Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 13 Feb 2013

Vol. 792 No. 2

European Council: Statements

The Taoiseach

Last week was a momentous one for Ireland and the European Union. When we assumed the Presidency at the beginning of January, we stated that 2013 would mark a new phase in the EU's drive for recovery. We also stated that Ireland would be a recovery country and would drive recovery in Europe. On Thursday last I had the opportunity to come before the House to report an outcome on the promissory notes which delivers a fairer and more sustainable arrangement for the Irish people. I said that the new plan will lead to a substantial improvement in the State's debt position over time and that it represents an historic step on the road to economic recovery. I also stated that it shows that the more Ireland is prepared to help itself, the more others will assist us along the difficult path we still have to travel: Ireland and Europe working hand in hand, making progress together towards recovery.

When I left the House, I travelled to Brussels for an important meeting of the European Council on the multi-annual financial framework. As stated last week, the main item on the agenda was the search for agreement on the Union's future budget. Nobody doubted that this would require long and difficult negotiations and this proved to be the case. However, following discussions which lasted through the night, we emerged on Friday with a result that is good for Ireland and good for Europe. That result fully secures our national interests. Under the new framework, our payments to the Union's budget will be of the order of €10 billion while our receipts will be in the region of €12 billion. Ireland will remain a net recipient, at least until 2020.

In the context of a budget that is smaller overall, the outcome provides for a strong Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, supporting a strong agricultural base and helping to drive economic growth and recovery. Ireland's key national priority was fully secured.

The framework agreed to last week contains an allocation of over €343 billion for heading 2, Sustainable Growth and Natural Resources, delivering €1.5 billion per year in direct payments to Ireland.

In addition, in the negotiations the Irish team - I pay tribute to the role played by the Tánaiste and the Minister of State with responsility for European Affairs - argued strongly that the impact of the economic crisis in this country had to be reflected in any deal. Our partners agreed with that assessment and in the agreement reached last Friday special allocation was made for the Border, midlands and western, BMW, region, in particular, which will receive an additional €100 million. We also secured an additional €100 million for Ireland under the heading of rural development. That is an important contribution which will help to underpin our efforts to make agriculture and agri-businesses important drivers of our economic recovery. We also stressed the need to tackle unemployment, specifically youth unemployment. As the House is aware, this is a problem that has reached unprecedented levels, with some member states experiencing rates well in excess of 50%. Europe cannot afford another lost generation, which situation is unacceptable. I very much welcome, therefore, the focus the issue has been given in the new budget and that Ireland will share in a €6 billion fund being set up to tackle youth unemployment in those countries in which the challenge is greatest.

Ireland strongly supported the original proposal for the multiannual financial framework, MFF, made by the Commission, but one way in which we considered it fell short was the absence of continued funding for the PEACE programme. In the context of recent events, it is clear that a job of work remains to be done if we are to secure lasting peace and reconciliation on the island. The Tánaiste and I advanced this case strongly throughout the negotiations and successfully secured a provision of €150 million for the PEACE programme in the new budget. That is a considerable sum which will be spent to best effect. As I have said, it is a good outcome for Ireland, but it is also a good outcome for Europe. It is a budget designed to help lift Europe out of the crisis it has faced in recent years. It is forward looking. It supports jobs, growth and economic recovery, the pillars of Ireland's Presidency. It has an emphasis on growth enhancing areas, including education, research and innovation. A total of €125 billion has been set aside for the area of competitiveness, growth and jobs, with the Erasmus programme and research and development being singled out for real growth. It is a budget that maintains solidarity with the less developed member states of the European Union.

The House appreciates well the extent to which Ireland has been able to make good use of the funds it has received during the years through the European Union's Structural and Cohesion funding. Ireland is held out as one of the best examples of the effective spend of European moneys. Though we are no longer a large recipient, we argued throughout the negotiations that such funding was a win-win, allowing those member states that needed to catch up to do so, while providing new markets and opportunities for business in the more developed member states. Promoting economic, social and territorial cohesion is an important objective of the European Union. That cohesion policy is the main instrument though which it is pursued. I am pleased, therefore, that a significant portion of the budget agreed last week - €325 billion - will continue to be dedicated to that goal. The framework adopted last week also reflects current economic realities in making every euro count. At €960 billion, it represents a decrease of around 3% on the last MFF.

As the House will be aware, a number of member states argued very strongly for even more financial restraint and deeper cuts. This was a key issue in our discussions last week. While Ireland supported the proposal made by the Commission which was higher than the framework agreed to, I am confident that the right balance was struck in the compromise hammered out. The frank political reality is that Ireland is not alone among member states in having to take tough decisions to bring public spending into line and this was inevitably going to be reflected in any outcome. What we have now is a leaner budget but one with the right focus and emphasis. There will be less spent on administration and more on those areas with the potential to deliver jobs and growth.

I went to last week's European Council to seek a good deal for Ireland and a good deal for Europe and I am confident that these goals were secured. I also wanted to impress on colleagues the importance of the final deal being one that could secure the consent of the European Parliament. The days when member states can act alone on the budget are long gone. As Presidency, we have the responsibility of bringing the European Parliament on board. This is required since the Lisbon treaty was agreed to. Following last week's agreement, the Commission will prepare a draft regulation on the MFF and an inter-institutional agreement between the Council, the Commission and the Parliament. Once these are agreed in Council, we will bring them to the Parliament. In his presentation to the European Council last week President Schultz of the Parliament made it clear that the Parliament's support could not be taken for granted. In last week's negotiations it placed particular emphasis on the need for the budget to be realistic, as I believe it is, and for it to contain within it sufficient flexibility to deal with whatever lay ahead. The framework will be in place from 2014 until 2020 and it is difficult to predict with any degree of certainty the economic situation that will prevail over such a long horizon. In inviting the three institutions - the Council, the Commission and the Parliament - to come to an agreement on the funding of each programme and fund, it was, therefore, appropriate that the European Council suggested that, in doing so, they include the possibility of a review. That will enable us to reflect at mid-term on whether the assumptions on which the framework agreed last week were based remain valid.

The European Council has also agreed that within the new framework what it calls specific and maximum flexibility will be implemented to allow the Europen Union to fulfil its obligations. This is something we will explore with the Parliament in the negotiations ahead. While I recognise that these negotiations will not be easy, I have told President Schultz that the Irish Presidency stands ready to work co-operatively and in good faith to deliver an agreed outcome. We will also do our very utmost to ensure the almost 70 separate pieces of sectoral legislation, or dossiers, on which the framework will rest are adopted by the Council and the Parliament in good time. That is a key task for us in holding the Presidency.

The outcome on the MFF was a good one for Ireland and Europe. That is true also of the substantial conclusions adopted on trade, with which I was very pleased. Consideration of trade issues at the first European Council meeting to be held during our Presidency of the Council was timely and welcome, gelling well with the priorities we have set for our term. As I have said previously, an ambitious trade agenda is a critical element in our push for sustainable growth and job creation across the European Union. The scene for last week's consideration of trade issues was set by a useful European Commission paper which President Barroso shared with leaders ahead of the summit. The conclusions adopted reflect the real potential trade can deliver - potentially a 2% increase in growth in tandem with up to 2 million jobs. These are very serious numbers that we want to see turned into reality, with obvious beneficial effect in Ireland. It is estimated that in the next decade to decade and a half approximately 90% of global economic growth will be generated outside Europe. Europe must, therefore, position itself to take maximum advantage of these major external sources of growth. For Ireland, as a small, open trading economy, we have long seen and appreciated the way trade in goods and services can energise the economy. It is most welcome that that potential is reflected clearly in the European Council's decisions. While the European Union remains committed to further development of the multilateral trading system, last week's European Council agreed that our immediate priority must be developing our bilateral trade agenda. In doing so, we will prioritise negotiations that will provide most benefit in terms of growth and job creation. That has to be the right approach.

In setting out our Presidency programme we said the Irish Presidency would place a special focus on the European Union-United States trade relationship, with the aim of working towards a formal Council mandate for the start of negotiations on a new comprehensive EU-US free trade and investment agreement. There is now real momentum behind this project. Last week the European Council called for urgent follow-up during our Presidency to the report of the EU-US high level working group, expected to be published today. Last night it received a real boost in President Obama's State of the Union address when he gave his imprimatur to the launch of the talks because "Trade that is free and fair across the Atlantic supports millions of good-paying American jobs." It will also support good paying European and Irish jobs. Nobody knows better than us in Ireland that this is a two-way street.

I commend the President on his early authorisation of the start of discussions here. In reply to him, I offer the absolute commitment of the Irish Presidency to taking this work as far forward as possible during its term.

Last week's European Council adopted conclusions on the Arab Spring, Syria and Mali, about which the Tánaiste will speak during his contribution to today's debate.

Last week was good for Ireland and Europe. The achievement of a positive outcome on the promissory note was, in no small part, a reflection of the slow and painstaking work that has been done to rebuild and restore Ireland's reputation in Europe. It demonstrates clearly that our partners appreciate our seriousness of intent and will row in behind Ireland in our efforts to secure our recovery. That commitment is also reflected in the outcome of the negotiations of the Union's budget, in which partners were prepared to take concrete steps to recognise the particular circumstances of this country and the impact the economic crisis has had on it.

Last week should help to restore confidence in Europe, both in Ireland and across the Union. Despite the sometimes very different perspectives and interests that the Union's member states and institutions bring to the table, the capacity to reach compromise and to take difficult decisions remains very strong. We will continue in our efforts to secure our economic recovery, and we remain committed to delivering a Presidency that makes a real difference. As time passes, I will be happy to update the House on these developments.

Deputy Micheál Martin

There is clearly a lot of relief that the Council was able to agree a budget for the Union. However, the budget that has emerged is not one that will stimulate growth, create jobs or increase competitiveness. It could actually lead to a structural deficit and it does not help Ireland or any country that wants the European Union to help its citizens at this time of deep crisis. As we have heard from the Taoiseach, there are many claims being thrown around about a more dynamic Union, but at the heart of the budget agreement is a refusal to unleash the potential of collective action against recession and unemployment. One should remember that we in Europe are in an unprecedented recession and a set of circumstances not seen since the late 1920s. No matter how one dresses it up, at a time when the challenges faced by the Union are rising, its resources to tackle them will decrease.

There are 26 million people out of work in the Union today. Many live in regions that have little or no access to funding or opportunities to help create new jobs. This is the very moment at which the ideals of the Union should have come into play. At a time when faith in the Union has fallen, the most consistent hope of citizens is that it will help with jobs and growth. We should have had stronger countries accepting that we all benefit when we help the Union as a whole to prosper. Unfortunately, a deeply short-sighted approach has prevailed and it threatens to hold back the Union over the next seven years.

The communiqués from summits such as that under discussion are always padded with excess verbiage. Often the preambles bear almost no relation to the details of what has been agreed. The gap between the rhetoric of the leaders and the reality of their agreement has rarely been so large as in the case of this summit. In the opening paragraph of a 47-page document, the leaders state they have based their agreement on the fact that we must ensure that the European Union's budget is geared to lifting Europe out of the crisis. The European Union's budget must be a catalyst for growth and jobs across Europe, notably by leveraging productive and human capital investments.

The headings of the agreement refer to "Smart and Inclusive Growth", "Sustainable Growth" and other worthy goals. At face value, one would imagine it marks a major departure for the Union, or that something big has been agreed.

The actual financial allocations detailed in the technical sections show that almost nothing will actually be done to fulfil the agreement’s stated objectives. Leaders have not only decided to contain expenditure through the Union; they have actually agreed to start shrinking its significance within the European economy. The Union’s budget will now fall as a percentage of Europe’s gross national income, from 0.98% to 0.95%. How can anybody credibly claim that the Union will play a leading role in promoting jobs and growth when it represents such a tiny and falling percentage of Europe’s economy?

The budget does include a number of new measures or expansions in important programmes. Added together, they will not make a significant difference. What makes this worse is that these expansions come at the price of significant cuts elsewhere in the budget, with agriculture taking by far the biggest hit.

The leaders have agreed to cut funding for the Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, by 10% in today’s prices, which amounts to €4 billion per annum. It is a very damaging decision. Many people across Europe like to dismiss the CAP as part of the old European Union and as getting in the way of more dynamic spending. This shows a complete misunderstanding of both the CAP and the basis upon which countries agreed to join the Union. Agriculture is the only area in which the Union has a fully funded policy which ranges across all issues in a sector. It has given Europe food security and it helped preserve much rural life which would otherwise have been under threat. It is flawed, but it should be valued as a great success and not put under constant pressure.

Our major concern is that the 10% cut that the Taoiseach and his colleagues agreed may lead to a restructuring of payments that does unacceptable damage to the livelihood of many farmers. We absolutely reject the idea that payments should be concentrated into fewer hands, prioritising so-called commercial farms at the expense of other farmers. This would be a betrayal of the small and medium farmers who are the lifeblood of much of our rural life and of the social dimension of the Union. Many small farmers must combine farming with other income-generating activity in order to keep going. An attack on their income-support payments could force many off the land. If we lose them now, we will have lost them forever and our country will always regret it.

The Taoiseach should be aware that no amount of spin will cover up a bad agreement in CAP reform. All classes of farmer deserve to be treated fairly and we will do everything we can, both here and in Europe, to support them.

The trade-off between agriculture and tokenistic increases for other policies is the dark reality of the agreed budget. One area that shows this very well is youth unemployment. This is supposedly a priority for our Presidency of the Council and for the entire budget. In the end, what has emerged is a grand total of €6 billion to be spent through the entire Union across the next seven years. The economic impact of this will be, at best, negligible.

The youth guarantee is one of many Union policies that cannot be achieved with the funding included in this budget. It is proposed that Europe take the lead in innovation through advanced research. The plans outlined by Commissioner Geoghegan-Quinn show how this could be done with genuinely world-beating collaborations across the Union. Unfortunately, her budget will not be near what is required to meet this objective.

A bad development in the agreement is the additional limit that has been placed on the total of payments, as opposed to commitments, that the Union can make. This was a crucial agenda item for British Prime Minister David Cameron. Unfortunately, he succeeded in this, and it will have very negative consequences for many EU citizens. The difference between total payments and commitments has traditionally allowed some flexibility to reward well-performing countries and to fund new initiatives. For example, the modest jobs-and-growth package agreed early last year was entirely funded this way. Ireland has also always done well out of this process because we run efficient and effective programmes. We always have, as the Taoiseach confirmed.

What is worst with this budget is that it has been significantly driven by an agenda that is not demonstrative of willingness to unleash the potential of the Union. A number of governments argued that the Union should be cut back just as they are cutting back. This is flawed analysis. What the countries did not acknowledge is that the Union never expanded in the way that governments did before this recession. The increases in the Union's budget over the years have never been dramatic and it has stayed at roughly 1% of its GDP. Equally, there is no country in the Union committing to keeping expenditure to a low set percentage of national income for seven years.

The great straw man of eurocrats supposedly burning our money in a spree of waste falls apart when one sees an administrative budget set at 5% of the total. Certainly, many administrative reforms are still required, but there is no pot of gold waiting for us if we slash administrative costs.

President Van Rompuy had a difficult job getting the deal agreed at the Council. It might well be the case that no other agreement was possible, given the destructive agenda of some leaders who were looking for a reason to wield the veto. The best construction that can be put on this deal is that while it is not good, it is better than nothing. The early indications are that there will be some trouble during the process of getting the European Parliament's agreement to the budget. The group leaders reacted very strongly on Friday. They correctly believe that the Council is short-changing Europe and the citizens who look to the Union for help. Ultimately, the ratification process might involve some modifications of the deal. This will be no bad thing. However, it is unlikely that the money available to the Union will increase by more than a token amount.

We cannot wait for another seven years before a new and more ambitious approach is taken to the work of the Union. The lack of a strong fiscal base remains one of the core flaws in the working of the eurozone, and it is a great weakness for the Union at this time of crisis. This way of funding and limiting the Union's budget has failed and should be replaced. If this is to happen, Ireland must speak up and support more radical reform of the Union. We should abandon the policy of opposing reform if a treaty might be required, and say clearly that the current approach is not working. We should not sit on the sidelines when the British Tory Party works to push its destructive agenda of trying to gut the Union. The list of demands made by the Prime Minister, David Cameron, amounts to saying that Britain will only stay in the Union if it stops being the Union. The most recent opinion polls in his country suggest that his grand gamble is not working at home, and it should not be allowed to progress in Europe.

The summit did not address banking issues, including the slow and poor progress being made on the banking union. I will address this area in more detail later today in the debate on the promissory notes.

With regard to other matters, the summit made some reference to trade, although not of any great significance. Ireland should continue the policy of opposing the trade deals at any cost strategy of some. We should retain the right to prevent key parts of our societies from being undermined by unbalanced deals.

It is amazing that the escalating horsemeat controversy was not raised at the summit. Since the first days of the controversy I have been calling for concerted European action. The least that should have happened at the summit should have been an acknowledgement of what has happened and an agreement to call for a co-ordinated response. This is a very serious and grave issue. I believe the needs and concerns of consumers have not received the urgent attention that this crisis demands. It has exposed a very weak link in the food chain across Europe and, indeed, in this country. Nearly 12 months ago the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine was warned by a Sunday Times exposé and some documentaries about the various scams and criminal activity in respect of the trading of horses in this country. The issue of whether we can say with certainty that horsemeat has not been entered at will into the Irish food chain has never been seriously addressed.

Last February or March, Deputy Kelleher tabled a parliamentary question about the traceability of horsemeat and the need to establish such a regime. He received no affirmative response that this would be done. There are traceability regimes for cattle, pigs and sheep, but there is no such regime in respect of horses. The consequences of that are being seen now. There has been a lack of urgency on this issue. It has been a slow burner since last November. An understandable desire to protect the industry appears to have trumped the real need to protect the customer and to ensure the customer gets what he or she asks for in terms of what is printed on the tin when they buy food products in supermarkets. They have been let down very badly. For some reason the Government has waited until this week to do anything through its Presidency of the Council. I welcome the meeting of agriculture Ministers that has been arranged, but it is very late. Indeed, as with the entire European agenda, far more urgency and ambition are required, not just on this issue but on the wider economic area.

Deputy Gerry Adams

I am sharing time with Deputy Seán Crowe.

Last June, the Taoiseach returned to the Dáil and announced a “seismic shift” and “a game changer” which would separate bank debt from sovereign debt. Last week, in a total contradiction, the Government turned €28 billion of that bad bank debt into a sovereign debt, which the citizens of this State will be repaying for the next 40 years. The Irish people have taken on 43% of the total bank related debt that has been inflicted on taxpayers across Europe. While I accept that it was Fianna Fáil which placed a huge burden of bank debt on the shoulders of Irish taxpayers in the first instance, the reality is that after two years in government, Fine Gael and the Labour Party have refused to lift this debt burden and have, in fact, added to it. The Government refused to seek a write down of the promissory notes and instead, supported by Fianna Fáil in a cosy little consensus, has simply drawn out the period over which this unfair debt will be paid.

The other part of our bank debt crisis relates to the €30 billion which has gone into the State’s other covered institutions - Bank of Ireland, AIB and Irish Life & Permanent. We have heard very little since the Taoiseach's pronouncements last June about whether the ESM will be used to recapitalise banks retrospectively. Is the Government still committed to securing at European level the retrospective recapitalisation of Irish banks to deal with legacy debt through the ESM, and can the Taoiseach give us an update on the current position with that process?

The Taoiseach

That is the Eurogroup and the Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan, is chairing those discussions.

Deputy Gerry Adams

The headline news from this summit is that for the first time in 56 years the EU has agreed to a budget decrease. It appears that Mr. Cameron got an agreement that will be good for him for the next election, but who knows? A €34 billion cut has been agreed. Sinn Féin supports cuts to wasteful spending. However, one big potential saving that has not been touched is the waste involved in having two locations for the European Parliament at Brussels and Strasbourg. A big saving could be made by scrapping the move to Strasbourg once a month.

The stark reality is that the budget agreement will do little to boost investment in jobs and growth and will leave member states starved of strategic investment in key areas. There has been a great deal of rhetoric about jobs and growth being a priority for the EU, yet the details of the proposals are very limited. This is a missed opportunity to refocus on the need not to cut the budget but to grow the economy, retain jobs and to create new jobs. The measures in the budget do not go far enough to provide the type of stimulus and investment package needed to tackle the unemployment crisis. There are 26 million people unemployed; it is a huge number of citizens. Cuts to Cohesion and Structural Funds, the tools that implement the EU's regional policy, will hit Europe’s poorest regions most.

I am also concerned about the impact cuts in the Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, will have on this island. There is a cut in the funding for rural development and the single farm payment. The forthcoming reform of the CAP is perhaps the single major issue facing Irish farming at present. Agriculture remains the most important indigenous sector of the Irish economy and is one that Sinn Féin believes, and the Government is with us on this, can become a key engine of recovery. The Government will have to step up to the plate to provide matched funding for rural development and support vital farming schemes. There is now an opportunity to decide on a system of direct farm payments that will limit the payments to some of the big farms in favour of smaller farms.

There is a very strong case for moving to a more equitable distribution of payments and for capping the amount that any single claimant may receive.

Another victim of the cuts will be the PEACE Programme. While it is very welcome that the PEACE Programme will continue, the amount will be reduced not quite by half but from €225 million to €150 million which will undermine a great deal of the good work which has been done with peace funding.

I note that the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Simon Coveney, is convening a meeting of agriculture Ministers tonight in Brussels. The horsemeat controversy appears to have widened following raids yesterday on a Welsh meat plant and a Yorkshire slaughterhouse on foot of claims that horses killed in Britain were used to make low-cost meat dishes. Given how widespread the incidence of horsemeat use appears to be, it is clearly now a European-wide issue. The Food Safety Authority in the South and the Food Standards Agency in the North have been proactive in identifying the fact that there was a problem and isolating the contamination. It is of critical importance that the issue is dealt with quickly and decisively but I note that it was not raised in the public agenda at the summit meeting. There are thousands of processing jobs and farm livelihoods which are dependent on the beef and food sector generally. There is understandable concern among workers and farmers. There is also particularly widespread concern among consumers. This is a scam of huge proportions. People expect to get what it says on the tin but there is ongoing and widespread fraud. Perhaps the Taoiseach can provide an update on the situation. There is a need for proper traceability and labelling to prevent manufacturers cutting corners by importing inferior or indeed totally different product than advertised. Falsely labelling all of this product as 100% Irish undermines the reputation of Irish food produce internationally.

The Taoiseach has a unique opportunity during the EU Presidency to advance the case for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. Given the success of our peace process, I commend to him active promotion of a peace settlement in that region.

Deputy Seán Crowe

The European Council was finally able to bring in a seven-year EU budget at its last meeting. As Deputy Gerry Adams said, it is the first time in 56 years that the EU budget has been cut. The issue with the EU budget is not only the size of the expenditure but what the money is used for. Any independent analysis would show that the overall structure of the budget has been left untouched. The Council missed an historic opportunity to refocus the budget strategically to promote growth and jobs. Savings have been made in administration which we all welcome but a significant area which has not been addressed is the waste involved in having two seats for the European Parliament. The monthly charade of decamping thousands of officials, MEPs and their documents from Brussels to Strasbourg has not been ended in favour of a single seat for the European Parliament. A single location has the potential to save an estimated €200 million per annum or €1.4 billion over the seven-year period of the current budget. It would be a huge saving in anyone's estimation.

In reality, this is an austerity budget into which the EU will be locked for the next seven years on foot of the Council meeting. There were great expectations in various quarters on the budget in respect of which many of us argued that it should be fit for purpose and include a large stimulus element to kickstart an economic recovery across Europe. The budget does not contain sufficient spending to boost investment in jobs and growth and will leave many member states starved of strategic investment in key areas. The Government told us repeatedly that the top priority for EU leaders was jobs and growth but the proposals for investment in jobs and growth in the budget are very limited. While €6 billion has been allocated to the European youth guarantee, only €3 billion is new money. The other €3 billion has been taken from the European Social Fund and would otherwise have filtered back into many communities across Europe.

There are 26 million unemployed people across the 27 member states of the EU. Nearly 6 million young people under the age of 25 years are unemployed across the EU. The money provided is definitely not enough given that the youth unemployment rate averages 23.4% across the EU. In some member states, the rate is a lot higher. At current unemployment rates, the EU will only invest €1,000 per unemployed youth over seven years, which amounts to €142 per unemployed person per year. Does the Taoiseach seriously believe this funding is enough to tackle a European-wide crisis? No one in his right mind could believe it will tackle the problem of youth unemployment across Europe. While there are other measures which may not have a cost element, no one can seriously argue this will solve the crisis all European leaders believe exists and made their number one priority going into the Council meeting. The minor measures being adopted in the EU budget do not come anywhere near the level of stimulus and investment needed to tackle the crisis facing the 26 million unemployed and their families. Only significant investment in young people will provide a pathway out of the crisis and build a prosperous and inclusive Europe.

The heading of competitiveness for growth and jobs, which covers funding for research, enterprise, small and medium enterprises or SMEs, Erasmus for All, Horizon 2020 and developing the social agenda, sees an increase of €34 billion. While this is welcome, the increase must also cover programmes including global monitoring for environment and security, the Galileo global navigation system, and ITER fusion energy research. That will suck up a great deal of the funds which would otherwise have been available for SMEs which we know have the potential to create jobs and increase growth.

The Council pledged its support for the Syrian people's aspirations and for a Syrian national coalition as their legitimate representative. The Council also stressed the need for a political transition. How does the Council believe this transition will happen? Is the EU helping to develop a workable, inclusive peace process in the region or are we again wringing our hands on the sidelines and watching with horror as the crisis unfolds and escalates?

The Council welcomed the actions of the Malian army and French forces in their mission to restore the integrity and authority of the Malian state. Is the EU listening to the needs and concerns of the Tuareg population of north Mali? Are their political, social and political grievances being taken into account by EU leaders and what plans are in place to stop their repression by the state? While secular Tuaregs say they want to take part in the fight to liberate the north, they have essentially been told to shut up and pushed to the side by other elements. Experts and reports from the region suggest that the next move by Islamic militants will be to try to blend into the population and launch a bloody conflict. If this is the case, it will be very painful and bloody for everyone involved. Experts and locals have been very vocal on this in recent months and believe militants have been making tunnels in the region. While it will be easy enough for French forces to move in, the question is what will happen afterwards. That is the big concern.

It was not mentioned by the European Council. Maybe the Tánaiste will go into this in more detail. Should the immediate strategy be to focus on pressurising the governing junta in Mali to step down while bringing the secular Tuareg into the fold in the north?

Deputy Joe Higgins

The rotating Presidency is designed to give a semblance of democracy to the European Union. The reality, however, is that the Irish Government is a puppet on the string of the European Union's establishment, which represents primarily high finance and big business. Could anybody doubt that after seeing the President of the European Central Bank last Thursday morning when questioned about the legacy of Anglo Irish Bank's toxic debts? Mr. Draghi remarked that his board had "noted the Irish operation", with all the ill-concealed contempt that a Mafioso boss might display towards some troublesome villagers in his fiefdom. Mr. Draghi was vice chairman and managing director of Goldman Sachs International, the vampire squid bank which reaped obscene profits from a ten-year frenzy of speculation on the world's money markets and then with supreme cynicism bet against the crash and made a fortune on the crash as well, as the inevitable bubble burst.

The European political and financial establishment rewarded this anti-social speculation by drafting the Goldman Sachs executive to the top position in European banking, just as President Bush did with his colleagues in the United States. We are supposed to believe that the ECB rules for the benefit of the majority of the ordinary people of Europe, yet two Irish Governments, made up of Fianna Fáil and the hapless Green Party, and now Fine Gael and the Labour Party, have humiliated themselves in obeying the diktats of this institution's bureaucracy and imposed savage austerity on the Irish people on its instruction. The Government has supported a cut in real terms to the 2014-2020 budget of the EU at exactly the time that more public investment is needed to address in particular the scandal of 26 million unemployed. Scandalously, some of that budget goes to the armaments industry for research into weapons of mass destruction. McKinsey Global Institute, in a report of December 2012, points out how EU private investment has collapsed catastrophically and is now 15% below 2007 levels. The international financial press reported at the same time that €3 trillion in profits accumulated by EU big business lies uninvested in bank accounts. The motor force of capitalist development was previously that it developed the productive forces of humanity. Now they stagnate, yet that is where the Government looks for a solution to the catastrophe.

Against this diseased system and its failure, working people and the unemployed all over Europe need a fundamental democratic and socialist alternative. The dictatorship of the financial markets, which brings unending misery, has to be broken. Banks in high finance should be brought into public ownership but under genuine democratic control; similarly, major industries. With democratic planning for the needs of the majority of European citizens it would be possible to bring resources together with the workers of Europe engaging the unemployed, particularly the youth unemployed. It would be possible on that basis to create a Europe with jobs for all, dignity for all, a decent life and reasonable comfort for every citizen while protecting the environment. That is the alternative to the catastrophic failure of the financial market system and the diseased failure of European capitalism at present. Working-class people all over Europe and in this country really need to mobilise behind these radical alternatives because there is no solution on the basis of the present system.

Deputy Seamus Healy

This reduced budget is a recipe for continued and deepening recession. At a time when we need growth and stimulus we are getting further reductions and austerity. That austerity takes more money out of the economy of Europe and the Irish economy and as a result involves more closures and increased unemployment. We are in fact continuing the current situation of austerity, stagnation and recession. The EU claims that its budget is a reduction in current budget terms, in absolute terms and as a percentage of the total income of member states. This is a disastrous response to the unprecedented levels of unemployment we see throughout the EU and in Ireland. Our situation is that 26 million are unemployed throughout Europe, over 12% of the population. Six million people under the age of 25, or 23.7%, are unemployed. In Ireland the figures are even worse, with 14.6% unemployed, over 50% of whom are long-term unemployed. Youth unemployment, while high, would be even higher but for the significant numbers emigrating, with 250 people per day leaving the country for the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and further afield. This budget creates more austerity and recession and less employment. We need the opposite. Last night the President of the United States announced major infrastructural spending across America, in stark contrast to what is being done in Europe.

Growth is vitally important, all the more so when we see the targets we must meet after 2015 in the fiscal treaty, particularly the reduction in the debt-to-GDP ratio from 120% to 60%. Without growth it will be impossible to pay the €4.5 billion that we will have to pay as a result.

A further effect of this counter-cyclical reduction is the appreciation of the euro against sterling and the dollar. This is very bad news for Irish exporters and Irish employment. The Government's claims to have minimised Ireland's losses or even increased our share of reduced funds ring hollow and are akin to getting a better seat on the deck of a sinking Titanic. Irish MEPs, particularly the Labour Party MEPs Nessa Childers and Phil Prendergast, should vote against this budget.

Before I finish I want to refer to the slashing of the redundant workers' fund in this budget. Support programmes for workers made redundant due to trade liberalisation have been slashed under this seven-year budget. The figure has been reduced from €3.57 billion to €1.05 billion, a reduction of €2.5 billion to less than a third of its previous value. Around 13,500 former workers at Dell, SR Technics, Waterford Crystal and others, and in the construction sector, were to be provided with tailor-made support programmes to get them back to work under the current programme. The fact that the Government did not claim the full amount under these programmes has not helped but the reduction is further compounded by the extension of the fund to cover the farming population. Farmers who effectively become redundant are of course also entitled to support, but the outcome of the new budgetary provision is that there will be very little for anybody. This is a major failure of Government and particularly of the Labour Party.

I call on Irish and Labour Party MEPs to vote against the EU budget.

Deputy Stephen S. Donnelly

I congratulate the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade for presiding over some extremely difficult and complex negotiations. He has managed to preside over an agreement on the MFF, multi-annual financial framework, for the period 2014 to 2020, which did not prove possible for other countries for several months. It was an extremely difficult task. I extend my congratulations to him as it was not an easy agreement to achieve.

The focus on economic growth, education, research and innovation and the new initiative designed to attack youth unemployment are particularly welcome. Obviously, we are dealing with horrific youth unemployment in Ireland, but partners such as Spain are dealing with issues which are much worse. I wonder if we would have got a better deal on the promissory notes had the Tánaiste been there negotiating rather than some of his colleagues.

Deputy Eamon Gilmore

I was.

Deputy Stephen S. Donnelly

In the light of the promissory notes vote we are taking tomorrow which is critical for Ireland, I note that the President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, said, "This compromise shows a sense of collective responsibility from Europe's leaders." We in Ireland understand this. In a time of deep economic crisis Fianna Fáil, on behalf of the people, committed €35 billion to Anglo Irish Bank and Irish Nationwide Building Society. Why? The answer is to secure the eurozone banking system. That is collective responsibility and solidarity. However, collective responsibility and solidarity are a two-way street. I do not believe we are seeing a return on the collective responsibility and solidarity we showed in 2008 and 2010. At 1.30 p.m. tomorrow Dáil Éireann will be asked to welcome the restructuring of the promissory note deal. The Governor of the Central Bank, Professor Patrick Honohan's comments yesterday were interesting in the light of this. He is clearly frustrated at the banks because they refuse to engage in a meaningful way on the issue of debt write-downs and are instead keeping people on the never-never of interest-only mortgages. The Government, with most of Dáil Éireann, is rightly with Professor Honohan that this is not acceptable. One cannot solve debt problems by keeping people on interest-only mortgages that go on forever. That, however, is exactly what is the new restructuring of the promissory notes.

The Dáil is being asked to welcome a deal for the people on €31 billion of other people's debts which we are in agreement at the same time is not how they should be treated by the banks regarding their own debts. This does not seem right to me. Should we welcome this promissory notes deal? Perhaps it was the best deal that could ever have been got. We will never know. I do not think it is the best deal, but I fully accept it may be. The reason I do not think it is the best deal is we know the Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan, never asked for a write-down on the principal of €31 billion. He got very upset with me here yesterday evening when I pointed out that Greece had asked for a write-down of €110 billion on its sovereign debt. He was right to point out that the Greek situation had to do with private holders of sovereign debt but so are the promissory notes. The promissory notes are not owed to the European Central Bank - not yet anyway - but to two dead banks, just like the Greek sovereign debt was owed to banks. Greece secured a 53% reduction in the principal. If this had happened for Ireland, the Government could have announced the sum of €31 billion had been shared with the European Union and that we were now on the hook for €14 billion. Greece achieved this on its sovereign debt, but we did not achieve on the promissory notes which are not the same as real debt, as they are an IOU. We did not get anything in exchange. Anglo Irish Bank did not give us €31 billion in cash; we just offered it to the bank. In law a contract in which one party promises something but gets nothing in return is not always enforceable.

Regardless of where any of us stands on this deal, it is fair to say we would all prefer to see a write-down of debt and lower funding costs. What would happen if instead of voting "Yes" tomorrow Dáil Éireann voted "No"? Let us imagine if Deputies on all sides of the House were allowed to vote based on their own analysis of Ireland's best interests. If we vote "Yes", we will send a message to the people, the ECB, Angela Merkel and the rest of Europe that we welcome this deal with its lower funding costs and turning dodgy banking debt into gold-plated sovereign debt. What if we say "No"? As this is not the finance Bill, just a motion, the Government would not collapse. It will say Dáil Éireann does not welcome this deal with the people taking on the losses of Anglo Irish Bank and Irish Nationwide Building Society or the abandonment of solidarity in Europe. If we vote "No", we will be saying we may end up having to swallow this bitterest of pills but, by God, we do not welcome it. It is for that reason we should vote against the promissory notes deal tomorrow.

Deputy Micheál Martin

The opening paragraph of the 47-page document agreed at the European Council on the EU budget states, "We must ensure the European Union's budget is geared to lifting Europe out of the crisis". With 26 million people out of work, how can a fall in the European Union budget, as a percentage of gross European national income, from 0.98% to 0.95%, actually represent an attempt to lift Europe out of the crisis? Is it not the case that the first reduction in the European Union budget is the completely wrong response to the unprecedented economic crisis in which Europe has found itself since the late 1920s? It beggars belief that there will be a reduction in the budget when the only opportunity to have a pan-European stimulus was through the EU budget. Will the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade address this fundamental issue of the European Union budget becoming a tiny and a falling percentage of the value of the wider European economy? Will he confirm that the agreed budget represents a 10% decline in the Common Agricultural Policy budget, or a reduction of €4 billion per annum? Will he confirm that there will be a restructuring of payments under the CAP? When will we see details of this? Does he accept that the youth guarantee cannot be achieved within the figure of €6 billion allocated to it, given the enormity of the youth unemployment problem across the Union? As has been said, €3 billion of this amount will come from the Social Fund.

An additional limit has been placed on the total payments as opposed to commitments. That is a crucial issue such that the British Prime Minister, Mr. David Cameron, moved might and main to have additional limits on payments that could actually be made as opposed to commitments. It removes a vital area of flexibility and the destructive agenda of the Tory Party gained much ground in the budget negotiations. What engagement did the Government have with the British Prime Minister in pointing out to him that his agenda which seems to be fuelled by electoral considerations in Britain is having a genuinely damaging impact on Europe and Irish citizens?

Deputy Seán Crowe

It is welcome that tackling youth unemployment is a priority and that a figure of €3 billion has been allocated to it. The problem is that when one does the sums, it will not have a significant impact on unemployment levels and the 26 million who are unemployed. It works out as €142 per unemployed person per year, which is not sufficient.

There is an allocation of €150 million for the PEACE Programme over the seven year period. Do we have any idea how many programmes and organisations are relying on this programme for funding?

Funding in the area of connectivity has been slashed. This is where the savings will be made. Do we have any idea how this will impact on programmes in Ireland? Have we made a case for relevant programmes?

The horsemeat controversy has been mentioned. It seems strange that this was not one of the issues addressed, especially with regard to the need for proper traceability, labelling and so on. I would have thought there would have been a public relations campaign to encourage people to eat burgers to send the message that food was safe to eat. It is emerging clearly that there are difficulties and it appears criminal elements are involved.

The Council is sending the wrong message on the issue of youth unemployment. There is no sense from the negotiations that we are on the side of increasing funding. The Strasbourg-Brussels charade continues. Was this issue discussed? Was it ever going to be a runner in the discussions? I have referred to the fact that some €1.5 billion is to be saved over a seven year period. We are discussing cuts to be made, but what is being done in this area does not add up.

Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Deputy Eamon Gilmore)

It is important to put the negotiations in context, especially with reference to where we started from. This country supported the original Commission proposals on the European Union budget. There is no secret about the fact that the Government would prefer and would like to have seen a larger budget. However, we had to try to achieve agreement among 27 member states and do so in a way that would enable agreement to reached with the European Parliament in the course of time. What was facing European leaders last week at the conclusion of the discussions was not a choice between this budget and a larger one or this budget and the original budget proposed by the Commission but whether there would be agreement on any budget. Given that in recent years Europe has been mired in economic crisis, it is, above all, desirable and an advance that the European Council was able to agree to a budget. There has been a clear message that the European Union is able to conclude a budget.

We should not lose sight of the scale of what has been agreed. The total amount committed to in the budget is €960 billion which, by any standards, is a very large sum to be mobilised to address economic issues in Europe.

With regard to the Irish position, we emerged from the budget negotiations as a net recipient of European Union funding. If we factor out the period 2014 to 2020, based on current growth assumptions, we will contribute in the order of €10 billion to the EU budget at 2011 prices, but we will be a beneficiary or the recipient of €12 billion. That will be our net position as a country. Some 40 years after taking out membership of the European Economic Community we remain a net recipient of European Union funding. The bulk of the funding we receive comes through the Common Agricultural Policy, for which there is a shrinking budget. There was a good deal of pressure for further reductions. The reduction under the Commission's proposal is 7.2%. The figure under heading 2 represents a reduction of 4.5% and in the case of direct payments, 1.8%.

The representatives of this country have made it clear from an early stage that we want the issue of youth unemployment to be addressed. It is the greatest social-----

Deputy Micheál Martin

That is the percentage under the Commission's proposal. What is the percentage in the context of the outgoing programme?

Deputy Eamon Gilmore

I do not have that figure.

Deputy Micheál Martin

The figure for the past seven years was 10%.

Deputy Eamon Gilmore

I am working from the Commission's figures.

Deputy Micheál Martin

Will the Tánaiste provide me with the details later?

Deputy Eamon Gilmore

There is a shrinking.

Deputy Micheál Martin

Will the Tánaiste provide me with the details later to confirm that the figure represents a reduction of 10% on the figure for the last programme? That is what the Financial Times stated and I wish to confirm it.

Deputy Eamon Gilmore

The figures are available, about which there is no doubt.

We have sought to have a specific provision made in the European Union budget to do two things to address the issue of youth unemployment. First, during the course of our Presidency of the European Union we will seek to make tackling youth unemployment a priority. One of the issues being advanced through the Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council is a youth guarantee. There are proposals from the European Commission on the issue of youth unemployment that we are keen to see progressed, but we wish to see them backed up by a budgetary provision. It is welcome that agreement was secured on a budget provision of €6 billion in the lifetime of the budget.

The Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine has convened a meeting today to consider the horsemeat issue which is now very much a European issue. We should acknowledge that the testing and food safety system in this country has worked and that the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine has made this a European issue for discussion at the meeting he has convened for today.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Catherine Byrne)

I am sorry to interrupt, but there are three more speakers, Deputies Joe Higgins, Richard Boyd Barrett and Stephen Donnelly. As there are approximately nine minutes left, if they make short contributions, the Tánaiste will be able to reply.

Deputy Joe Higgins

The McKinsey Global Institute has pointed out that there was a catastrophic 15% fall in private investment in the European Union from 2007 to 2012. In the course of the past year the international financial press, including the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times, for example, has pointed to a vast hoarding of profits, amounting to some €3 billion on a total EU-wide basis, by big business which is essentially refusing to invest because of a belief it will not make sufficient profits for boardrooms and investors. In view of this paralysis or semi-paralysis of European capitalisation, how can the Tánaiste justify particularly sharp cuts in the EU budget when a significant increase in public investment is what is needed? Is it not clear that the millions of young unemployed people cannot rely on private or big business to secure their future? Is it not the case that in the public good the State and public enterprise should provide the resources, investment and jobs needed? Therefore, the Government has failed the young people of Europe. How can the Tánaiste justify continued significant funding for the European armaments industry for research into developing even more horrific weapons of mass destruction in view of the social funding that is so desperately needed?

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

In his State of the Union address yesterday President Obama, who is not a radical left winger, argued strongly against the Republican majority in Congress which is seeking further spending cuts. He argued that spending cuts would be a disaster for the American economy and that what was needed was a stimulus and certainly not retrenchment.

Is he not right in this regard? He does not go as far as I would prefer but he is at least moving in the right direction. This is in sharp contrast to what is being done in Europe, which is all about retrenchment. If stimulation for the European economy is needed, it will have to come from private or public investment, or increased consumer demand. Increases in consumer demand are being prevented by the debt burdens people face as well as high levels of unemployment and further austerity measures. Public investment is prevented by retrenchment and austerity, while the private investment on which the Tánaiste and other European leaders seem to rely is not forthcoming. What is the Irish Government going to propose during its Presidency in order to break this stranglehold? Surely the only way we can do so is by forcing the financial institutions to take a hit and lifting the debt burden over people in order to stimulate consumer demand. We need more public investment financed by higher taxes on the corporate sector.

Deputy Stephen S. Donnelly

I ask the Tánaiste's opinion on the potential for reputational damage to Ireland in light of the ongoing negotiations on our situation. It is great that we are still net recipients but I imagine some of our partners will point out that, notwithstanding the economic crisis, we are one of the wealthiest countries in Europe. How does he see youth unemployment funding being deployed in Ireland to provide tangible benefits over the next one to five years?

Deputy Micheál Martin

I acknowledge that the Tánaiste has several questions to answer but he did not address two issues in particular. First, I ask about the huge emphasis placed on additional limits to payments as opposed to commitments, which is a real difference in this budget. Second, how has the Irish Government engaged with the British Government in regard to Prime Minister Cameron's very destructive agenda on Europe? Essentially, his vision of a new Europe is to gut the Union. He wants it to cease to exist as we know it today. It is time for the Irish Government to make a more robust response to his agenda. The approach appears to be all about electoral advancement in the UK.

Deputy Eamon Gilmore

I agree that we need more investment in the European Union. During the period of the crisis there was a reduction in private investment across member states. In order to encourage investment we need stability in the Union and for its currency in particular. That is something that has largely been achieved. The agreement on a European Union budget will contribute to that stability and will hopefully encourage additional investment in Europe. The statement by President Obama on the prospects for an EU-US trade agreement was positive and will be very much part of our agenda.

We should also consider what has already been agreed. Some of the comments made by Deputies would lead one to believe money is being taken out of the European Union budget. The agreement last week was for a total commitment of €960 billion between now and 2020. That is a significant sum of money by any standard. We can all make the case as to whether we would like it to be more and it is no secret that Ireland would have liked a larger budget but it is a lot of money nonetheless. The choice faced last weekend was not between €960 million and a larger figure; it was a choice between a commitment to that budget between now and 2020 or no agreement at all. By any measure, it is preferable to have the agreement.

In regard to the issue raised by Deputy Martin on payments and commitments, a degree of flexibility is built into the agreement in terms of individual headings, the transfer of money between headings and the movement of money between one year and another. That flexibility will become an important consideration when we come to more detailed discussions with the European Parliament. We have already been holding discussions on the matter with the Parliament.

The Taoiseach and I have commented publicly on the announcement by the Prime Minister, Mr. Cameron, of his intention to hold a referendum and to make it an issue in the next British general election. It is ultimately a matter for the British people but we have made it clear that there cannot be 27 different conditions of membership of the European Union. The core conditions of membership are the same for all member states. While there is flexibility in the treaties - we have benefited from that in terms of protocols on various issues - we cannot have a European Union with 27 different sets of membership. The Taoiseach has spoken directly with the Prime Minister about the issue and I have spoken with the Deputy Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. We are in ongoing discussions with the British Government.

Last week's meeting gave rise to an important decision for the European Union as we seek to emerge from one of the most severe economic crises to have faced Europe in living memory. It is significant that the European Council has reached an agreement on the multi-annual financial framework. Leaders also adopted a comprehensive set of conclusions on trade related issues and external relations issues, including the Arab Spring, Syria and Mali. As the Taoiseach has made clear, the multi-annual financial framework is a good deal for Ireland. We will continue to be a net recipient, CAP funding has been secured for direct payments and rural development and the challenge of youth unemployment has been recognised in the special allocation for the Border, midlands and western region and the new youth employment initiative.

I was particularly glad to see the focus in the outcome on youth unemployment. Together with my colleagues in government, including in particular the Minister for Social Protection, I have been arguing strongly for such a focus. We are working hard in the Presidency to ensure the youth guarantee is adopted and last week partners agreed that the Union's budget should be mobilised in support of these efforts. The new youth employment initiative will be open to regions where youth unemployment exceeds 25%, including in Ireland, and will make €6 billion available over the term of the new framework. This is a welcome recognition of the new realities for the Union and the urgent need to support those who have borne much of the brunt of the economic downturn.

I am also glad that €150 million is being provided for the PEACE programme, through which the European Union has done such good work in Northern Ireland and the Border region. I welcome that the funding devoted to the Union's external actions has been increased. The EU has a greater global role than ever before and this funding will enable it to discharge its responsibilities.

The bulk of this funding will be spent on humanitarian and development aid. Even at a time of economic crisis, the Union does not make the mistake of thinking that its responsibilities stop at its borders.

As Presidency, we will take on new responsibilities as we work on reaching agreement with the Council on the new money market fund, MMF, regulation and then on gaining the assent of the European Parliament to the regulation. This is no light task. I fully respect the role and responsibilities of the Parliament in the process that lies ahead and I assure it that the Irish Presidency will be a good and straightforward partner in the discussions ahead. The Council and the Parliament have a shared interest in a positive outcome. I firmly believe that the deal reached last week can secure the level of support needed in the Parliament.

With regard to trade, I warmly welcome the explicit appreciation of leaders of the key role that trade can play in supporting sustainable growth and jobs. Similarly welcome was the acknowledgement that while the EU remains committed to the further development of the multilateral trading system, our immediate focus must be on developing the Union's bilateral trading relations. Leaders went further in stating that priority in the EU's bilateral trade agenda should be given to negotiations that will provide most benefit in terms of growth and jobs. With regard to one of the EU's most important bilateral trade processes, the European Union-United States trade process, I was pleased to hear in President Obama's state of the union speech last night that the US Administration supports the launching of talks on a comprehensive, transatlantic trade and investment partnership. Progress on an EU-US trade deal represents very good news for the EU and for the US. The announcement in Washington last night resonates with what EU leaders agreed in Brussels last week, that the Commission and the Council should follow up on this strand of the EU's bilateral trade negotiations without delay and during the Irish Presidency.

I assure the House that as Presidency, we will make every effort to progress this agenda, including by seeking an agreement in the Council on a mandate for the negotiation of a free trade agreement, should that be recommended by the EU-US high level working group whose report is expected to be published today. This is a priority for us.