Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)

I thank Deputy Gilmore for sharing his time. He has articulated very well the issues of major concern to the Labour Party and those matters which still need to be addressed. This European Council meeting was one of the most significant in many years. Some of the issues being addressed were major global matters, including the financial crisis, as now the full 15 eurozone countries have slipped into recession. The €200 billion recovery package has been extremely important in that respect.

As I understand it, none of the Irish banks has taken up the €30 billion package put forward in October, some two months ago, for small and medium enterprises. That would have been fantastic for providing liquidity in this credit crunch, with 54% of the small and medium enterprises in need of cash flow. Likewise, I was amazed to hear last night on "Oireachtas Report" the spokesperson from Allied Irish Bank, who appeared before a committee, saying that the bank did not need any liquidity and was quite happy not to get the €10 billion from the Government. Where are we on the banking issue and the money being made available from Europe?

On the climate change issue, it is good to see we have at last made the first rung on the ladder to the 20% reduction, efficiency and sustainability with regard to greenhouse gases. The challenge we face is that from 2012, it will cost the Irish economy an estimated €1 billion. We must address the challenge and ensure this becomes a benefit to the Irish economy, and the area of industry dealing with cutting greenhouse gases becomes an advantage. We have enormous resources in wind, geothermal and others that should enable us to add to the economy.

The central issue addressed with regard to this country was the aftermath of the Lisbon treaty rejection in June. We had a circle to square in that the people rejected the Lisbon treaty while at the same time indicating strongly that they were in support of participation and engagement in the European Union going forward. We had preliminary work arising from the Millward Brown survey and the work of the sub-committee, which lasted for two months.

The Government went to the European Council with five central identified issues to address. The first was the matter of the Commissioner, which we must recognise was very successfully addressed. The second was the matter of taxation and legal guarantees have been given on this. The third was the matter of the European security and defence policy and how this relates to neutrality, and legal guarantees have also been provided on this. The fourth matter was right to life, education and the family, and again legal guarantees were provided in this area.

The fifth issue raised by the Government was the protection of workers' rights and public services. No legal guarantee was sought or given in this respect, although assurances were sought and given. Even at this, it appears the United Kingdom was not happy with that level of assurance. This can be seen in almost the same terms as 40% of Irish voters voting in respect of the Lisbon treaty having considered the protection of workers' rights as very important. The Council confirmed it considers the issue very important but it did not assert it would act on it, which was the case in terms of the other four issues.

The question remains of what will be done. How will we make the assurances sufficiently robust for the issues to be addressed? The nub of the problem is that we must find a legal mechanism to ensure that when a conflict arises with regard to the four freedoms of the marketplace and the movement of goods, services and people, it must be addressed in the context of not allowing them take precedence over the protection of the rights of workers. These are fundamental rights which have been based on long-term national law that has been discussed and put in place. Agreements and practices have also been engaged in, and these must be protected rather than undermined.

I am not so sure I wish to engage again in an all-party sub-committee where one party uses the forum to grandstand rather than engage. The party attempted to delete everything proposed within that sub-committee's findings. Another party to that sub-committee did not make any submission of its own but went out to the plinth just as the sub-committee's findings were being drafted and made statements of its own which, to a large degree, undermined the good work done in the previous seven or eight weeks.

See this speech in context