Michael Noonan
Ceist:4 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach the foreign visits he intends to undertake during the remainder of 2001; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9619/01]
Ceisteanna – Questions. - Official Engagements.
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:5 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the outcome of the spring European Summit in Stockholm; and the implications of any decisions reached for Ireland. [9625/01]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:6 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the bilateral discussions he had with other EU leaders at the spring European Summit in Stockholm; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9626/01]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:7 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the response he has received to a joint letter he sent with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair, to the Swedish Prime Minister, Goran Persson, on the occasion of the recent EU summit at Stockholm; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9628/01]
Joe Higgins
Ceist:8 Mr. Higgins (Dublin West) asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his official engagements outside the country in April 2001. [10007/01]
Michael Noonan
Ceist:9 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the recent European Council meeting in Sweden; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10518/01]
Michael Noonan
Ceist:10 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the bilateral meetings he held during his attendance at the recent European council meeting in Sweden; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10519/01]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 4 to 10, inclusive, together.
In regard to the outcome of the European Council at Stockholm, I would refer to the full statement I made to the Dáil on Thursday, 29 March. In my statement, I mentioned the joint letter submitted by Prime Minister Blair and I to Prime Minister Persson on 8 March. The letter was positively received by colleagues and the issues raised were reflected in the Presidency conclusions of the European Council. The conclusions of the Council have, of course, been laid before both Houses.
I would stress that the core business of the Stockholm European Council was ensuring further progress on the economic and social agenda of the European Union, building on the strategy we set out at Lisbon last year, namely, to make the EU the most competitive and dynamic knowledge based economy in the world by 2010. The meeting produced a number of important results which will, over the coming years, bear fruit in terms of better policies and better economic and social performance at the European level.
I will give the House some examples. The European Council addressed the demographic challenge of an ageing population of which people of working age constitute an ever smaller part; discussed how to create more and better jobs, accelerate economic reform, modernise the European social model and harness new technologies; issued strategic guidance for the broad economic policy guidelines in order to achieve sustained growth and stable macro economic conditions and agreed to improve procedures so that the European Council's spring meeting will become the focal point for an annual review of economic and social questions.
Perhaps the most important achievement of the Council was the agreement to fast track the development of a common approach to the regulation of financial services. Ireland has strongly supported for many years the implementation of the financial services action plan. The implementation of this plan has been subject to lengthy delays which have prevented Europe taking full advantage of the benefits of the single market. It was a key Irish priority that this aspect of the Union's agenda be given added impetus by the European Council. The conclusions of the European Council were most encouraging in this regard. In particular it approved the resolution on more effective securities market regulation and considers that it constitutes a good platform for effective co-operation between the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament in this area; agreed that the financial services action plan be fully implemented by 2005, with every effort made by all parties concerned to achieve an integrated securities market by the end of 2003 by giving priority to securities markets legislation provided for in that plan and endorsed the objective of a well functioning risk capital market by 2003 through implementation of the risk capital action plan.
I was also pleased that the European Council supported the committed and active involvement of social partners in implementing reform, the success of which requires commitment from employers and workers at grass roots. This commitment to social partnership was made no less pleasing by the fact that the Council endorsed the setting up as soon as possible of the European Observatory for Industrial Change as part of the Dublin Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. This development will reinforce the role of the foundation, which is based in Loughlinstown, in supporting the development of European policy in this area.
There was a full debate on the situation in the agricultural sector at the European Council. The Council welcomed and stressed the importance of effective co-operation among national authorities and endorsed the thorough measures being taken by the Council, the Commission and the member states. The Council expressed its determination, which is fully shared by the Government and me, to contain and ultimately eradicate foot and mouth disease and BSE.
The European Council had a meeting and lunch with the Russian President at which we indicated our support for the modernisation of the Russian economy and the building of a genuine partnership between Russia and the EU based on common values. In this context we expressed our strong concern about the situation in Chechnya and stressed the need for a political solution to the conflict as a matter of urgency. We also had a meeting with the president of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia at which we reaffirmed our support for a peaceful and negotiated solution to the problems in the region.
As I said in my statement, the conclusions reached at Stockholm are proof of the European Union's commitment to working for Europe and for Ireland. The EU has created a framework within which its people have enjoyed an unprecedented period of peace and prosperity. It has also created a framework within which Ireland and its people have managed to reach new levels of economic prosperity, international recognition and cultural confidence.
I do not have any official engagements outside Ireland during April. My schedule for the remainder of the year is as follows. I have accepted an invitation to pay an official visit to Scotland on 20 June. I plan to go on an official visit to Iceland on 25 June. I will attend the UN General Assembly special session on HIV and AIDS on 26 June. I plan to go to Brazil and Argentina on an official visit from 17 to 26 July. Later on this year, I plan to go on an official visit to the Czech Republic in September. I plan to visit New York on 8 to 10 November to accept an award from the US Council for Commerce and Industry and to meet the Irish chamber of commerce movement. I will also attend the European Council meetings in Ghent, Belgium on 19 October and in Laeken on 14 and 15 December.
In his statement last Thursday week about the European Council the Taoiseach told us he had taken the opportunity of the meeting to express his support for the UK Government's efforts to avoid the spread of foot and mouth disease. Could the Taoiseach tell us what action, if any, he has taken since then? Could he explain why, on the one hand, we were told measures were in hand for Irish officials and equipment to carry out disinfection procedures at British ports, while, on the other hand, we were told that neither the Prime Minister's office in London nor the Ministry for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food knew anything about it? What is the current position? Is the Government or the British Government flying a kite? What is being done to ensure that the maximum possible measures are taken?
What is the meaning of the statement from the Council that it issued broad economic policy guidelines in order to achieve sustained growth and stable macro-economic conditions? Are these guidelines ones to which the Taoiseach now feels himself attached? Are they guidelines to which the Minister for Finance will adhere in the future? Does the Taoiseach think there is any danger that we will see a repetition during the coming year of the kind of nonsensical row that went on between the Minister for Finance and the European Commission?
I will take the second question first. Broad economic policy guidelines are now issued at the spring summit every year. They are discussed at ECOFIN and then come to the European Council for ratification. In common with other countries' leaders, I set down our views on those. Last year, the broad economic guidelines were used in a way that we did not expect and that has been well documented. We again stressed our position, that to achieve sustainable growth in the economy and to keep employment strong there are certain factors we have to deal with. Almost all other countries made statements about their positions. They will continue to be used as benchmarks by the European Council.
That is a very significant word these days.
It is. I had an informal meeting with Pedro Solbes. We discussed what had happened and how he intends to use these. I hope it will not create any difficulties for him or for us.
For the six weeks since the foot and mouth disease crisis started, we have raised the issue of arrangements for disinfectants at British ports. The Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and I as well as others have made this point.
At the last meeting in Stockholm, I met the Prime Minister Mr. Blair and gave him the report of the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources, outlining what they believe is required to reach our standards at the ports. Spraying was not being done, but a disinfectant policy was being followed at the ports. However, our officials did not believe this to be adequate. Following that meeting, Mr. Blair kindly agreed to contact his relevant officials to try to improve the situation. This did happen for a period with some of the ports. Other ports indicated that it was too costly and too cumbersome and did not continue doing it. When the British officials advised us that these were commercial ports, our officials in the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources entered into direct dialogue with the ports, each of which is independent. These discussions have continued for the past two weeks or so and they have now almost reached agreement.
During the foot and mouth disease crisis, officials at Dublin Port have developed what is considered to be an excellent state of the art spraying process. It can be done automatically or administered by a person. It is the view of the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources and the interdepartmental group that we should put these facilities into the British ports under Irish contract with Irish workers and Ireland will pay for it. They were discussing this until late last night and they hope to finalise arrangements today or tomorrow.
In the ports?
In the British ports.
But they are not—
No, officials at Downing Street were unable to do what we wanted. I want to acknowledge their input but the ports are independent of them and so we dealt directly with the ports.
Will the Taoiseach not agree that in contrast to the Lisbon Spring Summit which was considered to be progressive and fairly radical, there were two major setbacks in Stockholm to which he has not fully or properly referred? Perhaps he might indicate his attitude in this regard: the refusal in the first instance by the French to open up their energy markets even though some major French utilities are operating in other liberalised energy markets and the ambiguity, if not hesitancy, surrounding the Lamfalussy Report on financial services and a single securities market and regulatory authority in the European Union. Will he agree that both are essential to maintain the momentum of Lisbon? Why is it that the Taoiseach's official reply failed to highlight these matters in any significant way as has been done by all the commentators?
Deputy Quinn will acknowledge that I referred to the energy related matter in my lengthy statement on Thursday, 29 March 2001. A great deal of effort made by the Presidency to bring the French onside on that issue did not prove successful. Prime Minister Jospin could not agree on many issues and the matter was set aside. Everybody else was supportive of the proposals and ready to move on. I assume the matter will be kept under review by the Presidency. It creates difficulties in the gas and energy markets for the French side who were unable to make any significant movement in that area.
ECOFIN which met on the Friday of the Stockholm Summit meeting made major progress regarding the financial services sector. There was general agreement that progress was being made on this issue which has been around since the Luxembourg Summit in 1997 – various aspects of it date back to 1993 and 1992. Deputy Quinn's question relates to the work done at the Lisbon Summit last year. It was a new venture, a ten year strategy and it caught many headlines and was seen to be very dynamic. António Guterres as Portuguese Prime Minister played a major role in that area. It did not receive the same amount of attention this year as it was merely a following on of work previously done with the inclusion of some new elements. By and large, it was a report of progress to date since the Lisbon Summit. In fairness to Prime Minister Persson, it achieved what it set out to do. We agreed to continue to make progress in achieving the targets set out at Lisbon while seeking to make the EU the most competitive and dynamic knowledge based economy by 2010. That was the challenge which António Guterres set last year and we were following on that this year. In that regard, the summit was a success.
What discussions took place on the evolving security structures within the European Union at the spring meeting? Will the Taoiseach tell the House what is behind the change proposed at Nice regarding the security arrangements? The Western European Union was becoming an integral part of the evolution of the Union but that has been side tracked, with the exception of one particular reference. What discussions have taken place on those issues? Will the Taoiseach agree that the best way to secure support for the Nice Treaty and for the future evolution of the Union in the security area is to be upfront with the public and tell them exactly what is happening?
The answer to the first question is none. This was the spring economic summit and these issues were not discussed. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, told the House last week that the Western European Union is not part of the arrangement. It is still a separate and outside body. It is not likely to come in the way the Deputy thinks.
It has gone out, not come in. That is my point.
The changes made at the Nice summit are few and technical. There is no change to structures or arrangements. I cannot see any additional changes to those which happened several years ago when Mr. Javier Solana joined in his new role. Where the Western European Union is concerned, there are no changes arising from the Nice Treaty and there are unlikely to be any for many years.
Will the Taoiseach indicate the implications for proposed financial services regulation in this country of the financial services action plan mentioned at the Nice summit? It was indicated at the summit that this plan would be fully implemented by 2005 and that the securities market aspect would be fully implemented by the end of 2003. Will the Taoiseach also indicate the new implications for the regulation of the gas and electricity sectors of the liberalisation measures announced recently?
On gas, electricity and liberalisation, these are mainly competition issues that will open up these sectors in the same way that telecoms and other markets have been opened up in recent years. There will be some delay due to the French position but there is a strong view in the European Council that these sectors are holding back aspects of the Single Market. The new measures will give better competition, lower consumer prices and extend into new areas. All reports from the past decade which have been discussed at European Council level indicate that these directives are necessary to move forward. In the Irish case that is what will happen. We already have ESB legislation drafted, some of which is before the House. With the latest arrangements on the gas pipeline it was stated that Bord Gáis must begin preparations for either strategic partnerships or new financial structures.
On the financial resolutions, the main benefits are to the flexibility of the industry here. The industry will be able to work in a simpler and more cost effective way than was possible previously. This will apply not only to the financial services sector but across all financial houses in Ireland. It is believed the Single Market has prohibited the financial services sector from doing much of what should have been possible. This includes products and services that could have been provided as well as the internationalisation of business. The restrictions in the new directives will put a number of regulatory controls in place to benefit consumers but it will also make the Single Market work. This applies not only to the current market of 350 million people, but this will soon increase to a market of 500 million people—
Would that help to avoid some of the Taoiseach's current problems in terms of regulation and financial services?
Such as.
Such as the problems with the National Irish Bank and another Deputy dropping off.
The Chair discourages this type of question and answer. It is disorderly interruption.
I apologise, a Cheann Comhairle.
I believe these directives will help make the financial services industry increasingly vibrant and a major source of employment.
That concludes Taoiseach's Questions.