Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

Is maith an rud é go bhfuil an deis seo againn labhairt ar an cheist seo chomh luath sa bhliain. Agus muid ag dul chun tosaigh sa tír seo, tá sé tábhachtach go mbeimid ag plé na ceisteanna atá ardaithe ag Comhairle na hEorpa. Tá sé tábhachtach freisin nach bhfuil conclúidí nó treoracha Comhairle na hEorpa ag teacht salach ar an méid atá an tír seo ag iarraidh a dhéanamh.

I expected that the first Council meeting following the entry into force of the latest treaty, the Lisbon treaty, would be a brave and decisive step forward for the EU because that is what we were promised. We expected that the meeting would have a lot of energy and enthusiasm but, regretfully, I did not see that enthusiasm. Perhaps it will come in future Council meetings, although I doubt it. Indeed, the Presidency conclusions said as much in the opening line, which read "The new Treaty of Lisbon will allow the Union to fully concentrate on addressing the challenges ahead", and major challenges they are. When I settled down to examine what those conclusions were, I hoped to see some major initiatives regarding how jobs and recovery would be tackled and what was being promised from the EU. To my surprise, however, the priority issues related to the Lisbon treaty were the setting up of the European external action service and the legislation on the citizens initiative.

Members should not get me wrong. These issues need to be discussed. The citizens initiative, in particular, is laudable and, hopefully, it will be rolled out properly and given proper teeth so the Commission will not be able to wriggle out of proposing positive and progressive measures, as it has avoided them to date.

We also need to have a proper discussion in regard to where the European external action service is going and what is the end game in that regard. I have noticed already that some of the European Foreign Ministers are looking for it to go well beyond what was proposed or predicted. They are looking for Europe to be represented by a single member at the UN. As a neutral country, we obviously need to ensure that the European external action service is not subordinated to the political or military imperatives of NATO. It is a duty for those of us in the House, as issues arise in regard to that service, to ensure that it does not go to where it potentially could go, and to where some European member states wish it to go.

We must consider the area of justice and home affairs. This was highlighted at the Council meeting as a key priority. Closer examination reveals that the priority in the field of justice and home affairs is an intention to make full use of Article 222. We should remind ourselves that the article allows the European Union to mobilise all the instruments at its disposal, including military resources made available by member states to prevent terrorist threats in the territory of the member states, to protect democratic institutions and civilian populations from any terrorist attack and to assist the member state in its territory at the request of political authorities in the event of a terrorist attack.

That is quite clear. The problem I have at this stage is that the same priority and mobilisation of instruments is not being used in tackling poverty or inequality in the European Union. I was hoping for some kind of statement at the meeting indicating that the instruments would be used to build for a jobs recovery, which is not prioritised as it should be.

What was the conclusion on jobs and recovery? It was stated that the economic position is starting to show signs of stabilisation and confidence is increasing, which we have heard before. We heard it last October when the Council stated that the sharp decline in the European economy was coming to a halt with a stabilisation of financial markets and improvement in confidence. That has not been seen. When we come back in March or April there will be a similar statement with the idea that if it is repeated three times, it must be true despite the devastation being visited on jobs, income and services in this country and across many EU member states.

The conclusion also stated that uncertainties and frailties remain and the employment and social situation is expected to deteriorate in 2010. There is a slight contradiction in the statement in saying that there is stabilisation in the financial market with an end to its decline as further on it deals with deterioration. The economy is stabilising but the jobs position is not. It has been indicated that there will be further job losses and the social elements will deteriorate again this year.

What kind of recovery will this be if the employment and social issues deteriorate again? The Government has shown in its recent budget that it has all the required skills to bring about further deterioration in the employment and social spheres. The October Council meeting also expected a deterioration in employment and it was more proactive in trying to ensure that action would be taken to increase employment, as well as promoting active social inclusion and protection policies. There are different emphases and nuances in the December meeting, which did not have the same positive outlook.

The conclusions also stated that policies in support of the economy should remain in place and only be withdrawn when recovery is fully secured. Will the Minister indicate which policies are being referred to? Are they policies dealing with weak regulation, the liberalisation of public services, the race to the bottom for workers' pay and conditions or the attack on social welfare payments? Which policy should remain?

Some of the details are still emerging of the SR Technics issue. Do we want to promote such a model, or such as we saw with Dell, in the European Union? SR Technics, a profitable company in Dublin, employed approximately 1,200 or 1,300 workers. However, an EU member state invested in hangars to successfully draw those jobs away from Ireland. This company still has not fully paid its part of the pension fund of those workers, where there is a deficit of €26 million. Is that the sort of Europe we want to promote with regard to employment policies?

The Maltese have suggested that €1.6 billion in revenue streams will be created by attracting SR Technics away from Ireland. The loss to the Irish economy is not only in jobs, but also in revenue streams. We must not concentrate just on the Maltese as the Polish did the exact same with Dell. There is nothing to protect Ireland from losing further jobs to countries where the governments have interfered in the market. I asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if she would nationalise the company or give additional supports to try to hold SR Technics here, but she said she would not interfere with the market because it is against EU rules. The Maltese and Polish have done so and Ireland must suffer the consequences. Perhaps that is because we are on the periphery or such a small country, although Malta is much smaller. We could not ensure that SR Technics would remain in the country. Perhaps that is the type of building and support for the economy that the European Union speaks about.

There are some positives in the conclusions, which the Government, in particular, can learn from. It can recognise the weaknesses of the current regulatory framework and the supervisory arrangements for financial institutions, which were mentioned in the conclusions. It was stated that remuneration policies within the financial sector must promote sound and effective risk management and should contribute to the prevention of further crises in the economy. The importance of renewing the economic and social contract between financial institutions, along with the society they serve, was emphasised. Is the council suggesting that we move towards state banks in indicating that the importance of renewing the economic and social contract between financial institutions and the society they serve? One way to do this is to ensure that financial institutions serve society rather than lining the pockets of their directors and shareholders.

The new EU 2020 strategy has the potential to bring about a new vision to replace the tired and failed Lisbon strategy and that opportunity must be grasped. This relates to my earlier point about job losses in Dell and SR Technics. The undermining of employment in a member state by a company, which undermines, interferes, break the rules and causes job losses in another member state, cannot be allowed to happen.

A recognition of the benefits of having a greener economy is important. Energy efficiency can help businesses lower costs, it can help less well off families out of fuel poverty and can help combat climate change. A shift to an energy efficient economy can help economic growth but this needs to be supported, promoted and encouraged much more, perhaps through grant aiding companies. However, the positive nature of this and other points will depend on the detail of how the Commission proposes to take them forward. It is welcome that one of the key positions in the Commission is held by an Irish woman, Máire Geoghegan-Quinn. Hopefully, she will be able to encourage the Government to invest in research and in education in particular. If one does not invest in education, one cannot build an economy based on research and innovation or build a knowledge-based economy. That is one of the key lessons the Government, based on its recent budget, has not learned.

It is important that the EU does not repeat the mistake of the Lisbon strategy. If we are to genuinely develop a new vision and direction for EU policy, as the Commission states in its consultation document, the EU 2020 strategy, there will be a need to focus on a green economy, empowering communities and on unleashing the social and economic potential of vulnerable groups in our society.

See this speech in context