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

Can we alter this a little to facilitate some extra time for discussion?

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is normal. We can make up a minute or two here or there.

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

I could shorten my contribution.

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If everyone gave perhaps a minute we could all be happy. Is that all right with you, Deputy Martin?

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

I would be happy to do that.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What was that?

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If we all gave a minute to Deputy Creighton, we could manage it.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Fine Gael should do it.

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

You will have 14 minutes instead of 15 minutes.

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

I will finish on 13 minutes.

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Taoiseach is giving two minutes.

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

I am pleased to have the opportunity, as usual, to outline my expectations to the Chamber ahead of the European Council meeting taking place tomorrow and Friday. This will not be a business-as-usual Council, not only because of what we will discuss - we have several important items - but because of what we will remember. Prior to our opening session my colleagues and I will gather in Ypres for a solemn ceremony at the Menin Gate to mark 100 years since the start of the First World War. It will be a moment to remember all those who were lost in that terrible war, including 35,000 Irishmen. It will also be a moment to remember what the European Union has achieved in our once bitterly divided Continent. I will be honoured to represent Ireland at the ceremony and to reflect on both the past and the future with the 27 other Heads of State and Government in our Union. As we grapple with the challenges of the future, we must not forget the dangers of the past.

The first session of the Council will take place following the ceremony tomorrow evening. President van Rompuy has made clear that he wants leaders to focus on agreeing a strategic agenda for the EU for the coming five years at that session. This will be a key focus for me at this Council. Having considered our substantive priorities I expect we will nominate a candidate to be the next European Commission President the following day. I have already said publicly that I expect the nominee to be the candidate of the European People's Party, Jean-Claude Juncker.

The agenda for the meeting is exceptionally full. On Friday the meeting will deal with the signing of association agreements with Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova and approval of the granting of candidate status to Albania; the adoption of new strategic guidelines on justice and home affairs; the completion of the European semester 2014 by endorsing the country-specific recommendations; reviewing progress on the climate and energy framework to 2030; endorsing the adoption by Lithuania of the euro from 1 January 2015; and endorsing documents on the maritime security strategy and overseas development assistance.

I appreciate that there is an understandably high level of interest in the process of nominating a new Commission president and that this has attracted considerable international media coverage. At the informal summit on 27 May my colleagues and I gave President van Rompuy a mandate to undertake consultations on the nomination. These have been ongoing and the President will report back to this meeting. As I have stated, my firm expectation is that Jean-Claude Juncker will be confirmed as the nominee and will go on to be endorsed as President of the new European Commission by the European Parliament.

I am, of course, acutely aware of the reservations that some member states, most notably our colleagues in the United Kingdom, have expressed regarding the nomination process. Clearly the incoming president must display an understanding of and interest in the sensitivities and relations that some countries find themselves in for a variety of reasons. I am confident that Mr. Juncker has the qualities and experience required for the job. I believe he is committed to delivering on our strategic priorities and to strengthening economic recovery and working to boost employment throughout the Union. I endorsed his election as the EPP lead candidate in Dublin in March and I will continue to support his nomination at the European Council.

There is a danger that at this time of change the Union could get caught up in institutional processes and personnel questions and this must be avoided. The challenge is to focus on the real substance, that is, the issues that matter for the people of Europe and to set a clear strategic agenda for the period ahead. This will be my priority at the European Council. Quite frankly we must respond to the political message sent by voters across the Continent in the European elections who called on us to take the initiative and show clear leadership.

There is no mystery about what our headline messages must and will be. Jobs and growth remain vital for the future of the Union. We need to drive forward the areas that can make a real difference in sustaining the recovery. In doing so, we must strive to combat poverty and social exclusion. In fighting unemployment in all parts of the Union we must ensure that we get education and training right and that young people are given the skills they need for the modern and digital economy.

Completing the Single Market, especially the digital single market, remains a core priority for me. Ensuring that our businesses, in particular the small and medium-sized enterprise sector, can access financing and operate in a supportive environment with the right conditions is essential. The opportunities offered by growth in trade are understood by all and we must continue to progress key trade negotiations, in particular with the USA. Energy security is another vital area essential for growth and the Ukraine crisis has thrown this into the spotlight.

We live in a complex and globalised world. The EU has a unique role to play as a global entity in an often unstable environment. In focusing on economic growth, we must also ensure that we are not inward facing. The EU must enhance its efforts to shape our external environment in a direction conducive to spreading international peace, security and prosperity.

The strategic guidelines on justice and home affairs are to be considered by leaders on Friday. The process of developing the strategic guidelines started when the relevant Ministers discussed the future of JHA at the informal council in Vilnius a year ago. Since then the issue has been the subject of intensive work. In March of this year Vice President Reding and Commissioner Malmström issued their respective communications setting out what they believed should be contained in the new guidelines. Broadly speaking, there has been little disagreement among member states. Most have emphasised that, following the development of an extensive legal framework over the past 15 years, the priority now should be a period of evaluation and consolidation. As such, the guidelines should focus primarily on ensuring optimal implementation of the existing legal architecture. At the same time Ireland and others have stressed that the guidelines should be flexible enough to allow for further legislative measures where there is clear and objective evidence that these are necessary and that any additional costs are justifiable. Several such issues have been highlighted, including trafficking in human beings, people smuggling, cybercrime, radicalisation and foreign fighters. These are challenges which the Union cannot address alone. The guidelines reflect this and call for improved links between the EU's internal and external policies. It is also worth noting that the guidelines to be adopted are less prescriptive than earlier programmes. This should allow the Commission and the Justice and Home Affairs Council more flexibility over the next five years. It is also expected that there will be some discussion on horizontal issues like data protection and free movement. We are actively participating in the data protection reform package which remains under negotiation. The EU Council is likely to highlight the importance of these discussions. I expect that Heads of State and Government will also affirm free movement as one of the fundamental freedoms of the Union, while also noting that possible abuse should be sensibly tackled.

The 2014 European semester process will be concluded on Friday when the European Council endorses the country specific recommendations, CSRs, to member states. Ireland is a full participant in this year's arrangements. Deputies will be well aware of the process from the good engagement which has taken place at committee level. The semester process brings together the different strands of the EU's stronger post-crisis economic governance arrangements. The key focus is on development and implementation of jointly agreed measures to support growth and jobs. We agree priorities at EU level and we apply them at national level.

The Commission presented its CSR package on 2 June. These were informed by member state submissions and by the 17 indepth reviews already produced in March under the macroeconomic imbalances procedure with one for each of the 16 member states identified in the alert mechanism report as being at risk for such imbalances and one for Ireland following our exit in December from the EU-IMF programme.

Following presentation by the Commission, the CSRs are settled within the Council on a comply or explain basis.

This means the Commission's proposal stands unless a qualified majority of member states support an amendment. The Commission can also, of course, agree sensible changes to its own proposals.

Last week's meeting of employment Ministers on 19 June settled the CSRs relating to employment and social policies. Finance Ministers on 20 June settled the CSRs on budgetary and economic policies. The General Affairs Council then yesterday approved an integrated set of final CSRs for endorsement by Heads of State and Government at this week's European Council. These will in turn be reflected in a final Council recommendation adopted by finance Ministers in July.

There are seven CSRs for Ireland. They address measures in the following areas: restoring balance to the public finances, including through the adjustment to be agreed in October that will bring the headline budget deficit below 3% of GDP in 2015; improving the cost effectiveness of health care spending in line with the future health reform programme adopted in 2012; strengthening our active labour market policies consistently with the work being taken forward by Intreo and SOLAS under Pathways to Work; developing in this context a more robust response to the particular challenges associated with intergenerational transmission of poverty through what are described as low-work-intensity households; streamlining our supports for SMEs and entrepreneurship, with a particular focus on access to finance, in line with the direction set under the Action Plan for Jobs; completing the work under way to deal with the post-crisis legacy of non-performing loans in the financial sector; and, finally, pressing ahead on legal services reform, including through the Legal Services Regulation Bill that we are committed to enacting this year. It is clear that the overall emphasis here sits well with policy orientations that we have already firmly established at national level, particularly through the medium-term economic strategy, the Action Plan for Jobs and Pathways to Work.

Some minor technical and drafting issues were raised with the Commission. It was, in turn, happy to agree suitable amendments through the work of the committees that prepared last week's meetings of employment and finance Ministers. That is why we see these CSRs as broadly sensible policy orientations. They point in the same direction we have set for ourselves. That is what we should expect from the European semester process, and that is why shared analysis supporting shared conclusions is important.

As part of its consideration of the semester, the June Council will also agree further steps in the area of regulatory fitness and performance, REFIT. Essentially, this means striking a better balance between the goals of EU regulation on the one hand and the administrative burdens it can impose on the other, particularly for SMEs, which will create most new employment. President Barroso spoke about this in last year's state of the Union address when he spoke about the EU needing to be big on big things and small on smaller things. Discussions on Friday will be informed by a new communication from the Commission on REFIT. This will set out welcome progress in the three key areas of withdrawing unnecessary propositions, simplifying what is in place and repealing what is out of date. The Commission has also produced an important scoreboard that will bring transparency to ongoing monitoring of progress. I will continue to support a high level of ambition for the REFIT programme that is consistent with a stronger overall emphasis on improving the business environment for job creation.

The Council will also take stock of the progress being made towards the final decisions to be made in October on the new climate and energy framework for 2030. A lot of work still needs to be done to address the issues that have been raised by member states in the discussion to date. Ireland faces a most serious challenge in meeting targets for 2020. The challenge will be more serious for 2030. The matter will be the focus of serious discussion and negotiations in order to make it possible for future governments to be able to reach realistic targets by 2030. Ireland is working closely with the Commission to reach a common understanding of the issues facing us in the transition to a low-carbon economy, including the issue of emissions due to our specific agricultural profile. This has already been acknowledged to be of particular importance to Ireland in the last European Council. The focus of this Council's discussions in this area, however, will be on energy security. I have asked the Minister of State, Deputy Donohoe, to say a few words on this and on the external relations focus of the European Council in his statement. I will, of course, be happy to report back to the House after the European Council. I have shortened my contribution by almost three minutes.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This week's summit could be a profound one in setting the direction of Europe for the next five years. It will decide whether the European Union will again be a driver of growth or will double down on policies that have failed and will continue to fail. At every stage in the past five years, Europe's leaders have failed to show the urgency or ambition desperately needed by countries caught in the greatest economic crisis for 70 years. There has been a stubborn refusal to accept when radical changes are required. Worst of all, real damage has been done to the foundations of a Union that can only be effective when members understand the need for solidarity and respect.

Today, the Union in general and the eurozone in particular are faced with the threat of deflation and falling growth rates. Even the most optimistic projections assert that employment and living standards will be squeezed for the foreseeable future if current policies are maintained. The economic forecasts of every international agency claim that the European economy is weak and threatened with significant problems. The President of the European Central Bank, ECB, has stated that extraordinary measures may soon be required to stop a new recession. This is the background to the summit and it demands a far more serious response than we have heard so far from the Taoiseach and his fellow members of the Council.

In area after area, the Union's policies are simply not delivering. There is no plan for charting a new course. The European institutions badly need new leaders who understand the scale of the crisis and are not obsessed with justifying the status quo. It is the discussions about who these leaders will be that will determine whether this summit is a success or another missed opportunity.

What is worst about the process so far is that the debate has all been about who will get the jobs and not what they will do in the jobs. There is no doubt that last month's elections saw large portions of the citizenry of Europe expressing their dissatisfaction with the current situation in the Union. As with most election commentary, many people are describing as winners groups that came nowhere near winning majority support. Let us get some perspective. In Ireland and Europe as a whole, more than two thirds of people voted for parties and candidates that were broadly pro-EU. Those who want to roll back or even abolish the Union did well in many places, but they are the voice of the minority.

In our election, the exit poll confirmed what had been shown in every survey that had been carried out in recent years, namely, the Irish people want a Union that is more effective in doing the jobs we need it to do. We do not want the right-wing vision of a skeleton free trade area that maximises competition and minimises work and living standards. We do not want the extreme left vision of massively regulated markets and anti-business rhetoric. We do not want to dismantle the hard-won progress achieved over the past 60 years. What the Irish people time and again have said is that we want a Union that works better, understands the need for deep reform, takes credible action to support growth and living standards, talks less and achieves more.

The first and most effective way of responding to this is in the three major appointments that are due to be finalised in the coming weeks. I have nothing against Jean-Claude Juncker, but it is absurd to claim that he is somehow the democratic choice of the people of Europe to head the European Commission. He has a substantial claim to be considered as the leading candidate for the role of Commission President, but to assert that any alternative would be anti-democratic is to adopt the fiction that these were a single pan-European election where citizens voted for both the Parliament and Commission at the same time.

It remains the case that Ireland has not received full justice in its case for relief of the full impact of bank-related debts. Every independent report has made the point that the scale of these debts was significantly affected by EU policies that were doggedly enforced between 2008 and 2010 but have since been abandoned. Had the policies in place today been adopted then, there would have been no Irish bailout. During those years, Jean-Claude Juncker was president of the Eurogroup and was frequently a loud public advocate for the failed policies that caused so much harm. Did the Taoiseach seek commitments from Mr. Juncker before announcing his total support for the man? Did he seek assurances of support for Irish debt relief or did he just jump on the bandwagon? Equally important, did he seek any information from Mr. Juncker about how he proposed to revitalise the Commission and the Union?

I welcome Mr. Juncker’s intention to push for a social impact assessment to be added to the narrow financial provisions of existing budgetary regulations and bailout provisions.

If this is a signal of a wider radicalism, then he may be a good choice. However, his failure to comment on a wide range of other issues, such as the complete inadequacy of the banking union, is a cause for concern. He is also right that dealing with Britain’s threats to the Union must be a priority, but he is wrong in talking about the Single Market as the priority in this regard. If what we get is further pressure to gut the EU budget, to withdraw from vital social and economic activities, then it will be a major step backwards. It is hard to fault Mr. Junker for not saying more because our own Government has given no specifics about where it sees the future development of the Union.

The choice for Council President may actually be just as important as the Commission post. The national presidencies are becoming less influential and the Council has so far failed to work effectively in its much larger format. The agenda is increasingly getting diverted into formalities and minor incremental changes driven by advance agreements brokered between a handful of states. The Council must reassert itself as a forum where all states are treated fairly and where decisions do not have to wait for a major crisis before anyone does anything.

As far as the role of High Commissioner is concerned, a strong personality who shows a commitment to European values and respect for the views of all member states is required. In the past year there has been much talk of a united European approach to shared foreign policy concerns, but this has been reflected very little in reality. Catherine Ashton has done well in setting up the European External Action Service. What has not yet happened is the adoption of a common understanding of what the service can achieve for us all. Whoever takes her place must be of senior status and capable of obliging the larger member states to take him or her seriously.

The summit is due once again to talk about the crisis in Ukraine. Due to the sheer number of international crises at the moment, Ukraine is receiving much less attention, but the situation continues to be very grave. For the first time since the fall of the Soviet Union, a European country has been unilaterally partitioned by a powerful neighbour which believes in its right to dominate all former satellites. When taking control of Crimea, Russia adopted a strategy of acting on the ground while angrily denying it in public. Since then the Russian President has confirmed that his government was lying when it denied actions by its troops. It is difficult to see circumstances in which Russia can be forced to reverse its partitioning of Crimea from Ukraine; however, we cannot let that distract us from recognising what is now happening there. The free media in Crimea is being destroyed. Civil society organisations are under daily pressure. The largest ethnic minority, the Tatars, are facing particular discrimination, with Russian efforts to actively undermine the traditional commemoration of the exile of Tatars under the Soviet regime. It is in fact a criminal offence to publicly state in Crimea that one disagrees with the Russian annexation. In eastern Ukraine, Russian-supported groups continue to push for the further partition of the country. The last time Europe saw such intimidation of a small state by a nuclear superpower was in 1968. Our history teaches us what can happen when a powerful neighbour refuses to respect the territorial integrity of a weaker state. We must stand with the democratically elected government of Ukraine and say to Russia that it will face real consequences if it continues.

The ongoing use of gas supplies in support of state policy by certain countries has only reinforced the need for Europe to get serious about both energy independence and climate change. During the recession there was a major backing away from these objectives in much of Europe. Our Government has been a leader in trying to make sure that whatever is done about sustainable energy comes nowhere near matching the rhetoric. Energy is on the agenda for the summit and it is to be hoped that it will involve some concrete action.

The summit will also sign off, as the Taoiseach has said, on the latest part of the ongoing European semester process for co-ordinating economic and fiscal policy. This is unlikely to get any attention but it is still very significant. For all the fine talk about supporting jobs and growth, the recommendations to countries that will be agreed by the Taoiseach and his colleagues see a doubling down on the policy of austerity for all. There are places where fiscal reality means there is no alternative to running a tight policy; however, in much of Europe a boost to demand due to looser budgets is exactly what is needed. To try and return to sustainable growth through monetary policy alone is simply ludicrous. It is not credible in any way.

The European Central Bank’s recent plans are unlikely to have a practical impact unless they are soon followed by full-scale quantitative easing. The bank's president, Mario Draghi, is clearly committed to doing as much as he can, but what is missing can be seen from a stubborn adherence to a policy which continues to suppress demand, leading to low growth, low inflation and low confidence. Why has Ireland refused to join Prime Minister Renzi of Italy in calling for a more growth-oriented approach to budgets? Why have we sat on the sidelines and nodded through recommendations which will achieve nothing but to undermine growth and limit living standards?

In starting this summit the Council will quite rightly remember one of those conflicts which made the 20th century the bloodiest in Europe’s history. It is absolutely correct to say that the European Union has given our continent an unprecedented period of peace between states. This should be noted and celebrated at the Council. What leaders would do well to remember is that the greatest cause of the First World War was a failure of leadership. Whether they were dynastic or democratic, Europe’s heads of state and government a hundred years ago could not see where their narrow view of national interests and stubborn adherence to failed strategies was leading them. It was a senseless and destructive war. Historians have shown repeatedly how millions died in a conflict between states too proud to understand their common interests.

Today there is a deep sense of drift in Europe. The extremes are still in the minority, but they have grown in strength. We cannot afford more of the same - more timidity, more delay. We need the leaders of Europe to recognise the deep crisis to which they have contributed and to commit to reforming both their work and the policies which are so clearly not working.

Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise on behalf of Deputy Adams, who cannot be here as he is attending a meeting elsewhere, and on my own behalf for my delay in my getting to the House. I was attending the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade, at which we were dealing with the upcoming European Council meeting and at which the Tánaiste was present.

Two weeks ago, citizens right across this State delivered a clear message that they could take no more of the Government’s brutal austerity policies. There was a strong vote against cuts and austerity in both the local and European polls. Sinn Féin elected an unprecedented four MEPs across the island of Ireland. The Sinn Féin MEPs will join a considerably enlarged GUE/NGL group in the European Parliament as a result of increased anti-austerity votes not only in Ireland but in Greece, Italy, Spain, Cyprus and Portugal. Governments must now heed that message and change their political direction. That is the message coming from all those countries and peoples across Europe. People voted for change, yet the European semester and the European Commission's country-specific recommendations are still pushing austerity in Ireland and right across Europe. These austerity programmes have been disastrous for middle- and low-income families. The message following the European elections, not only in Ireland but across Europe, is that people want a different approach.

Only yesterday I attended a pre-budget submission by the Society of St. Vincent de Paul at which it outlined its figures for children in poverty in Ireland, who number 200,000. I remember not so long ago when we were talking about 100,000 children. The figures are increasing all the time. The society outlined its vision for change, involving a much more inclusive Ireland, and it talked of the Government building recovery, but asked for what and for whom that would be. It talked of the vision it wanted for Ireland. Many Members would share this vision and the society's view that things have to change and that we have to approach matters differently.

We have a two-tier Europe. The growth or stimulus necessary to create employment has not happened. Many economies across Europe are in the doldrums. The time for hiding behind the European Commission - the most vocal voice for austerity in Europe throughout the crisis - is over.

People will no longer buy that. That was the message from the people in the recent elections in terms of the candidates for whom they voted.

The EU Commission is right to point out that there are still issues with the health services, legal services and mortgage arrears situation in this State which this Government is failing to tackle seriously. While I am critical of the overall tone of the recommendations, I do not have a problem with some of them, including the need for progress on reducing legal services and drugs costs and so on. I recently raised this issue with the Minister of State, Deputy Donohoe, at a meeting of the Joint Committee on European Affairs. It is often stated that Ireland has a small population and should work out its own drugs bill. Is there a need for a European-wide review of the cost of drugs?Many drugs are produced by pharmaceutical companies located in Ireland yet drugs cost more in Ireland than anywhere else across Europe. The argument for this is again our small population. While the companies that have located here are welcome, Ireland has no separate agreement with them in respect of pharmaceuticals produced here. While I would welcome health savings, how and at what cost will these be achieved?

In relation to social inclusion, there is little doubt that increased labour market participation remains the best route out of poverty and that affordable child care will continue to play an important role in this context. I know from speaking to lone parents in my constituency and from parents in general that the problem is the unavailability of affordable child care. One of the recommendations of the CRS relates to child care. We are all agreed on the need for address of the child care issue and the Minister has undertaken to examine this area but what exactly is being done? This issue was identified years ago yet there has been no real roll-out of affordable child care facilities in this State.

We are at the top of the class in terms of austerity but at the bottom of the class on most other issues. The folly of this State signing up to ever-increasing budgetary control from Brussels is becoming clearer every day. At the end of the day, one can take what one likes from this report but there is a democratic deficit within the EU. This is being said not only by people in Ireland but by people across the EU. We know that there is a disconnect between the European institutions and people across Europe regarding the European project. This is being said not only by Sinn Féin and the Independents but by other organisations across Europe that are dealing with poverty. This needs to change.

In my view, we are only going through the motions here today. Unless there is substance in terms of what Government is doing, we will continue going through the motions. The Commission has its job to do but so does every Irish Government, which must be to stand up not alone for people in Ireland but people across Europe who are feeling the backlash of austerity. Right now that means standing up to Brussels and telling them the days of dictated austerity are over. The mandate recently given to Sinn Fein's four MEPs shows that the people are not inclined to accept Brussels word so easily. While it could be argued that the Sinn Féin vote in the recent elections was smaller than that of other parties, its vote across Ireland was huge. People are responding to what Sinn Féin is saying not alone about Ireland but also about Europe.

On climate and energy, I note that this European Council meeting will discuss the climate and energy policy of the EU. This is one of the greatest concerns for people. As we become more energy dependent, access to safe and reliable energy sources is, of course, of fundamental importance. An over dependence on energy sources from other countries can massively undermine the sovereignty and decision making powers of a state. Ukraine is a strong example of this. There is a need for Ireland to get its act together in relation to energy production. One of the gravest threats our planet is facing is climate change yet the naysayers continue to say this is simply a reaction of the planets and has nothing to do with man and his actions. The impacts of climate change are being felt every day on every continent. Therefore, as a State we need to look at reducing our carbon emissions. Ireland and the EU need to demonstrate leadership in tackling climate change. The development of the EU's 2030 climate and energy policy framework will play an important role in shaping the future of Europe and that of the rest of the world.

Reports indicate that to keep temperature rise below 2^oC, the EU needs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 40% by 2020 and at least 55% by 2030. To achieve this, we need binding targets at national and EU level. We must ensure EU policies on renewable energy do not drive up demand for damaging land-based biofuels. The massive expansion of biofuels brings few or no climate benefits, while putting additional pressure on scarce natural resources and negatively affecting people's right to food. I ask that thee Taoiseach call at the Council meeting for the introduction of binding targets for carbon emissions reductions in the EU and to follow that up with the introduction here of binding targets as part of a climate change Bill. I ask that he also highlight the need for a genuine and robust cap to limit the use of land-based biofuels, which are negatively affecting food supply and production, particularly in the developing world. We know of countries where biofuels are killing off the environment, leading to an increased cost for foodstuffs in those countries. There is a need for all multinational companies to publish reports on all the work they do in countries where they have operations, including the environmental impact of their work, human rights concerns and taxes paid. This is especially necessary to highlight the work in developing countries. Consumers have the power, in terms of their spend, to influence the action of companies and many want to choose ethical strong companies that conform to their beliefs, but finding this information is difficult. Would theTaoiseach be in favour of the EU compelling MNCs to publish these country by country reports and will he raise this matter at European level? As things stand because these reports are not available it is not possible to identify the countries involved in this practise. It would be helpful to Europe and, in particular, consumers if these reports were available.

On the foreign affairs front, the Middle East process is in crisis. As part of the drive to restart negotiations in the Middle East Israel agreed to release 104 veteran Palestinian political prisoners. However, last month Israel refused to release the final batch of 26 prisoners, which supposedly led to the collapse of the process. I welcome that the Tánaiste spoke out against Israel's actions in breaking the talks preconditions. There are currently 240 Palestinian prisoners on hunger strike because of Israel's continued use of administration detention, which basically amounts to internment on remand. Many have been on hunger strike for more than two months and 40 are now in a critical phase and in hospital. The Israeli Parliament is seeking to enact legislation which would permit the force feeding of these prisoners. The draft law, also denounced by human rights groups, is due to be debated in the Israeli parliament on Monday. Force feeding is a horrific procedure and is in total contradiction with internationally accepted medical ethics. We know from our own history that Irish republican prisoners died or suffered serious long-term health problems having been forced fed. We also know that others in Ireland have been force fed, including women's rights activists and so on.

The breaking news today is that 63 Palestinian prisoners, having reached a deal with the Israeli prison authorities and with the approach of Ramadan, have decided to suspend their hunger strike action. While facts are bare at the moment, I hope a deal, which could facilitate the ending of this hunger strike and save the lives of these prisoners, has been struck.

It is important that Ireland exert whatever pressure it can on Israel to end its systematic use of administrative detention. This includes raising the issue at EU level. Does the Government support the demand for an end to the administrative detention of Palestinian prisoners by Israel? Will the Taoiseach raise the matter with other European leaders?

I am sure the Taoiseach heard about the disappearance and suspected kidnapping of three Israeli teenagers from an Israeli settlement in the occupied Palestinian territories. We all hope they will be released safe and sound. However, since the disappearance of the three, the Israeli military has killed three Palestinians and raided over 1,150 locations, including homes, charities, universities and offices, and detained 330 Palestinians. One of those killed was a 14 year-old child who was shot with live bullets in the chest by the Israeli army. Another was a 22 year old who was also shot by live bullets, this time in the head. Searching for the missing Israelis does not give Israel the right to kill three Palestinians, as has happened in the past week. It is collective punishment of the Palestinian population in the occupied Palestinian territories.

I hope the Taoiseach will raise these concerns, namely, the hunger strike, administrative detention and the collective punishment of Palestinians, at the Council meeting. Ireland needs to stand clearly on the side of human rights and equality.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sharing my time with Deputies Shane Ross and Ruth Coppinger.

I appreciate that the Taoiseach has had to go, but there are a few points I hope the Minister of State, Deputy Paschal Donohoe, will pass on to him. I really want to focus on two areas. First, in a speech, the points made in which have been much repeated by the Government, the Taoiseach referred to the priorities of growth and employment, both for Ireland and the wider European economy. In the speech he also referred to the need to combat poverty and social exclusion.

What I really want to flag is the question of whether the policy of producing jobs and growth is failing to acknowledge or address what is now becoming apparent as a really savage assault, under various guises, on the wages and conditions of workers in both the public and private sectors. It is either a direct assault by employers on pay and conditions or an assault through the use of so-called labour activation schemes which, in reality, create a new pool of cheap labour, whereby people are working for nothing or next to it. Obviously, this exacerbates the increasingly widespread phenomenon of the working poor. Often people work for very long hours, up to 60 hours a week, and are still poor and unable to pay their bills which are increasing daily with new charges, including water and property charges. Those who are making all the efforts to go out and work and want to contribute are suffering and having their wages and conditions assaulted by what is really a pincer movement involving governments and employers in the private sector. It means suffering for workers. Moreover, there is insufficient growth and a very serious danger of deflation or a lack of growth, as alluded to by Deputy Micheál Martin. In other words, there could be growthless jobs. This phenomenon is apparent in the economy and becoming increasingly apparent across Europe. One can create jobs, but if staff are not paid properly, they will have no money to spend. Thus, economic growth will not be generated. This can be part of a dangerous, deflationary cycle, which is exactly what is happening.

Deputy Clare Daly mentioned Greyhound today. Is it a coincidence that Bausch & Lomb opts for a 20% pay cut and tells staff it will close down if they do not accept it, while Greyhound is implementing absolutely savage pay cuts of 20%? There are vicious tactics against the workers. Another dispute that has not attracted many headlines concerns what is happening in Cement Roadstone Holdings. There has been a dispute for several weeks in which the employers are seeking pay cuts of 20% for workers who are earning between €25,000 and €30,000 a year. They already took massive pay cuts in 2012. Now, a further pay cut of 20% is being sought by the company against the workers who are on salaries far lower than the average industrial wage. CRH is stating that if they do not accept the cuts, it will shut down the plants. It is taking out injunctions against the workers whose conditions should be contrasted with those of the bosses of such companies. As Greyhound is incorporated in the Isle of Man, we do not even know how much profit it is making. This year the director of CRH had a package, agreed at the AGM, of €7.2 million in total. This is unbelievable; it is the highest in the industry across Europe. As part of a remuneration review referred to at the AGM, it was said the executives of CRH were underpaid. This is unbelievable at a time when the wages and conditions of workers are being slashed with bully-boy tactics. What are the Government and European Union going to do about this savage assault by employers which is now an accelerating race to the bottom in terms of wages and conditions? Nothing is being done by governments about this and they are actively encouraging it with so-called labour activation schemes.

Shane Ross (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have little quarrel with what was included in the Taoiseach's speech. One could not really quarrel with it because there was not very much in it. My problem is with what was not in the speech. The most important point discussed by the Taoiseach was the nomination of Mr. Jean-Claude Juncker. He told us very little about this and what he said was very disappointing. I agree with Deputy Micheál Martin who said he hoped the Taoiseach had not sold his vote for nothing. I hope that, in return for offering support to Mr. Juncker, the Taoiseach demanded a price for his vote that was in the interests of Ireland. There is no evidence of this. Employing a couple of platitudes, all he said was that Jean-Claude Juncker had both the qualities and experience required for the job and that he was committed to delivering on our strategic priorities to strengthen economic recovery and work to boost employment, etc. This is meaningless stuff. I want to know what happened, why the Taoiseach gave his vote, what Mr. Juncker will do for Ireland and what the Taoiseach achieved for Ireland in giving his support to Mr. Juncker who is, after all, an old EU insider. I hope the vote was not just sold for nothing.

I am disappointed by the obvious enthusiasm with which we so readily appointed Mr. Jean-Claude Juncker, not because of who he is but because we abuse the Commissioner positions ourselves. When appointing his own Commissioner, the Taoiseach should not appoint the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Phil Hogan, or another Fine Gael loyalist. Let me list the nine Commissioners whom we have appointed to date, not because they did not have ability but because they all had something in common: Mr. Patrick Hillery, Mr. Richard Burke, Mr. Michael O'Kennedy, Mr. Peter Sutherland, Mr. Ray MacSharry, Mr. Pádraig Flynn, Mr. David Byrne, Mr. Charlie McCreevy and Ms Máire Geoghegan-Quinn. All are former members of a Cabinet. The position of Commissioner is regarded by political parties as just one of the spoils of war to be distributed when a vacancy arises to party members whom they wish to get rid of — in some cases, it is quite obvious — or reward for loyalty to them or, particularly, their leaders. I have no great ambition to keep the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government at home, but I believe it would be extraordinary and wrong to appoint someone straight from the Cabinet. The Taoiseach should look outside it. To start with, why should he not reappoint Ms Máire Geoghegan-Quinn? I do not know. That she is a Fianna Fáil appointee should be absolutely immaterial. Why should he not look beyond Cabinet Ministers and politicians to someone with real expertise, commitment and interest in the European Union? There is no sign that this is being done.

It is immediately apparent there is an unseemly squabble going on in the public arena about whether it goes to Labour or to Fine Gael. That is not the way a position of this sort should be considered or treated. It should be treated on its merits and, if the Taoiseach is not capable of moving outside the very narrow circle of political insiders, then a different means of appointing a European Commissioner should be introduced in this country. It is a shameful list that we have, not because they are not people with ability but because they were appointed for the wrong reason.

The other thing I would have liked to hear the Taoiseach talk about, and he did not, is that this is the second anniversary, almost to the day, of him coming back in triumph and saying he had ensured huge sums of money were on the way from the European Stability Mechanism to the Irish banks. That is now a hollow claim and, as far as we can see, it is not going to happen. There is a little bit of shadow-boxing going on and an application is apparently about to be made, but there is not a hope in hell of us getting money from the ESM for legacy debt for the Irish banks. It is particularly difficult given the Minister for Finance is travelling to European capitals and to Washington, saying the banks are in good shape and do not need recapitalisation, and given AIB itself said last week that it is going to pay back every penny of the €20 billion. How can we ride both these horses at this time by saying we want money for that but also that the banks are healthy?

I believe the banks need money. We should admit it and then go to Europe with that case. We should say that recapitalisation is on the way and that we want some EU money for that. At the moment, however, the Taoiseach gives the impression he will not say boo to a goose, particularly when he is in the European capitals.

Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Taoiseach's speech gave no signal of any change in European policies following the very clear message from the electorate throughout Ireland and Europe, where anti-austerity forces achieved major victories and many of the traditional parties of austerity were dealt a severe blow, for example, in Spain. The message from the electorate could not be any clearer. People are sick and tired of a constant diet of austerity after six years, but what is being dished up is a continuing menu of austerity. It is incredible that the Taoiseach is also clapping on the back Jean-Claude Juncker, who is an austerity hawk, who opposed any extension of deadlines for Ireland or any other country, and who is an ex-governor of the IMF. It seems that nothing has been taken on board by Fine Gael following the elections.

Of course, this is not about individuals. It is about how successive Governments, under Fianna Fáil previously and now this Government, agreed to tie the hands of this country and other countries in dealing with our economic problems. In the country-specific recommendations under the European semester, there will be a limiting of the statutory scope for discretionary changes by Government, so if there is any attempt to move away from the policies of austerity, the Government's hands are tied. There will also be an attempt to raise revenues through broadening the tax base. Given we assume it will not be corporation tax, it will be more taxes on working class people such as the water tax, the property tax and so on.

The Taoiseach mentioned a number of issues that are lined up for Ireland. The first is improving the cost effectiveness of health care spending, which is code for more health cuts, and the introduction of universal health insurance, which I predict will be massively opposed by families in this country given it is essentially a "pay or die", American-style system. The Taoiseach spoke of active labour market policies consistent with work a person has been doing before, which means more JobBridge and more so-called labour activation measures. He also referred to concern about an intergenerational transmission of poverty. The Government has not shown any concern about the transmission of poverty and it is sitting idly by while there is a homeless crisis and while thousands of young people emigrate.

Most worrying for people suffering from the mortgage crisis is the completion of the work underway to deal with the post-crisis legacy of non-performing loans in the financial sector. Again, this is code for speeding up repossessions. As public representatives, we are already seeing this, and more and more people are contacting us who are either renting or living in houses that are about to be repossessed.

The wealth does exist in Europe to wipe out mass unemployment, youth unemployment and all of the other social problems that are blighting the people of Europe. Unfortunately, however, it is concentrated in few hands. This wealth has to be expropriated and used to solve these fundamental problems to create a Europe for the millions rather than the millionaires, which the Taoiseach seems to represent.

I want to finish on the issue of foreign policy because I note the Taoiseach said there will a ceremony in Ypres to commemorate the First World War. The EU is at a stage where this is very relevant because wars are being waged in Iraq, Syria and Ukraine. While the Taoiseach is commemorating the First World War with the other leaders of Europe, he should have a chat in particular with David Cameron about the role of the British Government in the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003, which has played a key role in the current problems in Iraq, where sectarian war is now breaking out. Instead of one Saddam Hussein, Western imperialism now faces a whole number of Saddam Husseins plus the rise of al-Qaeda-type organisations like ISIS and a shake-up of the entire region, with tragic consequences for the ordinary people of Iraq. Now that it is clear that weapons of mass destruction were an absolute lie and that oil was the basis of the invasion, it is incumbent on the Taoiseach to point out the role both of some of the member states in Europe, along with Bush in America, in that illegal invasion of Iraq and the consequences it has had for today, where divide and rule tactics are now being used between Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims in the interests of Western imperialism.

Lucinda Creighton (Dublin South East, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Ceann Comhairle and the Taoiseach for facilitating me and Opposition Members. I am pleased to see the Taoiseach is prepared to allow us all to co-operate when it comes to EU matters as it is hugely important we do not bring our domestic disputes to the European stage.

The selection of the President of European Commission is an immensely important decision that will be taken at the summit this week. I would like to lend my voice of support to Jean-Claude Juncker for a number of reasons, first, because he is a good candidate. There has been a lot of personalisation of this appointment in the past few days, some of it in very bad taste. Jean-Claude Juncker is somebody who has served his country with distinction as Minister for Finance during periods of unprecedented growth in his country, perhaps an example that could be followed by others, and has been a very effective Prime Minister, one of the longest serving in the world. He is somebody who, I believe, has shown great leadership at European level. He is also somebody who can help Europe to meet the many challenges that lie ahead, particularly when it comes to reintroducing a strong delivery of growth, opportunity and job creation to Europe's citizens and in terms of completing the Single Market and the sort of structural reforms that will genuinely lead to better prospects for Europe's citizens.

Second, I believe it is important because, whether we like it or not, all of the main European parties signed up to this concept of a top candidate - the Socialists, the Liberals, the EPP, the Christian Democrats, the Conservatives and the Greens. It is not an ideal format or solution but it was a small step in the direction of bringing greater democratic legitimacy to the election process at European level. The winners of that contest were the EPP and, therefore, I believe it is appropriate that Herman van Rompuy, as President of the Council, sought to find a consensus, or at least a strong majority, to endorse the leadership of Jean-Claude Juncker in the European Commission over the next five years. All of the political parties signed up to that and I believe it would send a very negative signal to the citizens of Europe if they suddenly decided to go behind closed doors and back to the sort of smoke-filled rooms we are used to, in order to arrive at a cosy consensus and to nominate somebody whose name was not before the public.

I am not sure how many European citizens were aware of Jean-Claude Juncker, Martin Schulz, Guy Verhofstadt or any of the other candidates. The answer is probably not very many but the fact is that the political parties committed to it and it is appropriate for them to see that process through. My preference would have been and remains a direct election to the presidency of the Commission. It is something Ireland should loudly advocate. We should not be afraid of treaty change in the future to allow that to happen. A direct election would engage all the citizens of Europe and give them a direct voice as to who will provide leadership in the European Commission and indeed across all of the institutions in the future, so it is something we should advocate for.

I agree very strongly with Deputy Ross. The opportunity exists for Ireland to do something radically different in terms of how we appoint our Commissioner by looking outside the old political circles and examining a new format. Some of my colleagues on the Independent benches in the Seanad have put forward a Bill in the past week that would give this Parliament and one of the Oireachtas joint committees the power to scrutinise the Government's nominee for the position of Irish Commissioner. I think this would be a really positive step forward. There is no reason the Government should not accept that proposal. I think we should be looking outside the old political circles. I do not believe it should be a member of Cabinet or that there should be horse trading between the two parties in Government to arrive at a sweetener, a prize or essentially an exit route for somebody from the current Cabinet. It would make sense and possibly bring this Government some way to the promised democratic revolution that quite clearly has not occurred. It would allow this Parliament to have a say in the sort of characteristics, traits, skills and abilities we would like to see in our Commissioner.

The role of European Commissioner cannot be overstated. It is a hugely important role where the future of the European agenda and the growth and job creation agendas will be shaped and where Ireland can have a powerful voice. It should not be a retirement home for failed or unpopular politicians or used to make room for new blood in Cabinet. It should be somebody of calibre and expertise who can serve this country and all of Europe's population with distinction.

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank all the Deputies for their contributions. The Taoiseach has asked me to update the House on a number of areas. I will also respond to some of the points made in the time available to me. Deputy Martin raised the issue of Ukraine and noted the seriousness of it. Further progress with regard to our relationship with Georgia and Moldova is a very important development that will take place at the forthcoming summit in the next two days. These countries have been directly affected by much of what has happened in Ukraine. That summit will see the signing of the deep and comprehensive free trade agreements covering all goods and services that form part of the association agreement with each country. The signing of these agreements will take place in the margins of the European Council. It is important to recognise that along with Ukraine, both countries were part of the Eastern Partnership summit and the partnership arrangement with the EU. Ukraine decided not to go down that route, but Georgia and Moldova have gone down it and have continued to find ways of deepening their relationship with the EU. The signing of these agreements at the summit across the next two days recognises the progress they are making and looks to find further ways of deepening their relationship with the EU.

I welcome the election of Petro Poroshenko following the presidential election on 25 May in Ukraine. The EU and Ireland have always stressed the importance of those elections. Many colleagues, including Deputy Boyd Barrett, have on a number of occasions raised issues relating to the legitimacy of elections in Ukraine and how an inclusive administration and government can be put in place. A point I made then and would re-emphasise is that the first step in doing this was the holding of elections, particularly the presidential election that took place. President Poroshenko has a very strong mandate in respect of reforms and doing all he can to turn Ukraine into a modern and democratic country in which different identities and minorities are respected and recognised by their own administration. We look forward to meeting the president in Brussels at the signing ceremony on Friday and to hearing his assessment of the current situation and what can be done to deliver a peaceful situation, particularly in light of the security situation in eastern Ukraine, which remains extremely serious.

The Heads of State and Government may also examine the worrying developments in Iraq, which were touched on by Deputy Coppinger. Ireland and other EU members are greatly concerned about the rapid deterioration of the situation in that country. It goes without saying that the activities of the forces there not only raise great concerns about Iraq but raise very grave concerns about the stability of the wider region. It therefore remains critical that all Iraqi political leaders come together in a more constructive and inclusive manner to overcome this crisis, reject sectarianism and promote national unity for all Iraqis.

The European Council will also be asked to endorse a decision to grant EU candidate status to Albania. This is the very first step in Albania's acquisition of candidate status and its attempt to find a way to deepen its relationship with the EU while, at some point in time, developing the ability to begin the process of applying for accession to the EU. I visited Albania earlier in the year and saw at first hand the progress it has made, but also how much more it wants to do and how much more needs to be done. The granting of candidate status, which the European Council will be asked to endorse in the next two days, is a very important incentive and signal with regard to Albania's maintaining the work it is doing and continuing with its reform agenda.

Deputy Crowe raised the issue of energy security. The March European Council asked the Commission to prepare a detailed plan in respect of this, looking in particular at how energy dependency can be reduced and what needs to be done from an interconnectivity perspective - in other words, the sharing of energy between different member states. The Commission issued its strategy relating to this on 28 May. It looks at medium and long-term approaches to energy efficiency and will also look to prioritise the needs of member states most likely to be affected by possible supply disruption.

Deputy Martin asked how the EU would respond in a more long-term fashion to the crisis that has afflicted everybody. He also made the very fair point that despite the amount of attention garnered by extremist gains within the European Parliament, such people are still in the minority, and larger parties of the centre still have a majority. A strategy will be published by the European Council which will be very top-line but which will make very clear choices regarding how the EU will respond over the next five years to the social effects of the crisis with which we are all dealing.

In respect of the points made by Deputy Ross relating to retroactive bank recapitalisation, I would make the point that Deputy Ross campaigned against Ireland joining the very fund which is capable of supplying this when he campaigned against the fiscal governance treaty that took place two years ago. He is criticising Ireland with regard to how we may handle an application to the fund, but let us be very clear that he did not want Ireland to have the ability to join that fund when he campaigned against the fiscal governance treaty.

Ireland has a very proud tradition of sending forward Commissioners who have done a superb job within the Commission - doing their job extremely well and advancing the interests of Europe.

Lucinda Creighton (Dublin South East, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is a mixed record.

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am absolutely confident that this tradition will be maintained and that whoever is selected will be somebody who will do a superb job. What is very clear, as has been identified in particular by Deputy Creighton, is that the work the European Commission must do in the next five years is absolutely vital. It is in our national interest to ensure we have strong Commissioners who are able to support and maintain the Community method and the interests of all countries, particularly smaller countries like Ireland which require the Community method to work well.