John Bruton
Ceist:5 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with the leadership of the Irish Farmers' Association when he addressed its annual general meeting on 3 February 1999. [3666/99]
Ceisteanna–Questions. - Official Engagements.
My meeting with the IFA was a response to an invitation from that organisation to address its annual general meeting. My speech was well reported in the press and I have put a copy in the Oireachtas Library for those who want to consult it in more detail.
What strategy is the Government undertaking to oppose the changes in the Common Agricultural Policy that are designed to contort that policy so that it favours intensive maize based beef production at the expense of the grass based environmentally friendly production in Ireland?
The next group of questions will deal with that area. If the Deputy will allow us to proceed to that group, his question will be dealt with.
It is up to the Chair to permit a Member to proceed.
The Deputy's question is more appropriate to the next group of questions.
I would like to be the judge of what is appropriate.
The Chair is the judge of what is appropriate.
The Taoiseach met the IFA and it is concerned about this issue. It is not unreasonable for me to ask this question.
If it relates to Agenda 2000 it is more relevant to the next group of questions.
I met the IFA in a similar meeting to that of the Taoiseach. The issue I want to raise is the primary issue the IFA raised with me. I respectfully suggest that my question is in order.
I pointed out that the Deputy will have ample scope on the next group of questions.
May I ask the question?
If it is relative to the IFA meeting, yes.
Did the Taoiseach hear from the IFA its strong opposition to the proposals to change the Common Agricultural Policy in a fashion which further favours maize-based dairy and beef livestock production, at the expense of grass based production, by giving subsidies designed solely to benefit particular countries for nationalistic reasons and not for any agricultural reasons?
The Common Agricultural Policy is being twisted into a shape which is not appropriate for the efficiency or social objectives of the policy, to give the Germans some of their money back. What steps is the Taoiseach taking to pursue this matter which I know was raised at his meeting with the IFA?
The question is in order in so far as it relates to the meeting with the IFA.
This concerns my address to the annual general meeting of the IFA. At every meeting with the IFA, we have lent our support to its opposition to cofinancing or renationalisation. In every discussion with heads of state and delegations we have opposed it. We have stated that it breaches the fundamental principles of the Common Agricultural Policy because of the disproportionately negative effect it would have on countries such as Ireland. The milk and beef sectors make up 80 per cent of our output, an enormous figure in financial terms.
Co-financing proposals are still part of the Agriculture Council's discussions but have less support than previously. They favour intensive rather than extensive beef systems which would work against us; 99 per cent of our beef is produced under the extensive system and these proposals would totally reverse the Commission's position of 1992. For that reason we oppose them and hope to gain support against these proposals from other member states.
Does the Taoiseach agree the proposals to maintain the maize subsidy and to treble the bull beef premium are designed solely to increase the amount of money being received by countries such as Germany and the Netherlands without any regard for the agricultural effect? This is purely to get their money back in a Thatcherite manner. Will the Taoiseach make these points strongly at all his meetings with them? Will he address public opinion in Europe on the idea that if we are to have a common policy, it should not be twisted to achieve nationalistic objectives of the kind being pursued by these two countries at this time?
The Deputy is anticipating many of the questions to come.
The statement I made the other night was extensively circulated in Europe to set out these points. I made these points when I met Premier Wim Kok. Deputy Bruton is right, these schemes are designed to assist net contributors to address their concerns where they believe they have over-financed the entire package of European funds in recent years, particularly the Common Agricultural Policy.
I hope we are moving away from cofinancing into one form or another of degressivity. Deputy Bruton knows there were a number of proposals this week. The French proposal on degressivity would not receive our complete support but, when I discussed this with President Chirac and Prime Minister Jospin last week, we agreed we would link our negotiating positions to arrive at a common position. We have managed to move closer in recent days and we will continue to do that.
At 6 p.m. this evening, when the sessions of the Agriculture Council resume, it will look at these proposals, particularly those concerning milk and beef. It will also look at rural development in wine and olive growing regions which are not directly relevant to us. The points which Deputy Bruton made have been made and will continue to be made by us.
John Bruton
Ceist:6 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meetings in Paris with the French President, Mr. Chirac and the Prime Minister, Mr. Jospin; the other official engagements, if any, he undertook in Paris; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3981/99]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:7 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with the French Prime Minister and French President; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4260/99]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:8 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with the Dutch Prime Minister, Mr. Wim Kok; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4261/99]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:9 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if the informal EU Heads of Government meeting has been agreed for 26 February 1999; the issues he intends to raise at the meeting; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4263/99]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:10 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he raised the duty free issue with the French Prime Minister; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4265/99]
John Bruton
Ceist:11 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting in Paris with the French President and Prime Minister; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4749/99]
John Bruton
Ceist:12 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the official engagements he undertook on his recent visit to Paris; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4750/99]
John Bruton
Ceist:13 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting in The Hague with the Prime Minister of the Netherlands; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4751/99]
John Bruton
Ceist:14 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the official engagements he undertook on his recent visit to The Hague; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4752/99]
John Bruton
Ceist:15 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if the agenda has been agreed for the EU Heads of Government meeting in Bonn on 26 February 1999; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5024/99]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:16 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the meetings, if any, he will have with the Heads of Government in Italy, Spain, Sweden, Luxembourg, Portugal, Greece, Finland and Belgium; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5043/99]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:17 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he has sent a joint letter with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair, to the EU Presidency setting out the case for continued EU funding for Northern Ireland; the response, if any, he has received; the plans, if any, he has to raise the matter at the next EU summit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5045/99]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:18 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the date of his next meeting with the President of the European Commission; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5051/99]
Trevor Sargent
Ceist:19 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the meetings he had during his recent visit to The Hague; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5287/99]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 to 19, inclusive, together.
I met French President Jacques Chirac and Prime Minister Lionel Jospin in Paris on 15 February and the Dutch Prime Minister, Mr. Wim Kok, in The Hague on 17 February. These visits were the latest in a series of meetings with Ireland's European partners which I will hold over the coming weeks in advance of the conclusion of Agenda 2000 negotiations in Berlin on 24-25 March.
As I outlined in the House recently, these bilateral meetings take place in advance of an informal meeting of Heads of State or Government focusing on Agenda 2000 in Bonn on 26 February which President Santer will also attend. The exact scope of the meeting is not yet finalised. However, it is likely that it will deal exclusively with the Agenda 2000 funding issues.
As regards my meetings with the French President and Prime Minister, and the Dutch Prime Minister I discussed the current state of negotiations on Structural, Cohesion and Agriculture Funding. I stressed the need for an equitable outcome and indicated that the present proposals, particularly in the Agriculture area, if implemented would impact proportionately more on Ireland than on any other member state. I emphasised that while we accept the broad thrust of the Commission's proposals, the proposals as they stand would damage both our agriculture industry and the economy as a whole.
I pointed out that we are seeking to ensure an equitable outcome for Ireland and Ireland's farmers. I also discussed the suggested co-financing of the CAP. The French President and Prime Minister like ourselves totally oppose this proposal.
My discussions with the Dutch Prime Minister also focused on Own Resources. I indicated to Prime Minister Kok that we are sensitive to Dutch concerns on the budget contributions and signalled our openness to changes in the budget contribution system.
During these meetings, I outlined Ireland's significant development needs, particularly infrastructural, and the importance in that context of adequate transitional arrangements under the Structural Funds and continued eligibility for the Cohesion Fund.
The ongoing enlargement negotiations with those countries seeking to join the Union also featured in my discussions. I reaffirmed my strong support for the enlargement process.
I also discussed the retention of duty free sales. Both the French President and Prime Minister have been strong advocates for the retention of duty free sales and will continue to lend their voices to the calls for an extension beyond the end of June. I indicated to the Dutch Prime Minister that together with the France, Germany and UK we would continue to press for a significant postponement of the current transition arrangements when the matter is discussed at ECOFIN in March.
Apart from Agenda 2000 related matters, I discussed issues of a bilateral nature and took the opportunity to brief the French President and Prime Minister and the Dutch Prime Minister on the Northern Ireland Peace Process and to thank them for their continuing support at EU level for Union assistance for Northern Ireland. We also discussed external issues, such as Kosovo and the progress being made at peace talks at Rambouillet which the French Government are sponsoring.
I also raised Ireland's candidacy for a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council in 2001-2002. In Paris, I took the opportunity to renew to President Chirac the invitation extended to him in 1997 to pay a state visit to Ireland.
Last year I met the Finnish Prime Minister Lipponen in Helsinki in April, the Spanish Prime Minister Aznar in Madrid in May and the Portuguese Prime Minister Guterres in Lisbon in June. I also had a bilateral meeting with Belgian Prime Minister Dahaene at the ASEM II conference in London and will meet him again on 3 March in Brussels. I will also meet President Santer in Brussels on 3 March. While I would like to visit all our EU partners, clearly the volume of my domestic engagements and the priority that must attach to them prevents me from doing so.
I sent a joint letter with the Prime Minister, Mr. Blair to the President of the European Com mission on 4 February seeking continued EU support for the Northern Ireland peace process. This letter sought to build on the Cardiff and Vienna European Council Conclusions on Northern Ireland which committed the Union to continuing to play an active part in promoting lasting peace and prosperity in Northern Ireland.
No formal response to the letter is required. However, I hope the letter will heighten recognition of the situation of Northern Ireland as well as of the Border counties and that its timing, – immediately prior to the meetings between First Minister Trimble and Deputy First Minister Mallon with President Santer and Chancellor Schro1der – was helpful. The European Commission, as well as our partners, has consistently been generous in its support for the peace process. I will raise this matter at the informal EU Council in Bonn on Friday. The nature of that meeting is that no conclusions will issue.
What is the Taoiseach's view of the European Commission proposal that income supports for farmers in the form proposed for Agenda 2000 would not be available to countries joining the EU after enlargement? Does he feel this is consistent with the Treaty of Rome and its non-discriminatory provisions?
It is our negotiating position that these resources should still be available to Irish agriculture—
My question relates to the Taoiseach's view of the Commission's proposal that these aids would be available to Ireland but not to new applicant countries. Does the Taoiseach feel that is consistent with the Treaty of Rome, which is based on non-discrimination?
In the treaty discussions the countries for enlargement will seek resources similar to CAP resources. They made this very clear at the European Council meeting in Vienna in December. It was agreed then that these would be matters for the various countries seeking accession. Their position is very clear, and I do not see a position being held where they would not receive resources.
On the same basis as existing members?
That is a matter for discussion. It is moving far ahead to talk about a position before accession discussions have taken place. To pre-determine that now would be entirely inappropriate. In my recent meetings with the French and the Dutch I got the clear impression, that in agriculture more than in any other areas of funding, that there will be support for these countries on the agricultural front. That is one of the difficulties with the tough line being taken on the stability of expenditure. Stabilisation of expenditure is one of the key issues in these negotiations. The Germans and the Dutch are seeking to achieve the maximum amount of headroom from the contribution of 1.27 per cent of EU GNP, which they do not want to breach either now or in the longer term, with the latter being very important to them. They want to achieve a position where, prior to enlargement – a time like now, given that the discussions conclude in a month – the maximum take for the present member states is 1.02 per cent. This will allow a significant amount for the enlargement countries, and expenditure in the CAP area in some form is also being discussed. These countries are taking a similar view on Cohesion Funds.
Does the Taoiseach agree that the 1.27 per cent ceiling is unrealistic for a federation establishing the first ever single currency of its scale in world history? A budget so small is simply not sufficient to support a single currency. Is the Taoiseach aware that at the Vienna Council he and his colleagues decided that the European Commission would be represented at the G7 to discuss the world economy and that the Americans vetoed this? What right does America have to veto who represents Europe at the G7?
The 1.27 per cent of GNP is an issue which a number of countries have not accepted as sufficient, even for the current position. There is no chance of that figure being breached in the current round, so that is not on. The European Council made the decision regarding the G7, and I do not think the Council will accept anything other than the position it adopted. That view was considered at some length.
It got away with it on the 20th. The Americans succeeded in challenging the position.
I think the European Council will challenge that, as it was discussed at some considerable length. The view was that the Council should have the right to do this. There have not been meetings since then, but the Council has a right to this, as does everyone else, and this position will be challenged.
The 13 questions being taken together concern Ireland's negotiating position with the rest of our partners in the EU in relation to Agenda 2000 and related matters. If the Taoiseach accepts this, does he accept that these are the most difficult negotiations that an Irish Government has had to undertake since 1973 and that we have aggravated our opening position rather than reconciled or assuaged our position in relation to our negotiating partners? Does he accept that his Government has, since July 1997, specifically mishandled the relationship between this Administration and the other 14 States in the EU with disastrous attempts to renegotiate the corporation tax? That position, which was agreed at 12.5 per cent before June 1997, went down to 10 per cent and then back up to 12.5 per cent. Does he accept that the urban designation proposals which have resulted to a delay of more than 12 and a half months regarding the IFSC and towns around the country have been delayed due to difficulties with that aggravation? There is still a debacle with regionalisation; this is breaking news as I speak because the Department of Finance will not release the text of a letter from EUROSTAT. There are allegations that Ireland was subsidy shopping at a time when our economic growth rate is four times the European average. In the area of farm support, Parliamentary Question No. 5 today raises the matter of bias in maize based beef production as distinct from environmentally friendly grass based beef production and is a clear indication that we are out of favour with our European colleagues. The reason is that this Government has, in its collectivity, mishandled our negotiations—
The Deputy appears to be making a statement.
A very good statement.
No. With all due respect, there are 13 questions.
The Deputy should ask a question.
These questions were all put down to elucidate the position of the Government. The Taoiseach has not been going around the capitals of Europe on a sightseeing tour. He has been trying to argue a case, but that case has been rebuffed in every capital he has visited.
This is Question Time.
The dogs in the street are pointing this out. We had it at lunchtime and last night on "Prime Time". We are damaging our position effectively because of the incompetence with which the Government is handling our negotiating position. Does the Taoiseach agree?
There is a total lack of focus.
I do not agree with any of that, and I correct Deputy Quinn. He had not concluded the corporation tax arrangements by a long shot; he had not even tied it down in any form. He knows that.
That is not the case.
When the Government took it over there were many lose ends.
The Government reduced it to 10 per cent.
Those discussions which we successfully concluded last year will prove beneficial for corporate tax. In regard to urban designations, every issue is being considered. The Commissioner concerned has taken a fairly tough line all over Europe. The negotiations he has concluded with us allow us to move ahead with the residential issues. I hope there is an understanding in the IFSC which will allow us move on some of the seaside resort schemes. We will not get as much aid as previously because these projects were viewed as regeneration projects but now will have to be regeneration projects linked to deprived areas or areas that show a particular character. That is not unreasonable. I can understand the Commission's position that an area where a site bought for £100,000 or £200,000 a decade ago is now worth £10 million, hardly needs tax designation. It will take a different view of deprived areas.
I am not sure if anybody in this House has ever negotiated much but in the on-going negotiations on Agenda 2000, everyone is playing hardball and is arguing about money. People are looking at Ireland which has moved from a debt GDP ratio of 120 per cent to a current budget deficit of 10 per cent. We have moved from enormous Exchequer borrowing requirements to one of the lowest in the Community. Given that we have knocked about 70 points off our GDP ratio in the past decade, the EU will not be as generous with resources.
The Commission's proposals were published in the summer of 1997 following consideration by the last Government. They were published during the election campaign and we got 50 per cent of what we had in the last round. We broadly supported those proposals. People are trying to reduce those figures again but we resist and will continue to do so.
I do not accept subsidy shopping. The Commission and EUROSTAT are negative about allowing anything after 2006.
Why did EUROSTAT turn us down?
EUROSTAT is still involved in the negotiations but is negative.
What does that mean: it is involved in negotiations but is negative.
The negotiations are ongoing, they are not concluded. The discussions between the CSO and EUROSTAT are continuing.
Are we in an appeal position? Is that its status?
That is not the status.
The white flag is up but it is at half mast.
Will the Taoiseach publish the letter?
We do not publish letters which pass between agencies in Europe, even though, so far as I know, it is already floating around Brussels with most of the journalists.
Then publish it.
We cannot proceed by way of interruptions.
If we did that we would have to publish every letter.
We might look for it under the Freedom of Information Act.
The Deputy might get it. A letter will issue to EUROSTAT today which will deal with the issues raised. It will provide clarification in areas where EUROSTAT is acting under misapprehension. Areas that have the EU average wealth should be entitled to Objective One status. Some Members seem to believe no area should come under Objective One status. The Commission would like to ensure that no area, with the exception of Devon and Cornwall, should be allowed Objective One status after the next round. We are totally opposed to that view. These areas have no possibility of having more than 65 per cent of EU average wealth after 2007. We should fight to ensure the west and the Border regions remain in Objective One status. I will continue to do that. The figures justify that, otherwise we would be negotiating in a very negative position. When I watch the position adopted by politicians in other countries in defence of these issues as opposed to what happens here, it is rather sad.
Will the Taoiseach agree the problem about Objective One status is typical of the problems the Government is facing in its dealings with the European Union generally in the sense that it is trying to please everybody, it is not prioritising and is finding itself ultimately displeasing everybody because of that tact?
The question I posed to the Taoiseach in my comprehensive question was whether he thinks that because of the various positions the Government has adopted, it has undermined and damaged our negotiating position vis-à-vis our application under Agenda 2000 and if his tour of European capitals has conveyed this impression to him?
Our position has been well focused on Objective One status. The CSO figures for the west and the Border regions strongly indicate we should have Objective One status for these areas. That argument has been coherently put to the Commission and we should maintain and fight for that position, otherwise we will get nowhere.
We are as much entitled to be in as the others.
The logic of that position is that we will not get it. The analysis put forward by the CSO is that a whole region, such as the border region, when taken against the other regions, does not stand up. It may be that we will get nowhere but we are fighting to hold Objective One status for as much of the country as possible. We are justified in doing that. If we fight for the whole country, we will get nowhere. That is certain.
What about the south-western seaboard?
We will fight for part of the south-west too.
The congested district areas.
In reply to Deputy Quinn's second question, I think Ireland will get an equitable deal. I understand the position of our colleagues in Europe when they look at the economics, the surpluses and the growth rates. However, they understand the infrastructural deficit and are not unreasonable. They will listen to reasonable arguments. If we argued that we should hold what we have – we are not attempting to do that – we would get nowhere. We have accepted from the outset that we are likely to get about half what we got in the past. That was a reasonable position for us to put. With growth rates of 10 per cent when the Community has growth rates of 2 per cent we cannot expect other countries to provide the same resources as when we had negative growth not long ago. That is reasonable.
Agriculture, particularly the dairy and beef sectors, would be devastated if the proposals on the table were accepted. We are arguing that case with some force. Dairy and beef accounts for 80 per cent of our agricultural output. We export 90 per cent of our beef, which is half of the export surplus into the EU. To ignore that point would be wrong. Every meeting I have had with every head of state, including a long telephone conversation with Gerhard Schröder indicates they understand that and we have to find an equitable solution.