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

-----we can try to discuss the timing before we kick off. It will be impossible for me to respond to all the issues raised and I am disappointed. This is not the first time it has happened in the Seanad but I apologise in advance. It would be useful for me to respond to the points made. A number of questions were raised and I will try to address them.

Senator Leyden asked whether the College of Commissioners would visit Dublin in advance of our Presidency. The College of Commissioners will visit Dublin on 10 January next and all members of the Government will be involved in that. In addition and quite interestingly, the European press core will come to Dublin between 8 and 10 January next and that will be a very important opportunity for us to sell Ireland, not only our Presidency and the priorities, but also the country and what we have to offer. It is a good opportunity to sell soft focus pieces in newspapers and different publications all over Europe and not only in Brussels. They are two key events at the beginning of the Presidency.

There were questions in regard to the political groups. The three key political groups will be in Dublin in November and I will meet all of them. We are in the process of finalising itineraries for each of those groups, ensuring they have access at the highest level to Ministers, the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste. Again, that will be a good opportunity for us to ensure they are fully up to speed on what we are doing and the opportunities that present.

Senator Leyden also raised a valid point in regard wind and wave energy. It is part of the agenda in the context of sustainable growth and job creation. There will be a significant event in the Marine Institute in Galway during the Presidency. We are very much taking that into account. In regard to his point on the role of the Oireachtas in scrutiny, the Senator know my views on this, which I have repeated in this House many times. I am very pleased to hear the Leader has taken those comments on board and that we will move forward in the new year. As it will tie in extremely well with the beginning of our Presidency, I am and will continue to be very supportive of it.

A number of Senators raised the issue of the joint communiqué between the Taoiseach and Chancellor Merkel and, needless to say, I agree it is a positive step. Obviously, a lot of work has to be done on the precise details of what an agreement on reducing Ireland's will look like. This is a process of negotiation and I cannot tell Senators what the outcome of it will be. It is certainly important that we entertain all options on the table and that we go with an open mind and with a clear idea of what we want to achieve in terms of Ireland's debt sustainability, which we are doing.

The Eurogroup of Finance Ministers has been mandated to take that process forward. While one can say that the Council conclusions or the communiqué are not prescriptive in terms of what the format of a deal should look like, it is very clear that responsibility has been delegated, at least for the time being, to the Finance Ministers and they must come froward with proposals. I expect that, in due course, they will go again to the Heads of State and Government. That is the way these things work and that is ongoing.

I think Senator Healy Eames asked if it would be done by Christmas. I said in my introductory remarks that we want to ensure we get the best possible deal and we cannot be prescriptive in terms of timing because, of course, it is always giving hostages to fortune. Maybe some Senators might like if I said it had to be done by a particular date and then it is a great big failure if it does not happen by that date. I will not give hostages to fortune. All I can tell Senators is that we are working literally day and night. I am spending an immense amount of time travelling from one capital to another in preparation for our Presidency but using the opportunity to explore with all our colleagues from all members states, big and small, what we want to achieve for Ireland in terms of debt sustainability.

In terms of the timing, of course people like clarity and a clear timeline but, on the other hand, the important thing is that there is confidence in the market that we will get a deal. We have seen that in recent months in that the cost of Irish borrowing has come down quite significantly. That is a direct result of the agreement that was achieved in June. There is an expectation that there will be an arrangement for Ireland.

Linked to that, in terms of our capacity to get back to the markets, is confidence that the Government is taking the necessary steps. There is the external factor in terms of the European Union but there is also the domestic factor, which is equally important. We have built huge credibility in the past 18 months or so in terms of what we are doing domestically. We all know it is difficult and painful but it sends a very clear signal to our partners at European level and at a broader global level that Ireland is serious about what it is doing and that it is reducing spending and is getting it under control and, ultimately, it is taking responsibility for its own finances, of course with some guidance and some encouragement from the troika. Those decisions are not being shirked by the people, Parliament or the Government. That is really important.

Some tangible evidence of that is that the day before the summit, when it looked like there would not be an agreement on a timeline for bank supervision - in fact, everybody was predicting that the whole process would collapse without any timeframe for that - we still managed to sell ¤500 million worth of treasury bills, which shows there was still confidence in Ireland even though there was doubt over the potential outcome of the summit. We have seen over the course of the past five or six months repeated successful interventions in the markets by Ireland.

Senators might recall that, when we were discussing the fiscal treaty in this Chamber and in public debates last spring, we were talking about a funding cliff in 2014 and that we would have to turn over or roll over about ¤15 billion worth of debt. That cliff has now basically disappeared not by magic, but by the fact that the National Treasury Management Agency has been able to go repeatedly to the markets selling treasury bills and, more recently, selling bonds.

The process is under way. This is not just a desperate attempt to get back to the markets next year. We have already eased that process and made it more manageable. The prospect of a debt deal also inspires confidence in the markets. If we deliver on a debt deal, that will reduce the 121% debt to GDP ratio, which Senator Quinn spoke about, next year. That will make Ireland look like a much safer bet. All in all, it is going in the right direction, although that is not to at all underestimate how important it is that we get that debt deal ultimately.

Senator Mullen referred to the Nobel Peace Prize which is something worth reflecting on. I completely disagree with Senator Barrett in his castigation of the European Union that it is an abject failure, that it is a failed economic entity, etc. I do not agree with that. If one looks at Ireland's experience in the European Union, notwithstanding the difficulties we are experiencing, when we joined our GDP per capita was less than 70% of the European average but it is now about 120%. Times are difficult but from the point of view of Ireland's economy, it has been a success story.

A few weeks ago I was in Serbia, Kosovo, Albania and Macedonia in the Balkans. These countries can tell one something about poverty and hardship. I met their Prime Ministers and European Integration Ministers and the first thing they said to me very clearly was that they wanted to join the European Union. It is their number one priority. They are even talking about joining the currency union, notwithstanding the difficulties we are experiencing in the eurozone.

I fully agree with the point the Senator made about the flawed architecture of the euro currency and the challenges that exist because we did not create a sustainable architecture and did not create an economic union when we created monetary union. The EU has come on in huge strides over the past two years in terms of putting in place the kind of economic governance, economic management and co-ordination that is needed to underpin our currency.

I acknowledge we have further to go. We must create the banking union, which the Government considers to be paramount. However, we are getting there and while it is easy to simply assert the European Union is some sort of failed experiment, I fundamentally disagree. I was in Strasbourg yesterday and with a number of MEPs had the honour of attending a war memorial in the Alsace region in the morning. When one considers a continent that was riven and in which more than 60 million people lost their lives, we have much to be proud of in the European Union. No one pretends it is flawless or that we do not face difficulties and challenges. However, the bottom line is we sit around the table with 27 or 28 member states, hopefully soon to be 33 or 34 member states to solve our issues, disputes and difficulties, as well as our differing national positions, through dialogue and consensus rather than by warfare, be it on the field of battle or economic. I am much more satisfied to be where we are at present than with the alternative and I feel very strongly about this.

Another question that was raised concerned the availability of funds for small and medium-sized enterprises, SMEs. While that is a domestic question for the Government, it also is a question with which we are trying to deal on a European level. Sometimes we talk about landing fish in terms of the Presidency. In other words, the dossiers we can complete during the Presidency are the fish we can land and one of these is the programme for the competitiveness of enterprises and small and medium-sized enterprises, COSME, which is an important and exciting programme that will enable SMEs to access funds. I am confident that under the stewardship of the Minister, Deputy Richard Bruton, we will conclude that item during our Presidency. This is just one aspect or dimension at the European level where I believe we can make progress.

Senator Zappone asked a range of questions to some of which I probably already have alluded. The question of communicating during the Presidency is really important and the forthcoming European Year of Citizens planned for next year presents us with a major opportunity. A major programme is in planning at present to involve people at grassroots level all over the country in a dialogue on the future of Europe, as well as for all sorts of cultural events that will promote engagement and partnership between Ireland, communities in Ireland and other countries. While I have more information to hand on it, I do not really have time to get into it now. However, I will happily send a note to be circulated to Members of the Seanad to explain a little more about that initiative. As for whether the German position is a negotiating position, of course it is. The position of each member state is a negotiating position and we have a real difficulty in this regard. There is an obvious division in approach at European level as the so-called creditor countries are fearful. However, if we cannot appreciate how fearful they are, there is something fundamentally wrong with us. Taxpayers in Germany, Finland, the Netherlands and other countries are fearful and we must appreciate this. Bullying or stamping our way around the table is not the way to assuage their fears or to bring them around to our way of thinking. We already have managed to bring them around to our way of thinking in many respects. For example, the banking union was not on the table until last June. It is something the Taoiseach proposed at a conference I organised in Dublin Castle last April. He was one of the first Heads of State and Government to talk about it and it now is a very real prospect. We are not simply talking about it but are taking concrete steps to achieve it. Consequently, we must appreciate that people must evolve to our way of thinking and we must help them to do that. Again, the best way to so do is through dialogue and negotiation. It is the reason the Taoiseach was in Paris this week and the Tánaiste will be in Berlin later this week. It is the reason the Taoiseach will be in Berlin next week and is the reason I will travel to Stockholm and Tallinn on Monday and Tuesday. It is the reason I attended the European Parliament, which is an important player in all this, for two days this week. Moreover, the Government will continue this round of diplomacy, which I believe to be reaping rewards for Ireland.

In response to one specific question about Germany delaying the creation of the bank supervisory mechanism until 2014, I refer to a crucial point from the conclusions of the Council meeting of Thursday and Friday of last week. First, we have a date to put in place the legislative framework, which is the end of this year. While this is something everyone speculated could not happen, it is happening. Second, the operational aspects will be in place in 2013. I acknowledge it is not specified whether it will be the first three months or the first six months but it will be during 2013, which also is an important statement. Consequently, I expect the bank supervisory mechanism will be up and running by the end of next year, that is, before 2014. Realistically, I believe this is as fast as this can happen. This is a big deal and a major step and putting in place the legal framework first will be difficult. As for the operational capacity, the simple things such as the building, the people, who will work there and who will run it are questions that take a little time and do not simply happen overnight. I consider it to be a reasonable expectation that by this time next year, we will be very close to completing the process. This will then pave the way for the ESM to be used for direct recapitalisation and, crucially from our perspective, for all the other elements of banking union we seek. I believe we are well on the way.

I note I am way over time but there were a few questions on the multi-annual financial framework, MFF. I must revert to the other questions at some other point but on the MFF, the Commission proposal is for a budget of ¤1.03 trillion, which is a figure we support. The Irish position is supportive of that figure because the Government knows the alternative is something much lower. All of the European Union benefits hugely from the budget but Ireland benefits in particular in the area of the Common Agricultural Policy. As 85% of our receipts come through the CAP, we have a clear national interest in defending the CAP and in defending our share thereof. However, it is no secret that certain member states - I believe Senator Zappone mentioned the United Kingdom - wish to significantly reduce the budget. We do not share that view and consequently are supportive of the Commission proposal, if not all aspects of it, certainly the total figure. Moreover, we are working very hard to ensure there will be a compromise of which we are hopeful, which is much closer to the aforementioned figure than to a figure that might be proposed by the United Kingdom. This forms part of the discussions we are having with our European partners. The Taoiseach will discuss it with the Chancellor next week. I will be discussing it in all my discussions with other member states and it was a key focus of my consultations in the European Parliament this week, as it has been for some time. An interesting point on the MFF is that since the Lisbon treaty, it requires the consent of the European Parliament, which makes the latter a hugely important player in all of this. Consequently, I have invested personally much time with the rapporteurs in the European Parliament who are responsible for the MFF. They attend informal meetings of my Council, that is, the General Affairs Council, have regular contacts with the Presidency and are a very important player in all of this, as are all the member states.

Senator Barrett also raised a question about the MFF in respect of the 70 legislative measures. There is no way in which one can have policies without a legal framework. One can brand it as more European bureaucracy or one can describe it as part of a democratic process whereby legislators, directly elected MEPs and representatives of all the governments, including the Irish Government, take decisions on shaping policies that are of vital national interest to each and every one of us. I do not perceive that as bureaucracy but as a vital part of the legislative process and as a democrat, I support that fully. During its Presidency, Ireland will be leading those negotiations on the aforementioned 70 dossiers, which include the CAP reform, the fisheries reform and cohesion. They include Horizon 2020 and all the research and development measures, all of which must be legislated for. They do not simply appear but must be legislated and it is a process both of democratic accountability and transparency and an opportunity for each and every Minister who will be engaged in that process to represent our national interest, as well as the overall European interest. There is much more I should get to but I do not have time.