Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)

I thank Members for their contributions. I have taken more notes than what was in the original script and therefore I will go through the various points.

Senator Donohoe made a positive contribution. He mentioned his concern about the reference to the private sector and the knock-on impact of that. I do not wish to strike a discordant note but the previous contribution raised the question of some nefarious or sinister reason Olli Rehn came here. I enjoy the friendship of Commissioner Rehn who is a member of my own political group and whom I have known for many years. He is here, like other Commissioners, because it has been decided - properly - that Commissioners should get out of the Berlaymont and go out into the street to talk to as many people as possible in member states. With all due respect to the last contributor, it does us little good to suggest there might be something negative about his coming here. I see it as amazingly positive, as I do the upcoming visit of Commissioner Geoghegan-Quinn. The Commissioner with responsibility for development aid has also been here. Actually, seven Commissioners are due to visit the country for the very good reason that the Commission President, Mr. Barroso, has said he wants them to be in contact with and listening to people, something with which I agree.

To return to a point made by Senator Donohoe, I remember an old expression, "Careless talk costs lives". He was making the point that words wrongly spoken - perhaps innocently - could have all sorts of effects. He went on, skilfully, to discuss the not unreasonable suggestion made by the German Chancellor, Ms Merkel. She had constitutional concerns about her own court, which fed into a political debate in Germany about a constitutional court case, of which we all had to be conscious. The point the Senator was making was that the concept of the private sector carrying part of the cost, mentioned in the pronouncement by Chancellor Merkel, was dangerous and that the pronouncement had led to a change in sentiment. The Senator is right. There has been a hardening of sentiment in the bond markets in recent weeks because there has been much speculation about what these phrases meant and what this would mean in the long term in terms of the wording produced in Italy in December and subsequently the actual permanent mechanism.

Chancellor Merkel was not actually the first person to suggest the private sector should carry some of the cost of the meltdown in financial markets. It was a view commonly taken in the political establishment in this country. Many in the debate here talked about inflicting pain on this or that group. I am not saying I necessarily disagree; I am simply making the point that we are living in times in which it is extraordinarily important that people are conscious that certain comment can have a negative impact - spooking the market, as Senator Donohoe described it, through careless phraseology.

The Senator is not alone in his concerns in this regard; the President of the European Central Bank, Mr. Trichet, made the point that speculation was far from helpful in the current situation and cautioned against it. Other commentators, not just in this House but also elsewhere, have been critical of the actions of Ms Merkel and Mr. Sarkozy. Again, we need balance in this regard. If Chancellor Merkel believed there was a danger that a constitutional court could move in a particular direction, it would do none of us any good if she did not deal with this. What all of this illustrates to me is the need for a much more focused and constructive debate on all issues relating to the European Union, a debate that would get away from the extreme notion that somebody is out to get us.

Senator Donohoe also talked about the concerns expressed regarding the issue of automaticity which was at the heart of some of the concerns on the French side. I have no doubt whatsoever that there would not have been much enthusiastic support for automatic Commission involvement and this contributed to the Deauville declaration.

The view is that the sanctions should require a political trigger. The Senator has raised the question of at whom the mechanism is aimed. Those countries that are anxious that this be established must be aware that it will apply to all 27 countries. We cannot have two classes of state within the European Union. We are in complex territory, but when we are talking about issues such as automatic mechanisms and specific sanctions, we must be aware that if they are ever introduced, they will be introduced only with the agreement of all 27 member states and only if they are applicable to all 27.

The Senator referred to the Deauville declaration and said he was concerned that it had had a major and formative impact on the European Council conclusions. There is no doubt it did have an impact on the conclusions. However, if one considered what the Van Rompuy report was working towards and the conclusions drafted before the European Council, one would have to say the Deauville declaration did not result in a sea change, although the significant issues raised were the focus of much attention and, it must be said, some irritation at the Council. The most important point about the declaration was the suggestion from the chancellors about sanctions which included the potential loss of voting rights for member states. This, it seems, is an extremely non-communautaire discussion to have. However, as I said, there was absolutely no enthusiasm for it. It was discussed at the dinner for the foreign affairs Council on the previous Sunday, at the foreign affairs Council on the Monday, at the general affairs Council on the Monday and during the course of the European Council and there was no enthusiasm for it.

Senator Leyden asked whether the ready availability of funding to Ireland as a member of the eurozone was at the core of Ireland's building bubble. There is no doubt that the availability of cash contributed to the bubble; I remember commenting on this more than once. However, we have to take the blame ourselves. To blame the availability of funding for the bubble is similar to a drunk man blaming the availability of the output of a brewery for his drunken state. We did what we did and have to accept this.

The Senator said, rightly, that the economic position took centre stage, not only at the European Council but also at the discussions of the General Affairs and External Relations Council. He mentioned the prospect of EU membership for Turkey which was not on the agenda this time. It is important to indicate that Ireland's view of Turkish membership has always been clear: there are objective criteria which have applied from the Copenhagen meeting onwards for membership of the European Union and if Turkey fulfils these criteria, it is as open to negotiating membership as any other state.

The Senator also mentioned development in Cuba. This issue was not discussed at the European Council, but it was discussed at the General Affairs and External Relations Council in the absence of the Spanish Foreign Affairs Minister, Mr. Moratinos, who had been to the fore in promoting it. There has been a change in that he has been replaced. However, it was interesting that his replacement, Ms Jiménez, made it clear that she shared his enthusiasm to make progress in this regard.

I agree with Senator Leyden's comments on the budget and Mr. Alan Dukes. During the year I have commented about former Deputy Dukes who stepped up to the plate when the national interest demanded it and who did not receive fair recognition for it.

I also thank the Senator and others for their kind words about me and the Minister, Deputy Martin.