Seanad debates

Thursday, 10 May 2012

EU Presidency: Statements, Questions and Answers (Resumed)

 

1:00 am

Photo of Lucinda CreightonLucinda Creighton (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)

Senator Colm Burke made a good point about research and development. We have an ambitious target but, unfortunately, the target under Europe 2020 is the same as for the previous ten-year strategy, the Lisbon strategy. It was not achieved because member states dragged their heels and were lazy. It is clear that if member states fulfil their obligations to achieve a target of 3% of GDP for investment in research and development, there would be greater opportunities for global companies and many private sources of investment in the Union. Potentially we could contribute 2% of the Union's GDP simply by meeting existing commitments. I do not want to be fatalistic about this inasmuch as just because it did not happen in the past does not mean it cannot happen now. The difference now as opposed to ten years ago is there is an impetus for growth and there is huge pressure from citizens on governments to deliver growth. That applies in every member state. The European Commission is taking steps to ensure member states fulfil their obligations through a variety of monitoring mechanisms which will be assessed by the European Council in June. We are on our way to meeting the targets and that will help to address the shortfall we are experiencing in research and development at European level.

The Senator's proposal for a 5% VAT rate on construction jobs is interesting. I had not heard about this proposal previously. It is not contemplated under the new EU budget framework. The two options under the multi-annual financial framework 2014-2020 relate to VAT and the financial transactions tax, FTT. It is clear the focus has shifted to the FTT, although some governments have changed or are developing their position on that. I do not know a whole lot about it but I am interested in any concrete proposals the Senator may have which we could bring to the table. The Government is serious about bringing forward concrete proposals to stimulate growth and job creation in the Union. The treaty is not about growing money on trees, as I have said repeatedly over recent days and weeks. The fantasy options we are presented with by certain political parties and individuals will not wash. We have to be innovative and creative but we also have to be realistic. We can do a huge amount. This is an example of a concrete proposal about which I am interested in hearing more.

I thank Senator Higgins for her intervention. I outlined in my introductory remarks the general priorities of the Presidency, which I can summarise. We want to restore macroeconomic stability to the eurozone and the European Union as whole by implementing the new governance rules and procedures and that will still be on the table during our Presidency. It is a hugely important element of the fiscal treaty. All participating member states will have ratified the treaty by the end of the year and it will be up to us to take it forward.

That will be very important also. The promotion of growth and employment creation is the key to everything and our main objective for the Presidency. My interdepartmental working group focuses on the policy side. We are looking at ways by which we can leverage our potential during the first half of 2013 and put the growth agenda at the heart of every Department. This will be relevant, even in areas we may not have considered previously, including health where there is considerable potential for engaging in research and development, as one Senator noted. We are trying to be creative and it is a work in progress. It is eight months until the beginning of our programme.

As Senator Terry Leyden noted, we have great experience of running a Presidency. Other countries are almost hyperactive in debating and agreeing their programmes one year in advance, but that is not the way the world works. The European agenda is a moving one. We will take our priorities and advance them during the Presidency. However, we must also be mindful of the issues that will arise and which we will have to address. We must strike a balance. It is too soon to set in stone our key themes and priorities sector by sector. However, the House can rest assured that growth and job creation will be at their heart.

The big ticket item for us, one which will most likely be on the agenda in 2013, is the multi-annual financial framework, the budget for the European Union from 2014 to 2020. Sometimes I become frustrated when I hear people discussing the lack of a stimulus at European level in the context of the fiscal treaty debate. The budget will be in excess of €1 trillion. Some €1,025 billion will be pumped into the farming sector, Cohesion funding, road building, the provision of broadband and Internet facilities, and so on. Every sector benefits more or less from the budget. It is vital for this country because 85% of our receipts are under the CAP. CAP funding is an element of the budget. The overall project will be a huge task and the discussions may still be on the agenda for conclusion during the first part of our Presidency. If that is the case, or even if they have been concluded before our Presidency by the Cypriots, we will have to follow through on all of the sectoral legislative agendas which we will be obliged to negotiate and bring through the European Parliament. I have already been warned that I will be camping in the European Parliament for most of the Presidency because it will be my job to steer through all of these dossiers. It will be a testament to the capability and competence of the Government if we are in a position to bring them to fruition and ensure we deliver the Common Fisheries Policy, the Common Agricultural Policy and a Cohesion Fund policy with which we can live and is acceptable to all member states. This will be a considerable challenge which is the third key element of our agenda and directly linked with the jobs and growth agenda. It is not divisible in any way.

Senator Paul Bradford asked a question about the physical arrangements. The Government has taken a decision to host 11 informal ministerial meetings in Dublin during the Presidency, fewer than we have had in the past. There will be approximately 167 meetings in total. It is a logistical nightmare to try to plan everything. During our Presidency in 2004 approximately 65 venues were used throughout the country and the cost was astronomical. I cannot begin to outline the cost implications of bringing interpreters, officials, translation booths, equipment and everything required to various locations throughout the country. This is in addition to the security risks of bringing in Ministers. There is a very significant security requirement to be met. Few venues in the country fit the bill. Dublin Castle is the best venue. It ticks all of the boxes from the point of view of An Garda Síochána in terms of security. It has interpretation booths and everything else laid on. It is straightforward and cost-effective. Cost effectiveness must be our priority. I agree with the point made by Senator Denis Landy. The way to sell the European Union to our citizens is not to bring convoys of black Mercedes limousines to Ashford Castle or Dromoland Castle or any other salubrious venue. We should be clear about this.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.