Lucinda Creighton (Dublin South East, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputies for their questions and comments. I will begin by referring to Deputy Martin's series of questions. Of course I do not agree with the emphasis placed on cutting the budget. This has been the clear position of the Irish Government from the outset of the MFF, multi-annual financial framework negotiations. Along with a number of other member states we argued strongly in favour of the original sum total in the Commission proposal. There is a significant downward pressure on the budget from the net contributors. This ties into the Deputy's question as to why we did not formally join the two key multilateral groups. The first group is the Friends of Cohesion group. Deputy Martin will be aware that Ireland receives negligible funding in the form of Cohesion Funds, relative to what we receive under heading two of the Common Agricultural Policy. It was not in our national interest to argue strongly for the advancement of cohesion ahead of CAP. We had to choose priorities and our priority lies with the CAP. The second multilateral group is the so-called Friends of Better Spending which incorporates the 1% group which wants to reduce the overall size of the budget. Clearly, Ireland was not willing to participate in that group because we do not support the overall objective which is to drive down the total size of the budget. However, we share some common goals with both groups. We agreed with the Friends of Cohesion who are broadly supportive of the overall size of the Commission proposal. We were happy to support the group and for it to support us in the various discussions at the General Affairs Council. We had common ground with Friends of the Presidency group. We also shared some common ground with the Friends of Better Spending group, although not with regard to the overall size of the budget. We shared common ground on competitiveness and ways in which the budget could be reformed and could be more growth-friendly. We were happy to support elements of that agenda. Ireland holds a very particular position. For example, we share common ground and have built strong alliances with countries such as France, Spain and Germany, on the issue of the Common Agricultural Policy. We have been able to find common positions and common ground with them on issues relating to the Common Agricultural Policy. However, it was not in Ireland's interest to align itself fully with either the Friends of Cohesion group or the so-called Friends of Better Spending group. Such alliances would have been contrary to our national interests.

On the question of whether Ireland supports the promotion of rural Ireland and the cause of small farmers, I say emphatically that Ireland does so. I agree with Deputy Martin that rural communities are the lifeblood of this country. Over the decades Ireland has used both Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 of the Common Agricultural Policy very successfully to support that policy and we will continue to do so. The Irish Presidency begins on 1 January 2013 and the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Simon Coveney, will lead on the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. He will work closely at Council level and with our colleagues in the European Parliament to ensure the interests of all farmers are protected. He will continue to promote high quality agrifood sector produce both in this country and across Europe.

The Taoiseach and I attended the summit meeting last Thursday. We had a very interesting conversation with the IFA delegation about the potential for future growth in the agrifood sector when we met them in Brussels last Thursday. The Government is committed to the promotion of this sector. Such growth will be promoted by means of new free trade negotiations and opportunities during our Presidency to advance a negotiating mandate on a free trade agreement with the United States. The agrifood sector offers significant potential for Irish farmers and for exports. The Common Agricultural Policy is the vital tool, along with the potential offered by access to emerging markets.

Deputy Martin asked a question about banking union. It is not clear that treaty change is required on banking union. Ireland supports banking union and it is a key priority for the Irish Presidency. The first step is to ensure a legal basis for the implementation of the single supervisory mechanism. The other proposals to be progressed during the Irish Presidency include an EU-wide bank deposit schemes and an EU-wide bank resolution scheme. We hope to have a clear mandate from the European Council meeting in December for these proposals. We will take the necessary steps to achieve banking union. I have no fear about taking whatever measures are necessary to bring that policy forward which is vital to the interests of Ireland, the eurozone and beyond.

On the question about nominations to the board of the European Central Bank, I agree with the Deputy that it is not acceptable that the ECB board has never had a female member. The European Commission is in the process of bringing forward proposals on gender balance on boards. We expect to bring forward those proposals forward during the Irish Presidency. Mr. Mersch was the only candidate proposed to the European Parliament. It is broadly agreed that he is eminently qualified for that position and Ireland was happy to support him on that basis. If a qualified woman candidate is proposed in the future then she should not be prevented or blocked from doing the job. I do not think Ireland should have taken up a position which would have isolated itself at the European Council by taking a lone path-----

See this speech in context