Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Excellent. I thank the Chairman. A full range of issues have been raised, everything from models to quarterbacks. I will do my best to respond to each question in turn. A number of consistent themes made an appearance and I will deal with those.

My colleague Deputy O'Reilly asked about TTIP, the transatlantic trade and investment partnership which is the opportunity for a trading deal between the European Union and America. He referred to the sensitivity and concern that exists in our agricultural community and sector about that deal. I assure the Deputy that we are fully aware of the concerns of people about a likely deal and the impact on different sectors of our economy, in particular in light of the extraordinary performance the same sector has delivered for our economy in recent years and also for the wider community and society.

Deputy O'Reilly also asked me about the process of the deal. The EU Commission is the lead negotiator for the European Union. At each stage of discussion and negotiation with its counterparts in America it reverts back to the Ministers to give them an update on the negotiations. The deal will then be agreed by the Ministers and, as I mentioned in my contribution, the European Parliament will play a decisive role. I emphasise that the Government and the Ministers involved are very much aware of the concerns articulated by the Deputy.

On the Deputy's point about euroscepticism and what may or may not happen in the United Kingdom, my view is that there has been a change in the composition of the euroscepticism we are witnessing at the moment compared to a number of years ago. The kind of euroscepticism that was present in the European Union for much of its existence focused on changing the terms of participation of countries within the European Union. Many parties or commentators in the past who may have been associated with the term, "eurosceptic" were supporters of the concept of the European Union but had great concerns about how their countries were participating in it. We are now seeing some new dimensions of that kind of political outlook among many prominent political parties who were against the European Union as it is currently organised and against their countries being in the Union, parties which were opposed to the kind of growth of interdependence and interconnection.

In my view the next Parliament will play a very significant role. Opinion polls are only polls but it is likely that this view will be articulated in greater numbers than in the past in the very forum that is meant to legitimise or offer greater legitimacy to European integration and in the very forum that will have more power than it has had for most of its existence. If those numbers were to be elected to the European Parliament it will pose different consequences for how the European Union will work.

Deputy O'Reilly asked about the United Kingdom referendum. There is a possibility of a referendum under the next British Parliament, depending on who will be in government. Until those hypothetical situations materialise, it is very important for us to be aware of the difference between political debate in the United Kingdom and what a future British Government might do. I wish to affirm the importance of our membership of the European Union and the fact that we will continue to be very durable and positive contributors to the European Union. That is our objective in the years to come. I hope that were such a referendum to take place that the United Kingdom would continue to occupy a similar role.

I will reply to the points outlined by Deputy Dooley. He raised the awful situation in Nigeria and the number of children involved. If that crisis is to be discussed by the European Union it will take place in the Foreign Affairs Council rather than in the General Affairs Council.

That discussion will take place in the Foreign Affairs Council rather than General Affairs Council. It is likely that it will be discussed in some form given the scale of the issue, as Deputy Dooley noted. I will revert to him with a note on the issue as I am unable to confirm when the discussion will take place.

Deputies Dooley and Durkan expressed views on the bank debt, to which I propose to respond by making two points. The scale of the repayments to bondholders arising from the bank debt was heavily influenced by the breadth of the bank guarantee. The decision by the Government of the time to introduce the guarantee framed much of what followed. It is important to emphasise this point when seeking to apportion blame in debates about the bank debt. The decisions on the breadth of the bank guarantee and amount of bank debt covered were taken in Dublin.

Deputy Dooley asked where we stand now. Progress has been made, for example, in eliminating the Anglo Irish Bank promissory notes. The Deputy also asked how we will deal with the portion of the national debt that arises from the costs of supporting the banking system. As the Government has stated, once the banking union becomes operational in the next 12 to 24 months, it will continue to pursue the option of retroactive bank recapitalisation. I have no doubt the Deputy will continue to hold the Government accountable for doing so. That is the framework within which we have addressed this issue. Progress has been made on the promissory notes and we will address the issue of retroactive bank recapitalisation in that framework.

I fully concur with comments on the need to protect the Community method. Maintaining the bargain the underpins citizen support for the European Union requires a level playing field for countries in respect of the issues that matter to them. The implementation and maintenance of the Community method is essential in this regard. The Community method is basically the quasi-judicial role the Commission plays in certain areas of decision-making and its function as the initiator of European Union legislation. It is extremely important that these roles are maintained if current levels of support for the European Union are to be sustained. There is a tension on this point. I have seen much polling on political attitudes towards the European Union. Most recently, an American polling organisation, the Pew Research Center, surveyed levels of support for the European Union in various member states. I was struck by the finding that the majority of European Union citizens continue to understand that an entity other than the nation state is required to deal with problems that extend across many countries. We are all aware, however, that the level of support for the European Union is declining.

Deputy Eric Byrne referred to the United Kingdom Independence Party, UKIP, and the absence of legislation on hate crime. My view of this matter differs slightly from that of the Deputy. The European Union is examining legislation on hate crime in various member states and the way in which it is being implemented. The rule of law initiative put to the previous General Affairs Council by Commissioner Viviane Reding addresses this issue. This morning, I attended the launch of the Crocus programme, which is designed to remind Irish schoolchildren of the horrors of the Holocaust and the role xenophobia and the abuse of the freedoms we take for granted can have in creating an environment in which hate of the other occurs. As Deputy Byrne is aware, the scale of the horror and damage done in the Second World War was one of the catalysts for European integration.

I concur with Deputy Eric Byrne on the importance of having in place robust legislation on hate crime, xenophobia and the terminology used to describe racial minorities. That being said, in many cases, strengthening hate crimes legislation is not the best response to the political forces about which the Deputy expressed great alarm. The best response is good political debate. As we experienced at this meeting, when one somebody raises a point with which one disagrees one challenges them. In my statement on accession in Dublin Castle this morning I noted that passion and certainty in political life in Europe cannot be confined to the extremes of politics, namely, the far left and far right. When defending the values we hold dear, we, on the centre left and centre right, must show the same type of certainty as those who are intent on removing these values. This is a better response to the issues the Deputy raises than legislative action.

On Georgia and Moldova, it is planned to proceed with the association agreements with both countries. The agreements have been initialled to a varying degree already and it is planned to strengthen our relationships with both countries. I will revert to this issue when I respond to Senator Hayden who raised related questions. The reason we are continuing with the current approach to both countries is that their elected governments have indicated a desire to continue with the process. The European Union will continue with the current approach for as long as the governments of the countries in question wish to do so. It is important to acknowledge the progress that is being made on visa liberalisation with some of these countries.

I touched on the point raised by Deputy Durkan on our response to extremist political opinion in Europe. As I indicated, we must respond by engaging in debate, questioning extremist points of view and presenting facts.

Deputy Durkan also raised the varying levels of engagement with Ukraine. Countries are expressing varying levels of concern about the impact an escalation in the crisis could have on them, for reasons of geography, trade and so forth. While such concerns are understandable, I have been struck by the level of unity maintained to date in the statements and measures taken by the European Union thus far. Many people believed it unlikely that unity could be sustained on Ukraine. In acknowledging the varying impact the crisis will have on different countries, I should note that the European Council, Foreign Affairs Council and General Affairs Council have thus far adopted all the positions they have taken on Ukraine with unanimity. All member states have agreed to the stance taken by the European Union.

The Deputy's concluding question was on the role of incitement to hatred in legislation and I have already touched on that.

I fully agree with Deputy Kyne's first point. I believe the European semester is a very important change in Irish domestic governance and governance within the European Union. I thank the Deputy for raising a question on it. I was pleased to appear before the committee a number of weeks ago to discuss the issue. I spoke at the Institute of International and European Affairs on this process last Friday morning in an attempt to draw more public attention to it. In my experience, if we do not keep on explaining what we are doing, fiction grows around it and it then becomes a real challenge to explain what the Government is doing while working with our partners in other countries and in the European Commission.

In terms of lessons to date, I have not yet had an opportunity to ask the Ministers I deal with on the General Affairs Council for their observations on the process, but I will do so on foot of the Deputy's question. It is worth emphasising the breadth of involvement that the European semester means for how governments deal with them. We are so used to much of our engagement with Europe being measured by things such as deficit levels, debt levels, structural deficit levels and so on.

I encourage members of this committee, anybody listening to this hearing or anybody who has any interest in European and Irish politics to look at the national reform programme that is available on the Department of the Taoiseach's website. This indicates how we will engage with the European Union through the European semester. The breadth of policy areas included within it is very striking. It covers everything including levels of participation in secondary schooling, the environment, an area we have already discussed, and all the economic stuff with which we are more familiar.

The fundamental difference for Ireland is that up to this date much of the high-profile engagement we have had with Europe has focused on the consequences of decisions that have been made. However, the semester process looks at policies and decisions in all those different areas that then influence and determine economic growth, social inclusion, debt levels, and deficit levels. It is a fundamental change in how we are engaging with Europe.

I believe we should be open about it not only because it is our duty to be open about it to the people, but also because this was the subject of so much discussion in different referendum campaigns in which we have participated. Given that this is a consequence and this kind of engagement is very much in line with the spirit of, for example, the fiscal governance treaty, I believe it is very important that we talk about it as openly and as frequently as we can.

I will deal with the Deputy's comment on Ukraine when I deal with the point Senator Hayden put to me.

The Deputy asked about the number of MEPs who are retiring. I understand there tends to be a high degree of turnover in the European Parliament anyhow. There are MEPs who might be going back to politics within their own national domestic political system, not to mention all the other things that would happen in terms of retirement. The Deputy asked if I believed the level of change at the moment is as a result of concerns MEPs have regarding lack of influence of the European Parliament. My genuine assessment is that it is not. In fact, MEPs are very much aware of the level of influence and power they have at the moment.