Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank Senators Leyden and Reilly for their congratulations on Ireland's election to the UN Human Rights Council. It demonstrates the high regard in which Ireland is held by the international community. I pay tribute to my colleagues in government, and to members of the committee and the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade, who promoted our case, to become members of the human rights council, through their various contacts with other states. I also pay tribute to the staff of my Department, the diplomatic or embassy network and Ambassador Anderson, our representative at the UN in New York. They all did an outstanding job in securing our election to the human rights council.

There have been a number of questions on the multi-annual financial framework and the level of discussions. We have the negotiating box from the Cyprus Presidency. We have, along with many other member states, expressed our opposition to the negotiating box. It falls short of the Commission's proposals that we had supported. We expect that President Van Rompuy will present a new set of proposals in advance of the GAC meeting next week, on 22 and 23 November.

As I said in my introductory remarks, it will be difficult to reach agreement. There are large gaps in views between member states. Some states have expressed a clear determination to drive down the size of the budget while other states, like ourselves, have argued that we need to have a European budget that is fit for purpose. In particular, we need a European budget that delivers on the objectives that the European Union has, particularly the implementation of the compact on jobs and growth. Clearly included in that matter is youth employment which is high in this country and in other European Union countries. The current level of youth unemployment is simply unsustainable for the European Union. We need a European Union budget that is capable of addressing the problem. A youth guarantee is one measure that we intend to pursue during the course of our Presidency. The Minister for Social Protection has set out her objective to pursue it through the Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council, EPSCO, and she shall seek agreement on a youth guarantee during the course of our Presidency.

While funding for the youth guarantee is not a matter for the budget discussions on 22 and 23 November, we need to ensure there is a budget to cater for it. Regarding the specific point on development aid provision in the budget raised by the Chairman, we are anxious that there is a final package for heading 4, to reflect our development co-operation policy objectives and interests and reflecting the values of our development co-operation programme. We support funding for initiatives that support food security and sustainable agriculture, the environment and gender equality. In the reductions proposed in heading 4, we do not support an across-the-board cut. The three largest instruments, the development co-operation instrument, the European neighbourhood instrument and the instrument for pre-accession, should be reduced by an equal portion if they are to be reduced. Smaller instruments, which are strategic in nature, should be exempted from cuts as any reduction would be more keenly felt than for the main ones.

Given the EU's position as the largest humanitarian aid donor, it is important that the instrument for humanitarian aid be protected from cuts. Regarding the issue raised by Senator Leyden, I value the work of Trócaire over many years in promoting development aid and in its direct work on its projects and the volunteers who work with Trócaire in many countries. My Department works closely with Trócaire, as it does with other NGOs.

Regarding macroeconomic conditionality, as raised by Senator Reilly, the need in principle to improve economic and fiscal discipline is accepted. We suggest the approach should be rational, appropriate and balanced, with safeguards against unforeseen circumstances. The modalities under which macroeconomic conditionality is applied to the cohesion and structural funds require careful attention.

In paragraph 71 of the negotiating box, we note that suspensions should be proportionate and effective to take account of the circumstances of the member states concerned. That is in accordance with Ireland's position. Where there is an understanding of the need to maintain fiscal and macroeconomic discipline, we have reservations about the modalities for implementation in respect of cohesion and structural funds. We want the approach to be rational, appropriate and balanced, with safeguards against unforeseen circumstances. We need to ensure the application of conditionality does not undermine the key aim of promoting growth, which is the best way of reducing fiscal deficits.

With regard to own resources, Ireland's position remains that is while we believe a system based on gross national income, GNI, is the fairest, simplest and most transparent and provides stability, we are willing to constructively examine all options. As already signalled, we will not be participating in the financial transactions tax, FTT. As stated in the Presidency paper, more information must be provided by the Commission for serious evaluation of the different proposals. I think I have covered most of the questions raised.