European Council: Statements.

The Taoiseach

I attended the European Council in Brussels on 23 and 24 March 2006. The Ministers for Foreign Affairs and Finance, Deputies Dermot Ahern and Cowen, accompanied me. The conclusions of the Council have been laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas.

This spring European Council was the first since the mid-term review of the Lisbon Agenda last March. It was a timely opportunity for European leaders to assess progress on the broad economic and social agenda facing the Union. The Council adopted comprehensive conclusions on a new energy policy for Europe. These conclusions will mark a watershed in the Union's treatment of energy issues and in time the Council will be seen as a very important one.

At the outset of its meeting, the European Council met the President of the European Central Bank, the presidents of the European employers and trade union confederations and the President of the European Parliament. The discussion focussed on the economic and social challenges facing Europe and the need for a strong growth and jobs partnership to deal with these challenges. In his presentation, Mr. Jean-Claude Trichet, the President of the European Central Bank, singled out Ireland and Denmark as two countries delivering very similar and successful economic and social outcomes. Mr. Trichet made the point that there is no "one size fits all" solution to Europe's economic challenges, but that differing economic and social models are capable of achieving similar results.

A future energy policy for Europe was the central issue for this Council. This is another area where we are likely to achieve far more by working together than pursuing independent national strategies. The European Council conclusions set out the broad guiding principles and the key objectives of the energy policy for Europe. The three main objectives are based on security of supply, ensuring the continuing competitiveness of Europe's economies and promoting environmental sustainability. Our discussions on energy were a first step in what promises to be a long and complex process. It is an issue of central importance to Ireland and the future success of our economy. We will participate in the EU debate and table our own contribution on the way forward. The Government will publish a national Green Paper on energy in the coming months.

At the EU level, the future development of the energy policy for Europe will be taken forward through an annual strategic energy review which the Commission will present on an annual basis beginning next year. In addition, the spring European Council next year will aim to adopt a prioritised action plan that will support the achievement of the objectives of the energy policy. In the short term, the EU will pay particular attention to driving forward an action plan on energy efficiency, implementing the biomass action plan, developing an interconnection action plan and making the EU-Russia dialogue more effective.

The European Council's conclusions make clear that the EU's work on energy will not affect our national policy to reject nuclear power generation in Ireland. The new energy policy fully recognises that decisions on the primary sources of energy and energy mix remain firmly with the member states. In the discussions at EU level we will continue to push for the highest possible standards for the operation of nuclear plants and the disposal of nuclear waste material. The conclusions also reflect our view that the development of regional energy co-operation in the EU should pay particular attention to countries and regions largely isolated from the EU energy market. This reflects our national position. Ireland, along with the Baltic states, Cyprus and Malta, is on the periphery of the EU energy market. Our small markets are not necessarily attractive to major energy companies and we therefore have difficulties in mobilising private sector investment for energy.

At the Council I pointed out that there is a need to be flexible in the application of state aid rules when the market does not deliver important infrastructural investment, such as for interconnection and for the development of renewable energy resources. The Commission has been asked to submit a priority interconnection plan by the end of 2006. Such a plan is in keeping with the importance of interconnection to our national energy supply.

Currently there is a North-South electricity interconnector. There is agreement to the building of a second interconnector and the technical aspects of this are being progressed. This is an important component of the all-island energy framework to which both Governments have jointly committed. The Government has agreed in principle to build an electricity interconnector between Ireland and Britain. This would link us to the UK grid and ultimately to the European grid. The Commission on Energy Regulation has submitted its report to the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. He will make a recommendation to Government shortly.

In the ongoing discussions on a future energy policy for Europe, Ireland has raised questions about how the Commission sees the major investment projects in networks and storage facilities being delivered and funded. These important questions must be addressed as we move forward. In addition, while we did not indicate opposition to the idea, Ireland, along with other member states, has sought more details about the rationale for, and timing of, the establishment of a European energy regulator. We have also offered strong support for proposals around renewable energy, energy efficiency and increased funding for research and development.

On renewable energies, the European Council agreed to consider in the future some new targets on the share of renewable energies of the overall energy mix and a target on biofuels. These would also contribute to the fight against climate change while reducing the EU's dependence on the energy imports. Overall, the EU's new ambitious work programme on energy is very much in line with the Government's approach. Issues such as energy diversification, interconnection, storage, security of supply and greater exploitation of indigenous resources are all of crucial importance to us. Energy policy cuts across environment, climate change, transport, regional, research and development and external relations policies. The future development of our national policy approach will, therefore, be based on strong coherence at the national and EU level between energy and other key policies.

Since the French and Dutch referendums on the European constitution, there has been a very strong focus in the EU on showing our people that Europe works on their behalf. This European Council was in keeping with this focus. At last year's spring Council we relaunched the Lisbon Agenda, with a renewed emphasis on jobs and growth. We also agreed that the agenda needed to be more strongly rooted in national civil and social partnership processes.

Before the European Council I gave details to the Austrian Presidency of three national programmes that are in keeping with the Lisbon Agenda. These were Science Foundation Ireland's centre for science, engineering and technology, the Skills Net and One Step Up programmes to equip our labour force to meet the challenges of the new economy, and our wage subsidy scheme for disabled workers. These three projects reflect our intent to build a cutting edge and inclusive knowledge economy with a highly skilled workforce as its greatest asset.

In addition to addressing progress on the broad range of Lisbon Agenda related policies, the European Council conclusions focus on three particularly important issues: investing in knowledge and innovation, unlocking the business potential of small and medium sized enterprises and increasing employment opportunities for priority groups such as young people, women, older workers, people with disabilities, legal migrants and minorities.

On youth unemployment, the European Council agreed to work to meet new targets on reducing early school leaving and on efforts to ensure that unemployed young people are brought back into the labour force as quickly as possible. In this context, the Council agreed that by 2010 every unemployed young person should be offered a job, apprenticeship, additional training or other measure within no more than four months. Currently, the national practice is to do so within six months. On the target of 85% for the completion of upper secondary education by 22 year olds, the latest data show that at 86.1% Ireland, already exceeds the target and we are well above the EU average of 77.3%. The European Council also adopted a target designed to reduce the time for setting up a business in the EU with the objective of being able to do this by one week anywhere in the EU by the end of 2007. The time is three days in Ireland.

To contribute to Europe's competitiveness and to bring Europe closer to the citizen, I suggested to my colleagues at the Council that the EU should look at the possibility of reducing or eliminating mobile phone roaming charges for travellers within the EU. The recent progress we have made on this issue for people travelling between Britain and Ireland is a good example of what can be done if the political will exists. The Presidency welcomed this suggestion and it is now referred to in the conclusions. As a first step the EU will seek to reduce roaming charges. We will continue to promote the complete elimination of these charges and will be pursuing the issue vigorously at European level.

The conclusions reflect my long-standing view that the EU's state aid rules should encourage and facilitate a high level of investment in Europe and make Europe attractive for future investment. When EU member states pursue mobile foreign direct investment, they are not generally competing against one another. We are competing against China, Singapore and many other rapidly developing emerging economies. The European Council's conclusions recognise this reality. The European Council has said the Internal Market for services must be made fully operational, while preserving Europe's social mode. We have invited the Commission to table an amended version of the services directive without delay. Ireland continues to support strongly the need for a balanced services directive.

The European Council adopted a pact for gender equality to encourage action on closing gender gaps in the labour market, promoting a better work-life balance and better monitoring of gender equality actions.

The Council deplored the recent presidential election in Belarus as fatally flawed. I welcome the fact that the EU has signalled its determination to take sanctions against those politically and administratively responsible for violations of international electoral standards. The Council has confirmed that the EU will increase its support for civil society in Belarus. This is a point we have been pressing for some time. The EU has called on the Belarus authorities to allow people to exercise their right to freedom of assembly and expression.

The spring European Council was a strong demonstration of how Europe is working for our people. I compliment the efforts of Chancellor Schüssel and his team to ensure that the Council proceeded in a co-operative spirit and focused on the issues that are of real concern to the people of the European Union.

Mr. Kenny

At last week's EU summit it was clear that, as a community, we have a long way to go to meet the ambitious objective set out in the Lisbon Agenda of making Europe the most comprehensive and dynamic knowledge-driven economy in the world by the year 2010. It is a daunting prospect given the difficulties and inhibitions in the various systems to achieving that. Although, as the Taoiseach has pointed out, there has been some progress, even with the re-launch of the agenda by the Commission last year, focusing on growth and jobs, the reform necessary to see the EU reach these targets is simply not fast or far-reaching enough. Consequently the innovation gap between the EU and China and the US is still growing. The fact that China continues to build more roads, airports and bridges in five years than the EU and America combined are building in 20 is something we can ill afford to lose sight of as we strive to reach the Lisbon objectives and secure our Union's future in the longer term.

President Chirac brought his customary colour to the summit, flouncing out with some élan when Mr. Ernest-Antoine Seilliere decided to treat the audience to an address in what he called the language of business — English. Thankfully, the French head of the ECB, Mr. Jean-Claude Trichet, came to rescue, restoring Gallic pride, and the French contingent with it, by addressing the meeting in his mother tongue, a language which once dominated EU proceedings.

The summit took place under something of a cloud. There is the ongoing rise of India and China, excess deficits in various parts of the Union, high unemployment, low growth — which is improving — and a pensions bill and requirement that is on the way up. There is also what has been called economic nationalism overshadowing the Union's stated ambition to be more competitive in the globalised economy. President Barroso said that to be global we cannot have barriers internally. President Chirac and Chancellor Merkl disagreed publicly about our economic future, the latter criticising French attempts to limit foreign investment. President Chirac, for his part, faces ongoing trouble at home owing to mass protests over an unpopular employment law designed to tackle some of the rigidities in the French labour market. Prime Minister Berlusconi is facing a tough election and perhaps some frustration by the planned energy merger that could prevent Italy's Enel making a possible bid for the Franco-Belgian giant Suez or some of its assets. This difficulty may have implications for Ireland as time passes.

While I am confident about closer co-ordination of energy policy, some questions must be asked about what will happen overall if this economic introspection continues. President Barroso summed it up when he said we cannot be open for business with the rest of the world and closed to each other. Commissioner McCreevy also took the right tone when he warned about the futility of building political "Maginot lines" around a member country's economy.

Energy was, and should be, central to the proceedings. The development of a common EU external energy policy, the holding of a strategic review of energy use in the Union, a review of policy on oil and gas stocks and the development of the internal gas and electricity markets were among the key ideas. It is not before time that these are being raised. I am a great believer in a single European energy market. Had the recent spat between Russia and the Ukraine continued, it would undoubtedly have affected Ireland in terms of rising costs and, consequently, competitiveness, which is being affected in any event.

I agree in principle with the Government's decision to build an interconnector between Ireland and Britain. The relevant report should be made available to the Minister as a matter of urgency and followed through. Ireland is now 91% dependent on imported energy, thereby making it one of the most vulnerable countries in the world.

In the wider context, a common approach to energy is both desirable and necessary. Europe's energy import is 50% and rising and energy is becoming more expensive. Despite moves towards efficiency, the cost is increasing by 1% to 2% in the Union per year. At a time when 80% of our energy use is based on oil, coal or gas, hydrocarbon reserves are depleting. At the current rate of growth, greenhouse gas emissions could be 5% higher in 2012 than they are today. This is quite alarming when one considers that our Kyoto target requires an 8% reduction.

Our energy infrastructure requires serious improvement. Some €1,000 billion will be needed over the next 20 years to meet expected energy demand. Global warming is reaching a level such that serious questions are being asked about how life will be sustained in many areas around the world. Ironically, the changes are greatest in countries that have contributed least to the problem of climate change.

While I welcome the common approach to energy, we must be clear that different countries will have different needs. Our island status means we have vastly different energy needs and demands to other member states. Our individual requirements in terms of access and so forth must be taken into account. There is an economic and moral imperative for Ireland to develop a serious workable policy, not just a token one, regarding renewable energy. Green energy has become mainstream and I am convinced of the national need and duty to develop modern, exciting alternative renewable energy sources. It is absolutely appalling that, while Ireland is the second richest country in the world by some standards, it has been belching out greenhouse gases that had risen by 130% by 2002. The Irish level is six times the EU average. This phenomenal increase could have been minimised over recent years if the Government had pursued specific policies to promote the use of biofuels. With the collapse of the Irish sugar market, due in large part to incompetence, it is politically unacceptable that the Government will not pursue an energy agenda based on biofuel use.

Before the summit, a meeting was held involving the leaders of all those parties within the EPP, among them Prime Ministers and Heads of Government. They included Prime Minister Berlusconi, Jan Peter Balkenende, Jean-Claude Juncker, Angela Merkel and Wolfgang Schüssel. There was general support at that meeting and at the summit for condemnation of the Belarus authority for arresting peaceful demonstrators exercising their legitimate right to free assembly to protest at the conduct of the presidential election.

Further resolutions on terrorism within our borders were also made. On the welcome ceasefire announced by ETA, the EPP recalled that paying any political price for the terrorists to abandon their violent actions is not acceptable. The EPP affirmed its confidence that the source of terrorism would be defeated, pointing to its support for the fight against terrorism in the past and its clear intention to continue that fight in the future.

One view that was not discussed at the meeting of the Heads of Government, but in respect of which this country could perhaps take a lead, is that the EU should have a defined policy or proposals to attempt to deal with the transnational scourge of child pornography on the Internet. This is a threat to all children and is clearly an affront to morality and the dignity of the person. It is not easy to tackle and possibly does not rate on the radar screen portraying the major political issues that need to be decided. However, given the nature of our country and that the problem impacts absolutely seriously on so many families, particularly children, it should not be beyond the scope or imagination of European leaders to have competence in this area of technology and examine the reasons persons involved in child pornography develop their undignified and morally outrageous pursuits. I believe strongly that EU analysis of the reasons for the problem and proposals to deal with it would be very beneficial. Perhaps the Taoiseach will take the opportunity to float this idea at some stage.

Mr. Quinn

I apologise to the Taoiseach for not being present when he spoke but I heard his comments in reply to the questions on the monitor. I was at a meeting of the Joint Committee on European Affairs, at which we will be discussing, among other matters, a proposal for a Europe day in this Chamber on 10 May.

I want to address three points, some of which were touched upon. I support the Taoiseach's comments, which were made more forcefully in the Chamber, regarding reports in the news media on statements made by different national delegations. He indicated one could get knocked down in the rush of people running out to misinform journalists as to what they had said or not said at the Council meeting. It does not help the entire process or attempts to have transparency in the system if people, from whatever country and for whatever reason, make one point in the Chamber and make another while outside or, not having opened their mouths inside the Chamber, attempt to suggest outside that they fought the good fight and had been crucified on behalf of the nation.

This is part of an historic debate on democracy. There was a time when journalists were not allowed into democratic assemblies and it was forecast that civilisation, as it was then known, would be ultimately destroyed if they were allowed listen to our proceedings. We have some crazy relics of that past. A member of the public in the Visitors Gallery is not allowed to take notes. Anyone doing so will be told by one of the ushers not to do so. It is nonsense. The Department of the Taoiseach had an initiative to look at defunct legislation. Perhaps, the Acting Chairman might bring this matter to the attention of the Ceann Comhairle as the Committee on Procedure and Privileges would ultimately have the responsibility to remove that anomaly.

While I do not know how realistic this suggestion might be and I realise the constraints upon the Taoiseach, the draft constitutional treaty made proposals for the proceedings of the Council, when it meets as a legislature, to meet in public and be subject to the same media scrutiny as a national parliament. I suspect this might not be practicable for a meeting of Heads of Government, as those discussions are more like Cabinet discussions than legislative discussions. We should do anything that enhances the transparency of the process. Monday's edition of The Guardian refers to statements attributed to Germany and Austria from a session held in secret, which based on what the Taoiseach has said — he is a pretty good attentive hearer of such matters — was not what he heard. I put this down as a marker and pledge our support in whatever way we can give it. This sort of thing does not do the process any good and makes people more cynical than they already are on the matter.

I refer to the way the Lisbon Agenda and the Presidency conclusions have been reported. It would be preferable for all concerned if those conclusions could be more succinct. They contain much repetition and reference to the conclusions of the previous meeting. While I do not say that anybody in this room was responsible, as a document it is not the model of communication clarity that all of us would like. In so far as it addresses the Lisbon Agenda and the change since last year, five years after the original commencement at which point a national programme was thrust back on each country — we had a debate in this House last autumn on the national reform programmes — I am not sure we have got there yet. Perhaps the Minister for Foreign Affairs will respond when he gets the opportunity.

As I have said before in the Chamber, we need someone at European level in charge of the implementation of the Lisbon Agenda or co-ordinating national efforts even though the competences to achieve the Lisbon Agenda are largely vested in member states. In the Delors Commission, the British Commissioner, Lord Cockfield had specific responsibility to implement some 315 directives designed to remove the barriers towards the completion of the Internal Market. He drove that agenda at the time when the institutional nature of the Commission and Community was far less complex and smaller than it is now. While we need something equivalent, I do not believe a dedicated Commissioner would be a reality. On his election the President of the Commission, Mr. Barroso, said that he would make the matter a priority. However, it does not yet exist in a form that ordinary people can understand.

I am sure the Taoiseach and his colleagues are familiar with the Centre for European Reform in London. In one of its publications, it produces a Lisbon Agenda scorecard. It rates progress to date for the European Union as a whole as getting a "C". The hero or best performing country in the league is Denmark and the villain or bottom of the class is Poland. It covers the various sections of the Lisbon Agenda. In the area of innovation, under the two categories of information society, it rates the community and states that the heroes are Denmark, Estonia and Sweden, and the villains are the Czech Republic and Greece. On research and development, Finland, Slovenia and Sweden are top with Greece and Poland at the bottom of the league.

Ireland has nothing to fear from such a league table as in many cases we will do fairly well. Making such a league table available to a wider public would enable the normal political process to kick in in Greece or Ireland so that political pressure from citizens could be brought to bear on governments, departments or sectors of society that were not performing. It is not all down to Ministers. Certain whole sections of society need to pull up their bootstraps and get their act together in a way they are not doing. Given Ireland's relative success and its significant success, as Jean-Claude Trichet has said, in economic performance, and the particular diverse nature of different successful economic models, be they in Denmark or Ireland, we could embrace this and promote it.

Between now and next year, if the spring Council is to maintain its focus on the Lisbon Agenda, a better form of communicating progress in achieving its objectives must be found. I invite the Taoiseach and his colleagues to see if this can be done. I understand that some countries that are not performing so well would not want their behaviour or non-achievement to be published. It may be that, for example, the new Government in Germany might welcome external pressure. It might help the internal debate to focus on the need for change and reform. When this country, confronted with difficulties from the early 1980s, needed to make hard decisions, the external factors that brought us to make those decisions helped us to convince many reluctant component parts of our domestic constituency. I invite the Taoiseach to consider it as a possibility, otherwise I believe that the Lisbon Agenda and the spring Council as a formula will become very tired and will lose its way.

I very much welcome the focus on a common energy policy. As the conclusions state, in many areas we already have European-wide instruments that can enforce existing requirements. Deputy Kenny already made a passing reference to a failure to apply the rules of competition, which are already a fact of law, to the European energy market. The political resistance we have seen in some countries — the so-called economic nationalism — must be confronted. It can be confronted within the existing agreed regulatory framework. We are not talking about new provisions, departures or initiatives. We are talking about enforcing provisions that already exist.

The strategic outline of the European energy policy is first to secure supply. As the Taoiseach said in reply to questions earlier, the Russian bear could begin to selectively pick off individual countries. The only security we have would be to unite together as a purchaser. It is rather like small grocers coming together under the Super-Valu name and buying goods together to survive in an increasingly difficult marketplace. I commend the Council for having embarked on this area and wish it every success. I hope member states will show a degree of solidarity that will result in securing external supply.

Competition within the existing market needs to be reinforced and reinvigorated. In this regard, we need look no further than our regulator, which has in effect connived with the biggest electricity supplier to drive the one sustainable energy company out of the commercial market. I know the personalities involved as, no doubt, do the Taoiseach and others in the House. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has experience in this area from one of his previous departmental responsibilities. These are not simple issues and there are no simple responses. We have the ability to locate an airfield north of Arklow without causing any of the environmental problems or planning difficulties which have been encountered in the west of Ireland. That proposal has been brought to a standstill, however, as a result of difficulties concerning the ability of the supplier of sustainable energy to get into the grid.

When people contact 6,000 or 7,000 commercial customers to say "I am sorry, but we have to leave the market and we are getting out of it", they do not take such decisions lightly. There has to be some merit in the case that has been made by Airtricity. If it does not have merit, we should expose the accusations which have been made and the consequences of that. While we may be partly disconnected from the mainline electricity supply grid, we have a capacity for sustainable energy generation around the coast of Ireland. That capacity is denied to Belgium, for example, or even Luxembourg, to take a more extreme example.

While I welcome the EU's energy policy, we have to examine competition in this country in its current configuration under the legal framework that has passed into law. I invite the Minister to examine a proposal made by the Labour Party in respect of regulation in competition. We have suggested the establishment of a competition regulation commission, to replace the individual regulators in various sectors. There have been too many personality clashes between regulators and suppliers. Too many personal views have been expressed in such a small marketplace. We need to put in place a three-person commission that will benefit from shared research and a common analysis of economic statistics and components of the marketplace. That might be seen, generally speaking, as a more efficient way of making progress.

I will conclude by talking about sustainability in our energy supply. It might come as a surprise to the Taoiseach to learn that 50% of the energy that is consumed in this country is consumed by the construction industry and the housing and building stock it leaves behind. An elderly person living in Ireland, which has a temperate climate and benefits from the Gulf Stream, is statistically more likely to die from hypothermia resulting from poor insulation than his or her elderly cousin or sister-in-law living in Norway. We have an enormous need in terms of energy consumption. We will face problems caused by greenhouse gases and carbon dioxide emissions.

A report in one of today's newspapers states that Ireland will be charged €1 billion in fines as a consequence of its failure to meet the commitments to which it has signed up. We need to examine ways of reducing demand for energy as part of our overall examination of sustainability. The obvious areas in which demand can be reduced tend to be in the transport sector, in which the perceived high-profile consumers of energy are found. In reality, the construction sector, in its broadest sense, uses enormous amounts of energy. I invite the Minister to examine ways in which that can be addressed at national level.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh

Ba mhaith liom mo chuid ama a roinnt leis na Teachtaí Harkin agus Gormley.

Acting Chairman (Dr. Cowley)

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh

Like many recent gatherings of senior Ministers from EU member states, last weekend's meeting of the EU Council was marked by the distance between its rhetoric and its impact, as well as by an increasingly apparent disregard for the well-being of the citizens of Europe. My party believes that the endorsement by the European Council of the controversial EU services directive, subject to a revised proposal from the European Commission, is a bad deal for Irish workers. That point was made by Sinn Féin last February, when the European Parliament discussed the directive and gave its verdict on it. I am saying it again today. Despite the decision taken by the European Council last weekend, I believe we need a greater mobilisation against the directive. We need to intensify that mobilisation in advance of the final vote on the directive in the European Parliament.

Sinn Féin repeats its opposition to the EU services directive. It has argued vociferously that the directive will, in effect, commercialise almost all the services in the EU and deny millions of people the quality public services they deserve. It represents a blow against workers' rights and social protections. It gives me no pleasure to state that Sinn Féin's analysis of this matter has been proven right so far. In recent years, there has been a steady drive to promote a right wing agenda in Europe. The effect of that has been to prioritise profit at the expense of workers' rights and public services. The services directive is another consequence of the thirst for private monopolies.

I note the Taoiseach's comment:

At last year's spring Council we relaunched the Lisbon Agenda, with a renewed emphasis on jobs and growth. We also agreed that the agenda needed to be more strongly rooted in national civil and social partnership processes.

When the Taoiseach spoke about the conclusions which were reached by the European Council, however, he did not mention that aspect of the Lisbon Agenda. It usually becomes an afterthought when the Lisbon Agenda is raised, even though that should not be the case. If the Lisbon Agenda is to have the impact it is supposed to have, this aspect of the matter should be to the fore during our discussions on the agenda. I urge the Government to ensure that this element is prioritised when future discussions on the Lisbon Agenda take place.

I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs to explain to the House why Ireland is not an active persuader against nuclear power. Why did Ireland not join Germany and Austria in rejecting the nuclear option at the Council meeting? How can the Government justify the EU's ongoing pursuit of a flawed and economically inefficient option that will cause substantial problems for future generations over many centuries? No society in the world has found a successful means of addressing the issue of nuclear waste. We are leaving a legacy for future generations. I remind the Minister that the Commissioner for Energy, Mr. Andris Piebalgs, said:

Countries with expertise are well placed to replace existing plants or build new stations but we should not say that nuclear energy will meet all three objectives cheaply and efficiently. It has huge costs and lots of complications, including the issue of waste and final storage.

The three objectives to which Mr. Piebalgs referred were security of supply, sustainable development and competitiveness. I urge the Minister to join those who are making the case for sustainable and renewable energies, rather than supporting the European Council's call for new generation of nuclear power. Ireland should act as a persuader against nuclear power.

Ms Harkin

I am pleased to have an opportunity to make a few observations on the European Council meeting. I am conscious that there are time constraints so I will deal with just one issue, the achievement of the Lisbon goals through investment in research, development and innovation. When the Taoiseach spoke about the Lisbon Agenda, he said that the European Council's conclusions focus on three particularly important issues, the first of which is investment in knowledge and innovation. All EU member states agreed to a target of investing 3% of GDP in this area by 2010. Ireland's rate of investment in research and development is a cause for grave concern, particularly when one compares Ireland's attempts to meet the targets with those of many of its European neighbours. Annexe 1 to the document on the Presidency conclusions lists the level of investment in research and development of each EU member state. Our target is just 2.5% of gross national product, not gross domestic product, and that is by 2013, not even 2010. Looking at the tables for investment in research and development for many of European neighbours, it is very apparent that we are in trouble. Of the EU 25, Ireland is exactly half way, with 12 countries above us and 12 below. Of the EU 15, we are in 11th place when it comes to investment in research and development. The comparisons are stark. At the top end of the scale are Finland and Sweden, investing over 3.5% of GDP. Then there is Germany, Austria and France with over 2%, the UK at 1.8% and the Czech Republic at 1.3% — all ahead of Ireland with 1.2%.

This is the second richest economy in Europe. We are constantly aiming to move up the value chain to higher value jobs, and yet we are not underpinning that strategy by adequate investment in research and development. This is one of the most crucial economic issues we are facing as a country and this Government is failing to invest prudently in our future. We are under constant threat of jobs moving to cheaper locations. The locating of jobs offshore and the outsourcing of production are real threats to our economic success. Counties such as Donegal felt the chill wind of this phenomenon several years ago. Now, unfortunately, the rest of the country is only too well aware of the threat. If we are to deal effectively with it, we must promote innovation and invest in research and development. We must keep ahead of the posse, but instead we trail miserably behind. It shocks me to see that even if we reach our target of 2.5% of GDP investment by 2013, in seven years' time we will still be well behind where Finland and Sweden are now.

There is plenty of money to be spent in Ireland, yet we do not invest it in research and development. As a result of this we are in danger of building on quicksand and the continued economic growth that is being predicted by so many will prove to be a mirage. This Government has played its part in creating the current positive economic situation, but unless it plans, provides for and invests in the future, the country is headed for trouble. That investment is not being made. This Government is selling off the assets of the State. The family silver is being disposed of, so that the cupboard is bare. If that money were being invested in the future, in economic growth and research and development, which would be our best guarantee of future success, then we could look forward to the future with some expectation, but that is not happening.

The Government has a responsibility to plan for our future economic prosperity and it is failing on one of the most important parts of that task. The real scandal is that even with our low levels of investment in research and development, some parts of the country fare worse than others. According to Forfás figures, the percentage spend on research and development in the Border, midland and west region was 14% of the total for 2003-04, roughly half of what the rest of the country is getting. We are being doubly discriminated against in terms of the low national level and, within that framework, the fact we are getting exactly half our fair share. In European terms that means that counties such as Sligo, Leitrim, Donegal, Mayo and Roscommon have levels of investment in research and development well the below average for Slovenia and the Czech Republic and lower than Estonia or Hungary. I do not know the Minister's view on this, but I believe we are entitled to more than that.

Mr. Gormley

The European Council meeting of 23 and 24 March this year was very important, discussing as it did the defining issue of our age, namely, energy consumption and the effect that can have on the way we live. I refer to the concept of global warming. We need to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions by about 60% to 80%. We are 25% above 1990 levels, much higher than our Kyoto commitments. That will result in fines which industry probably will not pay but which the taxpayer will have to foot. That is what we face. There is no free lunch when it comes to global warming. It is something we must face up to.

The Minister believes that we can put our heads in the sand. He is backing people and has a sweetheart deal with CRH, as Deputy Quinn has said. These people are building inferior housing throughout this country. We consume vast amounts of fuel in transport, build more motorways and there are a million and a half more cars. That is unsustainable.

About 12 years ago, when I was Lord Mayor of Dublin, I ran my car on biodiesel. This was a source of great fun for many people in the media. Certainly I was the butt of many jokes, but times have changed and I hope people have come to realise that this is an important and sustainable source of fuel. The Government has now at least introduced some grants for solar panels, woodchip burners etc., but the Minister is way to late. He needs to cop on and get moving on this.

Only Germany and Austria explicitly rejected nuclear power. This is very important. I noticed at the Convention on the Future of Europe, when we signed motions opposing nuclear power, the Irish Government would not sign for whatever reason. I am beginning to realise why this is. We have had declarations of intent from the Taoiseach, who was at pains to point out that this Government is opposed to nuclear power. He has said the EU's work on energy will not in any way affect our national policy to reject nuclear power stations. What is the national policy and where is it defined?

The Minister professes to be opposed to nuclear power. He should read the amendment of the Seventh Schedule of the Planning and Development Act 2000 by the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Bill 2006 which refers to a "thermal power station or other combustion installation with a total energy output of 300 megawatts or more". That is a nuclear power station and it is to be included in the Seventh Schedule. What the Minister and the Government is doing is leaving the door open for nuclear power. I am quite sure my constituents would like to know that. Certainly, my colleague, Councillor Mark Deary, will be telling a great many people that this is a Government, to use the Taoiseach's words, backing two horses in a one horse race.

The Minister is saying on the one hand that the Government is opposed to nuclear power——

Mr. Quinn

It is west Sellafield.

Mr. Gormley

This is it. It is opposed to Sellafield, but leaving the door open to fast-track nuclear power stations in this country. I should like answers on this because if the Government does not introduce an amendment to exclude nuclear power stations from the Seventh Schedule, clearly it is being hypocritical in the extreme. The Green Party will mount a campaign against this. We will use postcards and do everything we can. Will the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, who claims to be opposed to nuclear power, introduce such an amendment to this legislation? He owes it to the people to do that at the very least. He should tell the House that he will introduce such an amendment.

I also want to refer to the results of the declaration at the very end, where there was supposed to be some reference to Guantanamo Bay. Despite demands by the Netherlands and Belgium, the conclusions of the EU summit in Brussels did not contain any reference to the US prison camp at Guantanamo Bay. However, the press statement explicitly backs closure of the camp. What was the Minister's position on this? Did he back the call for reference to be made to Guantanamo Bay. This installation is in breach of international law. Ireland has said, as a country, that it expects the highest regard for international law and respect for human rights to be upheld, yet I do not know what the Minister's position was in this matter.

Will the Minister respond to those two aspects, his position on the proposed amendment of the Seventh Schedule of the Planning and Development Act 2000 by the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Bill 2006 which allows the option of nuclear power stations to be pursued, and our position on Guantanamo Bay?

Mr. Durkan

I want to refer to some items that were raised at the meeting and a few that did not arise. I congratulate the Commission and the Ministers and Heads of Government for their discussions there and the emphasis placed on the whole energy area. Will the Minister clarify further whether he is satisfied that the extent of intent in regard to research and development in the energy area, as proposed in the Green Paper and as emphasised in the course of the discussions, is being equalled here? Will he clarify whether it will be possible to do this given the remarks of previous speakers and the fact that one of the first things I felt was absent in energy policy here and in Europe generally when I was given this portfolio a year ago was properly co-ordinated, joined-up thinking on future energy needs and supply?

Will the Minister confirm the means by which it is proposed to guarantee security of supply for Ireland, having regard to the fact that we are relatively late in developing our infrastructure, with particular reference to the interconnectors and whether it is intended to proceed with the development of one or more interconnectors on an east-west basis? Will the Minister also clarify, in view of the recent remarks in the UK by Tony Blair and several commentators in regard to compliance with the Kyoto protocol, whether it is intended to comply with the protocol in Ireland and throughout the European Union or if there is now a proposal to change from Kyoto to some other criteria?

The Taoiseach already referred to the important issue of roaming charges. To what extent did discussion take place on roaming charges with a view to their abolition and with a view to establishing a proper mobile telephone service throughout the European Union of equal quality and cost?

My party leader, Deputy Kenny, referred to the growing extent of Internet pornography. This is an area which needs to have a great deal more focus within the European Union and worldwide. Whatever can be achieved by the EU may spread.

Overseas aid and development do not pertain to my area of responsibility but I wish to refer to something that could be done in this regard. This issue does not appear to have received any attention at this meeting. On an ongoing basis throughout 2005, especially towards the end of the year, there was a great emphasis on the alleviation of starvation and combating war, strife and ill health in the African countries. It now appears that a number of countries are particularly vulnerable. There appears to be a degree to which the European Union, including the Office of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the UN, are lacking, in terms of introducing a co-ordination of effort that would set a priority for action in this area. Everybody is doing his or her own thing and while good things are being done a lack of co-ordination is evident.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern)

I thank the speakers although I do not agree with all that they said. Both the Taoiseach and I made clear our concerns in regard to the security of energy supply at the dinner and also at the formal Council meeting. During my time as Minister with responsibility for energy I said that one size does not fit all in regard to competition and the deregulation of the energy market within Europe. Inevitably, an island on the west side of Europe will struggle to have competition because of the size of the market. This point was echoed by Cyprus, Malta and a number of other small island states. This is one of the reasons there was a reference to that in the conclusions. I totally reject what Deputy Gormley said about the Government's view on nuclear energy. We are absolutely against nuclear energy.

Mr. Gormley

Prove me wrong.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 29 Mar 2006

European Council: Statements.

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 29 Mar 2006