Vol. 505 No. 6
1 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting in Dublin on 27 May 1999 with the President designate of the European Commission, Mr. Romano Prodi; the issues he discussed with him; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13859/99]
2 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting in Ireland with the President of Portugal, Dr. Jorge Sampaio; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13860/99]
3 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent telephone conversation with the German Chancellor, Mr. Schröder; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13861/99]
4 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the letter he received from the German Chancellor, Mr. Schröder, setting out his priorities for the EU summit in Cologne on 3 and 4 June 1999. [13862/99]
5 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting in the past week with the Portuguese President; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14415/99]
6 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with Mr. Prodi, President of the European Commission; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14416/99]
7 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the further meetings, if any, he has planned with other leaders in advance of the Cologne Summit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14417/99]
8 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the Government's plans on the filling of vacancies at European Union level; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14424/99]
9 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the issues he will raise at the Cologne Summit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14558/99]
10 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the correspondence, if any, he has had in recent weeks with other European leaders in connection with the duty free issue; if he will raise the issue at the Cologne Summit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14559/99]
11 Mr. Higgins (Dublin West) asked the Taoiseach to report on his recent discussions with Mr. Romano Prodi; and the opportunity, if any, he took to register his opposition to a European army. [14571/99]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 11 together.
The Tánaiste and I met with the President designate of the European Commission, Mr. Romano Prodi in Dublin on Thursday last, 27 May. This was the latest in a series of meetings between the President designate and Heads of State or Government. In the light of the recent coming into force of the Amsterdam Treaty provisions, Mr. Prodi is in a significantly stronger position than his predecessors in forming a Commission. We discussed the shape of the Commission and the need for balance in designing portfolios. Mr. Prodi outlined his plans for reform of the Commission services and we also discussed the balance of relationships between the institutions of the EU. I made the general point that it should be no part of the purpose or effect of Commission reform to reduce in any way the Commission's role as established under the treaty.
As I have already indicated to the House, the Tánaiste and I did not discuss any names in regard to the Commissioner to be nominated by Ireland. Mr. Prodi said that he was still developing his general programme and, accordingly, as regards portfolios, he indicated that he would not make a decision until after the European elections. He pointed out that Commissioners across the range of portfolios will require key political and administrative skills. In addition, it is his intention to match the portfolios to be distributed with the personal experience and attributes of individual nominees. In this way, he hopes to form a strong Commission with a much more equally matched set of portfolios than in previous Commissions.
Mr. Prodi expressed his confidence that Ireland would nominate a candidate who would be of sufficient calibre to take a high profile position. I reminded him that Ireland has established a good tradition of nominating very able personalities who have done well in handling important portfolios in the Commission and indicated that this is a tradition we wish to uphold. While I look forward to working with Mr. Prodi and discussing with him the wide range of issues facing the EU, on this occasion, apart from the above topics, we did not discuss any other matters.
I received the letter, normally issued in advance of a European Council by the Presidency setting out its priorities, from Chancellor Schröder yesterday, 31 May. These priorities include the situation in Kosovo, the European employment pact, institutional reform - 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 Chancellor indicated that the summit will review developments with regard to European security and defence. He also proposes an exchange of views with Mr. Prodi on the future work of the Commission and the required reforms. He has also listed duty free as a matter for discussion at Cologne. I spoke with Chancellor Schröder by telephone last night. Our conversation focused on the issues outlined in his letter. I also spoke yesterday with the Austrian Chancellor, Mr. Viktor Klima, on the range of issues due to arise at the summit.
I received a letter last Friday, 28 May, from the French Prime Minister, Mr. Lionel Jospin, on duty free. In essence this called for a re-examination of the duty free issue at Cologne with a view to seeking an extension beyond the end of June.
I met with the President of Portugal, Dr. Jorge Sampaio, in Government Buildings yesterday. I also attended a State dinner held in honour of the President Sampaio last night and hosted a lunch for him today. During our meetings, we discussed the current situation in Kosovo, Ireland's economic performance and EU issues, in particular institutional reform and enlargement.
We also discussed the position of East Timor. I commended the President for what has been achieved as a result of the agreement with Indonesia signed in New York on 5 May. The Portuguese Government has been central in promoting the peaceful resolution of the situation in East Timor. I expressed our full support for the proposed EU joint action and UN proposals for providing substantial humanitarian and other assistance to the Timorese people. I look forward to the resolution of the constitutional referendum to be held on 8 August. Finally, I will meet briefly with Prime Minister Blair in Cologne tomorrow evening prior to the start of the summit.
Does the Taoiseach think that President Milosevic's acceptance of the G8 principles is genuine? If so, what is his view on continued bombing?
I will await the reports on Wednesday from my colleagues. I discussed this matter with Herr Schröder last night and Mr. Viktor Klima yesterday. An effort is being made by the Finnish President, who is likely to go to Belgrade before he goes to Cologne and to report to the European Council on the situation. It is quite clear that all three intermediaries - Mr. Chernomyrdin, Mr. Talbot and the Finnish President - are making some progress. The exact extent of that is not clear and, from what I have been told by colleagues who are closer to this than I, it is likely that a considered effort will be made this week, but there is no certainty about the outcome.
At this stage does the Taoiseach believe that the bombing is contributing to a diplomatic settlement?
Needless to say, I would prefer if there were no bombing but I am conscious that the ethnic cleansing and atrocities required some response. If there is a realistic chance of a resolution, NATO, the body involved in the bombing, will reflect on that.
What is the Taoiseach's view?
I am not involved in the bombing campaign and I do not have any knowledge about either the intelligence behind the bombing or the state of mind of President Milosevic. I am not in a position to make that judgment. I am aware of the diplomatic efforts being made and will hear more about those from the President of Finland. I would like to see the bombing stopped if there is a diplomatic solution, but if not, that is not a likely possibility.
At the European Council meeting in Cologne, will the Taoiseach support a temporary cessation of the bombing to facilitate a diplomatic solution to this horrendous conflict? Will the Government express a particular political point of view at that meeting?
I will be using my voice, as I did in April, to request people to do everything possible to find a diplomatic solution.
Specifically, a temporary cessation of bombing.
The President of Finland has taken up the mantle of the EU on this issue and if he believes that that would be useful, I will of course support it.
The Taoiseach said that President designate Prodi outlined his plans for the reorganisation of the European Commission. What form is that likely to take? Will he reduce the number of directors general and divisions within the Commission group? Will he reallocate responsibilities within the Commission, leaving aside the composition of the Commission and those who might be appointed to it?
Most of the discussions with Mr. Prodi should be considered tentative and should not be made public. Generally, as he told the media, he is reforming the posts to try to ensure that there is an even balance and that responsibilities are shared more equally than in the past. That means moving a number of responsibilities around. He also intends using two vice presidents who would not necessarily have portfolios, although that is not finalised, but who would be responsible for liaison and close co-ordination with the Parliament on one side and with internal reform on the other. That is what he wants to do. He wants to have a strong Commission where all the posts are as near as equal as is possible in any collegiate group.
The Taoiseach stated that Mr. Prodi said he was looking for people with political and administrative skills to be nominated by the various Governments. I know that the nomination process will not take place until after 11 June but can we deduce that a person with political experience from this country will feature and not someone from the business world?
I raised that issue because I was anxious to know what Mr. Prodi thought but his strong reply was that the enhanced role and involvement with Parliament requires a person who has had considerable political experience.
With regard to the intergovernmental conference which is likely to be launched in the next year or two in preparation for enlargement, what views on institutional reform has the Taoiseach put forward in his conversations with Chancellor Schröder and others?
Some issues remain from the Amsterdam summit which could be dealt with very speedily. I am not in favour of making major changes in qualified majority voting or in some of the other substantive and fundamental issues which were not resolved in Amsterdam. With many member states, I hold the view that fundamental change should not predate the enlargement summit will take place in the autumn. That view is not shared by everybody but it is shared by a number of colleagues.
Is the Taoiseach referring to treaty changes or simply administrative changes? If he is not willing to agree to movement on qualified majority voting - and such changes should not be made in isolation if they are to be made - what changes would he be willing to accept?
A number of categories which come under the heading of qualified majority voting might not create difficulties. Nor would a series of minor administrative issues which were not resolved at Amsterdam. I would not have any difficulty in accepting those. Treaty changes should not be considered until the autumn session when the decision on enlargement has been finalised. That, with the debate on common security policy, will lead to more fundamental issues. These issues will not be resolved before the period of the Portuguese presidency and Portugal will have a substantial role to play in that debate. The debate may continue into the period of the French presidency next year.
Why does the Taoiseach need to wait for reports on Wednesday before expressing a view on the bombing of Yugoslavia? Does he agree with the view, expressed by Mr. Gene Kerrigan in the Sunday Independent, that as long as the United States is in favour of bombing, the Irish Government will not express a view on it or on the wider question of Partnership for Peace and the public's wish for a referendum on that question? Can the Taoiseach explain the reports which suggest that Shannon Airport is playing a role in conveyancing cargo and personnel involved in the conflict in Yugoslavia? Has a decision on this matter been taken by the Government?
Shannon Airport has no involvement in any of these matters. I will be very glad to see the end of the bombing campaign and of hostilities. However, there must be a resolution to the issue and the terms of that resolution must be satisfactory for the people who have been driven from their homes and for the relatives of those who have been savagely and brutally murdered. If even 10 per cent of intelligence reports are correct, formidable humanitarian problems remain to be dealt with. Mr. Milosevic should not be given an easy passage out of this conflict. That would not be right.
(Dublin West): What did the Taoiseach say to the President of the Commission, Mr. Prodi in response to his call for an armed wing for the EU? Did he tell Mr. Prodi that the vast majority of the Irish people reject the militarisation of Europe and any involvement of this country with arms dealing cartels? In his conversation with Chancellor Schröder and other leaders, did the Taoiseach express outrage at the appalling and growing toll taken on innocent civilians - ethnic Albanians including refugees, and innocent Serbs - by NATO bombing and, in par ticular, by the use of cluster bombs in residential areas?Is the Government capable of taking an independent stand on the question of bombing separate from the major military powers in NATO? Does the Taoiseach accept that the plight of hundreds of thousands of innocent ethnic Albanians has been made worse as a result of the bombing and that they are suffering from appalling misery of which there is no let-up? If the brutal regime of Milosevic should be punished by the boycotting of a football match between this country and Yugoslavia, which many would support, does the Taoiseach agree that the bombing of a sanitorium and an old folks home by NATO should equally draw censure from this country?
I did not discuss with Mr. Prodi one of the suggestions he is said to have made in a recent interview with the media. There is some discussion about the precise content. The issue of primary importance to the European Union is the enhancement of its potential for peacekeeping in line with the Petersberg tasks. That is what we should be concentrating on in line with the Amsterdam Treaty. Whether it be murdering innocent people in Racak or bombing, I would like it to be brought to an end. I hope this can be achieved by the diplomatic efforts being made. We are not a party to decisions on the bombing campaign about which we have spoken on numerous occasions. We would like the issue to be resolved as soon as possible and have offered advice at every European Council—
(Dublin West): How can the Taoiseach say that when he signed with other Heads of State—
The Deputy should allow the Taoiseach to finish.
The statements issued by the European Council and the Council of Foreign Ministers were strongly supported by the Secretary General of the United Nations, Mr. Kofi Annan. The objective is to secure a peaceful resolution of the conflict. Much work is being done with the help of the Russians to frame a UN resolution.
Did the Taoiseach discuss with Chancellor Schröder the proposals for a common European security and defence policy finalised at yesterday's meeting of Foreign Ministers as reported in today's edition of the Financial Times? Will he confirm that these proposals are to be considered at the summit in Cologne which he will attend and that they involve giving the European Union a military capacity? What is the Government's attitude to this? Will the Taoiseach also confirm that the proposals involve the abolition of the Western European Union and the absorption of its functions into the European Union and that the declaration agreed by the Foreign Ministers yesterday, which I understand is a substantial document, also commits European Governments to overhauling their defence capacities? What is the Taoiseach's considered view on each of these points?
The Minister for Foreign Affairs outlined yesterday what was agreed. What form the document to the European Council should take is another matter.Yesterday I, and representatives of a number of other countries, made our views known to the Presidency that any of the matters under Article V, particularly those that relate to a common security policy and to the Western European Union moving straight into the EU, will not be discussed and certainly will not receive support from the neutral states. That was the purpose I discussed with Viktor Klima and others. These are matters which the Irish Government will not support. I am not too sure what document will finally come to the European Council, but the Irish view and that of others, was certainly made known yesterday. I do not believe many of the matters the Deputy mentioned will see the light of day in Cologne.
Is the Taoiseach stating the report on the front page of today's Financial Times to the effect that this was agreed at the Foreign Ministers meeting is wrong?
I have seen only the Irish newspapers today and do not know what the Financial Times stated.
I will give it to the Taoiseach. It states that a common defence policy was agreed.
The Deputy cannot display a newspaper in the House.
I get my information on what happened at a Council meeting from the Minister.
Presumably, the Minister told the Taoiseach what was agreed.
I did not check the Financial Times to see what it stated. If Deputy Bruton had read the Irish newspapers, he would have seen what the Minister said in reply to the Irish media.
I want to know what happened at the meeting. I am not interested in what he said to the newspapers.
As always, the Minister will give a very full report to the Irish media. I do not see why Deputy Bruton has to check with media, other than the Irish media, to find out about these matters.
We should ban British newspapers.
The Taoiseach gives his best interviews to the English newspapers.
I do not.
It is the intrusion of the British newspapers that has the country the way it is.
There will be a report and document on a common security policy which will not include Article V issues.
In respect of the same matter, during the conversation he had yesterday evening with Chancellor Schröder, one of the items to which the Taoiseach referred was the appointment of a person with responsibility for articulating Europe's common foreign and security policy. That is a decision in which the Taoiseach will have a role to play, unlike other matters such as the bombing of Kosovo. Has the Government formed a view as to who that person will be? Will the Taoiseach give a categoric assurance that he will not support the Secretary General of NATO as being the representative voice of a common foreign and security policy on behalf of the 15 EU nations, including the four neutral states, of which Ireland is one?
As I understand, Mr. Solana's name was before the Council meeting last night. I am still not sure whether there will be any other names. Another name was mentioned.
Mr. Verheugen.
Yes, but following my discussion last night I am not sure if that name will be in the ring. It is certainly one I could support, and I relayed that view to Chancellor Schröder.
Will the Taoiseach oppose the appointment of the Secretary General of NATO as Europe's de facto Minister for Foreign Affairs? Would that not send the wrong signal in the context of the war in Kosovo and Yugoslavia?
Many members of the Deputy's group support him.
Yes, but I am trying to find out what is in the Taoiseach's head.
I made the point that an alternative name may not be a bad thing because of the signals which would be given. It does not form much of a group within the Council. Having said that, Mr. Solana is well qualified having held several senior positions and he is a very competent individual.
Does the decision require unanimity?
As far as I know, the decision does not require unanimity.
As far as the Taoiseach knows.
I do not believe it does. One name only may be put forward and then Mr. Solana will go through. At this stage, it is more likely that will happen.
Is it not fair to assume that Viktor Klima would have said to the Taoiseach last night that he was very much opposed to Javier Solana, the Secretary General of NATO, being the public foreign policy face of the European Union at this time?
I had a discussion on that matter yesterday with Viktor Klima. I am aware of his private views, but it would not be fair to outline them to the House. The views of his Government will be presented at the meeting. It is likely that there will be only one name.
I wish to pursue a little further what will be included in the declaration on a common foreign and security policy which will be adopted at the meeting in Cologne. The Taoiseach indicated his view that Article V issues will not be included. Will he indicate what Article V issues are and what other issues may be included? Does the Government have a view, for example, on a common armaments policy? Does it have a view on the abolition of the Western European Union and its incorporation into the EU? Would the Taoiseach agree to such an incorporation?
The first working session on Thursday morning will deal with aspects of the common foreign and security policy. There will be a discussion on the common strategy of the Union in terms of Russia which was drawn up by the general council in accordance with the Vienna decision. This will be followed by a discussion on European security and defence, the timetable for integration of the Western European Union into the EU and the necessary associated decisions. We have expressed the view that Western European Union issues are not ready for that discussion, a position which will also be adopted by others.
I received a letter from Chancellor Schröder yesterday and had a discussion with him last night. His people will be working today on the document they will present, probably on Wednesday night or Thursday morning. At this stage I do not see final decisions being made. The chancellor will then move from this issue - he does not intend giving it much time. I do not see how he intends to make a huge input in the time allocated from 11.00 a.m. to 12.30 p.m. A number of countries have stated that clause 5 issues, which concern the Western European Union and the issues the Deputy raised earlier about the military capabilities of individual countries, will not be on the agenda.
Is it not the case that Article V relates to an automatic military alliance but that all the other clauses of the Western European Union treaty relate to other matters which do not necessarily imply an automatic coming to the aid of another state? What is the view of the Government on whether the Western European Union should be incorporated into the EU? Is the Taoiseach in favour of such incorporation? I appreciate that the issue may not be ready for discussion in final form and that the Taoiseach is talking about a timetable, but regardless of a timetable and the detail, is the Taoiseach for or against subsuming the Western European Union into the EU in principle?
I do not think there would be any difficulty in subsuming many of the powers of the Western European Union into the EU. However, the overall common and security policy powers which form the shell of the Western European Union cannot be subsumed, and there lies the difference. Whether such powers are subsumed by NATO or remain as the shell of Western European Union is a matter for discussion. I am against the EU subsuming all the Western European Union powers. However, I have no difficulty with the powers which do not relate to any major change in common security policy. The items in question have been listed previously. For the past number of months the Government has stated that the powers which form the shell of Western European Union should remain with the Western European Union or be subsumed by NATO.
Is the Taoiseach saying he is happy with those aspects of the Western European Union which do not relate to common foreign and security policy being subsumed by the EU?
I referred to the aspects which do not affect our fundamental position.
What are those aspects?
There is a whole list of them.
What is our fundamental position?
I have just answered that.
The Taoiseach has not answered it. This is an important matter. He is going to a summit and we want to know what he will do.
The Deputy is trying to draw me on a document which I have not yet seen. With regard to the Western European Union issue, there are Article V issues which were set down. We have stated categorically we are not in favour of them being discussed or debated or of those coming into the EU. There are other effectively administrative issues which do not create the same problems or difficulties. They could, in time, under a timetable to be discussed next Thursday, move into the EU. The other issues would either then have to be considered as to whether they go to NATO or whether, as some have suggested, they stay in the shell of the Western European Union. On the other side of the discussion, I will report what happened but that is my position going into the meeting.
What are the Article V issues which the Taoiseach is not willing to see subsumed into the EU?
Article V issues are the issues of common security policy, which is trying to move the EU member states more towards military capabilities than I would support, or which we would consider supporting. None of the neutral countries and perhaps other countries will support that either.
(Dublin West): If I understood the Taoiseach correctly in answer to my earlier question, he said he did not comment to Mr. Prodi about Mr. Prodi's call for an EU army. Given that the Taoiseach said to me one or two weeks ago in the Dáil that he was totally opposed to an EU army or to this country being involved in any such process, is it not astonishing that the Taoiseach did not take the opportunity to tell the President of the Commission that he disagreed with that and that this country would have nothing to do with it? When the Taoiseach constantly tries to wash his hands of any responsibility for the appalling toll of innocent casualties in Yugoslavia as a result of NATO's bombs and cluster bombing, does he not accept that he and the Government carry a responsibility? Even though, as he says, he is not part of the day to day planning of these missions, when he, with other EU leaders, signed a statement about two months ago to the effect that the bombing campaign—
The Deputy seems to be making a statement.
(Dublin West): When the Taoiseach signed an EU declaration or statement saying that the bombing campaign was necessary, is not the Government and the Taoiseach implicated in the horrors which follow from that?
On the second matter, no, the Government is not implicated in that matter. I have comprehensively answered that question on several occasions.
On the first matter, there is even some doubt about what Mr. Prodi said. A number of countries have given their clarifications on that matter. When the matter is discussed, if it is discussed in due course, I will certainly make our views known.
We used last week's agenda, which was a single item agenda, to discuss the make up of the new Commission, the portfolios, the structures, the changes and the amendments which Mr. Prodi hopes to make and the relationships with Parliament and with Government. We did not discuss other matters.
What does the Taoiseach expect will happen at the Council in Cologne next week with regard to duty free sales? He referred to this matter being discussed by him and Chancellor Schröder and that he had a telephone call from Lionel Jospin on this matter. Does he expect an extension of time for the administration of duty free sales; and, if so, will he take steps to ensure that Stena Sealink and other companies reverse their decision to increase passenger and related fares on ferries after the end of June this year because of the proposed abolition of duty free sales?
I know an effort will be made to try to find some way of extending the date, probably based on the French proposal as it is the only one which will receive any support. I am not overly confident, because last week the ECOFIN Council was hostile to the proposal, to say the least. There were few supporters for any extension. Even when strong efforts were made to get everyone on side over the course of three or four meetings of the European Council, one country made its position on the matter very clear. Unanimity is required on this issue and I would be surprised if it were achieved. I will certainly work with the French and British Prime Ministers and any others to achieve an extension. However, it will be difficult.
We have had a somewhat difficult discussion on the alleged agreement reached at yesterday's meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers with regard to security and defence. Perhaps it would be helpful if the Taoiseach could arrange for the Minister for Foreign Affairs to make a statement to the House on what, if anything, was agreed in order that the public would be aware of the position prior to the Cologne summit.
I will mention the matter to the Minister for Foreign Affairs who may, perhaps, make his notes from yesterday's meeting available to the Library.
Will he publish the document?
I have not actually seen the document myself. I understand it is not yet ready for publication.
Perhaps communications between Iveagh House and Merrion Street are not what they used to be.
They are. We will communicate further on the matter before the Cologne meeting.
