Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 1: To ask the Taoiseach Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his participation in the E.U. Summit in Brussels on 28 and 29 October 2010 [39735/10]

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 2: To ask the Taoiseach Taoiseach if he will make a statement on any discussions he had with other E.U. leaders on the margins of the E.U. Summit in Brussels on 28 and 29 October 2010 [39736/10]

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 3: To ask the Taoiseach Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the October meeting of the European Council in Brussels; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39738/10]

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 4: To ask the Taoiseach Taoiseach the bilateral meetings he held on the margins of the October European Council meetings; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39739/10]

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 5: To ask the Taoiseach Taoiseach if he will report on his recent contacts with the President of the European Commission; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39740/10]

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 6: To ask the Taoiseach Taoiseach if he will report on his participation in the European Council meeting on 28 October [40260/10]

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 6, inclusive, together.

I attended the October meeting of the European Council in Brussels on 28 and 29 October. As I will be making a statement to the House later today, I will confine myself to giving a summary account of the proceedings now.

The Council endorsed the outcome of the task force on economic governance, chaired by President Van Rompuy, and agreed that the legislative measures needed to implement its recommendations be fast-tracked, so that agreement is reached between the Council and European Parliament by summer 2011.

The Council also discussed the question of a permanent crisis mechanism. There was agreement that this was needed to safeguard the financial stability of the euro, and that we need to get the work under way so that the mechanism can be in place by mid-2013, when the current arrangement expires.

The Council asked President Van Rompuy to undertake consultations with member states on limited treaty change to this effect. The Council will return to the matter at its next meeting in December, when it will agree on an outline for the mechanism, and on any necessary limited amendment to the treaty.

While it was not on our agenda, a number of member states indicated a wish to discuss the Union's budget following a presentation by the President of the European Parliament, Jerzy Buzek. We agreed to return to the matter at our next meeting in December.

In addition, the Council discussed a number of other issues including: preparations for the forthcoming G20 Summit in Seoul; for the Cancún conference on climate change; and for summits with third countries, including the United States, Russia, Ukraine, India and Africa.

Prior to the European Council, I attended a meeting of the European Liberal Democrat Party, the ELDR, at which I met with a number of my European Council colleagues, including the new Prime Minister of the Netherlands, Mark Rutte. While I had no formal meeting with the President of the European Commission, I did of course see President Barroso at the European Council.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to ask the Taoiseach about the proposal to make a treaty change to accommodate the establishment of a permanent mechanism for financial stability and the stabilisation fund. I understand it is the intention that the President of the Council will report back to the December summit. Does the Taoiseach expect that the President of the Council, Mr. Van Rompuy, will make a proposal to the December summit with regard to a proposed treaty change?

Is it considered that such a treaty change would require a referendum in this State? The Taoiseach will recall that at the time the Lisbon treaty was passed it was understood by all parties in the House and by the public that it was unlikely that there would be further treaty-amending referenda for some time, that institutional issues had been resolved as far as the European Union was concerned for the foreseeable future. Does he anticipate that the proposed change will give rise to a referendum?

Has any consideration been given to the implications of Article 48 of the Lisbon treaty which speaks in fairly explicit terms about the necessity for a convention if treaty changes are being considered? Is it intended that a convention would be convened arising from any proposal that the President of the Council would make?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We agree with the need for proposals on a proposed permanent crisis mechanism. As Deputy Gilmore is aware, arrangements for a facility are currently in place that end in mid-2013. It was felt that it would be generally reassuring to markets and to meet the requirements of the situation that a permanent crisis mechanism would be put on a firm legal footing.

President Van Rompuy is to undertake consultations with member states on the limited treaty change required to that effect. The European Council will come back to the matter in December with a view to taking a final decision. There is a simplified amendment procedure in the treaty. It is not the case that an Intergovernmental Conference must be held in all situations. One must await the details of the proposals but it is envisaged that this is a matter that would be decided upon in December. It is an urgent matter given the nature of the financial crisis worldwide and the need to deal with it. The Council has decided that the President of the Council will undertake consultations with member states on limited treaty change required to that effect.

On whether a referendum is required, we must examine whatever emerges from the process very carefully. It is clear that the European Council is seeking limited change. When we have a proposal we must assess carefully what steps are necessary to enable this country to ratify any change.

Until there is a specific proposal, it is not very rewarding to speculate further. Every country has to ratify according to its own constitutional arrangements. There are legal thresholds that would indicate whether referenda are required and we have to await the details of the proposal.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does the Taoiseach believe that the issue of treaty change which is now being considered by the President of the Council is contributing in any way to the uncertainty in the markets? A possible treaty change in respect of crisis mechanisms is being considered by the European Council while the Heads of some member states are speculating and making suggestions on how those mechanisms might work in practice. This has consequences for the markets.

Other matters have been under consideration by the Council for some time. For example, the regulation of international rating agencies was considered by the Council as far back as June 2008 when the EU was planning to regulate them. As a country, we have been on the receiving end of the opinions expressed by these agencies. Has any progress been made in terms of their regulation or regarding the idea of the establishment by the EU of a European rating agency?

In December, there was a commitment to establish a fundamentally new structure for financial supervision in Europe. Was this matter discussed at the Council meeting and what progress has been made?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In adopting the Van Rompuy report, the Council is involved in preparing six legislative proposals by early summer of next year, four of which will involve, as I understand it, the involvement of the European Parliament. The proposals are designed to strength the Stability and Growth Pact and the EU regulatory framework for members states' public finances and to broaden the scope of economic surveillance beyond the budgetary position. The proposals aim to achieve these by enhancing the importance of the debt criteria, introducing sanctions, including financial sanctions, for euro area member states in the case of persistent non-compliance with the Stability and Growth Pact and a tiered range of procedures and sanctions designed to prevent the emergence of macroeconomic imbalances in a member state that, if left uncorrected, could ultimately jeopardise the functioning of the euro and the euro area.

The Commission's legislative proposals will be subject to the normal procedure of consultation and discussion with member states. We will engage positively in that process, taking account of our own circumstances and needs. The Council has set the summer of 2011 as a target for agreement with the European Parliament in the Commission's legislative proposals.

There are six Commission legislative proposals - a directive on requirements for budgetary frameworks, two regulations amending existing regulations on the Stability and Growth Pact, two regulations relating to the introduction of new arrangements for the surveillance of macroeconomic imbalances and a regulation on proposed financial sanctions in the event of persistent non-compliance with budgetary obligations on the part of euro area member states.

Specifically regarding the question of regulation of credit agencies and where that is at the moment, perhaps the Minister for Finance should be asked where that is with the euro area ECOFIN group. I do not have that information before me, but I know that it is a matter that is under discussion and work is ongoing in respect of it.

The earlier matter referred to by the Deputy related to the questions of markets and the discussion. I share a concern about the need for avoiding read-across by markets. Short-term market sentiment, as we know, changes from time to time. It is one of the reasons we stepped out of the markets in order to find the time and space to prepare a four-year plan and a budget that would enable us to show the credibility of the pathway we are adopting for the purpose of meeting our requirements under the Stability and Growth Pact. That is what is within our control and that is the most important means by which Government can indicate what the country's intentions are. The consensus among the main political parties in the House on the adherence to the 3% target by 2014 is helpful domestically and, I hope, internationally, but it will not be sufficient in itself and greater detail will have to be outlined in that context so that people can assess the pathway being adopted.

When we look at these matters, it is important in the context of the permanent crisis mechanism to ensure that the markets do not get a wrong read-across. One looks at contingencies down the line, but the important point is that it is the intention of all member states to deal with their situations as would be expected. Ireland is no different in that respect. We have been very clear. We believe that we can find a manageable way forward and that the many strengths of the Irish economy show that our potential growth rate is there as a result of our enterprise, industrial and fiscal policies. We must make adjustments on expenditure and taxation, but we must also emphasise the growth potential of the economy. It is important for all of us, regardless of where we stand on the spectrum or the arguments, that we ensure that we portray Ireland as a country that is determined to deal with this situation, as challenging as it may be.

Issues like the emerging balance of payments surplus that we expect next year all show that Ireland is in a position to pay its way in the world. Improvements in our competitiveness, reductions in our unit labour costs vis-À-vis our competitors, the continuing inflow of foreign directive investment and good export performance by both the indigenous sector and the multinationals are all important factors for people determining the future we are charting out for the country. We are all agreed that those are realities that have been built up under successive Governments as a result of policies which were directed at developing the country as a market economy, one that can be a major exporter in the world, given the goods and services we provide. We need to emphasise that all of the time. There are other examples.

We have a structure to our economy that is somewhat different to that of some other continental economies, in terms of the reach of our exports and the investment profile of our country. The idea that Ireland has a greater level of US investment than China is an important issue, one that indicates the profile of our investment, the skill capacity of our labour force and the flexibility of our labour markets. All of these are important issues in the context of the assessments and judgments being made about how Ireland is going to move forward from this position.

As the Deputy and I would say, the sentiment in markets for Ireland, as we have known, has deteriorated for some months. We have stepped out of the markets in order to provide reassurance and further evidence of the determination of Ireland to deal with the situation that has arisen. We need to be genuinely mindful of these facts because everything that is said is picked up and interpreted. I sometimes understand where people are coming from, but we have to be mindful, particularly at this time of preparing these plans and bringing forward these budgets. I am sure there is plenty of discussion and argument about it but we are all on the same side when it comes to that objective.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Taoiseach for that considered reply. I wish to pursue the issue a little further. The Taoiseach is right. It is in all our interests that the credibility of the country is protected and the very worrying levels of interest rates and what is happening in the bond markets, and so on, are narrowed. Clearly, there are a number of elements to that. We can argue the toss in this Chamber about the domestic measures to be taken but I believe the Taoiseach will acknowledge that in arguing that toss the Labour Party has been very careful not to communicate anything that would be in any way damaging to the country's reputation. I acknowledge the Taoiseach accepts we have committed to the target.

However, in spite of all that we have done, the various reductions in public expenditure, the austerity measures, the acceptance of the size of the bank problem and the announcement by the Minister for Finance, Deputy Lenihan, about the new targets made in budgetary adjustment, interest rates continue to rise. I know the Taoiseach will respond by saying we are not in the market at present. It is the case, however, that some, at least, of this is happening because of the extent to which Ireland is perceived to have its fate bound up with a number of European Union member states which are seen to be in the same territory.

My specific question relates to how we are dealing with this at a European level. I understand and see the necessity for the stabilisation fund and the putting of crisis measures on a permanent basis. Is it not also the case that when countries fall victim to being perceived by the world as a group of European Union states in difficulty there is a necessity to address that issue at EU level and it may be necessary to address it in a way that goes beyond merely the putting of the stabilisation fund on a permanent basis? That is why, for example, regulation of rating agencies and so on are issues we should pursue with more urgency. There is a collective need for the EU to ensure that for member states exposed to this kind of international pressure, that are suffering as a consequence of the way in which interest rates are going, measures be taken at a European level which are not concerned only with the stabilisation fund but are about supporting those states to get beyond the problem. Obviously, that would include policies in regard to jobs, growth and regulation of both financial markets and rating agencies.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The whole question of improved governance in general and of surveillance and monitoring within the euro area is part of the review being exercised by President Van Rompuy's task force since spring of last year when the Greek crisis arose. The outcome of those discussions and the recommendations that have been adopted bring forward the specific legislative proposals I outlined in my previous reply. They indicate the determination by the euro area and the EU to bolster confidence in the currency.

The purpose of the creation of the currency in 1999 was about maintaining price stability. Over the past 11 and a half years the rate of inflation across the euro area has been less than 2% - 1.97% - so it has fulfilled its function of providing price stability across the market. It is a much better performance in terms of price stability than would have been the case when one considers the experience of various and disparate national currencies in the previous 40 year period. That fundamental mandate for the currency is being maintained and achieved. There is a monetary confederation in regard to monetary policy. There is also a fiscal confederation, in other words, the need to keep budgets in balance to avoid pressure coming on the monetary policy. This is particularly the case where one sees, as a result of the financial and economic crisis, the questioning of, or the way in which sovereign debt is now being viewed - a way that was not the case before 2008 - which brought about the problems with which Greece had to contend. That is an indication and reinforces the need for correction in fiscal policy across the euro area to bring it back to the 3% deficit.

What is the 3% deficit when one thinks about it? Why was that figure picked? It is, so to speak, the average capital investment programme seen in the euro area. Borrowing for capital with a visible return in investment is seen as the correct thing to do. However, one is required, in time, to ensure that on the current side one achieves balance. What is brought in in taxes has to coincide with expenditure policies. That is the way fiscal policy mechanism is going.

The difficulty for Ireland has been that we had a time when we were in surplus, well within our deficit requirements and were seen as one of the best in the euro area. Our debt-GDP ratio was down to 28% or 29%, and, taking into account the National Pensions Reserve Fund, cash reserves and the NTMA, was probably 12% net. We were in that position but as a result of the financial and economic crisis we saw a very quick depletion of our revenues, to the tune of 35%. In the meantime, we have had the full year effect of all the adjustments we have made since summer 2008 when this thing hit us very hard and we started to make adjustments. There was the September 2008 budget, with a supplementary budget in April 2009, followed by the December 2009 budget which covered the fiscal year 2010. There has been a €14.5 billion adjustment from 2008 to date but because of reduced growth prospects in the assessment of both the world economy and our own situation, we have had to indicate there is now a further €15 billion adjustment required to meet the 3% target. The growth assumptions, both worldwide and within the economy, cannot be justified in the current circumstances. They were in line with international median figures as late as December of last year and fed into the budget figures.

A lot is happening this year. The Greek crisis had an impact on sovereign debt markets. There is a reduction in prospects for the American economy and there is turbulence in the bond markets, all of which have fed into this period of instability. Market sentiment has changed and deteriorated. The Deputy will recall we are pursuing the same budgetary policy which is being held, as the end of October returns confirm, with tax revenues above profile, expenditure within control as envisaged. Although it is working out broadly as we have predicted since last December and in spite of our getting much kudos for the adjustment we made, namely, the one that was contemplated for this financial year, the fact that market sentiment is deteriorating shows there are other factors at play. It is not a loss of confidence in the domestic budgetary policy for this year but the current requirement to take into account the deteriorating factors require us to do more than had been envisaged for the next three years. We now have to put forward a credible pathway to show how we will do that. That is a very important factor in restoring confidence. That is our position. The important point is that the hole in our revenues means that we are borrowing for current as well as capital purposes. In the good times we were even able to pay for capital out of surplus cash and were not even borrowing for capital purposes. We were able to reduce the national debt as well. However, the situation is totally changed and we have to close that gap between expenditure and revenues, knowing that export-led recovery, which is not as labour intensive as domestic-demand recovery, is the way back. The traditional sectors, domestic consumption, retail and construction are precisely the areas in which we see significant rises in unemployment. In fact, other sectors of the economy have competed very well, relatively speaking, despite the increased exchange rate deterioration vis-À-vis the euro and sterling. The exposure of the indigenous sector to the UK market, primarily, mattered as regards other markets. Nonetheless, we still saw a much smaller reduction in our exports compared to other advanced economies because we are not into heavy engineering exports and all the rest.

We have to try to improve sentiment towards Ireland and talk factually about the diversified strengths of this economy, which are far different from those we had in the 1980s when we faced a crisis of this nature. As regards even our debt repayments schedule going through this correction period to 2014, it is not like the 1980s where 26% of the revenues went on debt interest. It is a debt repayments schedule that is similar to the revenues in the 1990s. We need to emphasise these points so that people do not get information that is not accurate, and sentiment for Ireland does not deteriorate in a way that is not justified. We know the overall position, but we must be fair to ourselves and highlight those aspects of the story that are credible and should be articulated. The facts are with us on those issues.

I am sorry for the elongated reply, but the point, essentially, is that the question of financial credibility and how Ireland is being viewed, means that the coming period is important for us and we must work together as best we can. I do not expect people to agree on all these matters, but in terms of the overall picture, the problem with the bond markets is an issue for us all. We must do everything we can to avoid giving a perception about Ireland's future that is not justified, so that we can manage our way through this.

The final point raised by the Deputy is a fair one, namely it is a responsibility of leadership within the European institutions to ensure that everything we say and do as we finalise this permanent crisis mechanism does not have the unforeseen consequence of our not achieving the objective of setting up the mechanism in the first place.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is a lengthy reply from the Taoiseach. Yesterday he referred to these things as meanderings. The perception of Ireland internationally is formed by other governments from three viewpoints, namely, the deficit, growth rate and political leadership.

Will the Taoiseach comment on Mr. Mike Soden's appointment to the Central Bank Commission? In terms of it being an advisory group about banking policy, his first comment was to the effect that Ireland should leave the euro. Does the Taoiseach have a response to that, because this is influencing perception abroad as well?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We live in a democracy. People have different points of view. I do not know the context in which these comments were made or whether it was a final considered viewpoint. Regardless, the Central Bank in Ireland is part of the wider European Central Bank, which is pursuing the monetary policies of the euro. Our representative there is Professor Patrick Honohan. Members of the Central Bank Commission in Ireland will have differing views across a whole range of issues, I am sure, and bring those perspectives to the table. The result is outcomes which are consistent with the overall thrust of the monetary policy being pursued within the eurozone. There are various people in governments, institutes, think-tanks and central banks who will have views to bring to bear. I am not saying I agree with this particular argument, but it is part of the intellectual exercise we must all undertake to listen to contrarian views, given that we are in a totally new environment. Never have we been in such a position before, and people have to think laterally, in every way they can.

There is no confusion as regards what the policy of the country is, however. We see Ireland's membership of the European Union and the eurozone as being fundamental. Anyone looking at the difficulties we have had in recent times would recognise the assistance the European Central Bank has given to the financial system, generally. Clearly, Ireland would not have had the capacity within the remit of the Central Bank's reserves, to withstand the impact of the economic and financial crisis, were it not a member of a wider eurozone, with the greater capacity and reserves that are available there, together with the fact that the euro has provided us with a level of price stability in the past 11 years that was not available to us heretofore.

What had emerged, of course, in the overall financial regulatory situation internationally as regards how the entire financial system has been globalised, was the fact of the enormous amount of money in the market in terms of its availability, along with the increased competition in banking in Ireland, for example, and what came with that. Having very low interest rates at a time of growth and potential and demand in this economy, meant that many people in the private sector, including those who boosted domestic demand, embraced the opportunities on offer. Clearly, in terms of the regulatory system, the analysis of a well capitalised banking system was wrong, when all this happened. Lessons have had to be learned, and the legislative changes introduced into the Central Bank structure have been a fundamental response to that.

This involved taking on board the lessons of the Canadian system, which is, perhaps, the best example, as probably the only jurisdiction which did not have to recapitalise its banking system as a result of what happened. All of that is the case. I am not in the business of not having people express their views. I want to emphasise that we must all be mindful of how these views are understood and circulated elsewhere, however.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The point I was making was that this opinion to leave the euro had been expressed by a member of the Central Bank Commission, which influences perception abroad. I am glad to hear the Taoiseach confirm the position as regards Ireland and the euro, and the importance of that for us. Neither do I share the view to the effect that Ireland should become an appendage of the United States.

I did not attend the Council meeting, obviously, but I was at the EPP meeting where quite a number of those present had attended the Council meeting. It is important to say that the Irish people gave Europe the Lisbon treaty. It is important to understand that as a consequence of that, the institutions Europe requested, and the powers they should have, were given to the Union by the Irish people.

A report in respect of Greece and its position is, to say the least, difficult. I understand the Greek Prime Minister has said if his party does not achieve a good result in the local elections a general election will be immediately called. The collapse of the talks in Portugal between Government and Opposition in regard to reducing Portugal's deficit to 4.6% is a matter it may be possible to resolve. I would like to make clear to the Taoiseach that I could not support Ireland agreeing to a change that would result in its voting rights being withdrawn. I hope this will not be on the table. I believe that would be catastrophic and it would have my outright opposition.

It is important to recognise a solution to this problem will not be found without Germany. The German court, in terms of the constitution, is examining the treaty in the context of the statement on bailouts. It is important to be able to say that we support rules and regulations that will make the system work. The conclusion of the EPP meeting which I attended is that while it is necessary to do something, the holding of a full-scale referendum either in Ireland or in a number of other countries, where a change in competence would require that, would cause some difficulties.

Does the Taoiseach share my view that in no circumstances should any country agree to that which would result in its voting rights being withdrawn? Does he also share the view that this is achievable by way of inclusion of a sentence in the Croatian accession in regard to a requirement for a fiscal rectitude mechanism rather than by way of a massive shift in confidence in the Union?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The suspension of rights in certain circumstances is used only as a matter of last resort such as in regard to a permanent disregard by a member state to deal with the issues with which it is entitled to deal in terms of its membership of the currency or Stability and Growth Pact. The conclusions provide for President Von Rompuy to undertake a separate and subsequent exercise beyond December to look at that issue. It is fair to say there was little support for the idea around the table. I, too, indicated my position on the matter. As I stated, I do not believe there is anything in the conclusions that should cause us concern. The suggestion that there would be a suspension of voting rights or that the rights of a country, as a member of the Union, would be taken away if it does not meet an exact target or deficit reduction and so on would not be regarded as right. While there was much press comment on that issue prior to the meeting the conclusions indicate nothing beyond a commitment to examine these issues, subsequent to dealing with the immediate issue of the permanent crisis mechanism.

Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I would like to pursue with the Taoiseach some of his responses to Deputy Gilmore in regard in particular to the question of confidence in the Irish economy's ability to grow itself out of the current situation, which involves not alone getting our fiscal balance in order by 2014 but also convincing the EU and the markets that we have the capacity to grow our economy.

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

A question, please.

Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Taoiseach referred in particular to our export-led growth. Has the Government developed a policy in regard to supporting export industries in the pharmaceuticals and information technology area and has the Taoiseach discussed this with the EU? I am speaking in particular of industries in the Cork and Shannon airport regions which are export industries. Is aviation strategy and the security of Cork and Shannon airports part of what is being planned for by Government? It is important we can export what we create. This is not all about fiscal balance. It is also about ensuring that these industries have the confidence and capacity to develop and grow into the future.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

These specifics did not arise in the context of the European Council meeting but were discussed at sectoral level. The recommendations of the Von Rompuy report were accepted and it was agreed that the legislative consequences of that would be moved on by mid-next year and that this would be done as urgently as possible given parliamentary involvement in regard to the drafting at European level of four of the six legislative proposals.

We have had a strategy in place for the past ten years. Science Foundation Ireland has been established and research and development is recognised as an important function in terms of establishing a sustainable growth policy. The need for innovation and increased productivity across the economy is determined in many respects by the level of research and development and innovation in which indigenous and foreign industries engage. The policy of IDA Ireland has been successful and is probably only now beginning to generate the type of understanding among the foreign investment community of where Ireland sits in this respect. Five years ago, only 10% of IDA Ireland successes in terms of bringing investment to Ireland had a strong research and development component. Members will be aware 2009 was a difficult year, with a contraction of 10% in the Irish economy, yet IDA Ireland successfully brought 109 projects to this country, some 70% of which were companies already established here, which was a strong vote of confidence in a difficult year in this economy. These companies recognised the improvement in our competitiveness as a result of the policies being pursued by the Government.

Almost 50% of IDA Ireland wins this year have a research and development function. That is an important point in the context of the research community we have built up, the centres of science, engineering and technology, or CSETs, in various parts of industry and the industry partnerships this is creating. Some of the top multinationals in the world are involved in research projects, sponsored by Science Foundation Ireland through the CSETs, be they in Dublin, Limerick, Cork and so on. It has taken almost a decade for this to gain credibility. We needed to get the right people in to partner our researchers and ensure more PhDs.

Last week, more than 100 top industrialists in the web industry involved in Skype and so on were in Ireland. While the event received more than six hours of coverage by Bloomberg television, it did not get much coverage here. However, some things are not surprising. These are indications of how Ireland is viewed abroad and that industry is locating here. We are seen to have a good environment in which to develop entrepreneurship and enterprise. These are the industries of the future that will create the jobs of the future. We must ensure we have available more software engineers in this regard. What we are doing in terms of education policy to develop the sciences is fundamental to having a sustainable growth policy that is believable. Part of what we will be doing in the short term in this four-year plan is to put forward our growth policy, and there must be credibility behind that. One can pick figures where one likes and give an impression that everything is hunky dory, but we all know that the correction that must come in has its own dampening effect. It also means that we must balance the dampening effect on the initial growth prospects with the fact that if we do not do it, our ability to fund our deficits is put at serious risk. There are some trade-offs but-----

Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am talking about connectivity.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The connectivity in the Irish economy is good, and the broadband story is better in Ireland than what is portrayed here. There is a lot of investment going on, with more to be done. We do not always update ourselves on the position of things and if the Deputy looks at all of those points, she will see they are all important.

What we are doing in research and development over a long number of years, and what we will have to continue to do, means that we can compete with the likes of Singapore and Korea. Why is Ireland considered at the same time by some of these industry when they are considering locating in Singapore and Switzerland? It is because Ireland has something to offer. We need to emphasise those positive strengths, which are new aspects in the Irish economy. They are new facets of what we do. We did not even have a Science Foundation Ireland ten or 15 years ago. We are making a fair bit of progress.

Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The concern of the industries in the areas I am talking about is aviation connectivity and being able to get their products into the-----

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That point is well made and the Deputy might pursue it by way of parliamentary question to the line Minister. The time for questions to the Taoiseach has concluded and I must move on to other business.