, is affected and there may well be other networks affected by it.
There are a number of projects affected. I sent the Deputy a note which he may not have received. As I understand it, the projects which were approved and which are in operation will be funded. Because of the judgment, the Commission has stopped any new authorisations pending clarification of the precise meaning of that judgment.
The Deputy raised the matter on the Order of Business last week and what he said then is my understanding also. What is challenged is the ability of the Commission to be involved in these kinds of projects where it has no legal base. The Commission is examining a great number of programmes — there are over 40 or 50 — to see where it has a legal base before it continues with them. The ongoing programmes which were approved and are up and running in any form will be funded. I do not believe that any of our programmes are affected. If any are, I will look at them. That is the understanding I received from officials there.
I ask the Taoiseach to double check on the advice he is being given because my understanding of what Commissioner Flynn said to me when I sought information from him in Dublin last Friday at a meeting of the European Institute was that all funding was stopped pending clarification of the legal position. The Commission's opinion, which Commissioner Flynn believes is too narrow an interpretation, means that it does not have the power to spend this money and, therefore, it must cease immediately. By the end of July, the Commission hopes to have found some way of getting around this. I ask him to double check that and get back to me.
Because the Deputy raised it here, I received a note on it and checked it on Monday.
I have it, and I thank the Taoiseach.
No. I received a note which I had given to the Commission. If I remember correctly, it was a note which the Commission gave me yesterday morning and I think the message I am giving is from a reply which I received from the Commission. That certainly said that the ongoing programmes, any poverty programmes which were up and running, were all right. Any new programmes that were not up and running on the date of the European Court judgment will be excluded. I will supply the Deputy with the note to which I referred if it is still in my possession.
The Taoiseach stated he believed it a matter of priority that the European Union should be seen to take concrete decisions in respect of issues which affect people directly, such as the fight against crime and drugs and the creation of employment. Were any concrete decisions taken at the Cardiff Summit in respect of these matters?
Further discussion took place in respect of crime and drugs in terms of proceeding on the path of co-operation, building on the Amsterdam Treaty, encouraging closer liaison between police forces and trying to remove ambiguities in member states' legal systems. Ongoing progress is being made and people are of the opinion that improvements in these areas are proving effective. However, it may take anything up to three years before they take full effect. Since the introduction of the Amsterdam Treaty, co-operation between police and security forces has increased dramatically.
How many jobs were created at Cardiff?
I could not say that any jobs were created. However, discussions took place on the employment pacts and employment will be the key issue during the six months of the Austrian Presidency. People remain concerned that while unemployment is decreasing in countries such as Ireland it continues to increase in many other European countries. Greater cohesion among member states in respect of the employment pacts — the Irish model is seen as a good example from which to work — would probably lead to improved operation and increased benefits. The Austrian Presidency will attempt to encourage that improvement before the Vienna Summit.