Gerry Adams
Question:1 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach his priorities for the next meeting of the European Council; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11457/11]
Ceisteanna — Questions
European Council Meetings
Micheál Martin
Question:2 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the briefings he received in advance of the 11 March 2011 meeting of the European Council; and the amendments he tabled to the draft communiqué. [11800/11]
Richard Boyd Barrett
Question:3 Deputy Richard Boyd-Barrett asked the Taoiseach if he plans to talk to the Greek Prime Minister about issues of common interest in view of the ongoing difficulties facing both our countries in respect of ongoing negotiations with the EU-IMF. [12619/11]
Micheál Martin
Question:4 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the issues he intends to raise at the next meeting of the European Council; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12840/11]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, together.
The European Council on 11 March 2011 was called to discuss the unfolding developments in Libya and the southern Mediterranean area. I received the normal briefings prepared by officials for a Taoiseach in advance of a meeting of this kind. At the meeting, there was general discussion around the table, in which I participated, and which, in the normal manner, resulted in some adjustments to the draft conclusions as they were being finalised.
There was also a meeting of the Heads of State and Government of the eurozone on 11 March. I participated in that meeting in a similar fashion. I reported to the House on both meetings on 22 March.
I regularly meet with my EU colleagues, including the Prime Minister of Greece. Our most recent meeting was at the European Council in Brussels at the end of March. Working to defend and advance Ireland's interests is my absolute priority. Building alliances of support is important in that regard. Contacts at all levels, official and political, are frequent and ongoing. While the agenda for the June European Council is not yet finalised, it is expected to discuss economic policy issues, migration and matters relating to Croatia's accession to the Union. It is also expected to endorse a Presidency report on the inclusion of the Roma population in the EU, and to endorse the Council's Conclusions on the launch of the Danube strategy.
In the context of recent events in the southern Mediterranean area, I anticipate that the discussion on migration will include consideration of the current arrangements under the Schengen Agreement for countries that participate and the completion of the common European asylum system. Economic policy issues will include the making of country specific recommendations on foot of proposals made by the Commission. These represent another step in the European semester process and are intended to inform the national budgets that member states will adopt later in 2011.
The appointment of the President of the European Central Bank is also expected to arise. In this regard the ECB and European Parliament are currently being consulted on the appointment of Mr. Mario Draghi to the post.
My question concerns the Taoiseach's priorities for the next meeting and he did not answer that, with respect. The Taoiseach has frequently said that the reduction of the interest rate, which Sinn Féin welcomes, is a priority but he has consistently failed to raise it at meetings where it would be appropriate. Does the Taoiseach expect this reduction to be secured at the next meeting? How much will the reduction save the Irish taxpayer? Is the Taoiseach aware of the release of the live register figures, with unemployment now at 14.8%, an increase of 3,000 citizens unemployed since last May? Is that not a priority issue as well? An mbeidh na hábhair seo ar an mbord le haghaidh díospóireachta ag an chéad chruinniú eile den chomhairle?
I set out my priorities and I have made the point that working to defend and advance Ireland's interests is my absolute priority. That means building alliances of support politically. I do not set the agenda for the European Council meeting, although I will contribute to it and I have outlined the general principles surrounding the agenda, which is not yet finally determined.
The question of the conclusion of an interest rate reduction — another European Commissioner has indicated support for it today — is being pursued by the Ministers responsible for finance. The Deputy is also aware that the Heads of Government, myself among them, devolved that authority to the Ministers because at the time of the leaders' meeting, there was no conclusion to the stress tests on the Irish banks. In its absence — there is a requirement for accurate figures if seeking support — the matter was left to the Ministers responsible for finance. The Deputy is aware that the matter is still being negotiated. I am also sure the Deputy has heard the reports from other European figures regarding the fairness that should be extended in this matter.
It is realistic to say that this country entered into an IMF-EU bailout deal and the conditions of that have been revised, renegotiated and accepted by the troika, and these are the conditions being met by Ireland. It is unfair to expect that this country should be asked to deal with matters that other countries are not expected to deal with. We have a very clear view on that. I do not expect this to be a matter for discussion at the Heads of Government meeting but if it comes up, I will deal with it.
I did not hear the Taoiseach. Does he expect it to come up?
I do not expect it to come up on the agenda because it has already been devolved to the Ministers responsible for finance. If it comes up I will be there to deal with it.
I have noted the unemployment figures from the live register, which are too high. Every job lost is a tragedy for somebody and every job gained is a source of enjoyment and happiness. Considering the difference between the live register figures and the real figure of those unemployed, it is very high in this country. The results of the jobs initiative have not kicked in yet but I hope the impact of that focused attention will bring some relief to those figures. Everybody in the Chamber and outside is concerned about the live register figure and hopes to decrease it. We must do that by growing our economy and confidence, investing in opportunities for employment, removing red tape and bureaucracy and opening the doors for business to flourish.
That is where our focus remains and why we made decisions relating to the banks and the jobs initiative and why we are looking at the way money was spent and the value obtained for it. We hope to prioritise from September onwards what it is we must do in these circumstances to have fairness in our society.
A question about the March Council meeting has nothing to do with the June meeting, and those should not be grouped with questions about future meetings. The Taoiseach has taken to ignoring questions when more than one is asked so I want to concentrate on No. 2, which relates to the Council meeting of 11 March. The communiqué from 11 March is very important because it sets out the as yet unfulfilled commitment to have more sustainable terms for loans to Ireland and others. Did the Taoiseach table any amendments to that communiqué or did he accept the version available to him when he took office?
For over two and half months there have been constant leaks about this agreement being implemented and yesterday in the House the Taoiseach stated that "we have negotiated down the cost of the deal". We should have elaboration on that because I am not clear on whether the deal has been negotiated in terms of cost at all. A shared urgency was evident on 11 March but to where has that disappeared?
Question No. 4 relates to the next European Council meeting. Does the Taoiseach agree there is now a grave risk that the growing sense of drift and a lack of leadership will bring a new crisis upon us very soon? That is the atmosphere in which comments from an Irish Minister can get carried in reports throughout the world and can have a damaging impact on markets and their perception of Ireland. Will the Taoiseach assure us that our basic position for this Council will be that the delay must stop and the promise of more sustainable support, given at the 11 March Council meeting, can be delivered? Otherwise the issue may get out of control.
I am surprised at the Taoiseach's revelation today that he does not intend to raise these issues at the Council meeting. We have a role in setting the agenda and every member state can contribute to the setting of an agenda for a Council meeting.
Of course.
The Taoiseach stated earlier that he did not set the agenda but we can contribute to it. This has dragged on far too long.
Of course.
The import of the communiqué which emerged from the meeting of 11 March means we should expect at the next Council meeting at least a progress report on delivering the conclusions reached. The contents of that communiqué relating to having a more sustainable programme of supports for countries like Ireland and others were negotiated by the outgoing Government.
I fully understand that any country can contribute to the setting of an agenda for a meeting but my point is that I do not set the full agenda and it is not yet set. The extraordinary meeting of the European Council on 11 March was convened by President Van Rompuy to discuss developments in Libya and the southern Mediterranean region. It was to set the political direction and priorities for future EU action and policy. We agreed on the importance of Europe developing a new and enhanced long-term partnership with the countries of the southern Mediterranean region as they move towards democracy.
The decision was taken at the meeting before that in respect of the pursuit of an interest rate reduction. That is now in the capable hands of the Minister for Finance and his colleagues. If this matter arises at the June meeting, I will certainly deal with it. When Greece was given its interest rate reduction and the Greek Prime Minister sought an extension of a repayment period, which was approved, they were outside the EFSF category bloc. The agreement was that countries in that would be entitled to a reduction. Some of our European colleagues felt that Ireland, in particular, should comply with extra conditions to avail of an interest rate reduction but we are still negotiating the matter. Quite a number of European commentators have now been very forthright in their view about that. If the opportunity arises I will raise the matter at the June meeting and if it comes up I will be very happy to deal with it. As the Deputy knows, the decision was taken that the Ministers responsible for finance would conclude the matter of interest rate reduction negotiations at their level.
My question related to whether the Taoiseach had detailed discussions with the Greek Prime Minister or senior members of the Greek Government. This is in preference to just happening upon them at European meetings. I asked this because I have spoken to public representatives in Greece recently and the Taoiseach would find it illuminating to do so. Perhaps the Taoiseach has already done this. In order to secure a 1% reduction in the interest rate, Greece has had to agree to sell its ports and harbours, power generation and the water and telecommunications systems. It has also had to close down and merge hospitals, agree to cancel the minimum wage and sell the Popular Bank, which is the Greek equivalent of a credit union. Interestingly, there is a review of that required in the EU and IMF deal.
The country is faced with a position where it is unable to meet the terms of that deal. I was informed by the same public representative that the Greek authorities are now being asked to put up other State assets, including land banks, as collateral against future loans. This looks like the asset stripping of a country and it is required in return for reductions in its loan rate as part of the overall package. It certainly does not look like a bailout.
Has the Deputy a question?
It looks like the destruction of a society. Did the Greek Prime Minister or any of the other senior Government officials with whom the Taoiseach spoke inform him this was the price of signing up to EU-IMF deals? This is the future we will face if we continue with this deal instead of doing what the people in the streets of Greece and some of us in this House advocate, namely, walking away from the bankers' debt and telling them to pay for their own losses.
I am surprised at the Deputy. He knows that he is speaking about the difference between chalk and cheese because these are two very different situations. I sympathise with the Greek people in their difficulties. I spoke with the Greek Prime Minister in a face-to-face meeting at which he explained the difficulties that his country was beginning to experience and asked for support in respect of his request for an interest rate reduction. The national debt had doubled in a very short period, the banks were looking for €100 billion and his people were beginning to react strongly. However, the Greek situation is very different from that which applies in Ireland's case. We have already met the quarterly review analysis and have received approval in respect of meeting our conditions and commitments. The Deputy should focus on where we stand as a consequence of entering the IMF-EU bailout deal. We want to return to a position where Ireland has full control over its economic sovereignty in the shortest possible time. The details of the conditions of our participation in the IMF-EU deal are set out and published and are now being complied with. It does not involve the scale of issues to which the Deputy referred.
We have to continue building on the trade surplus we enjoy because of our strong exports. Interest in investing in Ireland remains exceptionally strong and American industry, for example, has considerable liquidity available to it for continued investment. That is the reason our 12.5% tax rate continues to be a matter of fundamental importance and why it is necessary for us to rebuild our international reputation for the flexibility of our workforce and our proven entry record to the European Union. We also need to develop our own indigenous industries and pursue the opportunities that exist for employment creation.
These are very different situations. Ireland cannot be compared to any other country facing a bailout and it should not be compared to other countries in that regard. Each of the governments concerned is grappling with its own particular problems and the Irish Government has made decisions that will point our country in the direction of being able to comply with the conditions of the IMF-EU bailout and allow us to remove ourselves from the deal in the shortest possible time, an objective to which I am sure the Deputy also aspires.
Arising from the Taoiseach's reply to the two questions I tabled, I am taken aback by his comment, "if it comes up". This is a European Council meeting. When he attended his first meeting on 11 March there was great fanfare about what he was going to do and how he was going to bang tables. That seems to have disappeared from all the spinning and media briefing.
The greatest spinner ever.
It is not just about interest rates. Why will the Taoiseach not raise at the European Council the more fundamental issues agreed in the communique of 11 March on delivering more sustainable loan terms not only for Ireland but also as a comprehensive European solution to the debt issue? A pattern is emerging whereby everything is being divested to Ministers once it does not land on the Taoiseach's desk.
Can we have a question?
Arising out of his reply on the European Central Bank, has Ireland taken a position in regard to the successor to the current governor of the ECB, Mr. Trichet? Will we use this opportunity to discuss issues pertaining to the bank's role and performance or the fact that it raised interest rates since the crisis emerged? Will we articulate key points in our own interest?
Our intention to pursue Ireland's best interest has not disappeared. I have every faith in the capacity of the Minister for Finance to deal with the responsibility allocated to him and his colleagues by the Heads of Government. The Minister pointed out in a contribution which received credible support that the level of interest in European programmes should be lower and that the cost is too high. He received strong support from a number of countries after he made that contribution. The Heads of Government have given this responsibility to the Ministers for Finance and our Minister is exceptionally strong in this area and has pointed out clearly that the cost of European programmes is too high. At the last meeting, the agenda of which was dominated by the Greek situation, he made that point in general and I am sure the Deputy agrees with him.
I have confidence in the Minister and support him as he carries out the duties and responsibilities assigned to him. Otherwise we will deal with this at Heads of Government level. I will presently receive a briefing from officials in respect of issues we think should be discussed and I will contribute to the meeting according to whatever actually appears on the agenda. This particular matter was given to the Ministers for Finance by the Heads of Government and I have every faith in the ability of our Minister to carry out his duties. In that sense, he has been exceptionally strong, clear and forthright on where Ireland stands and where we want to be.
I am flabbergasted that the Taoiseach does not expect the reduction of interest rates to be on the agenda of the next European Council. He reduces his role almost to the level of a commentator on these affairs. His responsibility is to put the issue on the agenda and have it dealt with as speedily as possible.
I asked a question which the Taoiseach did not answer and I will have to use my time putting it again. I asked how much a 1% reduction in the interest rate would save the Irish taxpayer.
I do not know whether the Deputy was listening. This decision in respect of concluding the negotiations on interest rates has been devolved——
I disagree. I was listening.
He might disagree with it but that is the decision of the Heads of Government of the European Union. They made the decision because the Irish banks' stress tests were not complete and they told me they would be unable to deal with the issue if our figures were not accurate. The stress tests were not completed and for that reason the Heads of Government gave responsibility for the matter to the Ministers for Finance. I hope that is clear.
It is absolutely clear. The Taoiseach said it a million times.
The Ministers for Finance will conclude the negotiations on the interest rate reductions being sought by this and other countries. If they fail to do that and the matter is returned to the Heads of Government, so be it. I have every faith in the ability of our Minister for Finance to do his part of that job. He is doing it very clearly and in a strong and forthright fashion.
The level of interest rate reduction is a matter for the Ministers for Finance to conclude. Various figures have been mentioned, ranging from 0.4% to 1%. The Greek Prime Minister sought a 2% reduction at the beginning and he was given a 1% reduction, although his country was not in the EFSF category. That matter is not concluded and I cannot give the Deputy an answer to his question about what the eventual interest rate reduction will be. The more, the better.
What would a 1% reduction mean?
Approximately €400 million. I may not be accurate but I think that is what it is about.
I call Question No. 5.
Can I ask a supplementary question?
We have spent 25 minutes on Questions Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive.
I did not ask a supplementary question.
The Deputy had plenty of time for his question.
I did not. Every other Member asked a supplementary question.
The Deputy asked a supplementary question. I call Question No. 5.
I did not. This is unbelievable.
Departmental Staff
Micheál Martin
Question:5 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he has assigned special responsibility for particular tasks to individual advisers in his office; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11568/11]
Micheál Martin
Question:6 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if, in view of his response concerning responsibility for Northern Ireland affairs, he will outline the detail of specific sectoral or policy areas which he has assigned to non-established staff in his Department. [12098/11]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 5 and 6 together.
There are five special advisers appointed in my Department, four of whom are my special advisers and one of whom is special adviser to the Government Chief Whip. In general, the primary function of special advisers is to help achieve the Government's objectives and secure the implementation of the programme for Government. My special advisers are tasked with giving me advice and keeping me informed on a wide range of issues, as well as performing such other functions as may be directed by me from time to time.
My chief of staff, Mark Kennelly, among his other duties, will work closely with the Northern Ireland division of my Department to ensure I am full briefed on all developments.
These questions have become relevant because of last week's events. Many people were struck by the speed and consistency of the briefing against one of the Taoiseach's advisers and this even went so far as to show what exactly one of his advisers said to him when they were discussing his College Green speech. Every fair-minded person can see that she was treated badly by whomever of her colleagues chose to brief about her responsibilities. Will the Taoiseach confirm to whom responsibility has been given for briefing the press about discussions within his office and state whether he has taken steps to ensure there is no repeat of last week's briefings?
On the separate issue of specific sectoral responsibilities, the Taoiseach stated yesterday that his Department has retained a role in implementing co-ordination across government. The problem is that so far he has been willing to talk about accountability in a general sense but to deflect questions that relate to specific accountability on issues. He said yesterday he had a major role in economic issues outside of his Cabinet role but then said again that any specific questions about individual issues should be put to Ministers and so on.
With regard to his non-established staff, has he given sectoral responsibilities to advisers as an important statement of his priorities across the board? For example, will his advisers give advice to Cabinet sub-committees in specific areas? Are they members of Cabinet subgroups relating to social inclusion, for example?
Mr. Kennelly deals with the Northern Ireland section of the Department and he has dealt with this brief for a number of years. Mr. Andrew McDowell deals with the economic management council. He has been our economist for a number of years and he is obviously associated and acquainted with all the elements of the programme for Government and advises me on a regular basis about issues related to that and so on. As the Deputy will be aware, it is a case of being in contact with Ministers on a regular basis about issues arising or events that are happening.
I do not get his drift about briefings. I am not clear what he is talking about.
With regard to the Taoiseach's College Green speech, there were various——
Did the Deputy like it?
It was powerful but I thought I had heard it somewhere before.
What are we talking about?
Advisers. There were significant negative briefings against the person who is believed to have advised the Taoiseach on his speech, stating the person was responsible for the non-attribution in the speech. It was unfair and such commentary should not be part or parcel of briefings. Clearly, someone in the Taoiseach's office briefed against the adviser responsible for the speech.
I do not know. I assume if I started off talking about comely maidens dancing at the crossroads, people would have said, "I heard that speech before somewhere".
They would not because it was never given. He never mentioned it.
I know.
I just want to get the record straight.
I have no idea where the briefings came from. It is irrelevant to me. I expect people to do their jobs. I take the Deputy's point but I have no idea what discussion took place about that.
Micheál Martin
Question:7 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the process he has followed in filling the positions of Secretary General and second secretary general in his Department. [12099/11]
In accordance with established practice, on 8 April last, expressions of interest were sought from civil servants for these posts, the filling of which are a matter for the Government and do not come within the remit of TLAC. All suitable officers, regardless of whether they have submitted an expression of interest, will be considered before a decision is made by the Government.
I thank the Taoiseach. The last time I raised this issue he said no external applications would be invited and there would be no independent involvement in filling these posts, even though this directly contradicts stated Fine Gael policy. His only justification then was that this is the way it has always been. Both jobs are being filled at the same time. The process is important as it will determine the leadership of his Department and the Cabinet secretariat for at least the next seven years. Who has taken the role of assessing the potential appointees? What measures has the Taoiseach put in place to make sure everyone involved in helping him to assess the candidates reveals to him any connections they may have to the applicants? Has he put in place guidelines for the selection process?
I have not. The new post is being established to support the operation of two new mechanisms at the centre of government to enhance co-operation, effectiveness and co-ordination in the critical areas of economic management and EU co-ordination. That is the purpose of the Second Secretary General post. This post will include responsibility for the Government economic management council, about which the appointee will report to the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs, and he or she will co-ordinate support for him in his engagement with Government issues, including Cabinet committee structures. The Second Secretary General will also have responsibility for EU co-ordination in which he or she will report, as appropriate, to me and the Tánaiste. He or she will be a member of the management advisory committee of the Department of the Taoiseach, reporting to the Secretary General of the Department.
Expressions of interest have been received in respect of this post and no decision has been taken beyond that yet. That is a separate process from the filling of the position for the Secretary General of the Department of the Taoiseach and Secretary to the Government. That process has not begun in earnest yet.
I asked who had taken the role of assessing the potential appointees. Has the Taoiseach put any guidelines in place for the selection process?
Is the process similar to that followed for appointments to the Department of public expenditure and reform? The process seems similar but it is taking much longer. Has the Taoiseach considered the procedure followed by the Minister without Portfolio? Is he happy with that procedure? Why did that take less time?
We were anxious to move in respect of the creation of new Department of public expenditure and reform and to appoint a Secretary General to that Department. That process moved quickly, partly because the Deputy was asking why the Minister was not in the House to answer questions about the new Department. There is a board in place to deal with the expressions of interest and interviews for applicants for the post in the Department of children and youth affairs. That has been set up and people are being consulted.
As I understand it, an interview board has not been set up but that will happen shortly. It will be followed by a process to fill the position of Secretary General of the Department of the Taoiseach. The criteria that will be set out will include experience, competence and a capacity to manage and deal with personnel, other Departments and a broad range of issues. We will publish those criteria when they are available.
Rinne an Taoiseach trácht ar "economic management". Cad iad na céimeanna atá glactha ag an Taoiseach, taobh amuigh den jobs initiative, chun muinín a athchothú agus jabanna nua a chruthú?
Níl mé cinnte céard go díreach ata i gceist ag an Teachta. Bhí níos mó ná 14 cruinnithe ag an gcoiste sin. Tá an coiste ag díriú ar deireadh a chur leis na coscanna atá ann i leith jabanna agus forbairt eacnamaíochta a chruthú. Tá sé i gceist infheistíocht a dhéanamh, ó thaobh cúrsaí eacnamaíochta na tíre de, chun jabanna agus forbairt eacnamaíochta a chur i gcrích. Tá an coiste ag díriú go práinneach ar an bhForbairt sin a chur ar bun. Taispeánann sé sin go bhfuil an Rialtas ar fad dírithe ar an gcuspóir sin a chur i gcrích.
Official Engagements
Micheál Martin
Question:8 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he will outline his discussions with the US President Barack Obama during his recent visit here. [12830/11]
Micheál Martin
Question:9 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he raised the issue of American support for Ireland’s efforts to lower the interest rate on the EU-IMF programme of support during his meeting with US President Barack Obama; and if not, the reason therefor. [13627/11]
Micheál Martin
Question:10 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he raised the issue of Ireland’s corporation tax with US President Barack Obama during his recent meeting with him; and, if not, the reason therefor. [13628/11]
Micheál Martin
Question:11 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he will give details of the discussions he had with US President Barack Obama on the Middle East during his recent visit. [13630/11]
Micheál Martin
Question:12 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the discussions he had on Northern Ireland with US President Barack Obama during his recent visit. [13631/11]
Micheál Martin
Question:13 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he will outline the response of US President Barack Obama’s response to his proposed diaspora finders fee scheme announced as part of the jobs initiative. [13634/11]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 8 to 13, inclusive, together.
The visit to this country by the US President, Barack Obama, and the First Lady, Michelle Obama, was a very tangible expression of the warmth and strength of the relationship between our two countries. It was also a great opportunity to show a positive image of Ireland to the world, building on the images from the historic visit by Queen Elizabeth the previous week.
During the course of my bilateral meeting with the US President, we had a broad discussion covering a range of issues. We discussed the global economic situation and I briefed him on our strategy for overcoming our economic difficulties and the range of important decisions and initiatives taken by the Government since we took office. I informed him of the priority that we are giving to job creation through the jobs initiative, as well as the actions we have taken on the banking system and the initiation of a comprehensive review of expenditure as a central plank in the strategy to reduce the budget deficit.
We discussed the progress made so far in our discussions at EU level and with the IMF-EU-ECB troika. I shared my analysis of that with President Obama, as I did with the UK Prime Minister Cameron when I met him. While acknowledging that these were primarily matters for discussion in an EU context, I used the opportunity to ensure that the US Administration was clear on our objectives in trying to improve on the current programme and our determination to take the necessary action at home to deal with our problems.
We reflected in our discussions on the common aspects of the economic challenges we face, notwithstanding the huge difference in size between our two economies. We discussed trade and investment between our countries, including the importance of foreign direct investment by American investors in Ireland and the fact that 80,000 Americans across 50 states work in Irish-owned companies. I assured the President that US investment is most valuable to Ireland's economic recovery and emphasised that Ireland is also creating employment in the US. I repeated that we will retain our 12.5% rate of corporation tax. The President updated me on progress with the reform of the US corporation tax system and we agreed that our officials would stay in touch on the matter.
We discussed developments with regard to Northern Ireland, including the Assembly elections, the very strong community reaction to the murder of Constable Ronan Kerr and the Government's intention to further develop all-island co-operation, including in discussions at the North-South Ministerial Council plenary meeting on 10 June. I expressed my appreciation to the President for the long-standing and continued engagement by the US in the peace process.
I raised the prospects for immigration reform in the United States, following the President's recent speech on the matter. He updated me on progress to date, on what remains a very difficult domestic political issue in the US. We also discussed a range of international issues, including developments in the Middle East and Afghanistan and our joint initiative on food security and the fight against hunger.
We did not have any specific discussions about the Government's new initiative to engage the Irish diaspora in efforts to create jobs in Ireland.
I have a group of six questions.
We have only five minutes remaining.
I know. Sin é. The visit was welcome and successful. I was delighted with it. I am sure the Taoiseach will acknowledge the work undertaken by his predecessor, Brian Cowen, in conjunction with ambassadors Rooney and Collins in working to get President Obama to agree to visit our country.
On the economic issues to which the Taoiseach alluded in his reply, which I raised in my questions, in the aftermath he indicated that the meetings with the President were detailed and substantive. Given the prominence of claims concerning the attitude of the Administration in the United States towards bank bondholder debt, could the Taoiseach indicate that he raised that specific issue with the President? Could he tell us what was said in that regard and what the President's reply was in terms of their approach to bondholder debt? Equally, given the clear threat to this country of new rules on taxing overseas income, in particular of US multinational companies abroad, could the Taoiseach indicate the outcome of that discussion and whether the issue was specifically raised?
Last week the Taoiseach indicated that he did not raise the interest rate with Prime Minister Cameron. Did he specifically raise the issue of better, sustainable loan terms and a reduction in the interest rate with President Obama? That is an important issue to us.
The President's message to this country was, "We want you to succeed". As I outlined, we covered a range of issues to which Deputy Martin referred. I briefed him on the decisions taken by the Government in respect of the banks, the jobs initiative and the work that will continue following the comprehensive spending review as we prepare for the budget. I also explained to him about our relations with our European colleagues and about the devolution of authority to the Finance Ministers in respect of an interest rate reduction in this country's bailout deal. I expressed to him the enthusiasm and great support I detected in the United States, both in Washington and in New York, among Irish-American business and other potential investors in this country and I elaborated on that.
The President said that the United States is quite a distance from the evolution of a tax package. That arose in respect of the corporate tax rate which we retain. Tax laws in the United States are both complex and voluminous. The President indicated that they were at the start of a very long process in the US but that there should be continuous contact between officials in this country and his Administration about developments. I gratefully accepted his offer.
The President also said in respect of immigration, which I know is of interest to Deputy Martin, that while the perception was that this might be a Hispanic problem only, there are other nationalities who had an interest in the matter being sorted out as well.
We covered all of the issues, from the comprehensive spending review to our intention of getting the deficit below 3% by 2015, rebuilding trust with our European colleagues, ambassadors, politicians and others. The discussion lasted approximately 45 minutes.
The bank bondholder debt is a fundamental issue. Did the Taoiseach specifically raise that with the President, particularly given the commentary around the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Geithner, and his alleged intervention at the G8, in terms of clarifying — if that is the case — that there was to be no burning of bondholders or no substantive restructuring? This is important in terms of any potential pan-European restructuring of debt that could be agreed eventually at that level, which is something that must happen. We need a pan-European approach to be taken more quickly than is happening. I am surprised the Taoiseach did not ask President Obama what the US perspective on the issue of bondholder debt was. Does it have a position on it? The US would have influence in terms of the IMF, which is a key partner with the institutions in terms of the deal with Ireland. Did the Taoiseach raise the issue with the President?
As the Taoiseach is aware, I took the opportunity, in his presence, to raise with President Obama the plight of the undocumented Irish and the search for peace in the Middle East. All of the Palestinian groups in the Middle East, including Hamas and Fatah, have come together and signed a reconciliation pact. Does the Taoiseach, on behalf of the Government, welcome that? The Taoiseach will also be aware that George Mitchell stood down from his post there. Will he join with me in thanking him for his efforts? We all know the work he did for our peace process. He put in significant work in the Middle East and I met him there several times. We should thank him and wish him, his wife and his children well for the future.
I am sure the Taoiseach will agree with me that €20 billion relief for the Irish taxpayer, in terms of senior unguaranteed bank debt, would be a huge relief for our people and would provide money for a real job stimulus. Did the Taoiseach ask President Obama about the allegation around that matter? If not, will he ask the US Government whether the allegation is true? It is a serious allegation.
I commend George Mitchell for the work he did in this country. He was an outstanding person and was appointed by former President Clinton to come here. He spent six months in Northern Ireland and had little opportunity to play his part at the beginning, but his influence, personality and patience won through in the end. He is a person of the highest standards for whom I have absolute regard. I wish him, his wife and his young family success and good health in the years ahead. He made a remarkable contribution to the peace process here and we all owe him a debt of gratitude in respect of his behaviour, which as a negotiator in very difficult circumstances was outstanding.
I briefed President Obama on our decisions in respect of the banking structure, the governance of the banks and our relations with the troika. In that context, I would have indicated to him our decision in respect of subordinated bondholders and how that had evolved in Europe from a point when that was not going to happen now where it is an accepted part of dealing with the particular problem.
That was happening already.
As the Deputy is aware, the Minister for Finance may well have to go to court shortly in pursuance of this matter and I referred to that in my conversation with the President. The assertion in the Kelly argument with regard to Mr. Geithner was an assertion arising from a meeting that took place in Asia last November. The matter was not on the agenda for the G7, but I understand it came up in some side conversations and I have no evidence of what was actually discussed. When I met Mr. Geithner in Washington, we talked about the Irish situation, in which he was very interested, and he attended the meeting the following day in the Oval Office with the President. He retains a strong interest in seeing that Ireland meets its challenges and gets out of these difficulties. His President committed himself to supporting Ireland in whatever way he can and I am very grateful for that.