Vol. 747 No. 3
1 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the way the commitment in the programme for Government of making Ireland a leading player in the global carbon market and a centre of excellence in the management of carbon can be achieved; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34010/11]
Before proceeding to answer the question, I wish to make a point of clarification for Deputy Martin and the House. Primary responsibility for questions relating to carbon at a sectoral level are matters for the Ministers concerned. My Department's sole area of responsibility relates specifically to an initiative in the green finance area tasked by the IFSC clearing house group, which is chaired by my Department.
In that regard the position is as follows: the programme for Government states that "Ireland will be developed as a centre of excellence in green finance and carbon management, through the creation of an enabling, co-ordinated and supportive environment".
The green IFSC initiative emerged from a workshop on the future of the IFSC, chaired by the Department of the Taoiseach in February 2009. In November 2009, the Government's high level action group on green enterprise welcomed the establishment of a sub-group — the Green IFSC Steering Group — and the work being carried out in examining green finance opportunities.
Earlier this year, members of the Green IFSC Steering Group were tasked with developing a detailed business plan for the delivery of an initiative to secure a leading position for Ireland as the world moves towards a low carbon global economy. This initiative seeks to build upon the reputation of the IFSC as a leading global financial centre and to develop Dublin as a global hub for green finance.
In July this year, I launched a new strategy for the international financial services industry in Ireland 2011-2016. In the opportunities for growth section of the strategy the potential of green financial services is clearly outlined.
A feasibility study was carried out under the auspices of the IFSC clearing house group in 2010. The goal of the feasibility study was to determine the scale and shape of the green finance opportunity and to determine whether the concept has sufficient potential and substance to be launched as an initiative within the overall framework of the smart-green economy.
The study found that an opportunity does exist for Ireland and its financial services industry to play a role in the further development of a vibrant domestic and international green economy sector. The most promising opportunities involve the development of Ireland as a centre of excellence in green finance, a centre of excellence in the management of carbon and, finally, the creation of an enabling, co-ordinated and supportive eco-system to facilitate this development.
Activity elements therefore include banking, project finance, treasury, asset management, fund services, insurance-reinsurance, carbon markets management, venture capital, private equity, regional HQ activities — including financing and holding company activities — intellectual property, third level education and R&D activities.
There are significant factors beyond Ireland's control that will impact upon the development of international carbon markets in the future. In particular, there is uncertainty around a successor to the international treaty on climate change, the Kyoto protocol. A new treaty which binds developed countries to ambitious climate change mitigation targets, would be a key driver of carbon markets.
Notwithstanding this uncertainty, considerable opportunities do exist in the wider area of green financial services and will continue to grow as the interest in and take-up of green financial products expand more generally, and as new green financial products are developed.
A marketing and business plan, including the proposed establishment of a Government-supported carbon markets initiative, is currently being reviewed by an independent cross-departmental evaluation group which has been established to review the proposals contained in the report entitled Global Green Interchange — Carbon Markets and Green Finance (Securing Ireland's Competitive Advantage in the Transition to a Global Low-Carbon Economy). I expect the evaluation group to report back to the clearing house group in the near future.
I would like to award an A-plus to the composer of that reply because there is a lot in it. Any analysis of the IFSC would indicate that in order to maintain the enormous progress that has been made over the last 20 years, and to consolidate and expand the activities at the IFSC, higher level activities need to be introduced in addition to diversification. The green IFSC was a proposal initiated under the last Government, as the Taoiseach outlined, to try to give added dimension and value to the activities there. With the job losses in Aviva and a fear that there can be a degree of migration of certain jobs from the IFSC in future, there is a need to bring different functions that can bring different jobs to the IFSC. In the context of the green IFSC, have any specific recommendations emerged from the feasibility study, which Government could implement and provide for either in the context of the forthcoming budget or in the context of developing the reality of a green IFSC on the ground?
It is my understanding that the Cabinet sub-committee on climate change has not been re-established by the new Government. Therefore, there is no Cabinet sub-committee on climate change, as such. Can the Taoiseach confirm that? If that is the case, I ask him to reconsider the establishment of such a sub-committee because climate change is a fundamental issue that will continue to affect the world, including Ireland. The importance of the Cabinet sub-committee on climate change is that there is an interdepartmental approach to it. One can have various sectors contributing to that process, so that everybody has a clear understanding of the challenges that lie ahead. The fact there is no longer a Cabinet sub-committee acting on climate change, and Minister Hogan's decision not to proceed along sectoral lines in terms of climate change, all adds up to a certain disregard for the issue itself. No matter how much certain politicians might think so, it will not go away. I get a sense from the current Government that it is not taking the issue of climate change seriously enough.
I remind Deputies that this is Question Time, so I would appreciate it if they could confine their remarks to questions as distinct from statements.
I can confirm for Deputy Martin that the Cabinet sub-committee on climate change did meet on 30 June. It was to meet on 19 October but for a number of reasons that could not happen. As Deputy Martin is aware, green finance refers to capital markets, investment banking activities and related advisory services that support the development, financing and promotion of a low-carbon economy. The group to which I referred has not reported back yet. The value of carbon as a pricing mechanism for the activity of renewable energy generation and energy efficiency and, in the wider context, water, waste and weather management is an issue which is at the core of green finance. The Green IFSC Steering Group has identified that central role in carbon markets as being pivotal to the success of the initiative. The IFSC is part of the IDA Ireland International financial services portfolio, which comprises about 150 global companies with a range of activities employing over 20,000 people. I can assure the Deputy that vigilance is being kept in this regard. The clearing house group dealing with the IFSC and green finance is chaired by the Secretary General of my Department. The first meeting of that group is due to take place shortly.
The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Hogan, has direct responsibility for climate change in a broader sense. He has made it clear that he wants to meet the Kyoto targets. We will do so. There must also be a rational and pragmatic discussion about policy change before committing to legislation that would come from such a debate in which everybody can participate.
Has there been a specific recommendation from the feasibility group on the green Irish Financial Services Centre, IFSC?
The group has not reported yet.
I thought the Taoiseach had said the feasibility group had reported.
It is due to report shortly.
In all seriousness, does the Taoiseach not see the glaring contradiction between wanting genuine and effective action to reduce pollution — if we take carbon as pollution — on the planet but relying on wild speculation in pollution credits on the world's financial markets as a method of achievement? Does the Taoiseach agree that his own programme for Government and the words he just used indicating that Ireland would become a centre of excellence in the management of carbon, or pollution, and that Ireland would become a leading player in the global pollution market are two diametrically opposed ideas? They are mutually exclusive. Does the Taoiseach find it incredible that carbon credits — or the licence to pollute — are the subject of massive speculation by hedge funds and other sharks in the financial markets? It is beyond belief that the same institutions, made up of sharks and charlatans, which brought the economies of the West to destruction over the past three years as a result of wild financial gambling, are entrusted with this method allegedly to reduce pollution?
Is the Taoiseach aware that in the European Union, reports have indicated that carbon trading has been a dismal failure in reducing pollution and carbon credits are grossly oversupplied, allowing polluters to purchase them cheaply and to continue polluting? The price paid by the consumers has the cost of the credit included. Is the Taoiseach aware that in the European Union there has been massive fraud in pollution credits speculation, as European taxpayers have been swindled out of billions of euro by fraudsters in this so-called market? Will the Taoiseach change the policy, going with his first path of excellence in reducing pollution and environmental management? He should not pursue the mad methods of the markets.
I indicated to the Deputy that the initiative seeks to build upon the reputation of the IFSC as a leading global financial centre, developing Dublin as a global hub for green finance. I outlined the areas where green finance would be of importance and priority. The national policy has been laid out since 2000 and 2007, with the most recent strategy focusing on the measures that would be required to achieve compliance with the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol and on research and development of the measures necessary to reach the targets for 2020. As I indicated to Deputy Martin, Ireland is on course to meet its Kyoto targets through a combination of domestic emission reductions, supplemented by the use of carbon units, including units acquired through the protocol's flexible mechanisms.
As well as the recession.
Ireland has very challenging emissions reduction targets covering the eight years from 2013 to 2020 in the sectors of the economy which are not part of the European emissions trading sector. The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government published a review of national climate policy on 3 November, signalling an intention to set out a roadmap for national low carbon ratings. That will provide an opportunity to present a vision, at least for the period up to 2050, in which climate policy must be mainstreamed across every policy area. The Minister announced that an independent study would be carried out by the secretariat to the National Economic and Social Council to inform that policy position and he also initiated a public consultation which will take place in 2012, involving all interested parties.
The provisional figures released two weeks ago by the Environmental Protection Agency show a welcome drop in the total national greenhouse gas emissions levels in 2010, but there can be absolutely no misunderstanding about the scale of the challenge facing us in the years ahead. I am not aware of the nature and extent of the fraud that Deputy Higgins refers to and how the European Parliament is acting. I am sure the audit committees will consider the matter closely.
I agree that climate change and its consequences is probably one of the biggest challenges facing humanity at this time. The Taoiseach may be correct in saying that Ireland is on course to meet the Kyoto targets but currently Ireland's emissions are still above those targets. The production of carbon is a major factor in that respect. How much of taxpayers' money has been spent buying carbon credits?
I do not have that figure but I will endeavour to find it for the Deputy in so far as it is relevant and up to date.
Going beyond the rhetoric we need to pursue clean energy projects. There is much sense in the comments of Deputy Higgins. I look forward to receiving that information from the Taoiseach.
2 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach the contact he has had with European leaders since the EU summit on 23 October 2011. [34014/11]
3 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he will provide an update on arrangements for his meeting with Chancellor Merkel. [34382/11]
4 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he has acted on President Sarkozy’s March invitation to meet him in Paris. [34383/11]
5 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach the contacts he has had with other European leaders in relation to the future of the euro. [35491/11]
6 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach the contacts he has had with other EU leaders since the summit on the 26 October. [35492/11]
7 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach the bilateral meetings he has had with foreign leaders since the resumption of Dáil Éireann after the recess. [35493/11]
8 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach the bilateral meetings he intends to have between now and the end of the year. [35494/11]
9 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he will provide a full list of documents he has circulated to other eurozone Heads of State or Governments. [35597/11]
10 Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his most recent discussions with Chancellor Merkel on the eurozone financial crisis. [35837/11]
11 Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on which eurozone leaders he has discussed with over the past two weeks in relation to the crisis in the eurozone. [35838/11]
12 Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he has had any contact with the newly appointed Prime Minister Papademos of Greece and Prime Minister Monti in Italy. [35839/11]
13 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel on 16 November 2011. [35960/11]
14 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if the issue of EU treaty change was discussed in his meeting with Chancellor Merkel. [35961/11]
15 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he will publish details of any documents which he supplied to Chancellor Merkel setting out Ireland’s position on reform of the EU and eurozone. [35992/11]
16 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he will detail any contacts he has had with the new Prime Minister of Greece. [35999/11]
17 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he will detail any contacts he has held with the new Prime Minister of Italy. [36000/11]
18 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he will detail the contacts he has had with President Van Rompuy regarding his drafting of proposals for reform of the EU and eurozone for consideration at the December meeting of the European Council. [36001/11]
19 Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with Chancellor Angela Merkel; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36002/11]
20 Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if he raised the issue of unemployment in his meeting with Chancellor Angela Merkel; and if so, the response that she gave; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36003/11]
21 Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if he raised with Chancellor Angela Merkel the immorality and damaging economic consequences of Ireland being forced to fully repay all senior bondholders in the Irish banks; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36004/11]
22 Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if he raised with Chancellor Angela Merkel the issue of the Anglo Irish Bank promissory note and the burden that it places on Irish State finances over the coming years; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36005/11]
23 Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if he raised the issue of slowing growth rates in the eurozone with Chancellor Angela Merkel; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36006/11]
24 Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if he raised with Chancellor Angela Merkel the adverse impact of austerity measures on the economy and the eurozone generally; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36007/11]
25 Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if he plans further bilateral meetings with other eurozone leaders in the near future; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36008/11]
26 Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if he will consider proposing a joint summit meeting of leaders from Greece, Portugal, Italy, Spain and Ireland to discuss the eurozone crisis and its impact on the peripheral eurozone states; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36009/11]
27 Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if he raised with Chancellor Angela Merkel the continued deepening and spread of the eurozone crisis despite the changes in political leadership and moves to impose austerity in Greece and Italy; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36010/11]
28 Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if he discussed with Chancellor Angela Merkel the treaty changes she envisages within the EU, following her recent statement on the matter and the timeline she envisages for such changes; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36011/11]
29 Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if he discussed tax harmonisation with Chancellor Merkel as part of the treaty changes she envisages for the EU; and if he will make a statement on the matter [36012/11]
30 Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if he raised the issue of the mandate and role of the ECB within the eurozone; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36013/11]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 2 to 30, inclusive, together.
With regard to bilateral meetings I have held with foreign leaders since the summer recess, I met with President Yanukovych of the Ukraine, Prime Minister Rutte of the Netherlands, Chancellor Faymann of Austria, Prime Minister Filat of Moldova, President Saakashvilli of Georgia and Prime Minister Katainen of Finland at the Eastern Partnership Summit in Warsaw on 29 and 30 September. On 16 October I met the President of the European Commission, Mr. José Manuel Barroso in Brussels and I attended the European Council and European summit meetings on 23 and 26 October, where I had extensive contacts with many of my colleagues.
I travelled to Berlin on 16 November for a bilateral meeting with Chancellor Merkel. Our meeting, over a working lunch, was an excellent opportunity to engage with a key European partner on the challenges facing Europe ahead of the December European Council meeting. I updated the Chancellor on developments in the Irish economy and I outlined for her the extent of the adjustment under way and what this means for the Irish people. I stressed the urgent need to restore stability, generate growth and get people back to work. I told the Chancellor that addressing unemployment is a key concern for the Government. I underlined that although Ireland is making headway, we still need the ongoing support of EU partners and of Germany. In this regard, I sought support for finding ways to reduce the significant burden of debt the country is carrying, a large part of which results from the steps we have taken to secure the position of our banks and to prevent contagion to the wider European banking system. I emphasised that Ireland remains vulnerable to volatility in the euro area and that we urgently need to restore stability.
The Chancellor and I had a good and comprehensive exchange of views on how best to demonstrate that the euro area has the capacity and commitment to stand behind its currency. I made the point that allowing the ECB play a stronger role, acting as the ultimate backstop in defending the euro, might be a necessary part of a solution. Germany has its own position on the role of the ECB and the Chancellor set this out clearly. The Chancellor and I also looked ahead to the December European Council, and to President Van Rompuy's report on options to strengthen the economic union.
We both agreed that there is a need to enhance co-ordination of economic policy in the euro area. On the issue of treaty change, I expressed the Government's view that treaty change is a complex and difficult process and that there is considerable potential to improve arrangements within the existing treaties. That must be our first priority and we need a solution to the crisis facing us now.
The Chancellor and I also agreed that improved fiscal responsibility and budgetary discipline should generate confidence in the markets.
After my meeting with Chancellor Merkel, I addressed the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung on the theme of "Ireland's Road to Recovery: Reform, Growth and Jobs", where I also met the German finance Minister, Mr. Wolfgang Schauble. I then travelled to Frankfurt for a dinner with key German-Irish business contacts.
On future bilateral meetings, our embassy in Paris has been in close contact with the Élysée to find a mutually suitable date for a meeting with President Sarkozy. These efforts are continuing and I look forward to visiting Paris when arrangements have been put in place. I will again meet all of my colleagues at the European Council meeting on 9 December.
I look forward to meeting the new Prime Ministers of Greece and Italy at that meeting. I have written to each of them to offer my congratulations, and to express the Government's wish to continue our close co-operation. In advance of the December European Council, contacts with EU partners, including with President Van Rompuy and his office, will continue to prepare for that meeting and its conclusions.
We have several questions from four Deputies; Deputies Adams, Martin, Higgins and Boyd Barrett. I suggest we take one round of questions and then I will go back to each Member.
The Taoiseach may be interested or amused to hear that a little bet is made in our office about how many questions he will take all at once. When one of my comrades said he would take Nos. 2 to 30 I said no, that he would not take as many as that, but he did. It is challenging for us in terms of assisting us to get information when 28 questions are taken together. I am sure if the Taoiseach were sitting on this side of the House he would make the same point. I am sure he did make the same point back in the day.
We discussed earlier the notion that it is very unfair that the Bundestag can have informed discussion about matters pertaining to this country and we do not have the information, but what is really worrying is the line the Taoiseach is taking on treaty change. He referred to limited treaty change and said there may be other ways of doing this but the central point is that there is a two-tier European Union. If one looks back at everything Sinn Féin has said on the issue going right back to 1972, it has all been borne out. There were reports this morning on the notion — the German Chancellor was reported to have alluded to some of this — that some of the weaker states would have to be put into trusteeship. What way is that to have a Union of partners?
I previously asked the Taoiseach a number of times about the matter. Will he be clear in assuring the Dáil that any treaty change of the magnitude that has been described — I accept this is a moveable feast but I do not refer to the limited change to which he sometimes alludes — will be put to a referendum. I ask the Taoiseach to be straight about the issue in his reply as if he and I were sitting in a corner talking about it. People in this country should have their say on this type of change, which I think is coming, and that there is an attempt to foist it upon us.
The first point the Deputy made relates to the 30 questions that were tabled about Europe. He queried taking them all together. When one goes through them they are all relevant to the same set of problems, either meetings with leaders, bilateral meetings, meetings of the eurozone, the European Union or the ECB. I am not sure how we could split up those questions with any relevance other than to take five about leaders, four about the treaty and three about the eurozone. There would be much repetition in the answers irrespective of what one would do.
We get quite a lot of repetition as it is.
That is how the Taoiseach should do it.
Deputy Boyd Barrett tabled seven or eight questions that are all practically the same. He is waiting for an opportunity to comment and he is entitled to that. My point is that one question from Deputy Adams or Deputy Martin will generally cover the same spectrum anyway.
From different angles.
I cannot give Deputy Adams any such guarantee in respect of treaty change. The eurozone is facing a crisis and it must be dealt with in the immediate future. The next meeting is planned for 9 December. Government leaders and Heads of Government will have to make decisions that will deal with the issue. A range of decisions was made about the EFSF at the previous meeting, which had at its disposal sufficient leverage capacity to become a backstop to prevent contagion into other countries. It is clear that the mechanism and technicalities of that did not prove up to market assessment and the market had no confidence in that. I raised the issue with the German Chancellor. I had previously expressed the view that the ultimate backstop with unlimited financial firepower, as they say, is the European Central Bank. Other countries have different views about that.
In any event, in response to Deputy Adams, a matter being changed in the treaty is one issue but the process of treaty change itself is quite another. As he is aware, if the change proposed is of a limited nature that does not either impinge on sovereignty or involve a major shift——
What sovereignty?
——national sovereignty——
What sovereignty? Could the Taoiseach explain sovereignty?
——in competence then the question of a treaty change does not arise. Such matters are always confirmed and assessed by the Attorney General of the day.
If one goes into the process of treaty change, as Deputy Adams is well aware, it means that all of the 27 countries of the Union might have their ideas about what they would like to see put in or taken out of the treaty. I note that other leaders commented about taking power back and making further adjustments to the treaties. Such a process involves intergovernmental conferences and the setting up of a convention to examine such matters. As I made clear to the German Chancellor, one must deal with the current problem with the facilities, tools and opportunities available in existing treaties to address the eurozone crisis which is of such catastrophic potential were it to get out of hand. It is clear that certain countries are in some difficulty with liquidity.
President Van Rompuy was mandated by the Heads of Government to produce a paper in December on the question of limited treaty change, and beyond that, with a roadmap. That paper will be produced for 9 December. Deputy Adams is aware of the public meetings that have taken place between various leaders and the outcome of those. It is clear that there is a broad range of views on how the problem should be tackled. As far as I and the Government are concerned, we would like to see the facilities and opportunities that form part of existing treaties applied to deal with this problem. It is clear that the decision taken at the previous meeting has not attracted the confidence of the markets so we have to move to a different position. The ultimate backstop to prevent contagion in all countries is the European Central Bank. It is clear that this country is vulnerable to volatility in this area, as are a number of other countries. I made that point clearly to the German Chancellor.
When one lumps Questions Nos. 2 to 30 together, approximately 30 questions, the difficulty is that, perhaps deliberately, some questions are not answered.
In Question No. 9. I asked the Taoiseach whether he would publish details of any documents which he supplied to Chancellor Merkel on reform of the European Union and the eurozone. There was no reply to that. I am sorry; that was Question No. 15. In Question No. 9 I asked the Taoiseach to provide a full list of documents he has circulated to other eurozone Heads of State or Government. Earlier today I asked him whether he would provide the documentation that has been formally circulated to the German Parliament? A total of 41 German parliamentarians are now in receipt of documentation pertaining to our budgetary process. I asked earlier on Leaders' Questions whether the Taoiseach could confirm that the documentation has now been lodged in the Oireachtas Library. He refused to answer the question. I ask him again whether he will agree to make available promptly to Members of this House the documentation that has been made available to German parliamentarians. There should be no argument about this.
I do not see any sentence in the troika deal that requires the Taoiseach, or anyone, to give budget information which is before the Cabinet or the Dáil at the level of detail he has done. The detail in the letter from the Minister for Finance about exactly what he intends doing goes well beyond what is required to meet the terms of the deal.
The Government is holding a month-long series of media conferences. All the leaks about the budget are coming from members of the Cabinet. It is, therefore, reasonable to suggest that the Taoiseach would provide the information to Members of the House. There should not be a big deal about it. I do not have a problem about information going anywhere once it comes to this House first.
I find the relaxed tone in which the Taoiseach is addressing this issue and his disregard for the House incredible. When Deputy Kenny became Taoiseach he made a song and dance about treating the House with respect, but things are going in the opposite direction. We have had much discussion about the eurozone but we are getting less and less information.
I asked Question No. 15 because I do not know what is the Government's policy on proposed EU treaty reform. I have some idea what the Taoiseach is against but I have no idea what he is for. Despite the fact that the eurozone is in a full-blown crisis and is weeks, if not days, away from break-up we have no sense of that crisis in this House, in terms of the meat of the issues being discussed at European level or proposed treaty change. In Question No. 18, I asked the Taoiseach to detail the contacts he has had with President Van Rompuy regarding his drafting of proposals for reform of the EU and the eurozone. The Taoiseach simply replied that he is looking forward to meeting him in December. We have no detail of what is actually going on or of the meat of the discussions about treaty change. I do not know the Taoiseach's position.
In replying to Question No. 20 about meeting Chancellor Merkel, the Taoiseach said a stronger role for the European Central Bank might be required. That is a belated conversion to what I have been saying for three or four months. I would agree with limited treaty change to give the ECB a stronger mandate, apart from simply an exclusive mandate on inflation. If the ECB had acted in a more comprehensive and resolute manner we would not be in the full-blown crisis we are in now. The sooner we discuss this here the more real it will become for the people of the country.
The Taoiseach seems to be hoping the Van Rompuy process will run into difficulty in December and, because we are on the sidelines, we will get away with it. We are not contributing to the process. In all the debates to date I have had no sense of any proposals tabled by the Government. I have asked the Taoiseach if he has tabled proposals about treaty change and if he could publish any proposals he has made on the issue to Chancellor Merkel or to President Van Rompuy so we can have a genuine discussion in the House about the various options and whether we are for or against limited or more comprehensive change to enable us to deal with the current crisis. I accept that much can be done within the existing treaty framework.
Will the Taoiseach circulate the documentation sent to the German Parliament to all Members of the House?
Deputy Martin refers to the questions to which he did not get an answer. I read a comprehensive reply, but I will answer them again.
Deputy Martin asked the Taoiseach to provide an update on arrangements for his meeting with Chancellor Merkel. I think I have dealt with that. I went to Berlin and met the Chancellor.
That is okay.
Question No. 4 was to ask the Taoiseach if he has acted on President Sarkozy's March invitation to meet him in Paris. The answer to that is, "Yes".
That is fine.
The next question was to ask the Taoiseach if he will provide a full list of the documents he has circulated to other eurozone Heads of State or Government. The information relevant to the troika and the assessment of the quarterly review is circulated to Ministries. Deputy Martin said I take a flippant attitude to this. The Minister for Finance wrote officially to the Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs strongly expressing our deep concern that information which was provided, in good faith and on a strictly confidential and limited basis, for discussion at meetings of the euro working group and the economic and financial committee found its way to the German Parliament. The Minister made the point very clearly that when this information was sent to Commission staff they knew that in sending it to the German finance Ministry it was to be sent to the German Parliament. Unfortunately, we were not so informed. He made the further point that this occurred before the information was provided to the Oireachtas and that this served to heighten our concern. The Minister pointed out that the Commission should, therefore, review its procedures for the handling of sensitive information so as to eliminate or minimise the risks to the integrity of the data being provided. That matter will be followed through on. The Minister went on to make the point that this is particularly unfortunate as we have developed a very good working relationship with the Commission during the implementation of the programme to date.
Deputy Martin is aware that the European Commission confirmed that it was from its sources that the document found its way to the lower committee of the Bundestag, that it was not signed off on by the Irish Government, that these were not signed Government papers and that the document was a draft indicative of what might happen, on the basis of the troika review of our performance in the last quarter. Because the budget is so close the document contained indications of what might happen there.
Will it be circulated here?
Question No. 15 asked if the Taoiseach will publish details of any documents which he supplied to Chancellor Merkel setting out Ireland's position on reform of the EU and the eurozone. I went to Berlin to have a meeting with Chancellor Merkel. It was not a matter of arriving at decisions for the European Union or the eurozone. I clearly set out Ireland's position on the bailout situation we are in, the difficulties for our people and the challenges for the Government in meeting our targets, which we will meet. I also made it very clear that the Government recognises that while we have started a process — it is only a start — and that some confidence is evident, this country, no more than others in the programme, needs continuous support and encouragement and we should not lose sight of that fact simply because bigger countries are now in the minds of international people.
Question No. 16 asked the Taoiseach to provide details of contacts he has had with the new Prime Minister of Greece. I have had none, other than that I wrote to him congratulating him on his appointment. The same applies to Question No. 17, in respect of the Prime Minister of Italy.
I expect to talk to President Van Rompuy before the meeting of 9 December. As the Deputy is aware, the President normally contacts the leaders of the different countries to ask what they think are the main issues to be discussed. It is not a case of submitting an agenda from each of the 17 countries.
Why not?
It is not. There is direct contact, in this case with the President——
What are the Government's proposals?
——to say what is the position. On the last occasion and the time before that, I pointed out my view on treaty change and the difficulties that would arise if we opened the process of treaty change. Because of that, President Van Rompuy was mandated by the Heads of Government to produce a tentative paper on 9 December. I will talk to him about that before he produces his agenda, which will be a limited one containing only the main issues, for 9 December.
I call Deputy Joe Higgins.
Will the Taoiseach circulate the papers sent to the German Parliament?
I will consider that.
The Taoiseach should not consider it.
The microphones should be switched off.
This has gone beyond a joke. I am simply asking if the documentation will be circulated.
Deputy Martin should know we also have questions to ask.
I appreciate that. I cannot understand——
We agreed there would be one round of questions. Deputy Martin, please resume your seat.
A Cheann Comhairle, you are in charge of the Parliament and you reflect the rights of parliamentarians.
I am reflecting them. I called Deputy Higgins
I am very annoyed about this.
I am twice as annoyed by your behaviour, Deputy Martin. I call Deputy Higgins.
It is unbelievable that the Taoiseach will not circulate this documentation. It is incredible.
What is incredible?
What is incredible is that German parliamentarians have access to documentation which we should get now.
Sit down, Deputy Martin, you got a reply to your question. It is now Deputy Higgins's chance.
You asked me a question. I am giving you the answer.
I call Deputy Higgins. Deputy Martin, you do not own this Parliament. There are other Deputies with questions. Behave yourself.
I am behaving myself very properly. I have never witnessed such disregard for the House as we are witnessing today.
I would appreciate it if you would stop shouting at the Chair.
I am not shouting at the Chair. I am speaking in a very refined tone. I am asking for something very basic and I am very annoyed.
We all agreed there will be one round of questions and that I would come back to questioners if there was time. I call Deputy Higgins, without interruption.
There will be time. There are 25 minutes remaining.
There are 21 minutes.
Almost as good. I have two questions for the Taoiseach. What did he expect from Chancellor Merkel when he outlined to her the savage austerity measures he was inflicting on the ordinary people of the State to pay off the exorbitant gambling debts of German speculators and salvage the European financial market system? When he went to Germany, was he an innocent wandering abroad, like Little Red Riding Hood visiting her old granny, hoping to get a pat on the head and perhaps a few breaks on the promissory notes, but who instead found the big bad wolf demanding more austerity measures? As the Taoiseach indicated by his phrase, "What must be done to satisfy the market," is it the more likely that he and Chancellor Merkel believe the speculators in the financial markets can continue to dictate economic policy to tens or hundreds of millions of people throughout Europe in the interests of their profits and irrespective of the social cost and that Chancellor Merkel, President Sarkozy and the rest of them will act as mouthpieces for these financial gamblers?
Did the Taoiseach discuss with Chancellor Merkel political developments in Italy and Greece? Is there not a screaming contradiction between the European Union proclaiming itself a model of democracy and private institutions called the "financial markets" being allowed to dictate to nations such as Greece and Italy who their Prime Ministers and government members should be and that those members should be representatives of bankers and big business rather than elected representatives? Did the Taoiseach discuss the idea that democracy was being killed off in the European Union at the hands of the markets? Why do we not openly and honestly declare formally that democracy is being killed off in the Union and that the financial markets are being allowed to act like a dictatorship? Would that not be the truth of the matter, given what we have witnessed in the past three weeks?
I wonder whether the Deputy will ever stand up in the House and show any optimism, hope or credibility in anything that happens.
Answer the question.
I have never listened to a more disillusioning and disillusioned——
Do not bluff.
——personality than the Deputy.
Answer the question.
The Deputy mentioned my phrase about what would be done to satisfy the markets. I cannot recall using it. I discussed the position of Italy and Greece with the Chancellor and expressed hope about the appointment of Mr. Monti as a Senator for life by the Italian Government, the acceptance by the Italian Government of the austerity measures he had put forward and Prime Minister Papademos being able to make progress with his very challenging austerity programme in Greece. Obviously, one of the leaders has yet to sign up to it and I hope the discussions will continue. I expressed the view that it was important that the government in situ carry out its mandate——
To satisfy the markets.
——which was for a relatively limited period in order to enable Greece to function and receive its next tranche from the bailout fund.
When the Deputy is at it, perhaps he will explain where he thinks the funds will come from to pay nurses, teachers, gardaí and everyone else. He seems to hold the view that one can just draw a line and, hey presto, the Higgins currency will come to the rescue of everybody. If that is his view, I do not share it with him.
No, we believe in democracy, not speculation.
I dispute strongly the Taoiseach's suggestion that all of the questions in this group are the same. My questions, most of which he has not answered, are on a different planet from Deputy Martin's. The Deputy is much more on the Taoiseach's planet than ours. The direction from which our questions are coming is different.
On which planet is the Deputy? Is it Neptune, Pluto or Mars?
Planet Reality. I note the Minister cannot resist having a go whenever I speak.
The Deputy is very tempting.
We all know why that is.
I asked the Taoiseach 12 specific questions, but the only one he sort of answered was the first. I asked him whether he had raised the issue of unemployment with Chancellor Merkel and what response she gave. He did not tell us what her response was. This is indicative of all the answers and what is fast developing into the most serious economic crisis since the 1930s, in that there are vagaries. We want to know specifically what Chancellor Merkel stated she would do about the burgeoning unemployment crisis across Europe.
Did the Taoiseach raise the question of the gross immorality and the damaging economic consequences of Ireland being forced to repay senior bondholders in full, specifically the €3 billion per year in respect of the toxic Anglo Irish Bank and its bondholders? What did Chancellor Merkel say about this?
Did the Taoiseach ask the Chancellor about the downward projection of growth rates in Europe, including in Ireland, as predicted by all serious analysts? What did she say in response? Did she have anything to say about the fact that, after two years of austerity measures, it was increasingly clear — there is consensus across all serious analyses — that austerity was deepening the economic crisis and careering us towards recession? Was there any discussion of this point of view which is widely held as opposed to a view articulated by socialists alone?
When the Taoiseach asked whether we had alternatives, did he discuss a recent conference held in Iceland at which the IMF had admitted that Iceland had done it right and that we had done the wrong thing? Iceland let the banks fail, strengthened as opposed to cutting welfare payments and imposed capital controls. It is now back in the bond markets. Krugman and Stiglitz stated what Iceland had done was right, whereas what Ireland and other countries had done was wrong. Did the Taoiseach discuss a radically different alternative, one that has proved itself viable, and the fact that the Icelandic economy was recovering because it had repudiated the debts of bondholders and speculators, something he, Chancellor Merkel, the troika and all the rest running the European Union had refused to do, even though their strategy was demonstrably failing?
Did the Taoiseach discuss the deep concerns felt across Europe about democratically elected leaders being pushed out of office in Italy and Greece and replaced by two people who were former members of the board of Goldman Sachs and whose main qualification was that they had been insiders in the banking and financial system? People believe this to be a serious subversion of democracy in Europe at the behest of the markets.
What treaty changes does Chancellor Merkel envisage? Is she asking for tax harmonisation, less democracy in member states, more dictatorship by the European Central Bank and the European Commission and more penalties and sanctions to be imposed on states that refuse to submit to austerity at the behest of the markets? Those are the questions I asked. Most of them were not answered and perhaps the Taoiseach can answer them and comment on the issue of Iceland.
Deputy Boyd Barrett is not on the seafront in Dun Laoghaire with his Sunday morning rant. The first thing I want to say about the subversion of democracy is that the people of this country voted democratically to elect a new Government and give it a specific mandate. The people in Spain voted democratically to elect a new Government and to give Prime Minister-elect Rajoy the opportunity to do his business.
Was this the mandate that the Government would not cut child benefit or give a cent to the banks?
The former Prime Minister, Mr. Papandreou, offered to resign on the basis that the parliamentarians in Greece would sign up to a programme to which they were committed to draw down the next tranche of funding, given the bankrupt state of the Greek economy. The former Prime Minister of Italy, Mr. Berlusconi, decided to step down and has been replaced by Prime Minister Mr. Mario Monti. Deputy Boyd Barrett wants answers to his questions.
Question No. 19 was on whether the Taoiseach would report on his meeting with Chancellor Merkel.
The Taoiseach answered that question.
Question No. 20 was whether the Taoiseach had raised the issue of unemployment in his meeting with Chancellor Merkel. Yes.
What was her response?
Does Deputy Boyd Barrett stop shouting?
Her answer was that she understood completely the efforts the Irish people were making with the Irish Government to make their way forward, that Ireland was an example of a small country being able to meet challenging conditions and that it could be the first country to emerge from the bailout. She recognised that countries like Ireland require continued support and encouragement. She promised it and committed to it, as well as stating this in public.
Question No. 21 was on the immorality and damaging economic consequences of Ireland being forced to fully repay all senior bondholders. I made the point to the Chancellor that subordinated bondholders are taking a hit, that the reduction in interest rates was of great benefit to Ireland of the order of €10 billion, and that what we needed was support in respect of the technical discussions that must take place about further reducing the debt burden on the country. Question No. 22 concerns raising the issue of the Anglo Irish Bank promissory note and the answer to that question is "yes". Question No. 23 is whether we raised the issue of slowing growth rates in the eurozone. I raised the matter in the context of the very strong export performance of Ireland, the very strong trade surplus, the strong investment programme here, our intention to invigorate the indigenous economy and the potential of the Single Market to give greater opportunity to a range of countries to improve their performance. That was brought to my attention by the Finnish Prime Minister at the second last meeting when he said that we should have a competitiveness index across the EU, which will help greatly in this matter.
Question No. 24 was on whether I raised with the Chancellor the adverse impact of austerity measures on the Irish economy and the eurozone in general. The answer is "yes". I pointed out the decisions that had been taken by the Irish Government and the decisions being taken by the Irish people in meeting serious challenges as we move forward. Question No. 25 concerned bilateral meetings. There is always contact about arranging suitable opportunities and dates to meet with other leaders. Question No. 26 was on whether I would consider proposing a joint meeting of leaders from Greece, Portugal, Italy, Spain and Ireland and the answer is "No". I attend the European Council meetings and make our case there.
Question No. 27 is whether I would raise with the Chancellor the continued deepening and spread of the eurozone crisis. I did and it was central to our discussion about what needs to be done here and my view was that the facility of the existing treaties should be used to the limit to deal with the crisis that affects the eurozone and to deal with it now. In that context we discussed the question of limited treaty change, which the Chancellor referred to. The point was that if countries are going to sign on for a set of conditions, there had better be enforceable regulations to see that they adhere to them. Her view of limited treaty change was that there should be recourse to the European Court of Justice if countries do not measure up to the conditions for which they sign up. It will be reflected upon and possibly referred to in the papers to be produced by President Van Rompuy in December. In any event, I am sure the German Chancellor will reiterate her government's view and the view of her country.
Question No. 28 concerns whether I discussed with Chancellor Merkel the treaty changes she envisages. Yes, I did speak about this. I asked the Chancellor very directly what she meant by limited treaty change and she outlined that and I have my response to it in respect of dealing with the crisis now and the facilities open to us. Question No. 29 was about whether ——
What were the changes?
——I discussed tax harmonisation with Chancellor Merkel and the answer is that we did not discuss tax harmonisation. Question No. 30 concerns the role and mandate of the ECB within the eurozone and the answer is "Yes". I made the point that the institution is a credible backstop with unlimited economic potential to deal with contagion. Chancellor Merkel has a different view and she expressed that.
We are not the same as Iceland as Iceland is not a member of the eurozone. Even Deputy Boyd Barrett is aware that the European Central Bank is run by 17 governors of different banks and they have a range of views on how the eurozone and the ECB should be managed, its role and its remit.
Regarding Deputy Higgins's belated interruption, Chancellor Merkel said that her view of limited treaty change was to set out the conditions under which countries sign up for assistance and participate in the eurozone and that these should be enforceable, that there should be regulations that can be enforced and that there should be recourse to sanction through the European Court of Justice if countries that sign on do not measure up. I pointed out to her that we have gone beyond that for the main part because a forensic analysis is carried out by the troika in respect of how this country is run, how money is being spent here and the requirements of measuring up to the troika conditions. In respect of the issue she mentioned, limited treaty change, I explained to her that in this country, where the issue of competency or sovereignty is involved, the Attorney General is asked for formal legal advice by the Government in respect of whether there needs to be a referendum. I pointed out to the Chancellor my view that changing something in the treaty is very different to the entire process of opening up the treaty change process, which can be very long. What is being considered by the German Government is an amendment to an existing protocol. These matters will be central to the discussion that takes place on 9 December and the paper to be produced by President Van Rompuy.
We have two and a half minutes left and that will allow us a quick question from each of the four leaders.
I make it very clear that the Dáil should have the documents discussed in the German Parliament and any other documents of which we are not aware. I do not want to read about this in the newspaper next week to discover that we have been ignored once again. When I asked about whether substantive treaty change would be put to a referendum, the Taoiseach replied that he cannot give any guarantees. However, the Taoiseach can give guarantees and he chose not to. The Taoiseach could easily have said that, on a matter of substantive change, people will have their say. When dealing with bigger powers, the problem is that the Taoiseach spells out in advance how he is complying with all that they want. I presume the Taoiseach reflects privately what he says publicly. It is little wonder that they are ignoring what is happening here. I want the Taoiseach to reflect on his answer and to make it clear that he can make guarantees. He is the Taoiseach and he can say that he will call a referendum if there are substantive treaty changes. I beg him to do so now.
I ask the Taoiseach to formally circulate to every Member of the House the exact documentation circulated to 41 members of the German Parliament. I find it incomprehensible that such documentation will not be made available to Members of this House given that German parliamentarians have it in their possession. It is the very least to which Members of this House are entitled. I wrote to the Taoiseach two weeks ago to ask for cross-party engagement on treaty reform and the proposals that may emerge in December. He refused on that occasion and has not circulated any proposals for the meeting in December. It is important we engage as a Parliament in a more substantial way with potential treaty reform.
Does the Taoiseach agree that if he said to Chancellor Merkel that he has a strong investment programme and is fostering the indigenous economy, he is spinning a yarn? In the same week, the Taoiseach announced massive cuts in the capital programme and the continuation of the austerity measures that are hammering the indigenous economy. What is the Taoiseach's view of this morning's reports that the European Commission wants a system of massively increased intrusion into the budgetary processes of member states and that there should be pre-approval of national budgets in certain countries, and that servicing of debt must always take priority over any other spending? This is a proposal to make vassal states of the peripheral countries.
I thank the Taoiseach for his more specific answers to the questions. What did Chancellor Merkel say on the promissory note and what point did the Taoiseach make on it given it is such a huge burden and the €3 billion per year could be invested in the economy? Did she not recognise the utter injustice of that and our case for relief on that question? The Taoiseach did not answer the question on its relationship to the contraction of growth in the European economy. Did either the Taoiseach or the Chancellor acknowledge the growing consensus that austerity is crippling growth in the European economy? It is not improving the situation or improving competitiveness, it is making things worse. Did the Taoiseach discuss the contrasting fate of Iceland with that of the countries that are pursuing the troika agenda?
The answer to Deputy Adams is no, I am not going to give any guarantee on that basis. If and when the issue of treaty change, limited or otherwise, comes before us, I will follow normal procedures and ask the Attorney General for advice. I pointed out to the Chancellor that I believe existing facilities in the treaties should be used to deal with the current crisis.
Deputy Martin wrote to me three weeks ago about giving the Taoiseach a mandate to go to European Council meetings. I thanked him for his letter but he knows that even if someone is sitting at that table with a mandate from here, it could be completely irrelevant to the issue that might evolve for discussion.
We took it on corporation tax.
I thank the Deputy for his letter and I am happy to continue discussions with all Members about their views on Europe and the eurozone.
What about the documentation?
I said I would consider that. The Government protested strongly to Commissioner Rehn about this.
That is not good enough.
Because of the situation we were left in we are required to circulate documentation about intent and it is very general.
The Taoiseach should just give it to us then.
The investment programme mentioned by Deputy Higgins is a €17 billion capital programme. It is not true that all money must be paid to reduce debt. We have already negotiated with the troika that in the event the Government disposes of any assets or partial assets, on a case-by-case basis, consideration can be given for some or all of those proceeds to be used for job creation or investment.
I raised the reduction in the debt burden with the Chancellor and the German Minister for Finance, Mr. Wolfgang Schåuble. In respect of the technical discussions that must take place, the Chancellor was clear in her support for Ireland and in her encouragement for small countries in the bailout situation. I spoke subsequently to the finance Minister about co-operation with Ireland's efforts to find a further debt reduction which is so important to us. If this crippling burden of €3 billion a year had not been placed on our people, our debt levels would be below the European average and would make the situation manageable. That is where the challenge lies and where we will continue to work on behalf of the people.
Written Answers follow Adjournment.
