John Bruton
Ceist:1 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the priorities he has for the next summit of EU Heads of Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12780/99]
Ceisteanna–Questions. - Official Engagements.
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:2 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if a date has been fixed for a meeting with the President of the European Commission; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12964/99]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:3 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the further meetings, if any, he has finalised prior to the Cologne summit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12969/99]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:4 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he has confirmed a meeting date with the German Chancellor; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12970/99]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, together.
The next European Council, which will take place in Cologne on 3-4 June, will be the fourth time that EU Heads of State or Government have met during the German Presidency. The President of the European Council, Chancellor Schröder, who toured capitals in advance of the special European Council devoted to Agenda 2000 in Berlin in late March, will not undertake a second tour in advance of this European Council. As I already indicated to the House, I understand that the Chancellor plans to consult Heads of State or Government by telephone. I will meet the President designate of the Commission, Mr. Romano Prodi, on Thursday, 27 May. I expect that Mr. Prodi will attend the European Council as, of course, will President Santer.
As regards forthcoming meetings with other EU Heads of State or Government, I will meet with the Portuguese President, Dr. Jorge Sampaio, during his state visit to Ireland from 29 May to 2 June. In keeping with established practice, there will not be a formal agenda for the Cologne European Council. The issues and how the Presidency plans to approach them will gradually become clearer as the Cologne summit gets closer. Chancellor Schröder's planned telephone contacts with his colleagues will be one element of this process as will his letter to HOSGs immediately in advance of the summit.
On the basis of preparatory work so far, I expect the issues to include the situation in Kosovo; the European employment pact; institutional questions, specifically the handling of certain issues which were not resolved at Amsterdam; and common foreign and security policy, including the nomination of the high representative for CFSP. The Cologne summit is also expected to review developments in regard to European security and defence, with particular reference to the EU's role in the Petersberg tasks. Discussions are expected to continue under the Finnish Presidency.
When will the Taoiseach nominate a person to take Pádraig Flynn's place as Irish EU Commissioner?
I expect that will be some time after the European elections but it will be discussed in the first instance with Mr. Prodi next week.
Why will the Taoiseach wait until after the European elections to nominate somebody?
He is waiting to see whether Gerry Collins will be elected.
Grow up.
We will discuss this matter in the first instance with Mr. Prodi and the Government will then discuss it. We will then a make a decision in plenty of time for Mr. Prodi's initial work. He is not in a position to talk about portfolios at this stage.
I am not asking the Taoiseach to open a debate on the position in the House because that would be against Ireland's interest, but has he signalled directly or indirectly to Mr. Prodi the areas in which Ireland would be interested in appointing a Commissioner and that there would be a variety of candidates that he could draw upon to fill that post? Does the Taoiseach agree that it is not appropriate, given the institutional structure of the country, that we should speculate openly here as to the identity of the next Commissioner? That is a matter for the Government, as has been the practice in the past, but it is entirely appropriate to ensure that Ireland gets an appropriate area of responsibility and that the Taoiseach puts in place a selection process which must be confidential and which will ensure that person will be accepted. What steps has he taken to ensure that Ireland gets a real job, not a left over job, after 11 June?
The Deputy can take it that all the matters to which he referred are high on the agenda. I have had preliminary talks with Mr. Prodi. At this stage, as Deputies will be aware, he is working from a temporary office with one secretary and is only there some of the time. He is not yet in any way organised. He indicated to me that he will not be able to talk about portfolios next week. However, I will point out to him all the issues raised by the Deputy. The Tánaiste and I have already began the consultation process on how the Government will handle this issue.
I understand that Mr. Prodi will be here next Thursday and that the Taoiseach is due to meet him at 11.30 a.m. Will he ensure, as he is entrusted with the responsibility of the government of this country for the time being, that he will signal to him the areas of responsibility in which the Government is interested for an Irish Commissioner and satisfy him that he has a panel of candidates who could do that job? Can he give an indication that people within the Department of the Taoiseach and elsewhere are doing that work currently? Will he assure the House that 11 June, the date of the European elections, has no bearing whatsoever on the selection of a Commissioner?
It has no bearing whatsoever and I have effectively already dealt with the other matters raised by the Deputy. However, Mr. Prodi has told me in advance of next week's meeting that because of the position in other countries and his own position, which is that he has not effectively taken up office, he is not in a position to make decisions on any portfolios but he will certainly listen to my views. We have always had good people and good positions and, naturally, I will make a strong case in those areas.
If the European elections have no bearing whatsoever on the Taoiseach's appointment, why did he say, in response to my first supplementary question, that he would not make a nomination until after they have taken place?
No other country will engage with Mr. Prodi until after the European elections.
Why?
I do not know why others will not; I will do so next week.
Why has the Taoiseach not put forward a name before now? What is preventing him from doing so? Does he not see that if he has a good name in the field early there is a better chance of getting a good portfolio than if he comes in at the back of the field?
I will meet Mr. Prodi to discuss all these issues; I am certainly not discussing them here.
Why not?
The early bird catches the worm.
I am glad the Taoiseach confirmed that the outcome of the European elections will not be a factor in the selection of the Commissioner. I am not as sure that Gerry Collins is glad but, nevertheless, I am glad that has been put on the record. Does the Taoiseach agree that, bearing in mind the change in Ireland's relationship with the European Union, our traditional role in spending departments in the European Commission has shifted and Ireland has a greater interest, for example, in areas such as taxation, regional policy or fisheries than it might otherwise have had in areas such as agriculture or social affairs? Has the Government developed a position on these portfolios? Will the Taoiseach engage in a substantial conversation with Mr. Prodi next Thursday? Does he recognise that a number of countries have already signalled informally who will be their Commissioners? The Finns have already identified the area of responsibility – I am referring to science and information – they would like to assume after the establishment of the new Commission.
Ireland's Commissioners have held different portfolios a long time ago, including that of competition. There are a number of important briefs, apart from those of agriculture and social affairs, both of which we have held. There are many other important ones, including those mentioned by the Deputy.
Dr. Prodi is coming here to discuss all these matters with me. When I spoke to him in recent weeks, I indicated that we have always presented high quality people who have served extremely well in the Commission down through the years and that will continue to be the case. Their records stand to all of them. I will certainly talk to Dr. Prodi about a range of people. Unfortu nately, he has indicated to me that he is not in a position to indicate portfolios, and will not be until after the European Parliament elections. He will listen, but he is not in a position to talk about portfolios at this stage.
What is the Taoiseach's view of the proposal by the French and German governments, that a committee of three to five so-called wise persons should be set up to prepare for a new intergovernmental conference to deal with institutional questions as necessary, to facilitate enlargement? Does he favour this approach or does he favour the approach of other governments, which is that all governments should be represented on the personal representatives group?
This matter will be discussed in Cologne. However, we will be better off if we are all involved. Enlargement is an important process and everyone should be involved. As Deputy Bruton knows, the intergovernmental conference will also be discussed at the Cologne Summit.
Given that the Cologne Summit will discuss European security and defence issues, what view will the Taoiseach take on the proposal from the Italian Prime Minister, Massimo Delama, that there should be a pause in the bombing of Yugoslavia to allow diplomatic efforts to proceed?
I support the position of the UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, that if the terms of his statement of 9 April – which was backed by the EU Heads of State at their meeting on 14 April – are adhered to by Milosevic and his authorities, there should be a pause. If that does not happen, there will not be a pause, and I support that position.
(Dublin West): Will the Taoiseach raise with the president of the European Commission, Mr. Prodi, remarks which he made on the BBC about a week ago? He was quoted as saying that eventually Europe will need to develop its own army to enable it to act quickly to intervene in crises like Kosovo. Will the Taoiseach tell the president that the view of the Irish people would be to have absolutely nothing to do with an EU army?
Will the Taoiseach raise the remarks Mr. Prodi made when he pointed out that mergers between European defence firms had already started a process—
The Deputy cannot cite quotations during question time.
(Dublin West): The president of the European Commission said approvingly that the big defence firms in Europe were merging. He apparently sees this as some kind of positive development. Will the Taoiseach tell the pres ident of the Commission that the arms trade is one of the dirtiest and most immoral trades that any section of humanity can be involved in? The people do not want anything to do with it. As the Taoiseach knows, some of the biggest EU member states are up to their necks in the arms trade.
In view of the constant prodding of the EU in the direction of a common army – certainly a common defence policy, which even Deputy Quinn appeared to be articulating in a statement a week ago—
The Deputy should not make a statement. Will he please confine himself to questions?
(Dublin West): In view of the constant prodding of this country in the direction of an EU defence force, does the Taoiseach agree that those of us who are calling for a referendum on the Partnership for Peace, are entirely justified in our fears about what is going on?
The current Minister for Foreign Affairs has taken a strong position against armaments and has supported UN resolutions on disarmament. Our position on that matter is clear. I have listened to Mr. Prodi's views about establishing a European army, but I would not support them. In the current circumstances, the issue of primary importance to the European Union is the potential for peacekeeping under the Petersberg Tasks, which is what people voted for in the Amsterdam Treaty. We should focus our efforts and energies on that issue. Under the Amsterdam Treaty it is for each member state to decide whether to participate in such tasks, on a case by case basis. I strongly support that. I do not see the issue of a European army being on the agenda, and I do not support it.
In the Taoiseach's initial reply he indicated that the appointment of the High Commissioner for Common Foreign and Security Policy will be decided at the Cologne Council. Will he indicate also what other posts will be filled? What is his view on how that post will be filled and who the likely person to fill it might be?
I do not know. The matter remains where it has been for some months. A number of names have been around. An Irish candidate has not been declared formally, but some of the other names that are out have not been formally declared either. It is the only post that will be filled at this stage, although the French in particular, with some support from others, would probably like to see any of the outstanding posts filled.
Will the Taoiseach move from being a reporter to being a player? Will he indicate his view, whether the other position should be filled at the same time and whether it should be balanced against the composition of portfolios within the Commission proper? In effect, this is a quasi-Commission post, although it is not part of the treaty. Does the Government have a view on these matters?
My view is that it should have been filled many months ago, and I stated so last December. I do not like the idea that these posts are all held vacant while large countries, in the main, try to divvy them out among each other, and small countries must fight for their positions. That is what has been happening for years. These posts should be filled when they arise. However, the large countries do not take that view and they have very successfully managed to deal with them over the past 20 years.
At this stage the CFSP is the only post that is up for decision, but there are three other posts. I would prefer to see them all being dealt with. I do not like the idea of a compromise being worked out.
Will the Taoiseach be arguing for that?
Yes, I have been doing so already.
Can I take it from the Taoiseach's response to Deputy Joe Higgins that he and the Government are opposed to an eventual common European defence policy?
No, I am not opposed. I was asked about the question of a European army, to which Mr. Prodi referred at least twice recently.
I take it then that the Taoiseach is in favour of an eventual European common defence policy.
We have stated that in all these matters we want to work from the Petersberg Tasks. That is what has been agreed. That is what the Amsterdam Treaty was about and we should follow it. We also believe that early intervention in these matters can be successful if dealt with in a humanitarian, peacekeeping way. That is what we support.
Does the Taoiseach recall that he was one of the people who signed the Maastricht Treaty which specifically commits all signatories to framing a common defence policy leading eventually to a common defence? Does the Taoiseach believe that is still the position of the Government? Or, is it the position of his Government that we are only committed to Petersberg Task type commitments?
That is the position.
Which position?
In my view we should be in the business of trying to prevent wars. That is what this country should be trying to do and the Petersberg Tasks gives us plenty of scope to do so. That is what the people voted for and to what we are committed. As I said recently, I believe the common security and defence policy will move and people will continue to press this agenda. There will be other issues on the agenda later, but that will happen later. We are quite clear at this stage of our position. We are committed to the Petersberg Tasks—
What about a common defence policy? The Taoiseach signed up to that in 1992 with the former Taoiseach, Charles Haughey.
We did, but Deputy Bruton knows the understanding under which that was signed. It related to humanitarian positions and crisis management.
It is broader than that. It is all in the treaty.
It is not much broader than that. It has never been defined as that. It is defined as what is set out in the Amsterdam Treaty, which was discussed and in which Deputy Bruton played a part. It was put to the people.
I am talking about Maastricht.
Yes, but the Amsterdam Treaty is the one being pursued. The issue will continue to be on the agenda but we are clear as to where we are now. Let us not move to somewhere we are not.
What about the 1992 Treaty?
We went through the Amsterdam Treaty only last year.
(Dublin West): Deputy Bruton will be general of the European army.
Thank you, and Deputy Higgins will be my Adjutant-General.
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:5 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he has finalised plans to meet other Heads of State on the margins of the EU-Latin American and Caribbean Summit; if he has finalised plans to visit Mexico and Argentina; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12975/99]
The EU-Latin America and Caribbean Summit will open on 28 June. On the morning of that day, I will attend a meeting with the Heads of Government of the members of MERCOSUR – Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay. Chile and Bolivia will also be represented, as will all of our EU partners. I hope to have a number of bilateral meetings with Heads of Government from the Latin America and Caribbean region during the course of the summit, with whom I expect to discuss matters of bilateral interest, including our UN campaign and trade.
Preparations for my visits to Mexico and Argentina around the summit are proceeding. As the primary focus of these visits is economic, I will attend a number of business related events. I am seeking to finalise these arrangements to ensure my visit promotes Ireland's economic interests in the most effective way. For both visits, I will be accompanied by Irish business people with interests in that region. I will have a working meeting with President Zedillo and I also intend to meet members of the Irish community, including members of the Ireland Fund of Mexico.
My visit to Argentina will commence after the EU-Latin America and Caribbean Summit. As with Mexico, I am placing major emphasis on the economic aspects of the visit. I will meet President Menem on 30 June. I will also address the Argentine Council for International Relations about the peace process in Northern Ireland. In addition, I will have the opportunity to meet some of the local Irish and Irish-Argentinian community.
I welcome the Taoiseach's proposed visit to that part of the world, which Ireland has largely neglected for a variety of reasons. Cost was a major constraint, but that is no longer the case. Does the Taoiseach consider it is timely for the Department of Foreign Affairs, in consultation with Enterprise Ireland, to consider a strategic presence in Latin America for trade purposes?
In the various fora he will attend, does he intend to raise the outrageous and immoral continuing trade blockade of a valiant country by the only remaining superpower? That country, Cuba, has sought to do little more than plot its way in the world. The United States is sending aid and support to Vietnam. Does the Taoiseach consider the continuing economic strangling of Cuba is immoral? Does he propose to raise this matter at any stage during his visit to Latin America? Following that, does he intend to raise the issue with the President of the United States?
I thank the Deputy for his remarks about these opportunities. The Government has moved on setting up an embassy in Mexico, which should happen either late this year or early next year. There are many opportunities in this area and some Irish companies, particularly food companies, have identified opportunities in this area. The economic delegations will be small but they see bigger opportunities in the future. I have not yet examined the detailed briefing but I will look into the matter raised by the Deputy and consult officials in the Department of Foreign Affairs about it.
Does the Taoiseach have a view on the morality of the United States maintaining this economic war against a minor country which is no longer part of the Cold War? It is ten years after the event. Will the Taoiseach raise this matter? They are doing no more than we did under De Valera in 1932.
I will consider the issue. I have not yet briefed myself on it, but there may be an appropriate opportunity to raise the matter. In fairness, Cuba has tried to move itself to a more modern position and is trying to reform.
Even the Pope has spoken out about this.
I am aware of that and other countries have also raised the issue. If I can fit this in, I will gladly do so.
When the Taoiseach has an opportunity to raise this issue, will he ask those with whom he speaks to refer to the significant breaches of international law that are involved in the blockade? It is not merely a political issue but a significant breach of international law relating to freedom to trade. Will that be a component of the Taoiseach's case?
If I get an opportunity to brief myself on what can be usefully done on this issue, I will do so. The argument has gone on for a long time. I am not sure of the effectiveness of the reforms Cuba has tried to effect—
The Taoiseach could lend his voice of support on behalf of this independent country. It is as simple as that.
I said I will consider the matter, and if an opportunity arises I will raise it.