Micheál Martin
Question:1 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he will provide an update on discussions at the British-Irish Council. [17281/11]
Ceisteanna — Questions
Official Engagements
Micheál Martin
Question:2 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he will give details of the issues raised during his bilateral talks with the British Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Nick Clegg, at the recent meeting of the British-Irish Council [17282/11]
Gerry Adams
Question:3 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the recent meeting of the British-Irish Council and any bilateral talks he held at the meeting. [18452/11]
Joe Higgins
Question:4 Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his involvement in and assessment of the British-Irish Council meeting recently. [18578/11]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, together.
I attended the 16th summit of the British-Irish Council in London on 20 June. It was my first attendance at a British-Irish Council summit since becoming Taoiseach. The meeting was chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Nick Clegg; the Scottish Government delegation was led by First Minister, Mr. Alex Salmond; the Welsh Government delegation was led by the First Minister, Mr. Carwyn Jones; while the First Minister, Mr. Peter Robinson, and the Deputy First Minister, Mr. Martin McGuinness, led the delegation from Northern Ireland. Delegations from the other member administrations of Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man were also in attendance.
The British Prime Minister, Mr. Cameron, greeted the delegations ahead of the summit. In his welcoming remarks he underscored the importance of the British-Irish Council and the intrinsic value of all of the Good Friday institutions. He also commented on the strength of relations between the eight BIC administrations and characterised relations between Britain and Ireland as being at "an all time high" in the aftermath of Queen Elizabeth II's visit to Ireland.
The summit provided an opportunity to give an update on each administration's economic position and have a substantive discussion of the common objectives of promoting economic growth and related challenges and opportunities. The Council discussed how to achieve strong, sustainable and balanced growth that was more evenly shared across the member administrations. It considered measures to promote economic growth, including incentives for businesses to start, finance and grow a business; encouraging investment and exports as a route to a more balanced economy; and creating a more educated and flexible workforce. The Council acknowledged that member administrations should continue to learn from each other's successes and identify synergies across administrations.
The Council welcomed the discussion paper on an all-islands approach, AIA, to energy resources. It agreed the AIA vision of an approach to energy resources across the British islands and Ireland which would enable opportunities for commercial generation and transmission, facilitating the cost-effective exploitation of the renewable energy resources available, increasing integration of their markets and improving security of supply.
The Council discussed progress on the work to establish the BIC standing secretariat. It will receive a further progress report at the next summit in Dublin. A target start date of 1 January 2012 was agreed, subject to final details and related issues being agreed.
The Council noted the progress of each of the 11 sectoral groups of the Council which cover collaborative spatial planning, demography, digital inclusion, early years policy, energy, electricity grid infrastructure, marine renewables, environment, housing, indigenous, minority and lesser used languages, misuse of drugs, social inclusion and transport.
The Council agreed that the autumn British-Irish Council summit in 2011 will be hosted by Ireland.
While attending the summit, I took the opportunity to have bilateral meetings with the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Nick Clegg; the First Minister, Mr. Alex Salmond, and the First Minister, Mr.Carwyn Jones. During my bilateral meeting with Mr. Clegg I outlined my belief that the British-Irish Council provided a useful forum for the eight member administrations to find opportunities for practical and mutually beneficial co-operation. I emphasised that we needed to look closely at the areas of work being addressed by the Council to ensure our focus was strategic and producing tangible results. We reflected on the recent successful visit to Ireland of Queen Elizabeth II and commented that it clearly underscored the close and highly developed relationship between Britain and Ireland. We also discussed economic matters and developments at EU level in advance of the European Council meeting which took place later that week. We referred to the interest rate reduction being pursued at EU level and the bilateral loan from Britain. We also discussed Irish emigrant issues, including the Hammersmith centre, Irish construction workers at the Olympic village site and tourism potential from Britain.
When I met with the Scottish First Minister, Mr. Salmond, I congratulated him on his recent electoral success. I stated the Government was fully supportive of the establishment of the BIC standing secretariat in Edinburgh and suggested we propose 1 January 2012 as an opening date. We discussed economic developments in Scotland, including renewable energy projects and the development expertise centres such as Aberdeen. This agreement was made in the context of the commitment by both Governments to the full implementation of the Good Friday and St. Andrews Agreements. I also noted that sectarian issues had, regrettably, come to the forefront in Scotland in the last few months and welcomed the Scottish Government's concerted efforts to deal with these difficulties.
During my meeting with Mr. Jones I congratulated him on his electoral success and we had a brief discussion on the close relationship between our two countries. I looked forward to welcoming him to Dublin for the next British-Irish Council summit which will take place in November.
I thank the Taoiseach for his comprehensive reply. I welcome the constructive nature of the meeting of the British-Irish Council. It reflects the ongoing progress in the sets of relationships between all participants.
Did the Taoiseach take the opportunity in his bilateral meeting with the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Clegg, to discuss Ireland's European Union negotiations, particularly our desire to have the terms of the financial assistance programme improved in terms of a reduction in the interest rate? Given that we are also seeking a reduction in the interest rate charged on the British loan, did he raise this matter with Mr. Clegg?
As I stated, I did so on both occasions. I indicated to Mr. Clegg that the decision had been taken by the Heads of Government in Brussels, in respect of an interest rate reduction being agreed in principle, that the Minister for Finance and officials from Ireland should make contact with their colleagues. I also referred to the British loan. I thanked the Deputy Prime Minister, as I did the Prime Minister previously, and indicated the nature of the discussions we were having with our colleagues abroad on an interest rate reduction.
Did the Taoiseach ask for a reduction in the interest rate on the bilateral loan?
I indicated to the Deputy Prime Minister that, obviously, an interest rate reduction was desirable but that our focus was on following through immediately on the decision of the European Council at which leaders agreed in principle that a reduction should apply and that countries the subject of an EFSF bailout should have it applied to them. I indicated to him that Ireland was measuring up on all the conditions set. I also pointed to the nature of our difficulty in seeking the agreement of everybody on an interest rate reduction.
I have two brief questions.
I will come back to the Deputy.
Ar ardaigh an Taoiseach an cheist maidir le Sellafield ag an chruinniú den Chomhairle Sasanach-Éireannach nó ag an chruinniú leis an Leas-Phríomh Aire, Mr. Nick Clegg? The Taoiseach may recall that on 15 March he agreed to raise Irish concerns about the Sellafield plant with the British authorities. I wonder whether he took the opportunity to do so at either of the two meetings mentioned.
Níor ardaigh mé cúrsaí Sellafield leis an Leas-Phríomh Aire ach nuair a bheidh an céad seans eile agam bualadh leis an Phríomh Aire, ardóidh mé arís í ag an bpointe sin. Séard a bhí i gceist ar chlár an chruinnithe — an céad cruinniú ar a d'fhreastal mé mar Thaoiseach den Chomhairle ar fad — ná, mar a dúirt mé leis an Teachta Ó Máirtín, díospóireacht faoi chúrsaí a bheadh oiriúnach a bheith ardaithe leis an Leas-Phríomh Aire.
Caithfidh mé a rá nach bhfuil sin go maith ar chor ar bith. It is not good enough. There are deep concerns here. The Taoiseach is aware that the British are prepared or have announced that they will bring in privately built nuclear plant to be constructed in England and Wales, including at the existing installations at Sellafield and in Wales. Also, we must establish whether these nuclear facilities will be scrutinised subject to EU-wide stress tests or whether the British will bring in their own test. It is regrettable that the Taoiseach did not take the opportunity to raise the issue with him.
For the information of the Deputy, I did raise this matter at the European Council meeting in respect of the stress tests being carried out on nuclear and reprocessing plant such as at Sellafield. I am pleased to report that it is included as part of the stress tests. I expect the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources will be in direct contact with his counterpart in Britain about proposals for other nuclear stations with particular reference to those on the west coast of England.
This was first raised on 15 March. It is now July.
Gabh mo leithscéal.
This issue was first raised by me here after the earthquake in Japan. The Taoiseach will recall that there have been small earthquakes in Cumbria as well. It was during the early days of this Dáil. The fact that it has not been raised directly by the Taoiseach with the British authorities is disappointing.
I have no wish to take credit from Deputy Adams in any shape or form for raising such issues of importance.
I am not looking for credit; I am looking for a resolution.
The Sellafield reprocessing plant has been the subject of discussions, questions, priority questions and Private Members' time during the past 30 years. Having visited the place myself on several occasions I am well aware, as is Deputy Adams, that some serious issues arose from leaks from Sellafield into the Irish Sea over a period of years. We are pleased to note that with all the connections, pressure and so on, this matter improved greatly. Sellafield is included. It is part of the analysis of the stress tests on nuclear and reprocessing plant in Europe, such as Sellafield.
Like the Taoiseach's Government, the British Government is imposing a savage programme of cuts on public spending. Did the Taoiseach get an opportunity to question the Deputy Prime Minister with regard to the effect of £4 billion or £5 billion of cuts in Northern Ireland and the effects these will have on hard-pressed communities and working class people, many on the margins, for whom public services are critical? Did the Taoiseach have an opportunity to raise this matter? Why is the Government, including the Taoiseach, terrified to ask the leaders of other EU states to honour the solidarity, which they maintain is a core value in the European Union, by cutting the interest rate they are charging on loans to this country? Incredibly, the Minister for Finance informed me yesterday that he did not ask the US Treasury Secretary, Mr. Geithner, about the €20 billion hit he insisted the Irish people take by making us pay the obligations of the gambling bondholders. Does the Taoiseach not accept that ordinary people in this country — taxpayers — will find it incredible that the Taoiseach has high-level access to these leaders, yet he refuses to ask them to apply a humane interest rate rather than this incredible profiteering on the misery of the Irish people to the tune of €9 billion — we learned the figure yesterday — through interest rates that are considerably over the odds?
Deputy Higgins has raised two maters. The first is valid. I raised the issue of vulnerable communities in Northern Ireland with the Deputy Prime Minister. I made him aware that in so far as the Government is concerned, we seek to work with the British Government and members of the elected Assembly and Executive in Northern Ireland with particular reference to the vulnerability of communities, especially where there are continued efforts to thwart the peace process. I note the comments of many public representatives from all shades of public opinion for restraint and calm. I pointed this out to the Deputy Prime Minister and I pointed out to him our interest in keeping the connection with the United States alive in so far as assistance under that fund is concerned. This is not only a demonstration of continued interest but also a matter of leverage for further EU funding. I made it known to the Deputy Prime Minister that it is important in the interests of Britain to continue to have facilities and support made available for communities in Northern Ireland. We discussed the question of a reduction in the corporation tax rate in Northern Ireland. This is a matter for the Assembly and the Government and the Exchequer in Britain to makes decisions on. That may come about in an all-island sense.
The second point was typical of Deputy Higgins. Let me assure him that no one in the Government is terrified of asking any leader direct questions. I have contact with them when appropriate at Council meetings. It was a part of the process, whereby the leaders agreed that a reduction in the rate should be applied in principle, that there were discussions with all of them at some stage. As the Deputy is aware, it requires agreement from the lending countries. One of these countries has still not given agreement in respect of a reduction in the rate for Ireland. This is where the discussions continue and I hope the matter can be brought to a conclusion. The Deputy is aware, as I have stated repeatedly, that the responsibility for concluding that debate was transferred to the Ministers for Finance because the stress tests on the Irish banks had not been completed when the leaders of Governments were to deliberate on the matter in Brussels. It is a case of making the leaders directly aware that Ireland is measuring up and that we have met the conditions of the bailout scheme, and making them aware of the developments in our economy, with particular reference to the balance of trade surplus, the growth in exports, the flexibility of our workforce and the stimulus provided for the indigenous economy to grow. These are all reasons people should continue to have confidence in the country. We will continue the discussions with particular reference to France in respect of the reduction of the interest rate.
The British loans are completely separate from the other EU loans. Even if the Taoiseach used the excuse that some EU countries are tagging together and he requires everyone's agreement, the Taoiseach does not need it with regard to the loans provided by Britain. I remind the Taoiseach that when the loans were offered, the British Government made it clear that they were doing so to protect their economic interests in regard to the trade between Ireland and Britain and the profits accruing to British companies. The excuse does not stand up. Why did the Taoiseach not ask the British Government to reduce the interest rate, bearing in mind the crushing burden that is on our people to meet the gambling debts of European bankers?
These things are all interlinked. At issue is the potential to have a reduction in the interest rate across all the loans.
I asked the first two questions on this issue. Specifically, I asked whether the Taoiseach asked the Deputy Prime Minister for a reduction in the interest rate on the bilateral loan. The Taoiseach's response initially was that he referred to the issue. Then he stated that he indicated to him our desire for the reduction. With the greatest of respect, that is verbiage. On decoding, it suggests an absence of this issue at centre stage in the bilateral discussions with Mr. Clegg. The same situation applies with Prime Minister Cameron. The issue was not raised in the context of a submission to the British Government to the effect that we seek the terms and conditions applying to the bilateral loan reduced in accordance with the decision of the EU Heads of State on 11 March. The point is that were the terms of the bilateral loan changed or improved, it would have a powerful impact on the rest of the debate across Europe and would be a useful and powerful signal. I note the apparent absence of either a capacity or desire to raise the hard questions with people. I already raised in this Chamber the absolute refusal of a number of Ministers, including the Taoiseach——
A question, please.
—— to raise the Geithner question. This issue simply is not raised when Government members meet people. To date, no direct submission has been made to the British leaders seeking a reduction in the interest rate on the bilateral loan, which would have an important impact on the wider issue.
The Deputy is under a serious delusion if he thinks the hard questions will not be or are not being asked. As the Deputy is aware, the European Union portion of the EU-IMF programme funding for Ireland is made up of the European financial stabilisation mechanism, EFSM, the European financial stability facility, EFSF, and the bilateral loans from the United Kingdom, Sweden and Denmark. Moreover, as the Deputy also is aware, of these three only the EFSM relates directly to the European Union. Based on the full drawdown of the €22.5 billion from the EFSM, the current margin of 2.925% and an average maturity of 7.5 years, the gross margin will be approximately €4.9 billion, out of which it will be necessary to deduct costs. The Deputy is aware of these figures as he was a member of the Government that signed up for the programme. In contrast, the margin on borrowing from the EFSF accrues to the EFSF in the first instance. Based on the current margin of 2.47%, full drawdown of the €17.7 billion available and an average maturity of 7.5 years, the gross margin will be approximately €3.3 billion. The margin from the bilateral loans accrues to the relevant country and thus far, only the United Kingdom facility has been agreed. It provides for a margin of 2.29%, which is approximately €650 million. These figures are not new but are well known. The agreements and therefore the margins for Denmark and Sweden have yet to be finalised and signed off. These matters are linked and the Government will continue to pursue the question of agreement on the overall interest rate and will continue to ask the hard questions.
Official Engagements
Micheál Martin
Question:5 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he will publish details of the proposed text on the interest rate paid for by Ireland circulated by President Van Rompuy at the summit meeting of 11 March 2011; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18231/11]
Micheál Martin
Question:6 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach his further plans for substantive bilateral meetings with other Heads of Government for the remainder of 2011; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18388/11]
Micheál Martin
Question:7 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the manner in which he approached discussions regarding the European Central Bank at the recent European Council meeting; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18394/11]
Richard Boyd Barrett
Question:8 Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if he will provide a detailed report on the discussions he was involved in at the recent European Council meeting in relation to the Gaza flotilla; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18613/11]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 5 to 8, inclusive, together.
I reported to the House on 22 March on the meeting of the Heads of State and Government of the euro area that took place in Brussels on 11 March. That meeting agreed that pricing of the European financial stability facility, EFSF, should be lowered to better take into account debt sustainability, while remaining above funding costs with an adequate mark-up for risk and in line with IMF pricing principles. It was agreed to reduce by 1% the interest rate applying to loans to Greece, which did not take place under the EFSF.
As I have previously told the House, it was not possible to secure a reduction in the rates applying to loans to Ireland at that time. Some partners sought a commitment from Ireland on corporation tax to which I was not prepared to accede. There were difficult exchanges and discussions. Partners made various suggestions, none of which were acceptable to Ireland. No text was formally tabled at the meeting by President Van Rompuy or anyone else.
The Government will continue to press strongly for an interest rate reduction but on a basis consistent with improving the prospects of successful implementation of the EU-IMF programme. As the Members are aware, resolution of this issue is being taken forward by finance ministers. The Government remains fully engaged in an ongoing, constructive dialogue with our European partners in both capitals and institutions and I remain hopeful of a positive outcome. There is now a greater understanding of the Irish position on corporation tax and its significance to our economic recovery than was the case last March.
My programme of bilateral meetings during the second half of the year will continue to be guided by ongoing assessment of strategic priorities. It will include a meeting in Dublin with the President of the European Parliament, Mr. Buzek, on 12 July; and most likely with the Prime Minister of Poland, Mr. Donald Tusk, in September in the context of the Polish EU Presidency. It remains my intention to be in a position to travel to China later this year, subject to final agreement with the Chinese authorities.
The most recent meeting of the European Council confirmed the appointment of Mr. Mario Draghi as President of the European Central Bank with effect from 1 November 2011. This was on foot of a recommendation by ECOFIN, the European Council of Finance Ministers, and following consultation with the European Parliament and the ECB. There was no substantive discussion of the matter at the meeting.
The European Council noted that the situation in Gaza remains of concern. Colleagues agreed that humanitarian assistance delivered to the population in Gaza should be in accordance with the relevant framework and decisions of the UN and should take care not to endanger human lives.
The three questions I tabled in this group refer to three completely different issues. Grouping them in this fashion leaving marginal time for questions only serves again to allow the Taoiseach to avoid answering specifically the questions that have been raised. I seek specific answers to the specific questions I am about to ask. First and specifically, the Taoiseach confirmed only last week in the House that on 11 March, President Van Rompuy tabled a text concerning Ireland's interest rate. Last week, I asked the Taoiseach whether he would publish the text and he replied he would not. In this reply, in something of a play on words, the Taoiseach indicated that no text was formally put forward. He confirmed the existence of the text in the House last week and I now ask him to publish that text. In a press conference that evening, President Van Rompuy stated that Ireland was not asked to surrender its corporation tax rate or to sign on for the common consolidated corporate tax base, CCCTB. There is a view abroad that a compromise text was put to the Taoiseach that would have effected the interest rate reduction. Members can only make a judgment in this regard if the aforementioned text is published.
The Taoiseach promised transparency and openness in Government and this is a fundamental issue. All the Heads of Government had agreed on 11 March that there should be a reduction in the interest rate and I note that much work had been done in advance. President Van Rompuy produced a text to try to break the deadlock and I ask for it to be made available to Members to allow them to make a proper assessment of how the negotiations were conducted on 11 March. I note that when Fianna Fáil tabled a motion on corporation tax in this House, the Government amendment referred to remaining highly sceptical of many aspects of the common consolidated corporation tax base proposal "but that the Government believes that a constructive and forthright engagement with all of our European partners on this issue will result in the best outcome for Ireland and for the European Union as a whole". May I take it that the Van Rompuy text and the wording in the Government amendment to the motion on corporation tax are very similar?
Deputy Martin tabled three questions in this group. The first pertains to details of the proposed text on the interest rate for Ireland circulated by President VanRompuy. The second relates to bilateral meetings and the third concerns the European Central Bank. I have dealt with each of those three questions in my reply. The Deputy is aware of what happens at such meetings, at which a variety of wordings may be presented to individual leaders, depending on the issue. However, this range of wordings may not have been circulated to, or approved or agreed by, others. The position is that no formal text purporting to be the proposition being put to Ireland was circulated to everyone. Ireland was asked to increase its corporation tax rate. This condition was being requested if Ireland was to be granted a reduction in the interest rate that had been agreed by the leaders. I refused to do that and made that clear. Because I took that stand in respect of our country, which is supported by the Deputy, agreement was not forthcoming on the interest rate reduction. As a consequence, the matter is still being discussed and I hope it can be brought to a conclusion. It is not a case of an agenda containing a formal text to be debated in respect of Ireland. As the Deputy is aware, such items could comprise a variety of options being presented that were not presented to the body as a whole or agreed by individual leaders. I hope this response deals with that matter for the Deputy. I have referred to the bilateral meetings with other Heads of Government and as I stated, the ECOFIN Ministers have recommended that Mr. Draghi should take up office in the European Central Bank in November 2011.
On the specific issue, I know well what goes on.
This is Question Time and I ask the Deputy to ask questions.
I am trying to ask the Taoiseach questions to get to the bottom of this issue. European Council President Van Rompuy brokers solutions to any difficulties arising. I ask the Taoiseach to say whether at the meeting President Van Rompuy provided him with a compromise text as a possible solution to the problem?
The answer is yes. It was presented, but it was not acceptable to me.
Will the Taoiseach publish the text?
No, because it is not one that was presented formally to everybody else.
That does not matter.
It was an attempt by the President to bring forward a text which he thought might be acceptable, but I rejected it.
It is very important in the context of this key debate on debt sustainability. The Taoiseach has confirmed that a text was presented to him by President Van Rompuy. A lot of money has been at stake in the past three or four months and I would like to know whether the text is similar to the amendment tabled by the Taoiseach during the debate on corporation tax. People are talking all the time about a formula of words; even at the last ECOFIN meeting the Minister was talking about a formula of words. Therefore, we need to know what this is all about. We know the issue of the corporation tax rate is not up for grabs and that this has always been the stated position of Governments. I am focusing on the formula of words President Van Rompuy presented to the Taoiseach. I think the Taoiseach owes it to the House, given the enormity of the debate, to tell us what it was. This is a key issue and the Taoiseach's priority. He owes it to the House and the public to publish the text of the compromise presented in order that people will be able to make an independent, objective assessment of the issues between EU member states and the eurozone countries and Ireland.
President Van Rompuy made an effort to arrive at a compromise, but I was not prepared to accept it on the basis of our view of a CCCTB, common consolidated corporate tax base. As for the Deputy suggesting various texts be published, I had to make a judgment in that regard as the Head of Government at a leaders' meeting and I did so. It is not a case of publishing ten drafts of a text that might be acceptable——
President Van Rompuy's text.
President Van Rompuy was the person who was attempting to arrive at a compromise and as leader of the Government, I had to make a decision in Ireland's interests. While the leaders agreed in principle on a reduction of 1% for those in the EFSF, the text given to me was unacceptable. We have moved on from there and I hope we can come to a conclusion on an agreement before too long.
In respect of papers being tabled by the European Commission, I have no problem in participating in discussions, but I am entitled to have a view for or against these proposals. I have indicated a healthy scepticism about the common consolidated corporate tax base.
The conflict in the Middle East was discussed at the summit, as were concerns about the flotilla sailing to Gaza, about which concerns were expressed in this House. The Taoiseach will know that the crew of MV Saoirse have since expressed their belief their ship was sabotaged — I have seen some photographs — and that Irish citizens were put at risk. Have Government representatives spoken to any of the people on MV Saoirse or the Israeli or Turkish authorities about this matter? If not, has the Government any plans to do so?
It was discussed at the meeting and concern was expressed that the blockade arranged by the Israeli Government was still in situ for ships leaving ports for Gaza. There was also concern that nothing should happen as happened on the previous occasion when lives were lost. I note the Greek Government has indicated that, in the case of ships wishing to travel to Gaza, it is prepared to have humanitarian aid delivered through Israel or Egypt. I have not had contact with anybody on board MV Saoirse and cannot confirm whether the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has been in touch with any member of the crew. I will inform the Deputy when I have contacted the Minister.
It was an act of piracy by the Israeli authorities. The blockade of Gaza is completely illegal, as it is in breach of international law. It is a very serious matter. Thankfully, no one was hurt or killed owing to the diligence of the crew and the captain, a Waterford man, who examined the ship. I ask the Taoiseach to pursue the matter both in the interests of peace in the Middle East and also of those very courageous activists and ordinary citizens who have gone to make a stand in pursuing their cause.
I know many hold strong views and I have been contacted about the matter by many. The political establishment must make every effort to ensure peace talks recommence between Prime Minister Netanyahu and everyone else involved. In that regard, an agreed starting point for talks would be helpful. As I said to the Deputy on a previous occasion, I recall vividly my own visit to Gaza. I had discussions with Mr. John Ging who was in charge of the provision of humanitarian aid in Gaza at the time. The Deputy will know that the problem is complex and very serious. I note Prime Minister Papandreou's offer to have any humanitarian aid on ships leaving Greek ports delivered by the Greek authorities through Israel or Egypt. I hope nothing like what happened on the previous occasion will happen again.
A large majority of the people have great sympathy for and are in solidarity with the suffering people of Gaza who are suffering mass unemployment, the malnourishment of children and extreme penury as a result of the blockade by Israel. If the Taoiseach knows this and says he knows what the situation is in Gaza as a result of his visit, why did he agree to such a gutless communiqué from the EU leaders' summit meeting on the flotilla to Gaza? Why did he agree to the inclusion of a mealy-mouthed sentence that put the onus on those trying to deliver aid to the people of Gaza by calling on them to desist as they would endanger lives? Who endangered lives? Who carried out a massacre the last time people tried to deliver aid to Gaza? Can the Taoiseach understand why Israel is encouraged in its imprisonment of the people of Gaza by this mealy-mouthed sentence from the EU leadership?
A question, please, Deputy.
Why did the Taoiseach not call, in particular, for the Irish ship, delivering aid to the tune of more than €100,000 collected from a great number of Irish people, to be given the right to deliver aid to Gaza? How would he like it if people bringing goods to this country were forced by another power to deliver them through England, for example, which is what he is suggesting with regard to the proposal to deliver aid through Egypt? Why does the Taoiseach not shout from the rooftops that this is an illegal and immoral siege of the people of Gaza and should be ended forthwith?
It is a matter of politics. Last week the Deputy's word was "spineless". This week it is "gutless". He will have another adjective next week. I do not want to see any lives lost as a result of somebody with good intent attempting to bring humanitarian aid to Gaza and finding a blockade. I hope what happened the last time will not happen again.
The Greek Government has made an offer, whereby any persons wishing to send humanitarian aid into Gaza can have it delivered by it through Israel or Egypt. If the intent is to provide humanitarian aid for the besieged and beleaguered people of Gaza, it is a perfectly legitimate and guaranteed way of seeing that it gets through in order for it to be effective for people who are in need of it. I spoke to the father of the caretaker of the American international school who was blown up when it was bombed. I met many of the people who are in desperate family situations. They need help.
On the political front, I hope these discussions can start again. In respect of humanitarian aid, there is a far better method of getting it through to people by accepting the offer of the Greek Government to have it delivered through Israel or Egypt with immediate beneficial effect for people, rather than persons with good intentions running a blockade where they will be turned back.
I tabled three separate questions and timing has become an issue. I asked the Taoiseach his plans for substantial bilateral meetings. Given the debt issue and the priority given to it by the Taoiseach, it is extraordinary and incredible that he has yet to have a substantial bilateral meeting with a eurozone leader. The programme he outlined in his reply is scant in terms of any substantive bilateral meetings with eurozone leaders on this issue. For the life of me I cannot understand why he will not meet President Sarkozy on the issue. Will he explain why there have not been any major domestic initiatives on his part despite his commitment? There clearly have not been any and there is none in train because he is not meeting leaders in substantive bilateral meetings.
On my question on the European Central Bank, before Mario Draghi was named ECB President he specifically and forcefully rejected Ireland's wish to burn more bank bondholders. Did the Taoiseach raise this issue before he agreed to his appointment? If not, why not? He mentioned that he made a number of interventions at the Council last week but said nothing about the ECB. Does he accept that it needs to be reformed? If he does, why did he not table a question on the matter at a summit meeting?
Very serious questions need to be asked about Gaza and what happened to the MV Saoirse. Representatives of the Government should meet the crew members to get a first-hand account of what transpired. I have spoken to them. The most important point is that the Greek and Cypriot Governments offered routes into Gaza last year and were rejected. There is a principal political objection to public aid and the impact it is having on the peace situation and so on.
The Government has been lacking in terms of upholding fundamental rights of our citizens to protest, object and highlight the injustice of the blockade in the context of the suffering of the people of Gaza. It should be done in a peaceful way which does not provoke violence. We should not allow ourselves to be sucked into a debate in which it is argued that somebody who travels with a flotilla is somehow looking for trouble. That nuance is creeping into the debate. We must uphold the right of people to protest and highlight issues that are fundamentally wrong. That is what democracy is about. We must ensure their safety in protesting, as long as it is a peaceful protest.
Nobody is denying the right of people to peaceful or legitimate protest. Nobody is denying people the opportunity to highlight what they consider an injustice. These things are all right and proper in any democracy. While we can understand the situation that arises in this case, it should not lead us to a point where people's lives are endangered. I hope that never happens.
The Tánaiste referred to following up on the incidents that occurred in respect of the MV Saoirse. I am sure in his responsibilities as Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade he will deal with the issue during Question Time when the rota comes around. There is no question of not wanting to see that people have the right to protest and highlight what they consider to be injustices and concerns.
Does the Taoiseach condemn the sabotage?
The interim situation in Egypt opened another crossing into Gaza some weeks ago which was of great interest to citizens who were unable to leave before then. These matters are of interest to us. I respect the concerns of many people about what has happened and what is happening in Gaza. In respect of humanitarian aid, the European Union is a major contributor. For those who wish to collect humanitarian aid with a view to having an immediate impact and expect it to be delivered by flotillas leaving Greek or other ports, the Greek authorities have said they will see to it that it is delivered through Israel and Egypt with immediate impact and benefit for the citizens of Gaza.
What about the ECB President?
Mr. Draghi had a unanimous recommendation from ECOFIN.