Micheál Martin
Question:1 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he is satisfied with the resources available to offices under the auspices of his Department for the drafting of legislation. [24730/11]
Ceisteanna — Questions (Resumed)
Departmental Offices
I am advised by the Attorney General that there are currently 27 permanent and three contract staff in the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel engaged in drafting legislation. I am sure the Deputy is aware that there is a large increase in the demand for legislation arising from the current Government legislation programme, including the significant work required on sensitive and urgent EU-IMF-related legislation. In addition, a considerable amount of the legislation produced is technical and complicated, and requires a great deal of legal advice and sharing of different iterations of drafts with Departments to ensure Government policy is properly reflected in the final draft.
The resources available for drafting have, notwithstanding the increasing demands, been able to meet the needs of the Government. However, the complement of staff in the office is kept under constant review. I am informed that, following such a review, a business case has recently been submitted to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform in regard to the office's needs over the coming 18 to 24 months. Discussions have been held with the Department and a response to those discussions is expected shortly.
The question I asked was whether the Taoiseach is satisfied with the resources available to the offices under the auspices of his Department for drafting legislation. I am conscious that much legislation was promised and identified but has not come through the system on time. For example, the corporate donations Bill is a classic example in that one would have expected it to be brought in before the presidential election in order to ban corporate donations for that election. The referendum Bills are another case in point in that there is no question but that both referendum Bills were rushed too quickly through the House, there was no proper advanced consultation——
Sorry, Deputy. This is Question Time.
Yes, I am just putting this point to the Taoiseach. Does he agree there was undue haste on the two referendum Bills and much concern and anxiety now exists in regard to understanding what those referenda are about? Most people I meet do not know what they are about, which reflects the lack of lead-in time. We should have had the legislation before the summer recess, but there are obviously pressures on——
Sorry, Deputy. We are straying.
We are not. This relates to the legislative programme.
No. The Deputy asked if the Taoiseach is satisfied with the resources available to the office.
Yes — resources to draft legislation. The reason I ask this is simply that many Bills have not come through and there have been rushed referendum Bills, which is not good for public discourse.
It seems that the existing resources are not adequate. The Taoiseach referred in his reply to the business case. Has he read the business case submitted to the Minister? Does it specifically ask for additional capacity to enable the legislative programme to be completed properly, as befits a modern Parliament, with due time for the Members to consider the legislation in the months ahead?
To be totally honest, I would prefer to have extra staff in the parliamentary draftsman section. The Deputy will be aware that in recent years, the average production from the section has been approximately 40 Bills per year, as it has produced approximately 40 Bills in each of the last three years. The A list of the current Government legislation programme gives a commitment to publish 30 Bills in this session alone, the reason being that quite a number of them are timelined as a requirement from the EU-IMF-ECB deal. For instance, a Bill for the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform was published on 29 September, a Bill for the Department of Justice and Equality was published on 12 October, a second Bill for the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation was published on 29 September, the Health (Provision of General Practitioner Services) Bill was published on 30 September and the European Financial Stability Facility and Euro Area Loan Facility (Amendment) Bill 2011 was published on 16 September.
I would like to think we will have a more leisurely approach to the production of legislation but obviously I refer to the constraints and pressures on the people involved. As Deputy Martin will be aware from his own time, the staff concerned have come into work on weekend after weekend and have worked on Saturdays and Sundays to deal with this. The business case that has been submitted to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform is for two additional contract drafting staff. They would have a high level of drafting experience and would be engaged on short-term contracts of approximately one year's duration to assist with the immediate demand for drafting complex legislation. For the longer term, the ambition is to seek to recruit two additional permanent staff. These staff would receive extensive training as drafters and as a consequence would increase the office's drafting capacity for the medium and longer term. I agree this section is under real pressure to get some of these legislative items out. For instance, I note the Legal Services Regulation Bill is 300 pages in length and, consequently, the pressure on the personnel working there is quite intense. They have measured up in an astounding fashion to date. The business case made to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform is for two additional contract drafters and, for the longer term, for two permanent appointments.
In respect of the contracted staff, does the Taoiseach envisage expanding the use of contracted staff, particularly in the context of legislation that would lead to constitutional referendums, on the basis that a good timeline into referendums genuinely is needed? The last two Bills were very rushed and the results now are evident in the context of the discussion that is under way. In respect of the proposed children's referendum and any Bills that may emanate from the constitutional convention, does the Taoiseach agree there is a case to be made for a separate approach or additional capacity, such as contracting in people, to work specifically on that particular area?
I do. The contract drafters would be expert drafters, who would be given shorter-term contracts of approximately one year to assist with really complex issues in respect of legislation being drafted. The longer-term proposal is to have two further permanent drafters. I might add that the business case also includes an application for two legislative editor positions. A legislative editor is a person who looks for technical errors such as spelling, grammar or formatting errors, as well as the accuracy of cross-referencing and so on. They also will review the text for sense, clarity and logic, as well as providing the drafters with feedback on how well the meaning of a provision has actually been communicated. Legislative editors are on a payscale that is much lower than that for drafters and, consequently, the work they would do would free up the drafters to be able to concentrate more on their specific and particular expertise in the area of complex drafting. As a general rule, any business case like this would seek approval for the filling of any casual vacancies that might arise for one reason or another during the course of a year. The position is that the business case seeks two contract drafters with shorter-term contracts and in the longer term for two permanent positions and two legislative editors at a much lower payscale than the drafters.
To clarify, is the Taoiseach stating that Bills have been delayed because of these capacity constraints? On a related matter, has the Attorney General given the Taoiseach a legal opinion on the British Government's failure to honour the Weston Park agreement for an inquiry into the murder of Belfast human right solicitor, Pat Finucane?
That is a separate question.
The answer to the Deputy's first question is "No". Bills have been produced on time or very close to time, some of which have been quite extensive while others have been extremely complex. As I stated, the House owes great credit to the Attorney General and her staff for working weekend after weekend on Saturdays and Sundays to meet the conditions of timelined legislation that has been required by the EU-IMF-ECB memorandum of understanding. As I stated to Deputy Martin, while the production of legislation in each of the past three years averaged approximately 40 Bills, the requirement in this session because of the pressure is for 30 Bills. As we move through next year, it may become a little less intense in that quite a number of these legislative items will have gone through the Houses.
The Attorney General has not given me, nor have I asked for, her opinion on the Finucane case. The Government's position on this issue has been quite clear. Before the Deputy was elected to this House, the Dáil unanimously approved a motion tabled in my name for an inquiry to be held into the Finucane case. This arose from the clear statement of Judge Peter Cory in which he recommended, following an initial trawl of information about a number of cases, that inquiries should be held. This is the reason the Smithwick inquiry is under way and is the reason the Government will give approval to an extension to that inquiry at the request of Mr. Justice Smithwick. The Government is clear on this position. As the Deputy is aware, the Tánaiste met the Finucane family yesterday. I spoke to the Tánaiste before he travelled to Japan last weekend, I answered questions in the House on this issue and the Government is clear that it is not moving from the position the Dáil has adopted of a requirement for an inquiry in this regard. I do not need advice on this issue from the Attorney General. While I do on many other issues, I am very clear about that.
Interdepartmental Committees
Micheál Martin
Question:2 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he will detail the interdepartmental groups, including Cabinet committees, which his advisers are entitled to attend. [24733/11]
Micheál Martin
Question:3 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the committees he has established or which operate under his control which do not carry the status of a Cabinet committee. [26098/11]
Micheál Martin
Question:4 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he will detail the specific EU co-ordination committees under the administrative control of his Department. [28462/11]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 2 to 4, inclusive, together.
My advisers are not prevented from attending meetings of any interdepartmental groups. My special advisers may attend Cabinet committee meetings in an advisory capacity when required to do so and with my prior approval. Attendance by special advisers is kept to the minimum consistent with the efficient functioning of the committees concerned.
Other than Cabinet committees, the following interdepartmental groups are chaired and supported by my Department, namely, the senior officials' group on social policy, the senior officials' group on health and the senior officials' group on climate change and the green economy. In respect of the economy, my Department chairs and supports the senior officials' group on labour market issues, the senior officials' group on economic recovery and jobs and the senior officials' group on economic infrastructure.
As for European Union co-ordination committees, the senior officials' group on European affairs is chaired by the second Secretary General in my Department with responsibility for European Union co-ordination. The interdepartmental co-ordinating committee on European affairs is chaired by the Minister of State for European affairs and the interdepartmental committee co-ordinating the Presidency is also chaired by that Minister of State.
I thank the Taoiseach for his response. As these three questions in effect relate to three different issues, I will try to take them separately. However, I wish to put an overall point to the Taoiseach. Does he agree it continues to be the case that the new structure of the Taoiseach's office makes it less subject to parliamentary scrutiny now than at any time in its history? The Taoiseach may recall that during the election campaign and in the programme for Government, people were promised a radically smaller Department, which would be like a Cabinet office. Instead, what exists at present is a Department that is exactly the same size as its predecessor, which is taking more control of issues but which has been given the cloak of confidentiality. The economic division, which preceded the economic management council, was subject to parliamentary questions. However, it now is gone and has been superseded by the economic management council, which is shielded from all questions about its work. Will the Taoiseach consider ways to enable Members to table questions in respect of the work of the economic management council?
As for European Union co-ordination, since the European Union unit of the Department of Foreign Affairs was transferred to his Department, the Taoiseach has refused to answer basic questions on matters such as, for example, his role in the 2013 European Union Presidency.
I want to ascertain whether the Taoiseach is in charge of EU policy, given that a large section has moved into the Department.
The position is well known to the Deputy from his experience over the years. The confidentiality of discussions at Cabinet and Cabinet committees is protected by Article 20.4.3°. In light of that, those matters that are discussed there are subject to Cabinet confidentiality. In reality if decisions are taken by the economic management council, they go forward to Government and become Government decisions if they are adopted by the Cabinet and are then available for discussion and question. It is a way of streamlining the activity of Government and Cabinet.
From my perspective, as Taoiseach, I have found that many Cabinet committees were only required to meet once a quarter. I have a very different view about this. I see part of my job being to drive the agenda through the committees to get results and get decisions through by Government, which is what is important. The function of the interdepartmental co-ordinating committee on European affairs, chaired by the Minister of State, Deputy Creighton, is to make arrangements of Ireland's Presidency of the Union for the first half of 2013.
The Deputy will be aware of the changed nature of the role of political leaders arising from the Lisbon treaty whereby Mr. Van Rompuy has a new function in driving the agenda. The nature of the role of European Union leaders has changed in respect of the onus on them during a Presidency. That is not to diminish in any way the decisions that need to be taken or whatever else. The Minister of State, Deputy Creighton, is now chairing the committee in preparation for the 2013 Presidency. The co-ordination of European activities is conducted by the second Secretary General in the Department of the Taoiseach. In so far as the duties and responsibility of the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade are concerned, on European affairs or on a General Affairs Council, she reports to him and conducts the management of the economic management committee. The co-ordination of European issues is also under her control but in the Department of the Taoiseach — in other words, to get a better impact from all the Departments associated with this. From my perspective, it functions very well in that there is a more closely knit group in terms of how one looks at European issues, approaches and get the best impact from all Departments' senior officials and Ministers involved in whatever European issue might be under discussion.
Why will the Taoiseach not answer questions about the EU Presidency? He still transfers even the most basic EU questions to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. It was always the precedent in the House that the Taoiseach would answer questions on his or her role in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The last time we discussed this, the Taoiseach said it might be down to the wording of the questions and he suggested a wording. We put in the wording he suggested and it still got transferred. I believe there is a tactic with someone in the Taoiseach's office or elsewhere trying to shut down the areas on which we can question the Taoiseach. It is shutting down and restricting the role of Parliament as a forum to ask the Taoiseach basic and fundamental questions about his role in the EU, particularly the preparation for the EU Presidency, on which he should be willing to answer to the House during questions to the Taoiseach. I have noticed an ongoing pattern of consistently restricting the area on which we can ask the Taoiseach questions.
As the Deputy is aware we introduced a change whereby before Council meetings and before Heads of Government meetings, there is a debate in the Dáil, giving people the opportunity, as they had last week, and again when the meetings are over.
The co-ordination of European matters rests in the Department of the Taoiseach and is conducted by the recently appointed second Secretary General. The Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has responsibility for the GAC and works with the Minister of State in respect of those meetings. In so far as the 2013 Presidency is concerned — assuming that the Lord spares us — obviously the duties of the Leader of Government are set out in the changed context of the Lisbon treaty in what leaders have to do during a Presidency. It still places a great onus on all Ministers as the Deputy is aware given his experience of a Presidency, which, in the way it was constructed, demanded more time and meetings from every Minister of the Government of which the Deputy was a member.
The Minister of State is chairing the preparations for the Presidency. In so far as asking questions about the responsibilities that will belong to the Taoiseach during that Presidency in the first half of 2013, I do not have any difficulty in attempting to define what they are for the Deputy at this stage. I may be able to help him in terms of particular issues he wants answered by the Department of the Taoiseach or myself in so far as Europe is concerned, but they need to be within those categories. The Tánaiste has specific responsibility in this regard as has the Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs. As Taoiseach in charge of the overall co-ordination of European issues, I obviously have responsibility there and will have when the Presidency comes around in 2013. I might be able to help the Deputy there.
The Taoiseach is the Leader of the Government and one would expect he would want to put his stamp on an EU Presidency in terms of the themes of the Presidency and what he wants the Presidency to be about, albeit in changed circumstances administratively and co-ordination wise. They are issues that fall due to be discussed in a session such as this and to facilitate questions to inform that.
I do not have any difficulty with having a discussion at the appropriate time here in the House.
I should be allowed to table questions.
I do not mind. As business goes through, it may be Ireland's lot to have to decide finally on Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, reform, which will be of significant interest to the Irish agricultural sector and pose a range of difficulties in areas such as single farm payments, climate change, emissions etc. As the business moves through and as there is a failure to agree on serious business ends, these may well pile up and require to be dealt with during the Irish Presidency. Perhaps we can discuss those in the next round of questions on Europe. I would be happy to give the Deputy a clearer perspective on what might——
Why are questions to the Taoiseach always transferred to other Departments?
The Deputy should put it down to me as Taoiseach.
However, they are being transferred every time we do it.
I have defined the responsibilities of the Tánaiste, the Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs and me, as Taoiseach, overseeing the overall co-ordination of European issues. I do that to have a tighter and more cohesive approach to European issues so that it is not scattered across Departments. They are all called together in the Department of the Taoiseach to give a better impact in terms of the focus on whatever the issue might be. In so far as the Presidency is concerned I would be happy to give the Deputy a best shot at what might fall due to be decided during the Irish Presidency in 2013.
EU Summits
Richard Boyd Barrett
Question:5 Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the meeting of the Eastern Partnership in Warsaw; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27356/11]
Gerry Adams
Question:6 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the Eastern Partnership meeting in Warsaw. [27366/11]
Micheál Martin
Question:7 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the policies in relation to the European Union’s Eastern Partnership and Neighbourhood Policy which he proposed at recent EU meetings. [28453/11]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 5 to 7, inclusive, together.
On foot of an official invitation by the President of the European Council, Mr. Herman Van Rompuy, and by the Prime Minister of the Republic of Poland, Mr. Tusk, I attended the Eastern Partnership Summit in Warsaw on Thursday and Friday, 29 and 30 September. The Eastern Partnership initiative aims to enhance economic and political relations between the European Union and six neighbouring partners to the east — Ukraine, Moldova, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia and Belarus. On Thursday evening I attended a working dinner for the heads of delegations where we discussed the future prospects for relations between the EU and its eastern partners.
I participated in the plenary session on Friday morning, intervening in the discussions on economic integration and trade. I welcomed the fact that the Eastern Partnership is preparing for new association agreements between the EU and the six eastern partners. Deeper engagement and gradual integration in the EU economy will require a high degree of commitment to complex and broad-ranging reforms from our eastern partners, and we appreciate that this presents them with enormous challenges.
I also used the opportunity to outline Ireland's approach to its upcoming chairmanship in the office of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, which starts in January 2012.
On the margins of the summit I met a number of my counterparts from the European Union. I had bilateral meetings with Prime Minister Mark Rutte of the Netherlands, Chancellor Faymann of Austria and Prime Minister Jyrki Katainen of Finland. I also spoke informally with several other EU leaders. Our discussions focused on financial stability in the eurozone and prospects for economic growth. I briefed them on the decisive action that the Government was taking to address our financial and economic situation and the progress being made to deliver in full and on time on the commitments set out in Ireland's EU-IMF programme.
I also had bilateral meetings with certain eastern partner countries. I met President Yanukovych of the Ukraine, Prime Minister Vlad Filat of Moldova and President Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia. I referred to Ireland having declared its candidature for a seat on the UN Human Rights Council and said we would be very grateful for support from our eastern partners in securing this position. We discussed regional issues, including the progress made in the Geneva talks relating to the territorial integrity of Georgia. I said Ireland would be nominating a special representative to the southern Caucasus for the duration of our chairmanship of the OSCE who would participate in the Geneva talks. We also discussed the regional issue of Transnistria and I gave assurances that Ireland would pay close attention to this issue during our OSCE chairmanship.
Following the summit I attended an Irish business community reception at the Irish Embassy to demonstrate my strong support for the Irish business community in Poland and to emphasise the shared objective of restoring a strong and sustainable economy to Ireland.
Given the deteriorating situation in the eurozone, did any of the leaders of the eastern European states and other EU member states have any questions for the Taoiseach on the policy of continued austerity and bailing out banks, the detrimental effect this was having on growth in the European economy and how it might affect them? Did the Taoiseach have any discussions with the leaders of the eastern European states about the impact of the sale of State assets? These countries would be very familiar with the process of rapid disposal of state assets. The Taoiseach may be aware that this is something which led to the massive enrichment of a tiny minority of oligarchs in eastern Europe who gained control of these assets but which has led to major job losses for working people in these eastern European states. Did their leaders have anything useful to say about the experience of the wholesale privatisation of state assets and the effect this had had on society and the economies of these states?
Yes, they did have questions for me. They were related to the reasons the reputation of the country had changed so radically in six months. The leaders of the eastern European states wanted to know how the Government could work with people in making difficult decisions that pointed in the right direction in getting the country back on a trajectory towards prosperity, where jobs could be created and we could again be in charge of our economic destiny. They were well aware of the changed attitude in business and politics here and the international economic commentary on Ireland. I pointed out on a couple of occasions that owing to the troika deal, there was a requirement that we raise certain moneys from the sale of State assets and they understood this.
They focused on the fact that Ireland would hold the chairmanship of the OSCE for a calendar year, with the Tánaiste performing this role. It may well be that one of the regional conflicts constantly on the brink of war — the conflict in Transnistria — will be sorted out during that period. I cannot confirm this, but it would provide a great boost. They understood, given that we had a desperate situation in the North for 30 years but which resulted in peace through the Good Friday Agreement, that the Irish chairman of the OSCE would understand that conflict and how a resolution could be brought about.
President Yanukovych gave a dissertation on the pending trial of Yulia Tymoshenko. We heard about the focus of Georgia being on its territorial integrity. There were strong reactions to the human rights issues arising in Belarus, on which the entire meeting took a strong view. They asked how and why Ireland was able to make progress in the midst of global economic turmoil and looked forward to the Tánaiste chairing the OSCE in 2012.
I notice references in the declaration to the human rights situation in Belarus, the deteriorating position on media freedom and the call for the immediate release and rehabilitation of political prisoners. Why did the declaration make no mention of the human rights situation in Ukraine? As the Taoiseach is aware, the former Prime Minister was recently convicted and sentenced to seven years in prison in what the European Union has described as a political trial.
This is a matter of concern to people in the European Union. Former Prime Minister Tymoshenko attended quite a number of meetings of the European People's Party which I also attended and she made her case in respect of the difficulties being encountered in her country at the time. For his part, President Yanukovych said he had decriminalised a range of issues on the basis that the former Prime Minister might not face a jail sentence. He gave briefings to other leaders on what the problem was from his perspective. The European Union has made a strong case that if there is an appeal against the seven year jail sentence handed down to the former Prime Minister, it should clearly be seen to be conducted in an entirely independent and fair manner. I support that view very strongly.
Did the Taoiseach table any particular proposals or ideas for the meeting of the eastern partnership? Did he raise the issue of what most observers would see as the political show trial of former Prime Minister Tymoshenko? There is a difficulty in progressing with the eastern partnership if regimes, either in Belarus or Ukraine, continue with practices that are not acceptable to the democratic norms to which we adhere in the European Union. Some steel needs to be shown in this relationship.
As the Minister who brought the proposal to chair the OSCE to the Cabinet, can the Taoiseach assure us that the resources will be made available to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to chair this prestigious forum adequately in 2012?
In the bilateral meetings between the Taoiseach and the Prime Ministers of Austria, the Netherlands and Finland on the margins of the meeting, did he talk to them about the emerging proposals concerning bondholders, in particular the Greek sovereign bondholders who are likely to lose up to 50% of their money? There will be widespread recapitalisation of European banks, following on from the sovereign debt default in Greece. This is a very important opportunity for Ireland because the two consistent roadblocks to burning the bondholders in Irish banks will now be removed. We were told all along that sovereign debt default, bank recapitalisation and contagion would be the key issues for us. We are now on the cusp of a major opportunity, perhaps the first and only one for Ireland, to force bank bondholders to share the burden. Did the Taoiseach tease that out with the Dutch, Finnish and Austrian Prime Ministers? If so, what response did he get from them as regards Ireland having an opportunity — particularly in terms of Anglo Irish Bank — to burn those bond holders?
In respect of the meeting with President Yanukovych, we discussed the fact that the ongoing negotiations with the DCFTA could be concluded in time for the EU-Ukraine summit in December. He looked forward to the development of trade links between both countries and he mentioned the important contribution that the Ukrainian community makes here in Ireland. He also said he was confident that compromises would be reached shortly on the small number of outstanding bilateral issues between Germany, France, Italy and Spain.
He recognised that the case of the former Prime Minister, Yulia Tymoshenko, was an obstacle to completion of negotiations with the EU. He said that the action against Ms Tymoshenko was not a political trial — he insisted on that — and that it had not been initiated by his current government. He said the matter was very complicated; it has dragged on for a while and would now have to be brought to a conclusion. He also said he had decriminalised certain matters. We talked about that for a while and it was part of the EU's response that if there is an appeal it should be conducted in an entirely independent manner and be seen as such.
I also had discussions with representatives of the Netherlands, Austria and Finland. In respect of each of those, we talked about the difficulties facing the eurozone. As we speak, discussions are going on in preparation for the Heads of Government meeting on Sunday. The Deputy will be aware that ministers for finance will meet on Friday and Saturday. It is hoped that the major issues under discussion can be decided in a way that brings some certainty for the future. I discussed this with Prime Minister Rutte of the Netherlands. I outlined for him our concerns in that Ireland was seen to be a country making progress with confidence towards dealing with our problems. The Dutch have a particular view in respect of discipline and fiscal regimes being able to adhere to their commitments. Prime Minister Rutte has a strong view about that which he has articulated at several meetings.
In respect of the meeting I had with Austrian Chancellor Faymann, we discussed the question of a financial transaction tax. I made the point that this could not apply in sporadic areas and that one could not have a situation where such a tax applied in Ireland but not in London, or vice versa. The Minister for Finance has already pointed that out. We also discussed the EU-IMF programme, growth prospects, economic governance and his rejection of treaty change.
I also met Prime Minister Katainen of Finland who mentioned the collateral issue raised by his country, which has since been resolved. He believes there should be a competitiveness index for Europe because many countries have very different competitive rates. As a AAA country, looking at its projected growth figures for next year, it is concerned that Europe would do much better if it had a competitiveness index. I pointed out to him that our Competition Authority reports every year. In many cases the competitiveness report was not acted upon, although it contained some very good suggestions. We discussed the fact that Ireland's competitiveness has improved. Obviously, the collateral issue has been resolved. Mr. Katainen referred to the need to avoid bailout fatigue in Finland. He also said he was inviting speakers from abroad to address issues of EU governance on a public platform in Finland. He invited me to attend in Helsinki sometime towards the end of spring 2012. If we can do that, there might be other opportunities for a number of other areas to be discussed.
Mr. Katainen agreed that it would be difficult to envisage a treaty change at this juncture. There is a crisis here that needs to be dealt with now by using the full flexibility of what was agreed on 21 July. He did not rule out treaty changes sometime in the future but making a comment like that now is not a solution to the current problem. I hope that when we get to Sunday, following the finance ministers' meeting on Friday and Saturday, this can actually be achieved.
Did the Taoiseach discuss the bondholders?
It was not mentioned in any great detail.
In discussing Ireland's economic and financial situation, the Taoiseach made much of Ireland's improved reputation but that was not really the question I asked. One cannot eat reputation and it does not provide jobs or services. I asked whether various leaders at the conference recognised that there is a major problem in terms of the impact of austerity strangling economic growth in the eurozone. That will have an impact on human beings who hope to get jobs and hope that they will not lose their homes. They also hope for some way out of the current economic crisis.
Although the Taoiseach did not respond, I further asked whether he learned anything useful about the rapid process of the disposal of State assets and the sale of natural resources in eastern European states. As I understand it, the result of that process was the creation of a tiny coterie of multi-billionaire oligarchs who now preside over those formerly State-owned assets. Meanwhile, the people who worked for those State enterprises now face high levels of unemployment and social misery as a result of the privatisation process in those states. Did the Taoiseach learn anything useful that might be beneficial to us, given the demands of the Troika to sell State assets here in a similar way?
I learned quite a number of things from the meetings I held. One was that people look at this country in terms of its reputation being changed. The Deputy might say that does not create jobs but it creates a sense of confidence, solidarity and progress. It all leads to an understanding that where a country acts on the decisions taken by the European Union and is able to comply with the conditions, it can and does make progress. I recognise that many people here have difficulties, anxieties and concerns. The problems the Government and our country face will not go away unless somebody does something about them. In many cases, countries in eastern Europe and members of the EU have taken really difficult decisions. They are in a very different position from Ireland, the most extreme case being that of Greece.
The Deputy can take it that we have no intention of setting up multi-billion euro oligarchies out in Dún Laoghaire or places like that.
We did it with Denis O'Brien and Eircom, did we not?
Under the IMF-EU deal, the Government is required to raise €2 billion in the programme for Government from the sale of State assets at an appropriate time. For that purpose the Government has set up the NewERA facility in the NTMA, which will determine the economic impact, as well as evaluating it and reporting to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform and to the Minister. In due course, if the Government sees fit, it will make a decision about the sale of a State asset, or part of a State asset, in the best interests of the people and of the country. We have no intention of having a swift sale of State assets that creates "multi-billionaire oligarchs", as the Deputy calls them, in the country.
It was done before.
I am somewhat surprised by the response on the discussions with the Prime Ministers of The Netherlands, Austria and Finland on the most fundamental issue facing the world, the future of the euro. This is bound up with the Greek default that is on the cards and the likelihood of sovereign bondholders losing up to 50% of their money. Are we bringing any proposals to the table at all? Are we outlining to the Prime Ministers Ireland's demands that we believe should be met in the context of a Greek default and the recapitalisation of French and German banks, which is likely to happen subsequent to a Greek default? Should Ireland not now seek the opportunity to do so in respect of bank bondholders? An opportunity has been created that did not exist heretofore. There is a new set of circumstances. Surely we should put this to the leaders of Europe. The Taoiseach should have put this to the Dutch, Austrian and other Prime Ministers. At bilateral talks, we should push our agenda to them in respect of the debt position.
I agree with the Taoiseach's statement to President Barroso that we do not envisage sovereign default in Ireland. We certainly do not but there are opportunities in respect of bank bondholders, and so on, that present themselves in the context of the Greek circumstances. I am surprised this was not discussed substantively at all with the three European Prime Ministers whom the Taoiseach met.
That is a very detailed question.
I outlined the issues we discussed, including governance, restructuring, recapitalisation and the crisis within the eurozone. They were discussed with all three Prime Ministers. What we undertook at the negotiation table at Minister for Finance level was a phased renegotiation of the memorandum of understanding and the agreement we found on entering government. This has been done in phases in terms of the jobs initiative and the changed reflection of the troika in respect of issues such as the minimum wage. Following this were discussions about interest rate reductions.
What we really want is to be able to prove that the decisions taken this weekend will be fair across the board. We want every opportunity to reduce the debt burden on Ireland reflected and encouraged by the European Union and eurozone in decisions made here. One does not want decisions that produce future problems for Ireland. They should apply across the board.
We have made representations constantly in the case of the opportunities that exist for a reduction of the debt burden on Ireland, and we will continue to do so. Some of the issues may well arise on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. The Deputy can take it from me that, in so far as Ireland is concerned, we will contribute cohesively and comprehensively to the discussions. I do not want to lose an opportunity to reduce the debt burden.
The discussions will——
The Greek crisis drove the interest rate——
——centre on the Greek crisis, restructuring, recapitalisation, continued governance, and so on. We are central to this process. When I met President Barroso last week, he made the point that Ireland should and will speak from a position of having a bailout arrangement that involves its having moved away from Greece entirely towards a point where it is making progress, albeit with a very long way to go. Clearly, Ireland is required to move the agenda constantly for Irish debt reduction, such that it will be more advantageous for it to move out of its bailout arrangement and enter the bond markets itself and be in charge of its economic destiny. These points are all part of the central agenda.
I cannot give the Deputy an up-to-date account of what is happening between the major players but papers are being discussed as we speak. Over the next day or two, we will be kept fully informed and make our best assessment as to what we must do at the meetings of the Ministers for Finance on Friday and Saturday and of other leaders on Sunday. We will not be found wanting in terms of opportunities to state the case of Ireland and Europe where we see it moving ahead of the curve and where there is ability to deal with responses from markets. The meeting was postponed last week to allow more time for the progress that is being made in these major areas. We will discuss these when we come back next week.
European Council Meetings
Richard Boyd Barrett
Question:8 Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the agenda for the forthcoming European Council meeting on 23 October 2011; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27357/11]
Richard Boyd Barrett
Question:9 Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach the issues he intends to raise at the next European Council meeting; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27358/11]
Richard Boyd Barrett
Question:10 Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if he will hold a bilateral meeting with the Greek Prime Minister at the forthcoming European Council meeting on 23 October 2011; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27359/11]
Gerry Adams
Question:11 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach the issues that he will prioritise at the European Council meeting on 23 October 2011. [27365/11]
Micheál Martin
Question:12 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he has tabled any items for inclusion on the agenda of the forthcoming EU Council meeting. [28454/11]
Micheál Martin
Question:13 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he will detail any discussions which he intends holding with EU leaders in advance of the next European Council meeting. [28455/11]
Gerry Adams
Question:14 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach the bilateral meetings or contacts he plans to have with other EU leaders in advance of the next meeting of the European Council. [28548/11]
Gerry Adams
Question:15 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if the process of creating a new integrated European affairs division with his Department has been completed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29512/11]
Gerry Adams
Question:16 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting with the President of European Commission, Mr. José Manuel Barroso. [29604/11]
Joe Higgins
Question:17 Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his planned meeting with the President of the European Commission. [29813/11]
Joe Higgins
Question:18 Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the postponement of the European Council summit originally scheduled for 17 and 18 October 2011. [29815/11]
Richard Boyd Barrett
Question:19 Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with Mr. José Manuel Barroso in Brussels; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29881/11]
Richard Boyd Barrett
Question:20 Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if Mr José Manuel Barroso indicated the need to change the European treaties in relation to economic governance; if a referendum on these changes may be necessary; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29882/11]
Richard Boyd Barrett
Question:21 Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the decision by European Council President, Mr. Herman Van Rompuy, to postpone the EU summit on the debt crisis; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29883/11]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 8 to 21, inclusive, together.
As I informed the House in my statement last week, the European Council meeting originally scheduled to meet on 17 October will now be held this Sunday, 23 October. This arrangement has provided extra time in which to finalise a comprehensive strategy on the economic crisis facing the euro area.
In practice, there will be two meetings on Sunday, a meeting of the European Council and, following that, a meeting of the Heads of State or Government of the euro area. The draft annotated agenda for the European Council includes discussions on economic policy, including external aspects; preparations for the G20 Summit in Cannes; and climate change ahead of the Durban conference.
On economic policy, I will emphasise growth and jobs and what the European Union, together with the member states, can do to stimulate these, including through implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy. We will seek to identify a number of priority areas that can be expected to boost sustainable growth in the short term. I will seek to make this aspect as specific as possible, with priority given to measures that can make the most significant impact. Completion of the Single Market, including the digital dimension, has great potential in this regard.
We need to ensure that, in its external relations, the EU focuses more on improving its trade performance and attracting inward investment as part of its drive to create new jobs. We need to attach renewed priority to bilateral and regional trade agreements, given that the prize of completing the Doha round remains elusive. As a small, open trading economy, this is critical for Ireland.
More broadly, I expect that we will take stock of progress made in strengthening economic governance, and of recent economic developments in the euro area. We have completed the first phase of the new "European semester" cycle and it is now for the member states to implement the country-specific recommendations made to them.
As already noted, I will also attend the meeting of the Heads of State or Government of the euro area. Between the two meetings, the expectation is that we will bring forward a comprehensive package to address five key areas: the situation in Greece, with particular focus on the sustainability of its debt; preventing contagion to other member states, especially those that are in a programme, including Ireland; addressing any weakness in Europe's banks, bearing in mind that Irish banks have already been tested to very high standards, as the House will be aware; ensuring that we create the right context for growth and job creation; and ensuring we have the right arrangements in place to enhance economic co-ordination, especially in the euro area.
Last week, the European Commission published its contribution to the debate and important contributions from President Van Rompuy and from other member states, including France and Germany, are awaited. I expect that, in his proposals, President Van Rompuy will focus on how to improve our working methods and enhance crisis management in the euro area. While we have yet to see his proposals, I anticipate they will focus on what can be achieved in the short term in addition to looking to possible action in the medium to longer term. These proposals will need to strike a delicate balance.
While I have no formal bilateral meeting planned with Prime Minister Papandreou, I will see him at the European Council. I met the President of the Commission, Mr. José Manuel Barroso, in Brussels last Thursday. Discussions focused on what needs to be done to address the economic crisis in a comprehensive, balanced and credible way, including in identifying means to generate jobs and growth. At the meeting I outlined Ireland's enduring support for the "Community method" and the special role of the European Commission, and also Ireland's strong support for measures that make a contribution to the growth and jobs agenda.
A new integrated European affairs division has been established within my Department. This involved the transfer on 3 October of 19 whole-time equivalent staff from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade who now work alongside existing staff from my Department in the new, integrated EU division. This new division supports me in my membership of the EU Council and supports the Tánaiste in his responsibility for overall co-ordination of European policy, including his membership of the General Affairs and External Relations Council. It secures more strategic, effective direction and co-ordination throughout Government in all matters related to the European Union.
Is the Taoiseach not going to tell our European partners that their strategy for dealing with the financial and economic crisis is in absolute tatters and that it is a disaster which is strangling economic growth as well as causing great suffering for people throughout Europe? Even on its own terms it is strangling economic growth and threatens to tip the European economy into recession. No matter how much they inflict the poison of austerity the situation gets worse, becomes deeper and spreads the contagion. Will the Taoiseach not tell them this? Will he not pose serious questions about what a disastrous failure the policy of bailing out the banks and imposing austerity has been for Greece and threatens to be for the rest of Europe? This has happened in a situation where Greek bondholders will be burnt to the tune of 50% now and, despite not imposing all the austerity demanded by the troika, the Greeks still got their €8 billion. Will the Taoiseach not question President Van Rompuy and the European authorities about their insistence that there should be no burning of Irish bondholders and that we should benefit in no way from the plans to burn bondholders in Greece? As a consequence, the Taoiseach's strategy of being the best boy in the class in Europe has failed disastrously.
Thank you Deputy. This is Question Time.
We should have done what the Greeks did and resisted austerity because that way we might have got to burn the bondholders and we might have got the money without inflicting the brutal austerity the Taoiseach has been so enthusiastic to inflict.
That is complete rubbish. Deputy Boyd Barrett gets up here week after week and seems to assert that this country can be equated with the situation in Greece.
The facts are coming in.
They are two different countries in two different places with two different levels of debt.
Our debt is larger in proportionate terms.
I pointed out to Deputy Boyd Barrett that the bailout situation the Government inherited has had to be renegotiated on a phased basis as stated in the programme for Government. The Minister for Finance will contribute to the ECOFIN meeting on Friday and Saturday and I will do the same at the leaders' meetings of the EU and the eurozone on Sunday. We will focus on explaining the progress made here in all these meetings and we will make every effort at every opportunity to take whatever opportunity will result in the level of debt burden on this country being reduced.
Europe is looking for some success and, as Deputy Boyd Barrett is aware, the ground has shifted on many occasions. This is the reason for the meetings on Friday and Saturday and the Heads of Government meeting on Sunday. I hope the issues I have outlined, the five major issues under discussion, will be prepared, debated and decided upon on Sunday and that this will bring about some sense of conclusion to the situation with some confidence.
It will not be easy. There are different opinions across the spectrum but we are in a situation where we are fully funded to the end of 2013. Deputy Boyd Barrett and the people here can be assured we will take every opportunity to explain the opportunities that exist for a lessening of the burden of debt on our people. At the same time we will explain that we want to pay our way and we will pay our way as we have always done. It is naïve in the extreme for Deputy Boyd Barrett to stand here and equate this country with Greece.
They get to burn the bondholders; we do not. They stood up for themselves.
It smacks of Deputy Boyd Barrett seeking to go back to his old agenda of more and more protests.
Other Deputies wish to ask questions. I call Deputy McDonald to be followed by Deputy Martin.
The Taoiseach is being disingenuous because he knows full well the point made is that the issue of debt restructuring and write-down in respect of Greece has been conceded. In light of this how is it the Taoiseach does not pursue the matter of private bank debt and the huge burden it is inflicting on citizens? People have always paid their way and I and others do not appreciate the inference, made several times by the Taoiseach in the House, that there is some cheap skate mentality among the public. Why does the Taoiseach not put it on the agenda? The Taoiseach is proposing to hand over €700 million in non-guaranteed bonds to Anglo Irish Bank in 14 days time. Why is the Taoiseach doing this? Why is he not pursuing this argument at European level?
Last Sunday, Jean-Claude Trichet indicated that he favoured treaty change so the EU could impose its economic policies on member states. Will the Taoiseach tell the House and the meeting that Ireland does not favour this and that Ireland will resist it? Equally, will the Taoiseach tell the House whether he supports the moves to centralise fiscal powers at EU level?
Will the Taoiseach be specific in respect of the response to the questions I have put, especially the items he has tabled for inclusion in the agenda of the forthcoming EU Council meeting? Let us be clear: from the outset of the overall global crisis the Greek crisis has been the catalyst for changing the architecture for how Europe deals with countries in difficulty. It was largely responsible for the July deal and the reduction in interest rates. Now we have another opportunity because the Greek crisis is driving fundamental change again. We are facing a Greek default and significant bank recapitalisation throughout Europe. We were informed that if we went unilaterally and burned bank bondholders we would risk sovereign default and contagion. That is now removed and the road blocks will be removed next week.
Has the Taoiseach specifically put this item on the agenda of the summit to force bank bondholders to share the burden from an Irish perspective? Has the Taoiseach insisted that any deal must incorporate the concerns of Ireland in this regard and that our agreement to any deal must be on the basis of our getting an outcome on the burning of bondholders in the context of the Greek issue? Has the Taoiseach rung his close friend Chancellor Merkel about this and put it to her, given the profound nature of the debate to take place? I accept it will be a serious and grave meeting over the weekend but it is an opportunity for us. Will the Taoiseach answer the question of whether he has specifically put on the agenda that Ireland seeks such a deal?
One issue that has arisen at Heads of Government meetings and that is recognised by the President of the Commission is that the Ministers for Finance should be given the opportunity to carry through their responsibilities. I outline for Deputy Martin the five issues I have mentioned: the situation in Greece, preventing contagion, addressing weaknesses in Europe's banks, the opportunity for growth and jobs and the making of arrangements to enhance economic co-ordination in the eurozone. These five issues were tabled by the Minister for Finance at the ECOFIN meeting and made their way, although not exactly as he proposed them, onto the agenda for the Heads of Government meeting.
Those are the five issues.
It is not the first time that Ireland has had the agenda structured this way.
Is the Taoiseach saying we put Greece on the agenda?
I am not suggesting that Ireland——
We are way over time. There is an answer to your question.
This is a serious matter. I do not suggest that Ireland was the only country to put Greece on the agenda when everyone else was discussing it. Contagion is on the agenda as a specific issue.
I did not ring Chancellor Merkel because I will go to Germany in November and I understand a date is fixed for the meeting.
The summit is on Sunday.
I understand that. Deputy Martin should know that the issue of contagion is there because the European Union and the eurozone want to prevent contagion spreading from Greece. Surrounding that element of the debate, all the issues the Deputy raises — debt write-downs, the sustainability of debt, restructuring and recapitalisation — come into the discussion. This is a central issue.
Deputy McDonald asked me about another element. As has been pointed out, we have consistently pushed the agenda of a reduction in the cost of the promissory note in respect of Anglo Irish Bank. If agreement could be reached on that issue, it would yield substantial savings to the taxpayer which would be far in excess of a write-down of debt for bondholders remaining in Anglo Irish Bank. As we pointed out, such a write-down would achieve savings in the order of €100 million, whereas many times that figure would be saved if agreement could be reached on a reduction in the cost of the promissory note. Central to this, the question of contagion has been raised by Ireland, with many other issues.
Will the Taoiseach ask for bondholders to be burned?
We will ask for every opportunity to reduce the debt burden on the people.
The Taoiseach did not answer my question.
I did not call Chancellor Merkel on this occasion to ask her that question.
Did the Taoiseach ask for the bondholders to be burned?
No, I have not asked that question specifically because the comprehensive discussion on the question of contagion will deal with it.
Will the Taoiseach ask the question?
I will ask for every opportunity to keep down the cost of our debt burden.
Please do not switch on the microphones unless I ask that they be switched on. The matter Deputy Martin raised was dealt with.
No, it was not.
Written Answers follow Adjournment.