Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am pleased to brief the House on the outcome of last month's meeting of the European Council which took place in Brussels on Thursday and Friday of last week, 27 and 28 June, the final two working days of the Irish Presidency of the Council of the European Union. As I indicated to the House in advance of last week's summit, the strong focus of the meeting was on the closely interrelated issues of youth employment and access to finance for the real economy, particularly the small and medium enterprise, SME, sector. I am happy this meeting of European leaders agreed on a comprehensive approach to combating the major problem of youth unemployment, with agreement being reached on a series of concrete measures, including the front-loading of funding under the youth employment initiative during 2014 and 2015; the speeding up of implementation of the youth guarantee; improved mobility for young workers; and the promotion of high quality apprenticeships and other work based learning for younger people.

Complementing these measures, the European Council also launched a new investment plan for Europe, which will build on the combined strengths of the European Union's next multi-annual financial framework, MFF, and the increased resources and funding available through the European Investment Bank, EIB. This will help boost the financing of the real economy and support the SME sector, which continues to form the backbone of the European economy. Last week's meeting also saw the conclusion of the European semester process for 2013, with the endorsement of a series of country specific recommendations. Leaders also took stock of implementation of the compact for growth and jobs, 12 months after its adoption.

I am very pleased that my European Council colleagues also reaffirmed the imperative need to break the vicious circle between banks and sovereigns, making it clear that completing banking union remains the key priority in this regard in the short run. Thanks to the efforts of the Minister for Finance and his team, significant progress was made on banking union during Ireland's term in the Presidency, as was recognised by colleagues last week. I firmly hope this progress will be built on in the period ahead.

President Van Rompuy reported to the meeting on his work concerning the further strengthening of Economic and Monetary Union, EMU, which Ireland, in its role of Presidency, had facilitated in the Council. There was broad agreement on the need to return to these issues again later in the year.

We also took important decisions concerning EU enlargement, particularly in respect of Serbia and Kosovo, on which the Minister of State, Deputy Lucinda Creighton, will elaborate in her intervention. We had the pleasure of warmly welcoming Croatia as the 28th member of the European Union as of yesterday and we congratulated Latvia on being the 18th member state to adopt the euro as it currency from 1 January 2014. We also expressed our solidarity with those affected by the major flooding across eastern Europe last month.

I took the opportunity of last week's meeting to update my colleagues on the significant range of achievements secured during our Presidency. I am pleased to note that partners were highly complimentary both of the substance of our work and the efficiency and professionalism with which it was carried out. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to all those across our system who played their part in what was an enormous team effort, one that reflects well on the country and which helps to consolidate our reputation as a serious, committed and engaged European partner.The individuals in question, who are rarely seen or heard, do important work in preparing for decisions to be made in the interests of Europe and Ireland. They are owed a great deal of credit.

The important decisions we made on youth employment are underpinned by our agreement with the European Parliament on the new multi-annual financial framework. This includes front-loading the new €6 billion youth employment initiative in order that spending will be concentrated in the first two years. We also expect that this resource will be reinforced by a further €2 billion from what we have agreed with the European Parliament on MFF flexibility.

We agreed to develop a stronger EURES job search facility that will help to fill job vacancies more quickly, including by removing unnecessary barriers to cross-border mobility. This will be supported by the important progress made by the Irish Presidency on professional qualifications, supplementary pension rights and the expanded Erasmus+ programme under the new MFF. The context for these steps was provided by the agreement reached by the Irish Presidency in February on the key principles of youth guarantee schemes. I acknowledge the important contribution of the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Joan Burton, in this regard. We must now all press ahead with adapting our education and training systems to the new economic realities of the 21st century. This means supporting employability, including through new partnerships with the workplace.

Work is under way towards developing our own national youth guarantee implementation plan. Progress will build from the range of initiatives already under way through our interlocking Action Plan for Jobs and Pathways to Work strategies. This work will also be supported by the OECD, building from the youth action plan agreed at the OECD ministerial committee meeting in Paris at the end of May, which the Tánaiste attended. I expect that our implementation plan will be finalised before the end of the year.

The key to bringing down unemployment across Europe will be recovery in the real economy, in other words, companies growing their businesses and creating new jobs. For this reason, I attach particular importance to the investment plan agreed last week. The plan provides for important new synergies between the European Union's budget and the enhanced lending capacity of the European Investment Bank. We heard from EIB President Hoyer that the bank has already identified new lending opportunities of more than €150 billion in our agreed priority areas of innovation and skills; SME access to finance; resource efficiency; and strategic infrastructures. The plan will now combine funds from the new multi-annual financial framework with the EIB's enhanced lending capacity to support a significantly expanded volume of new SME loans across the Union.

The Commission-EIB report presented before our meeting set out a number of options for new joint risk-sharing financial instruments to this end. We have asked Finance Ministers to finalise the design of these instruments without delay in consultation with the Commission and EIB in order that they will become operational in parallel with the new MFF from the beginning of 2014.

As the House will be aware, finalising the negotiations between the Parliament and Council on the MFF was a major priority of the Irish Presidency. Last Thursday in Brussels, just before the European Council convened, the Tánaiste and I met with President Schulz and President Barroso in a final effort to bring about an agreement.

We found a compromise that we were happy to recommend to our respective institutions. The European Council on Thursday night confirmed the political agreement of the member states and the Parliament will vote tomorrow at its plenary session in Strasbourg. While I cannot prejudge the result, the Parliament's leadership and its negotiators have endorsed the deal, and I am hopeful that this vote will confirm the agreement we brokered. I was happy to refer to this in my briefing to the European Parliament in Strasbourg this morning.

These were long and hard negotiations. I acknowledge the great work done by the Tánaiste and the Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs over many months. This is a real achievement for the Irish Presidency, but more importantly it is an achievement for the European Union, which can now get down to the serious work of planning and programming the spending of these highly significant resources of €960 billion.

As the meeting effectively marked the end of the Irish Presidency, it may be worthwhile for me to recall for the House some of the landmark achievements during our Presidency. We set out to make a difference, and we have. From the outset, we made it clear in three words that our priorities were stability, jobs and growth. Across every Council formation, we identified the measures that could best deliver and we worked hard to make progress. The results of our efforts are outlined in detail in the report that has been laid before the Oireachtas.

From the beginning of January right up to last Friday, the Government worked flat out to secure our objectives. The Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, in intensive negotiations last week delivered on banking resolution, a key part of the proposals to sort out Europe's banking system and to ensure we can never experience again what Ireland went through. The Minister for Agriculture, Food and Marine, Deputy Coveney, fought hard for and delivered reform of the Common Agricultural Policy which is vital for Europe's agrifood industry and for the prosperity of rural communities across the European Union. As I have already set out, the Tánaiste, Deputy Gilmore, led the long and tough negotiations with the European Parliament on the MFF that delivered agreement on a budget for the EU of €960 billion, a budget that will support jobs, growth and investment across Europe for the next seven years.

Across the Council formations they chaired, Irish Ministers worked to manage the EU's heavy agenda and to deliver results. I pay tribute to the commitment, energy and skill demonstrated by my colleagues in Government over the past six months and to the hard work of the officials who tirelessly supported them. The extent of hours put in by public servants in all sectors is often misunderstood. This includes the permanent representation and the young people drafted in to assist them in the past six months.

We achieved agreement on Horizon 2020, the €70 billion programme for research and innovation, paving the way for the jobs of the future. We hosted last month's Digital Agenda Assembly in Dublin, one of the largest events of the Presidency, which highlighted the potential of the digital agenda to deliver growth and jobs. We made our contribution to freeing up the Single Market, providing new opportunities for small and medium-sized enterprises. The new accounting directive will reduce administrative burdens and will introduce a simplified set of accounting rules. The public procurement package will make it easier to tender for public contracts across the EU, which in total are worth some €2 trillion a year. The €2 billion programme for the competitiveness of enterprises and SMEs, known as COSME, will help business to access finance and to trade more easily across borders.

Of course, the search for growth and jobs does not stop at Europe's borders - nobody knows this better than people in a small open economy like Ireland. A lasting achievement of our Presidency will be the mandate for the start of negotiations between the EU and US on an historic transatlantic trade and investment partnership, secured last month at meetings chaired by the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Bruton. I hope that in the current circumstances the matters at hand will be addressed, clarified and dealt with so that these negotiations can take place in a transparent and equal manner.

In other areas Ireland sought and secured agreement on proposals that will underpin jobs and growth in the EU for investment across the portfolio of the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Rabbitte, including telecommunications and energy networks, or Europe's transport infrastructure. Agreement was secured on a range of environmental legislation which will help to ensure that Europe's future is safe and sustainable. Sustainability was also at the heart of the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy, secured under the Irish Presidency. The endorsement of the Atlantic action plan will help drive sustainable "blue" growth in the coastal regions of the five Atlantic member states, Portugal, Spain, France, the United Kingdom and Ireland along with Canada and the United States. I was delighted to be present with Commissioner Geoghegan Quinn in the Marine Institute in Galway for the launch of the EU, US and Canada Atlantic Ocean research alliance in May which will help to transform our knowledge and understanding of the Atlantic.

When the Government came into office, we promised to restore Ireland's standing as a respected and influential member of the European Union. The successful conduct of Ireland's seventh Presidency of the Council was always key to this process. I am proud of what our country and officials have achieved over the past six months. We have demonstrated that we are a serious, competent and responsible partner that has acted in the common interest while holding the Presidency.

Of course, Ireland's engagement with Europe does not end with the Presidency. I am determined that now we should build on the goodwill we have earned, maintaining and developing the contacts we have made so that Ireland continues to be an active part of the decision-making process in order to best protect our long-term interests as a member state. That means continual engagement with the European Council and Parliament on an ongoing basis.

Our experience over the past six months shows the determining role now played by the European Parliament since the endorsement of the Lisbon treaty. The Oireachtas also had a busy Presidency agenda and I had the honour to address the COSAC plenary session last week. I welcome the contribution of the Oireachtas to the consideration of the roles of national parliaments and the European Parliament in ensuring democratic legitimacy and accountability as the Union considers steps toward closer economic and monetary union.

This Presidency was our first in a trio that includes Lithuania and Greece. Lithuania has taken up the baton with enthusiasm and determination and I wish both our partners every success in implementing our joint programme with its focus on putting Europe firmly back on the path of growth and prosperity. I can pledge Ireland's full support for the work that lies ahead of them.

The outcome of last month's European Council was welcome, as it focused us on the two pressing issues of youth employment and access to finance. These are not abstract concepts. They are real and I am pleased that the European Council has responded in concrete terms to assist in addressing these challenges.

The meeting has placed us on the right track in areas such as the European semester, the compact for growth and jobs or our clear focus on concluding banking union. I was delighted to have had the opportunity, right at the end of our Presidency, to brief my colleagues on a wide range of substantive achievements which we were able to deliver on our watch. I had the privilege of doing that today in the European Parliament. I will continue to keep the House updated on all relevant developments.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The statement the Taoiseach has just delivered claims that the past six months has seen enormous progress. Even more than is usual for a government given to daily praising its own actions, he has presented a picture of Ministers having delivered Europe to a new frontier. The Union is, he claims, growing stronger because of this leadership.

In the middle of this it is striking just how much the Taoiseach has not mentioned. In his review of the past six months, he has managed to completely ignore the fundamental direction of the European economy. He has declared himself absolutely satisfied with what has been achieved, yet the citizens of Europe see a very different picture.

During the past six months growth rates have fallen, recession has returned, unemployment has reached record levels and sovereign bonds have experienced their fourth worst month in more than 20 years. The evidence is overwhelming that the policy of co-ordinated austerity in all parts of Europe has failed and will keep failing, yet the response has been to double down on the policy. The Taoiseach's primary argument is that it is a great success to have closed as many files as possible. It a "never mind the quality feel the width" approach which sees reaching agreements as being more important than what is in them.

The agenda is exactly as was proposed in President Van Rompuy's presentation to the European Parliament last year when he laid out the work programme for 2013.

In normal times this would have been unexceptional, maybe even a welcome sign of stability, but these are not normal times. The scale of Europe's problems requires an urgency and ambition completely absent not only during our Presidency, but during the past four years. Nothing done in the past six months will change in any way the direction of Europe, create a new effort to achieve growth or address any of the deep flaws in the work of the Union that helped to create the crisis.

Ireland has delivered agreements to keep the push for austerity even where countries have had an alternative. Ireland has agreed to cut the Union's budget, to have those cuts focused on the Union's most important programmes and to keep the link between sovereign and financial debts. I will return to that point later. If the Taoiseach is satisfied with this and if he believes Europe has turned the corner, then he is spending too much time reading his own press releases.

As a result of the Lisbon treaty changes, the duties of the Presidency are significantly smaller than in the past and the absence of the major 2004 accession helped to ensure that costs could be significantly lower. Even with these changes the work of an EU Presidency has a major impact on all states, not only the smaller ones. Ireland has always handled them well because we give our best people responsibility, as the Taoiseach has outlined. Every Presidency since our first, in 1975, has been administered well. The daily work of our officials is unequalled by those of any other country not only in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, but throughout Government, and officials have carried a heavy responsibility and delivered an impeccably administered Presidency. This work has rightly been praised in all parts of the Union.

However, for a Presidency to change the direction of Europe, it requires political leadership. This has been demonstrated in the past at a time when the Presidency was a much greater challenge. The 1984, 1990, 1996 and 2004 Presidencies each involved the Taoiseach and Minister for Foreign Affairs achieving major moves forward on fundamental constitutional change within the Union. The 1984 and 2004 Presidencies in particular led the Council to overcome the belief that it was incapable of agreeing anything significant.

The Taoiseach claimed this morning that Ireland had overwhelmingly delivered on its Presidency objectives of stability, jobs and growth. Certainly, there has been a stability to the agenda, but with growth and employment forecasts for the coming years cut, the claim to have delivered on jobs and growth is clearly not true. A deflationary budget which cuts vital programmes will not deliver jobs and growth. The refusal to change existing economic policies will not deliver jobs and growth. The maintenance of deep structural flaws in the euro will not create jobs and growth.

A defining characteristic of this Government from the start has been the amount of time it puts into public relations. Politics before policy is its only consistent strategy. This has been brought to new levels during the Presidency and, in particular, during the past week. The Taoiseach has developed a deserved reputation for being the most partisan ever holder of his office. He finds it impossible to acknowledge the achievements of people from other traditions from either the recent or distant past.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Who wrote that?

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Whereas predecessors of different parties saw their role as having a substantial national role above party politics, the Taoiseach has completely rejected this. He has now added to this and become the first Taoiseach of any party to use a Presidency of the EU to play domestic political games. He started this earlier in the year when he travelled to London and delivered a series of partisan speaking points to an academic and business audience. Last week, he went much further and showed that for him electoral politics always come first. The Anglo Irish Bank tapes have rightly caused a public outcry and outrage. When faced with this, the Taoiseach's first and overwhelming instinct was not to address the issue at hand, but to find a way of politicising it. Absolutely nothing in those tapes has implicated any politician in the appalling behaviour they reveal. Yet the Taoiseach decided he needed to start smearing people with crass innuendo and clearly false assertions about what information has been released to the public.

The Taoiseach has repeatedly stated that he knows nothing about what happened when the bank guarantee was brought in. He has said he would love to know what happened.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is Deputy Martin going to tell us?

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If we put aside the lengthy statements and interviews, including those given in the House, this claim of the Taoiseach is transparent, partisan nonsense. For two and a half years he and his Ministers have been in full control of Government. They have had absolute access to the many records of events, especially those contained in all of the documents retained in the Department of Finance. More important, they have had access to the officials who were present at all stages of the guarantee process. The Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, has refused to release some information under the freedom of information legislation. The Taoiseach cannot have it both ways.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He has no control over that.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In the Taoiseach's case, for an entire year he had at his side the most senior official present during that night.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are no papers.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the Taoiseach expecting us to believe that he never asked the official any questions about the meetings he attended? The next most senior official, who was in the room that night as well, worked closely with this Government for well over a year. He regularly attended the Economic Management Council with the Taoiseach, Tánaiste, the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, at which bank-related debts were discussed. Did the Taoiseach ask him no questions during that time?

If the Taoiseach actually believed his own smears he would have used his complete access to officials and records to put the information into the public domain, but for two and a half years he has done nothing of the sort. Worse, he has taken no action to put in place any form of independent inquiry to produce the information he maintains is urgently needed.

I have no doubt that those the Taoiseach seeks to slur acted in good faith and on the basis of the best available information. They reached the same conclusion as the Taoiseach reached and he has not produced a credible alternative to what they decided that evening. His decision to take the low road reflects more on him than them. His first preference has always been to make an inquiry as political as possible and to take as long as possible. When the Oireachtas inquiries referendum was defeated in 2011 because the people did not trust this Government with the extra powers it was seeking, there were many alternatives open to the Government but none of them has been taken. This is not because of the need for any advice, it is because it was decided that the only inquiry Fine Gael and the Labour Party seek is one which can be trusted to be controlled directly by them.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There will be no secret inquiries.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They have no wish to risk an inquiry that does not support their political agenda. Naturally, one thing the Taoiseach especially does not like referring to is that he voted for the same guarantee he says was the product of collusion. He sought outside advice and, in the cold light of day, supported it. He also went to his own private briefing at Anglo Irish Bank headquarters and seems to admit to believing that the bank would survive.

Last week in Brussels, the Taoiseach was eager to make this issue as prominent as possible. The majority of the Cabinet were sent out to deliver snide personal calls on people to supposedly reveal information that is already public. The Taoiseach was eager that the focus should be on implying Government collusion and that it should be seen as a particularly Irish issue. It is striking that Chancellor Merkel, in her reasonable comments, took a completely different approach from the Taoiseach. She directed her comments not only against Irish bankers, but against the mentality in many parts of the industry throughout Europe.

I have looked at the record relating to the three previous leaders of Fine Gael who were taoisigh during our Presidencies. In no case have I been able to find anything which comes close to the cynical party politics the Taoiseach displayed last week. The scale of this cynicism becomes more evident since we have learned that last week Ireland was confirmed as having returned to recession. It is two years since the Taoiseach started claiming to have delivered growth, but four of the past five quarters have seen the economy decline. Most people would have expected the Taoiseach and his Ministers to give a response to this and to explain what their strategy is to reverse the new trend, but they had nothing to say. They ran away from the microphones when asked about the return to recession but sought out every opportunity to talk about 2008.

Fundamentally, this is a Government more interested in exploiting the past than learning from it. It wants to keep re-fighting the last election and is happy to find people who support them in this. It is increasingly clear that it is not helping the Government to halt rising levels of dissatisfaction and falling levels of trust.

Last week's summit signed off on the last part of the country-specific approach to economic policy. The ensuing recommendations entrench current orthodoxy. They do not call on countries that have the ability to stimulate their economies to do so. They leave Europe with an economic policy which claims that freer trade and lower regulation are all that we need to deliver competitiveness, jobs and growth.

The documents agreed last week contain no hope of a new direction and no answer to the rising evidence of a deeper economic downturn taking hold in Europe.

The need for an urgently arranged final meeting involving the heads of the different institutions proved that the budget deal announced the previous week was no deal. It is welcome that there is a political agreement on a budget but there is no circumstance in which Ireland should welcome this budget. No matter how the Taoiseach spins it, the multi-annual financial framework, MFF, will hinder, not help growth in Europe. It implements a cut in the European Union's already low share of the European economy. By definition, cutting spending will be deflationary. Even more seriously, to fund some new areas. existing ones are to be cut severely. The rural economy will feel this most but so too will sectors which were relying on Europe taking a leading role in promoting growth through innovation. While the €6 billion youth employment fund has been improved because of the European Parliament's demands, it still is wholly inadequate. It is not large or focused enough to make a major difference in any country and over-selling it is foolish.

Last week's agreement on the Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, is welcome because it does less damage than was originally feared. The 10% cut to overall funding that was agreed by the Council will cause serious problems. However, Fianna Fáil welcomes the withdrawal by the Irish Presidency of its earlier position of skewing the budget towards larger units and away from the core social and environmental role of the Common Agricultural Policy.

As for banking union, the spin about last week's deal on the European Stability Mechanism, ESM, and resolution mechanisms has already fallen apart. This deal does not do what is claimed. After the deal, The Economistwrote that no matter what the politicians were claiming, “the poisonous link between weak sovereigns and weak banks in the euro remains intact”. Yesterday, the Financial Timeswent into more detail by writing:

It kills the last chance of a resolution that could have ended the depression in the eurozone periphery. In the brave new world of the EU's resolution regime, all risks will be shared between various categories of bank creditors, which are mostly domestic institutions, and the banks' home states.

The European Council... has long become silent on the ceremonious pledge, made in June 2012, to break the link between sovereigns and the banks. Last week's agreement did not break it. It has not even been diluted. It has been reconfirmed.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Government has made significant progress but the Deputy will not admit it.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Even today's edition of The Irish Times points out: "As yet there is scant progress on breaking the vicious circle between banks and sovereign states which so excited the Government last year."

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The only truth the Deputy has spoken today is he failed to admit it-----

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Some Ministers are claiming the effort to secure ESM funding retrospectively for Irish banks has been damaged. What they have not done is to explain what Ireland has been seeking. The Minister, Deputy Noonan, told a Dáil committee last year that he could not see the benefit from selling our bank stakes to the ESM. Has this position changed?

During this Presidency, Ireland fulfilled its core responsibilities well. It handled the agenda it was given by President Van Rompuy and delivered the required agreements to keep most of the items on track. However, at the end of the Presidency, Europe has not returned to stability, jobs and growth, as the Taoiseach keeps claiming. Our political leaders did not try to change the agenda.

Ann Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I must ask the Deputy to conclude.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will do so. They did not try to push a move away from failed policies or towards badly-needed reforms of the Union.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What about reform of the Common Fisheries Policy or CAP reform or Erasmus programme reform or the Europe 2020 targets?

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Nothing was done which gives any sense that Europe is actively working to help its 27 million citizens who are unemployed. Unfortunately, this was a lost opportunity.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Fire that scriptwriter.

Ann Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I call Deputy Adams, who will share time with Deputy Crowe, namely, seven and a half minutes.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Taoiseach is good at firing this days.

Gerry Adams (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Go raibh maith agat, a Chathoirligh.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I hope the Taoiseach is not obliged to fire his colleague sitting beside him-----

Gerry Adams (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Last week's European Council summit marked the end of our Presidency.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----when he finds out which way she intends to vote.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister had an historical achievement.

Gerry Adams (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Lads, an bhfuil seans ar bith agam?

While I disagree with the Taoiseach's policy on many issues, I commend the great energy he brought to these challenges. Some progress was made on several issues, such as the Common Agricultural Policy and the Common Fisheries Policy, but it is fair to state the Presidency was characterised by spin and exaggeration on many occasions, not least in the Taoiseach's remarks today. Indeed, during the final weeks of the Presidency, the negotiations on the European Union budget or multi-annual financial framework were nearly undone by the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Gilmore's overzealous overselling. The Taoiseach's claim to have secured a deal on the European Union budget was met with the resignation of the negotiator for the European People's Party amid accusations that the Tánaiste was misleading people. While the budget has been cobbled together and will be voted on by the European Parliament this week, many MEPs remain deeply concerned both by the budget itself and by the way in which it was agreed. It represents essentially the continuation of the austerity approach that has contributed to the current crisis and it cannot be welcomed. If it is passed, it will see substantial cuts to important European Union-wide programmes. The immediate impact will be a cut of 6% for 2014, which includes a cut of 25% to research and innovation funding, an 11% cut to the rural development programmes, a 14% cut to health and consumer protection funding, a 9% cut to the Cohesion Fund and a cut of 19% to development aids.

Consequently, while the Irish Presidency of the European Union bears all the hallmarks of austerity, the outcome will be to see more of what everyone has experienced in the recent past. Were further proof needed, the latest figures from the Central Statistics Office show the State once again is in recession. The decline in gross domestic product reflects the depression in consumer spending and high unemployment and all this constitutes an indictment of the Government's policy. One significant impact of these policies, which the Taoiseach has marked down as one of the landmark achievements in his remarks today, is the issue of youth unemployment. Only €6 billion has been allocated to tackle youth unemployment, which is a drop in the ocean compared with what is required. In some parts of the European Union, unemployment among young people under 25 is as high as 50%. Nearly one quarter of those aged between 18 and 25 across the Union are out of work and in this State, the figure is one in three. This means that 5.5 million young people are unemployed across the European Union. This morning, the Taoiseach told the European Parliament that tackling the blight of youth unemployment was an absolute priority, but yet 91,664 young people are out of work which is treble the level of four years ago. Moreover, Members are aware that these figures are massaged by the fact that tens of thousands of Irish youngsters are scattered across the globe. All the policies the Taoiseach is pursuing here and in Europe are aggravating and increasing the blight of youth unemployment, not ending it.

Moreover, the chances of a deal on our legacy banking debts faded in recent times. This is the same deal the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Gilmore, told Members would be concluded by last October and then by this June. This was to be a seismic shift, a game changer and while European Union Finance Ministers have agreed on procedures to deal with future collapses, there is no firm commitment about the nearly €30 billion of Irish taxpayers' money that has gone into the pillar banks. Lest one forgets the €30 billion that was used to pay off the debts of Anglo Irish Bank, that has been kicked down the road but thanks to Fine Gael, the Labour Party and Fianna Fáil, our children and perhaps their children will be paying for the greed and reckless behaviour of those greedy bankers for years to come. The fact also remains that nothing has been done to break definitively the link between sovereign and banking debts, as was promised more than a year ago. What is to be the role of the ESM? While a €60 billion fund has been made available to deal with bank recapitalisation, this fund seems far too small for what is required. Did the Taoiseach not tell Members that the ESM would mean retrospective recapitalisation of Ireland's bad banking debts? Is this still the Government's objective? Sinn Féin has repeatedly called for the Government and its Fianna Fáil predecessors to save the taxpayers from the burden of this debt.

That was dismissed as fairy tale economics, yet last week the European Union adopted the position of burning bondholders when the banks fail. It is too late for the people in this State.

In the past week we have also been subjected to a litany of revelations about the banking controversy which bankrupted the State and left citizens here in hock to the EU, the European Central Bank and the IMF. We still have not heard a full account from those involved, and we remain vigilant to see what will come out of all that.

I want to refer briefly to the deal on the Common Agricultural Policy, which represents in many ways a missed opportunity because while there was some redistribution of funds from those at the upper end of the scale to those at the bottom, it is much less than it might or ought to have been.

I am very disappointed that the Irish Presidency did not do more to advance the agenda for peace in the Middle East, particularly in the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and Syria.

I know that on a personal level it has been an extremely busy time for the Taoiseach during the Presidency so fáilte abhaile.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Go raibh maith agat.

Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ireland's Presidency of the EU has ended. The last major event was the Council meeting last week. For many people poverty is seen as having grown in Europe, recession has returned, hunger is knocking on many doors, and there is not much hope about. The Taoiseach spoke in terms of success. He may be too close to it but many people across Europe who are stuck in that awful place would not describe what is happening in their lives as a success.

One of the key stated aims of the Presidency was to tackle the huge levels of unemployment in the EU, and mention was made of youth unemployment, but that has not happened. At the last Council meeting it was agreed to spend over €6 billion in the next two years to support job creation, training and apprenticeships for young people, but there is a strong belief across Europe that €6 billion is not nearly enough funding to tackle this major socio-economic problem.

We know from official figures that more than half of those aged under 25 in Greece and Spain are out of work and that in Italy currently 40% of youths are unemployed. In Ireland, the youth unemployment rate is over 30%, and could be higher but for the haemorrhaging of youth from rural Ireland and from towns and cities across the island. Youth unemployment in France is above 26%, more than double the national rate. On deprived urban estates and in many rural areas, youth unemployment is a whopping 40%. That is the impact it is having across many families.

The current generation of European youth is probably one of the most educated generations Europe has ever produced, yet the scandal is that many of them face a future of unemployment, underemployment or emigration. The fact that we are allocating insufficient investment in the youth guarantee, which will create real jobs, is an indictment of this Presidency. The International Labour Organization has also criticised the shortfall in funding being made available for the youth guarantee. Its estimate is that €21 billion would be needed over two years to facilitate and halt the decline in the EU's youth unemployment rate. Along with the EU budget, the youth guarantee is not fit for purpose. It promises a great deal in rhetoric but, crucially, it does not provide the necessary stimulus funding or investment to provide essential jobs and sustainable economic growth. This is not new funding that we have been promised but money from within the new scaled-down EU budget. Eurofound estimates the cost of youth unemployment in Europe at €150 billion a year. The social costs are also evident every day in constituencies across Ireland and Europe. For many, that €6 billion shows that the EU and Ireland's Presidency has not reacted accordingly to the scale of the crisis.

Most of the talk over the weekend and into this week was about the revelations that the US Government, through its covert PRISM programme, was spying on EU officials and national Government officials. The German paper, Der Spiegel, revealed over the weekend that the US intelligence agency, the National Security Agency, NSA, spied on EU missions in Washington and in New York, and that NSA agents may have also infiltrated EU security communication lines in Brussels. That is like playing poker with people who are supposed to be one's friends but they arrange, with tricks and mirrors, to see the card one is holding. They have an unfair advantage over the game, and they always come out winning and on top. It should not be a surprise to anyone that spies spy but it is an uncomfortable wake-up call for states in terms of how far they can trust some states which are supposed to be their friends and allies.

This is not unique to the US. Many European countries engage in this undemocratic practice. In 2004, a listening device was found in my party's office building in Belfast. My colleague, Barbara de Brún, who was then an MEP, had her office bugged by Britain's MI5.

I am sure this issue has been talked about at the highest level since the revelations, and I hope the Taoiseach will raise his concerns at this undemocratic and covert action. It is a warped friendship that promotes and allows that activity.

I congratulate Croatia on joining the EU today and warmly welcome it into the European Union. Croatia is now the 28th member of the EU but this comes ten years after it started the accession process and just under 20 years since the end of its war and eventual separation from the former Yugoslavia. It is a difficult time for the EU due to high unemployment and low growth, and for the past four years Croatia's own economy has either been in recession or stagnant, similar to our own. A priority for the EU must be assisting the unemployed and the disadvantaged, narrowing the gap between rich and poor, and improving the living standards of citizens across the European countries. The EU must focus on an investment stimulus that will create economic growth, not the current policies of cuts and more cuts. The current economic mix has failed to deliver and more people are coming to that conclusion.

Along with others, I am disappointed that there were no Council conclusions on illegal colonial Israeli settlements. At the Foreign Affairs Council last week there was no agreement to publicly condemn Israel's continued settlement construction. According to media reports, Baroness Catherine Ashton pushed strongly against that, wanting to give the US Secretary of State, John Kerry, time to pursue his latest initiative. That is extremely disappointing. Regardless of whether there are negotiations, these illegal colonial settlements should be condemned and efforts towards a ban on settlement produce or even labelling should not be hindered because of it. There was disappointment during the Presidency that we did not see that initiative coming forward. Baroness Catherine Ashton's move is another indication of the lack of willingness from the EU to play a significant and positive role in resolving that extremely difficult conflict.

Along with my colleague, Deputy Adams, I am extremely concerned about the question of Syria and the developments that some countries are talking in terms of arming rebel groups. When we get to the questions we might get some sense of what happened in regard to that.

Ann Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I call Deputy Mick Wallace, who I understand is sharing time with Deputy Boyd Barrett.

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

All members of the EU should be very concerned about the information that has come into the public domain in the past two weeks from Edward Snowden. It is a little scary. The notion of bugging European embassies and offices has nothing to do with the US's so-called fight against terrorism, and it might impact on the free trade talks beginning next week. President Obama seems to think that is normal and is what happens but that will not wash. The French and the Germans are not pleased and do not regard it as normal to bug one's friends and collect data from them.

Some 500 million communications are being tampered with every month in Germany alone. That beggars belief.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Government should send the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, to deal with that matter. He would not be long resolving the problem.

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Clearly, this has more to do with business and gaining economic advantage than it has with fighting terrorism. Is what the Americans did any different from what the KGB used to do? We used to criticise the latter for its actions. There has been a great deal of discussion with regard to the Chinese, who, it must be stated, do try to control the Internet. However, it is obvious that the Americans are trying to do so as well. It must be difficult now for the Americans to throw stones at the Chinese, particularly as they have been discovered engaging in the same type of activities. Does the Tánaiste agree with me in that regard?

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy would know more about spying than I would.

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the Tánaiste referring to the fact that I have been on the receiving end?

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Wallace should not be paranoid.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is not only the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, about whom Deputy Wallace needs to be concerned.

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Tánaiste will be relieved to hear that I am not paranoid. I just know they are out to get me.

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The collection of a significant amount of words and communications of people in Europe is a matter which the Irish State is going to be obliged to address. Privacy is not what it used to be but what one gives away voluntarily is very different from what an organisation or state might take from one. There was a time when privacy was the defining quality of a free people. In that context, alarm bells should be ringing. I do not believe President Obama's defence of what occurred is going to go down well. I watched him on television last night and he did not look comfortable trying to defend what happened. I was interested in the comments made by Edward Snowden yesterday who stated:

In the end the Obama administration is not afraid of whistleblowers like me, Bradley Manning or Thomas Drake. We are stateless, imprisoned, or powerless. No, the Obama administration is afraid of you. It is afraid of an informed, angry public demanding the constitutional government it was promised...

Marjorie Cohn, professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, has stated there is another rule of law, international law, that may give the 30 year old systems analyst, Edward Snowden, a path to political asylum. Cohn said Snowden could cite "a well-founded fear of persecution" based on the mistreatment of fellow whistleblower Bradley Manning. If what Professor Cohn has said is anything to go by, then we could be forgiven for thinking that if Mr. Snowden is returned to America, he is unlikely to have a great time. There is also a provision in the Convention against Torture that forbids extradition of a person to a country where there are substantial grounds to believe he would be in danger of being tortured, as was the case with Bradley Manning. The Americans have been quick to claim that terrorist attacks were thwarted by the massive dragnet of surveillance exposed by Snowden. However, Senators Mark Udall and Ron Wyden, who have been on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence which has examined this classified information for many years, say that this is not true. The intelligence that is the most useful for foiling terrorist plots is traditional in nature and does not involve dragnet surveillance whereby the authorities listen in to people's telephone phone calls and track the sites they visit on the Internet.

Douwe Korff, a Dutch lawyer, writing in The Guardian has observed:

It is time that these activities - by all the states involved - are brought within the rule of law. It is what the rule of law is about: that all activities of the state which in one way or another impinge on anyone's rights are subject to legal and democratic constraints; that the agents of the state... are not granted excessive discretion; and that there is proper democratic oversight and control.

I would like the Government to make a statement in support of what Edward Snowden did. I am of the view that Mr. Snowden took the action he did for the right reasons. It is outrageous that his passport has been taken and we should offer him travel documents. The latter is the act of an authoritarian state. I would like people to support Mr. Snowden. It is interesting that a poll carried out in the US last week shows that 53% of the American people think what he did was right. In addition, some 70% of those between the ages of 18 and 34 indicated that they thought what he did was right. Edward Snowden, Bradley Manning, Julian Assange, Aaron Swartz and Jeremy Hammond sought not to liberate land or people, but information. The authorities have sought to criminalise them as spies. Their aim was neither to enrich themselves nor aid foreign powers but to make countries more transparent, knowledgeable, accountable and honourable. The western world has always prided itself on the idea that individuals can make a difference. Clearly, they do so at their peril.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The utterly shocking revelations arising from the Anglo tapes obviously provided a critically important context to last week's EU Council meeting. Much of the discourse and media debate around those revelations has focused on the reputational damage to Ireland. We need to move away from the idea that such damage has been done. President Higgins was correct in stating that the outrageous comments made, disgraceful sentiments expressed and language used by senior executives in the former Anglo Irish Bank had nothing to do with the character of the Irish people or with their attitude towards the people of Germany or the remainder of Europe. This matter is not about what Irish people did, rather it relates to what bankers did and to the tremendous cost they have inflicted on ordinary citizens, on the country and on its economy. It also relates to what bankers right across Europe did to its economy and the price we are paying for their attitude, activities and gangster-like behaviour. There is no other way to describe what happened.

It is telling that they sought to use a poor imitation of the gangster language of the streets in order to stylise their activities. The language used on the Anglo tapes brought to mind the RTE documentary on Bertie Ahern's rise to power from his base in Drumcondra, wherein some of his cronies stated, without shame, that they had modelled themselves on the Mafia. It seems that there was a cohort of people in the spheres of banking and politics - particularly concentrated within the Fianna Fáil Party - the members of which quite unashamedly sought to emulate gangsterism when conducting the business of society and running the economy. If that is true - I think I would probably have the agreement of the current Government when I say that it is true - and if gangsterism among bankers, politicians and developers and a contemptuous attitude with regard to the impact of their activities on ordinary citizens were the problem, then surely the biggest lesson we can draw from this is that we can be absolutely certain and confident in saying that we have no moral, economic, practical or other responsibility to pick up the tab for what these people did.

It begs the question after these shocking revelations - I know this is the feeling among ordinary people - why the hell are we paying the debts of this gang? There is no other word to describe them other than as a "gang" who had utter contempt for the people of this country, its economy and the wider European economy. That is the lesson we should draw from this and it should give us renewed confidence to say we are not paying off these debts because they will destroy us. Why are we taking responsibility for them? Why are we allowing Europe to force us to bear the cost of what these people did, in particular when Europe went along with the doctrine of light regulation, which was certainly championed in this country by this layer of people, or this golden circle, and cheered on the Irish economic model then called the "Celtic tiger"? It rewarded some of the key figures who were championing this cowboy model of banking and economics and promoted some of them into senior positions in the European Union and, to a large extent, institutionalised their laissez-faireno regulation model when it came to running an economy and running banking.

Where I believe our reputation has been damaged - this is an issue the Government must address - is in regard to corporate taxation which is the other big issue that has come up in the past few weeks. I appeal to the Government, if it is serious about wanting to secure, improve and rehabilitate Ireland's reputation at an international level, to show a willingness to seriously scrutinise what multinationals based and operating in this country are doing to avoid paying their proper tax obligations because it is a scandal which is damaging our reputation in Europe, Britain, the United States and everywhere, and we are in denial about it.

In a discussion about setting up a sub-committee to look at global taxation architecture at the finance committee last week, it was very clear that Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil and the Labour Party would scupper efforts to get Google, Facebook, Abbott Laboratories or other such companies to answer questions, never mind change the tax regime, on how they are dodging tax. Surely that is doing far more damage to our reputation and to our public finances in that these companies are not contributing properly to the functioning of a state and its infrastructure which they utilise in order to make their enormous profits.

I appeal to the Government to make a statement, given its commitment to supporting whistleblowers, letting Edward Snowden know that if he comes to this country after doing us the service of telling us that the United States is spying on the EU, of which we are part, we will look favourably on his asylum application as it is the least we can do.

Lucinda Creighton (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will not respond to Deputy Boyd Barrett because it will be a Topical Issue today and I understand the Minister of State, Deputy Costello, will deal with it.

I would like to talk about the Irish Presidency and the six months since 1 January, during which we have presided over the Council of the European Union. I do not think it is self-praise or somehow exaggerating to say it was a good Presidency. I am sorry Deputy Martin is no longer in the House because I thought his contribution was a little ironic. I spoke in the Seanad and in the Dáil on many occasions in the run-up to and during our Presidency and I have always said we have an excellent record of running Presidencies. Our six previous Presidencies have all been successful. It was somewhat ironic that Deputy Martin actually accused the Taoiseach of politicising statements made during the Presidency and then went on to make a completely politicised statement in which he could not even bring himself to give the slightest bit of credit to the Government or to Ireland for conducting what was genuinely and generally accepted as a very good Presidency.

The Presidency was important for two reasons, one of which was reputation building. It is no secret, as it is in our programme for Government and is repeated by Ministers from the Taoiseach down, that we have prioritised rebuilding Ireland's tarnished reputation. I think we all agree the Anglo Irish Bank tapes have been a very stark reminder of just how damaged our reputation has been over the past five years or so. The Presidency provided us with an excellent opportunity to demonstrate to our partners in the EU and on the global stage that we can run an effective EU agenda for six months and we did a good job in achieving that. There is no doubt in my mind, having been at the European Council on Thursday and Friday last and having literally been on the road since January, that the response to and the recognition of the achievements of the Irish Presidency are genuine in every capital in the EU and beyond and in all of the institutions. It is not simply a question of the Government praising itself, as Deputy Martin tried to claim, but it is something that is accepted widely.

It is easy to be cynical about the Presidency and to suggest it is a waste of time, that a small country, such as Ireland, cannot make any difference, that the EU agenda is set by the institutions or by certain capitals and that the whole thing is not worth bothering with. I would profoundly disagree with that. People will say that I would say that as I am the Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs. However, I particularly disagree with that, having been at the forefront of our Presidency for the past six months.

For example, the trade deal has eluded the EU and the US for the past 20 years. We have talked about it incessantly but we have failed to achieve it, or to even get going on it. Given that we made it a priority - granted it was a risky priority - and created the conditions in the European Union to reach agreement and through our very positive and dynamic relationship with the US, we managed to create a situation where we could build momentum. We eventually achieved agreement among the EU Trade Ministers in the middle of June and, as Deputies know, the trade negotiations will be launched next week in Washington. That is a concrete example of a positive step which would not have been achieved had Ireland not been in the chair and which could have eluded us for many more months or, indeed, years to come. It has massive potential in terms of job creation, growth and offering a brighter future for citizens on both sides of the Atlantic.

Another achievement, of which I am very proud and which is a genuinely important one, is the progress we made on enlargement. It is easy for Europeans within the European Union to forget about enlargement, to say there is enlargement fatigue and to suggest we should somehow pull up the ladder behind us and not welcome new members states into the European Union. Serbia and Kosovo were on their knees 14 years ago. Everyone in the Chamber will remember the really alarming scenes just 14 years ago of NATO bombing both countries and the tragic consequences of that. To me, proof positive of how important, transformative and extraordinary the EU enlargement policy has been is that we have managed to bring those two countries together to engage in a genuine effort to resolve their ethnic and inter-state issues and to try to build a better future for their citizens. That is the power of the EU's enlargement policy. It is one of the most successful policies of the EU, if not the most successful policy, about which we rarely talk.

That was another important achievement under the Irish Presidency.

It is important we learn lessons from the Presidency as well. One that I have learned and which we must consider again in future is the lack of visibility of EU leaders in the member state which holds the Presidency. It was a big mistake to end rotating EU summits and during the six months of the Presidency it would not be too much to hope for that EU leaders would come for an informal Council meeting to the capital of the country hosting the Presidency. It would be beneficial as a manifestation of Presidency in that important leaders and decision makers would come to the country holding the Presidency. Moreover, it is not necessarily healthy for EU leaders to always meet in Brussels in formal Council meetings. In order to stimulate a bigger and broader picture and debate, and to give more philosophical perspective to discussions, it is important to occasionally meet in an informal context. In many of his recent speeches, President Higgins has highlighted the need for more intellectual rigour in our decision making, and it is very hard for that to happen when all Council meetings are pre-prepared and precooked in such levels of detail. That is a lesson for me and something we should advocate.

It would be helpful for the EU to have longer Presidencies and the six-month term is too short. Team Presidencies, where responsibility could be shared and two or three member states could work together over an extended period, are supposed to have been achieved through the Lisbon treaty but, in reality, six-month Presidencies are still the norm. That makes it very difficult when there are very complex negotiations with the European Parliament, when expertise is developed and officials are stuck in negotiations. All of sudden, the plug is pulled after six months and we hand over to new officials and Ministers who must learn the process again. We should consider this at some point and perhaps after the European elections.

From a domestic strategic view, we must realise that our interest lies in deepening ties with new and aspiring EU member states, including the ten countries which joined in 2004, the two which joined in 2007 and one which joined just yesterday. There are also those which will join in future. From a national perspective, our foreign and aid policies are a little skewed against such an aspiration, as between 1996 and 2009, for example, we spent €33 million in the former Yugoslavia but that programme was completely suspended because of budget cuts in 2010, and there is very little funding going to those countries. We must redirect and refocus our foreign policy, as these countries will be crucial partners for Ireland in future so we should concentrate on developing ties and being a little bit more strategic in how we spend our resources in this country.

I have much I would like to say but, unfortunately, my time is limited. People often think Presidencies come together overnight but they do not, and we began our preparations in 2010. I began chairing our interdepartmental working group with senior officials from all Departments in 2011, and all our preparations have been painstakingly detailed. That has been the recipe for success, and the Taoiseach, Tánaiste and all our Ministers stepped up to the plate and worked extremely hard. The results are clear.

I know the Taoiseach has already mentioned it but I acknowledge the excellence of the officials from all our Departments, as they are genuinely the talk of Brussels and other European capitals because of their pragmatism, willingness to get stuck in and their negotiating and other skills, which are second to none. I mention our so-called Presidency staff, who are excellent, highly-talented and immensely valuable young people who came in on short-term contracts to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Department of the Taoiseach, as well as our permanent representation in Brussels and all Departments. Most of those people will finish this week. They contributed much energy and dynamism in our Presidency and they will be sorely missed. I extend an enormous vote of thanks to these people for their contribution in rebuilding Ireland's reputation abroad and progressing the overall EU agenda and Ireland's Presidency agenda. I wish them the very best in their future careers. In other circumstances there would be a place for them in our Irish Civil Service as they are the type of people we need, as they are dynamic, talented and young. To be honest, they would put any of us to shame. Unfortunately, that cannot be the case but I know many will have bright careers in European institutions and other organisations in Brussels and elsewhere. They will be an asset to the Government and Ireland in any case.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the Tánaiste agree that praise is like a liqueur in that it is often better served by somebody else? I was minded to ask this question because of the extent of the self-congratulatory run we have had and the amount of red carpet rolled out by the Government. I was pleased that at the end the Minister of State's contribution, she correctly recognised the tremendous level of work done by the staff and our Civil Service. Does the Tánaiste agree that a successful Presidency is not without precedent? There have been challenging times in the past from a European perspective and the consistency afforded to the work of the Presidency by our permanent representatives in Brussels and here has really been the backbone of Ireland's contribution to the European Union. It must be recognised that Governments and politicians come and go but it will be for history to decide who did what, when, where and how. It is incumbent on those of us elected by the people to recognise the tremendous work of our Civil Service and contractors.

Will the Tánaiste expand on the issue of banking union? There have been some concerns and our leader, Deputy Martin, spoke of those in particular put forward by the Financial Times and The Irish Times that seemed to suggest that despite the publicity or spin coming from negotiations, there is still very much a link between the sovereign and the banks, and regardless of the agreement reached last week, there is still an umbilical cord and we have not broken the link in the process that goes back to last year. There was much expectation so will the Tánaiste elaborate on the issue?

I accept the issues surrounding Mr. Snowden happened in the dying days of Ireland's Presidency but I would have thought a stronger position should have been taken by the Taoiseach in the first instance. I have not heard the Tánaiste's comments on the matter so he may be able to provide clarification as our Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. Concerns should have been expressed about the issues surrounding Mr. Snowden and particularly the notion that the United States would engage in activity in this State, the European Union and in European Union offices in the United States. That is deeply worrying, and I was disappointed with the way in which President Obama dealt with it by almost seeming to suggest that if information is not readily available, these are the kinds of action taken.

In my naivete I understood that consular services around the world were meant to interact at a diplomatic level, building relationships, networking and getting key understanding of how people think, as well as having off-the-record briefings and discussions, all of which is part of normal diplomacy. It is not about placing bugging devices in offices where sensitive discussions and negotiations are ongoing, which undermines the fundamentals of a democracy and regular interaction. It troubles me greatly as somebody who has supported the United States in almost every conflict in which it has found itself, and I still believe in what the United States stands for. It pains me to be critical of this issue, and if it had happened under a Republican President, there would have been absolute uproar. It is deeply disappointing behaviour from a friendly nation.

The Government continues to take assurances from the United States about the transport of prisoners and specifically that they have never been transported through Irish airports. That is done on the basis that we have a friendly relationship with that nation and we accept its assurances.

It beggars belief that in that kind of environment, this type of activity would have taken place. I wonder why the Irish Government has not taken a much clearer and unequivocal position. It is no harm to stand up to a friend on occasion when we recognise that the friend is straying off the path that would be expected and to give a more than gentle reminder on this occasion that this behaviour is unacceptable and puts the relationship back quite a distance. We can talk about a trade agreement between the EU and US. I would call into question how great an achievement that is when one considers the extent to which information about Europe's position on this has been collated and perhaps disseminated. I would like to hear more from the Minister about that.

Liam Twomey (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the Tánaiste mind if I take Deputy Crowe as well?

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, of course.

Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was listening the contribution of the Minister of State with responsibility for European Affairs and would like to be associated with her remarks about the staff in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, particularly those young people who helped out and brought so much energy to the Irish Presidency.

The Snowden affair has dominated the news in the past week. The Taoiseach and the Minister of State spoke about the free trade agreement. It is a bad backdrop to those talks. Does the Tánaiste feel that it will have a negative impact on those discussions? The Minister of State spoke about how positive it was that it has kick-started but, realistically, we are talking about years in respect of that agreement. Does the Tánaiste agree with me? This throws up all sorts of questions about being bugged by a foreign power. Are there now concerns about Irish offices abroad? Will there be new investigations relating to that? People are asking this question.

In respect of Palestine, is the Tánaiste disappointed that nothing substantial was agreed in respect of the settlements? I noted from previous meetings that there was condemnation of them and we spoke previously about labelling. Is the Tánaiste disappointed that we could not come to some sort of agreement?

Croatia was mentioned and is now a member of the EU. What effect, if any, will this have on the wider Balkan region? I am thinking in particular of the difficulties in Bosnia-Herzegovina. What can Europe do to support that applicant country in which there are clear difficulties and what can we do to develop other countries?

Syria has not been mentioned today and it would be remiss if we did not mention it. I presume it was discussed at the meeting. Have there been any developments in connection with it, particularly with respect to those countries that believe that arming some of the rebel groups is the way forward? Have there been any new developments in respect of aid for refugees and those still living in some of the so-called liberated areas and the difficulties facing aid groups? I note that GOAL is operating in that region. That highlights difficulties relating to Syrian sovereignty. The Irish Government is supporting those humanitarian efforts but the UN is going through Syrian government channels. Was that discussed at any level? There is a contradiction there. There are difficulties relating to going through 53 checkpoints to get to people who are in a bad way medically and to provide basic items like food. I would appreciate if the Tánaiste could give us an outline of what was discussed there.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I agree with Deputy Dooley that self-praise is no praise. Happily, on this occasion, the country has received very good complimentary remarks from other member states and from the leadership of the EU institutions about the conduct of the Presidency. I am pleased that we successfully concluded most of the files we set out to conclude. There is a satisfaction in that and I join in what has been said in paying tribute to the officials in my Department, the Department of the Taoiseach and all Government Departments who were involved in what I think has been a successful Presidency. I took the opportunity last Thursday when I was in Brussels for the European Council meeting to talk with the staff in the permanent representation and to thank them on behalf of the Government for the outstanding work they undertook. I repeat that here and thank them, officials in my Department and the Department of Taoiseach and all of the officials who worked so hard not just over the past six months, but over the preceding period of time.

Deputies Wallace and Boyd Barrett had no comment at all to make about either the Presidency or the European Council meeting. Deputy Wallace focused his remarks on Mr. Snowden and Deputy Boyd Barrett focused his on the Anglo Irish Bank tapes. The only thing Deputy Adams could find to criticise was something we succeeded in achieving and Deputy Martin was less than generous, disappointingly so. I acknowledge that previous Presidencies were successful. This was the seventh. The country has a good reputation for running a Presidency. To some extent, that probably raised expectations for what we might achieve in the course of this Presidency.

Banking union is a good example of where we made more progress than many expected. Deputy Dooley referred to the decision made last June about the separation of bank and sovereign debt, which was one of those seminal decisions made by the EU. To give effect to that, we must first put in place the single supervisory mechanism. We got agreement on that. There was certainly comment that we would not get the banking recovery and resolution pillars agreed on and we succeeded in getting them agreed. We also succeeded in getting CRD4 agreed, which relates to bankers' bonuses, so very significant progress has been made on putting banking union in place. There was also an agreement that recapitalisation of banks by the ESM can apply retrospectively. From our perspective, that was a critical decision.

The case of Mr. Snowden was not the subject of a discussion at the European Council meeting. If they are true, the allegations that there had been such surveillance activity on EU institutions like the Justus Lipsius building and the EU embassy, both of which were mentioned, are a matter of very serious concern to all EU member states, including Ireland. The European External Action Service has sought clarification of the situation in Washington and Brussels.

It has been raised by the High Representative, Catherine Ashton, with the Secretary of State, John Kerry. President Obama has given an undertaking to provide all of the information which countries want in this respect. I would regard the use of surveillance equipment and tactics of this type, if it is true, as invasive and very serious interference with the sovereignty of countries and the collected sovereignty of the European Union. If it is true the Justus Lipsius building was bugged it would be the equivalent of the European Union bugging Capitol Hill. It is this serious and must be taken very seriously. The United States authorities have been asked for an explanation arising from what appeared in the media over the weekend. It is prudent that we await this information. I do not think anybody should be in any doubt about how serious a matter this is. It is a very serious matter. We regard it as serious and I believe all European Union member states regard it as serious.

Deputy Crowe raised the Palestinian issue. We had a discussion on this at the Foreign Affairs Council last week and work is being done. The Secretary of State, John Kerry, and the High Representative, Catherine Ashton, have been working on the issue and many discussions have taken place. It is intended to return to have a full discussion at the July Foreign Affairs Council when I hope further progress will have been made on the initiatives taken by the Secretary of State and the High Representative. I expect the labelling issue will form part of the discussion.

I had the honour of speaking at the accession of Croatia event in Zagreb on Sunday night and early Monday morning. It is very significant and welcome. It will have a positive impact on the region. It is also positive the decision was made, on the recommendation of the General Affairs Council, by the European Council to set a date for accession talks with Serbia and to proceed with the stabilisation and association agreement with Kosovo. This builds on the very positive work done by the leadership of both Serbia and Kosovo, with the assistance of the European External Action Service.

With regard to the Bosnia-Herzegovina issue, application for membership of the European Union and accession discussions are not something just driven by the European Union itself. Countries must step up to the mark themselves and must comply with the requirements for membership of the European Union. I had a brief discussion with the foreign Minister of Bosnia-Herzegovina on Sunday evening and I hope Bosnia-Herzegovina will make progress. The progress made in Croatia, Serbia and Kosovo will help increase momentum.

I should also mention progress was made at the General Affairs Council on the issue of Turkey and it has been decided to open a chapter in the negotiations with Turkey, namely, chapter 22, and the intergovernmental conference will take place later in the year.

The European Union is making a huge financial contribution to the humanitarian crisis and the problem of refugees in Syria and €1.25 billion has been committed to date. This is a very significant contribution by the European Union and the member states. The conclusions last Tuesday referred to the Geneva II talks which we want to see progressing. This is the only show in town in terms of getting a peaceful political settlement in Syria.

This covers the issues which have been raised and I thank all Members who contributed to the discussion.