Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 26 Mar 2014

Vol. 835 No. 2

European Council: Statements

The Taoiseach

I am pleased to be able to update the House on the meeting of the spring European Council which took place in Brussels on Thursday and Friday, 20 and 21 March. While the meeting focused on developments in Ukraine, it also had a wider agenda with an economic focus, including the European semester, the Europe 2020 strategy, industrial competitiveness, climate change and energy, banking union, taxation and external relations. In addition to developments in Ukraine, the Council discussed three other external relations items, namely, preparations for the EU-Africa summit, recent progress in negotiations toward the reunification of Cyprus and an international investigation into alleged war crimes in Sri Lanka. The Minister of State, Deputy Paschal Donohoe, will go over these issues in his statement, as well as reporting on the industrial competitiveness discussions which are part of the ongoing efforts of EU leaders to promote economic growth and job creation.

Last week's annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation constitutes a dangerous precedent with no place in the Europe of the 21st century. The European Council last week reiterated the European Union's support for Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity, while strongly condemning the annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol. The European Union will not recognise the referendum of 16 March in Crimea which was in clear violation of the Ukrainian constitution. Last week's summit asked the European Commission to evaluate the legal consequences of the annexation of Crimea and to propose economic, trade and financial restrictions for rapid implementation.

As Ireland and its partners have made absolutely clear, Russia's actions are in breach of its international and bilateral obligations, including the Helsinki accord which in the past 40 years has contributed to overcoming divisions in Europe and building a peaceful continent. Frankly, Russia is only isolating itself by its actions and I urge it to reconsider its approach as a matter of urgency. Any further destabilisation could have serious consequences for European stability and security. Europe and the world need stability based on the fundamental principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity. Russia's behaviour is endangering this stability and represents a direct threat not just to Ukraine but also to all of its neighbours, as well as the wider international community.

Against the backdrop of these deeply disturbing developments and in the absence of steps towards de-escalation by Russia, last week's European Council took the following additional, concrete measures. It extended the visa ban and asset freeze to an additional 12 individuals, cancelled the next EU-Russia summit and agreed not to hold regular bilateral summits, agreed to support suspension of Russia's accession negotiations to the OECD, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and the IEA, International Energy Agency, urged timely agreement on an OSCE, Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, mission in Ukraine, and agreed, if no agreement on a credible OSCE mission is reached in the coming days, to draw up an EU mission. This matter has been dealt with since the Council meeting. The Council also made it clear that further steps by Russia to destabilise the situation in Ukraine would lead to additional and far-reaching consequences for relations in a broad range of economic areas and we called on the Commission and member states to prepare possible targeted sanctions. It was decided to advance the signature of the association agreements with Georgia and Moldova to June this year

These additional measures follow on from the steps which we took at our meeting on 6 March, namely, suspension of work with the Russian Federation on visa matters and the new agreement on an enhanced EU-Russia partnership and co-operation agreement. This came in addition to the suspension of preparatory work for the G8 summit. The Foreign Affairs Council subsequently introduced travel restrictions and an asset freeze against those responsible for undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine.

The nature and scope of sanctions is always a complex and difficult issue. As I said in Brussels last week, inevitably, they will have negative economic consequences for the European Union, including Ireland, as well as for Russia. It is only right, therefore, that we prepare such decisions carefully and we have tasked the Commission accordingly. As a small country which has traditionally relied on respect for the rule of law as the fundamental guarantor of stability in the international system, Ireland should take a firm position on what has happened in Ukraine. It would be wrong, however, to suggest this is only an Irish view. The conclusions of last week's European Council made it explicit that "there is no place for the use of force and coercion to change borders in Europe in the 21st century". As a country which had the honour to serve as the chair in office of the OSCE as recently as 2012, I do not see how Ireland could fail to take a strong view on such matters.

The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy for the European Union, Catherine Ashton, has been tasked by us to draw up plans for an EU contribution to facilitate the work of the OSCE special monitoring mission to Ukraine, the terms of which were agreed to by the OSCE last Friday. Ireland is, of course, open to participation in the OSCE mission.

In parallel with the additional measures against the Russian Federation, the European Council emphasised EU support for Ukraine, including through macro-financial assistance. I also strongly support the economic assistance package of €11 billion announced by the European Commission President, José Manuel Barroso, on 6 March. This is a further demonstration of our support for and solidarity with the authorities in Kiev which continue to show commendable restraint in the face of huge provocation. Together with the other leaders and in the presence of Ukraine's Prime Minister, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, I signed the political provisions of the association agreement with Ukraine on the second day of the European Council. The European Union is committed to signing the remainder of the association agreement on a deep and comprehensive free trade area. In the meantime, the Union will soon temporarily remove customs duties on Ukrainian exports to the European market. These steps are proof of the European Union and Ukraine's shared wish for closer political association and economic integration.

We welcomed the Ukrainian Government's commitment to ensure its structures were inclusive and reflected regional diversity, as well as ensuring full protection of the rights of persons belonging to national minorities. We also welcomed the commitment to undertake constitutional reform, to investigate all human rights violations and acts of violence and to fight extremism. The European Council further encouraged Ukraine to ensure its presidential election on 25 May would be free and fair.

Last week's summit also reconfirmed the European Union's wish to further strengthen its political association and economic integration with Georgia and Moldova. We indicated that we aimed to sign the association agreements with these countries no later than June.

Overall, we have sent a clear message to Russia that our words are backed up with firm intent, even though the measures will entail consequences for all of us. However, while there is a need to demonstrate our resolve to Russia and the signs are not at all positive, we need to keep channels of communication open. Dialogue remains important, particularly when differences are most acute. Ireland and its EU partners will also make their views known at the United Nations. This is not a dispute between the European Union and Russia. What is happening in Ukraine is a direct challenge to the rule of law and has implications for the whole global community.

The economic agenda touched on the European semester and the review of the Europe 2020 strategy. Last week's meeting concluded the first phase of the European semester for 2014 by finalising guidance on this year's national reform plans. We placed particular emphasis on policies enhancing competitiveness, supporting job creation and fighting unemployment. Ireland will be a full participant in this year's European semester process following successful completion of its EU-IMF programme. The Minister of State, Deputy Paschal Donohoe, will update the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs on our preparations on Tuesday, 1 April.

We also took stock last week of progress in implementing the Europe 2020 strategy. Exchanges were informed by the European Commission's recent communication which showed quite clearly that overall performance was mixed and that the crisis had slowed down progress towards key goals. The modest European economic recovery must be supported by strong re-engagement with Europe's post-crisis strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. I welcome the European Council's call on member states to step up efforts to reach the 2020 targets. The Commission plans to launch a full public consultation in April. I hope we will see strong stakeholder engagement with this consultation, including from national parliaments.

Last week's meeting also considered progress in completing banking union. I was pleased that the European Council welcomed the agreement reached with European Parliament negotiators on the next pillar of banking union, namely, the single resolution mechanism, SRM. The SRM is an important contributory factor to breaking the link between sovereign and banking debt. The new mechanism will allow decisions to be made in an objective and independent fashion. These decisions will be taken in line with the principles of resolution set out in the bank recovery and resolution proposal. This means that shareholders and creditors should bear the costs of resolution before any external funding is guaranteed, while private sector solutions should be found instead of using taxpayers' money.

Aspects of the SRM relating to financing are covered by an intergovernmental agreement. Significantly, the agreement with the European Parliament reduces the period of mutualisation from ten to eight years. The pace of mutualisation has also been accelerated to allow for 40% mutualisation in year one, followed by an additional 20% in year two, an important development for the overall credibility of the project. It signals that we are serious about breaking the link between the sovereign and the banking sector. The agreement also provides that steps will be taken to develop appropriate methods and modalities to enhance the borrowing capacity of the Single Resolution Fund. The purpose is to ensure adequate funding can be provided by the fund at all times. I expect the regulation on the SRM will now be formally adopted before the European Parliament rises for elections.

Taxation was also included in the agenda for last week's meeting. On this item, I was pleased that the European Council could finally welcome agreement on the savings tax directive. Ireland supported the directive which I see as a significant contribution to EU and international efforts to combat tax fraud and evasion.

Climate change and energy were also a focus at last week's meeting. My colleagues and I held a first policy debate based on the European Commission's communication on the framework for climate and energy to 2030. This represents the next phase in the European Union's transition to a competitive, low-carbon economy by 2050. The issue requires careful consideration. Ambition and flexibility are important features of the package. However, the outcome must also be sustainable on environmental, economic and competitiveness grounds for the Euopean Union and individual member states. We support in principle the proposed targets set out in the Commission's communication, namely, a 40% reduction in EU-level greenhouse gas emissions and a proposed EU-wide 27% target for renewable energy by 2030.

We need to be ambitious, but we also need to be very clear about the commitments we undertake. We need good and agreed data on which to base decisions. The European Council agreed on the need for further urgent analysis of the implications for member states of the proposals for emissions reductions and renewable energy. I made clear that for Ireland, particular account must be taken of the role of agriculture. This is already set out clearly in the Commission communication, and during discussions at last week's meeting, President Van Rompuy was reassuring on this aspect. Therefore, the agri-sector is confirmed as being part of the flexibility in reflecting national circumstances in the decision mix made. This is important from Ireland's perspective. We believe that a coherent and cost-effective approach to the parallel priorities of sustainable food production and climate change is fundamental. A realistic way forward at national, EU and wider international level under the UN convention requires such an approach. Leaders also called on the Council and the Commission to elaborate on mechanisms for fair effort sharing and to modernise the energy sector, prevent carbon leakage and develop an energy efficiency framework. We will take stock of progress on these issues at the June European Council meeting, with a view to taking a final decision by October 2014. This will facilitate an agreed EU position at the UN Climate Conference in Paris in 2015.

The European Council also agreed to accelerate efforts to complete the internal energy market this year, including through increased electricity interconnections, including in the Iberian peninsula, the Mediterranean region and the southern corridor from eastern European countries. Discussions on energy, and energy security in particular, had an added urgency in light of the Ukraine crisis. The Commission has been asked to prepare a detailed analysis of Europe's energy security and a comprehensive plan to reduce energy dependence in time for the June European Council. The Council also agreed to support the development of other sources of energy supply, including examining ways to facilitate natural gas exports from North America to the European Union. We will consider how this may best be reflected in the transatlantic trade and investment partnership, TTIP. This refers specifically to liquefied natural gas.

To conclude, I hope I have given Deputies a reasonable overview of the discussions that took place last week.

Deputy Micheál Martin

In the early days of what is now the European Union, one of its founders, Jean Monnet, talked frequently about how it might develop. His most often quoted idea was: "Europe will be forged in crises, and will be the sum of the solutions adopted for those crises." When looking at the outcome of last week's summit and those of recent years, it is impossible to miss the power of this idea. We are five years into the biggest crisis since the Union was founded. A financial crisis became an economic one which has hit many millions of citizens throughout the Union. The sum of the solutions adopted to tackle this crisis appears to have been reached and the outcome is one that should worry anyone who cares about the future of the Union and its member states. In recent weeks, this has been joined by a dramatic escalation of a wider crisis, which has many new economic, political and security dimensions.

The decision of Russia to try first to maintain control over and then annex a region of a neighbouring state is fundamentally a challenge to the idea that Europe is a space of peace and co-operation between nations. It is a reminder to all of us that there are very uncomfortable decisions to be taken if we are to be true to the values of democracy and human rights. It has brought to the fore the absolute need to remember what unites us and put aside short-term concerns. The decision of the Council to extend the list of persons subject to sanctions was reasonable. In particular, there appears to be real agreement about going to stage three sanctions if there are any further efforts to subvert Ukrainian sovereignty. This is the least that could be done in the circumstances. The debate at the Council was between those who wanted a more extensive list and those who wanted to do almost nothing. It is welcome that Poland and other states were listened to during the meeting and that the final communiqué was significantly toughened from the opening, rather abject, proposal. We would have welcomed it if the Council had at least matched the list of sanctions published by the United States. Those sanctions appear to have had a real impact on the private financial networks of people intimately connected with Russia's expansionist policy. Given the reach of the financial system of the United States and the legal force it applies behind sanctions, duplication of the list by the European Union is not essential. Because there have been so few occasions for welcoming the major outcomes of summits in recent years, it is important that we acknowledge that leaders overcame the divisions between them of recent weeks. They applied themselves to working together and seem to have understood that a failure to act together would have been disastrous for the Union. The contributions of Poland and the Baltic States, in particular, were valuable in reminding others that there comes a point at which narrow commercial interests cannot be allowed to trump basic principles.

As I have said previously, Fianna Fáil fully supports the Government's position condemning the illegal actions by Russia. The Taoiseach and Tánaiste have left no room for doubt on this. What is not clear at all is where Ireland stands on the specific issues which have been decided by leaders at the summit. The Taoiseach told us yesterday that two different approaches were proposed at the summit. He then outlined the final agreement and said that Ireland supports it. However, he did not say what Ireland's position was during the discussion and I have found it difficult to get an answer on that.

There has been a concerted propaganda campaign by Russia to justify its actions. The arguments it is using today are completely different from those it was using at the start of the crisis. Thankfully, the number of parties and individuals falling for the Russian line or who seem committed to staying silent no matter what Russia does is small. However, it is worth mentioning the response to Russia's evolving arguments. In recent weeks, and again yesterday during Deputy Adams's contribution on Question Time, Sinn Féin has been reluctant to utter a word of rebuke towards Russia. It has now started the line that what is at issue is self-determination by the people of Crimea. This is an extraordinary argument. There is a majority of Russians in Crimea, but this has not always been the case. It was an almost uniformly Tatar area until relatively recently. The current population balance is the result of what we now term ethnic cleansing.

The issue of Crimea becoming a part of Russia only became live when Russia decided it would activate it. Russia still has a powerful imperial mindset concerning its former subject states. Once it became clear that the people of Ukraine wanted to assert their independence of Russian control, Russia simply decided it would partition parts of Ukraine where it felt it could sustain a majority. Last week's referendum was completely illegitimate. It was held with Russian troops on the streets and no dissenting voices were allowed. Less than two weeks elapsed between the calling of the vote and the announcement of the result. Independent observers were kept out by the threat of violence. This included the firing of warning shots over the head of an Irish officer. The belligerent speech of President Putin confirmed that this was a planned annexation. We should also understand that Crimea is now subject to deeply anti-democratic laws. Due to a measure enacted in recent days, it is now a crime to publicly question the annexation. If one is a Tatar or Ukrainian in Crimea, one may end up in gaol for saying one does not want to belong to Russia. The invasion and annexation of the Crimean peninsula by Russia is the type of action that has not happened in Europe since 1968. From beginning to end, this was a manufactured situation. The statement that Europe is somehow to blame by supposedly forcing Ukraine into a choice between Russia and Europe is outrageous.

I would like to acknowledge the work of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade on this topic. It does great work, but is rarely given the attention it deserves. In particular, I would like to commend it on its session with the Russian ambassador. Deputy Bernard Durkan, in the Chair, Deputy Eric Byrne and Deputy Brendan Smith made sure that Russia's aggressive propaganda was challenged. In particular, they made sure that implied threats were seen to have no impact on the views of the overwhelming majority of Oireachtas Members.

The presence of large numbers of Russian troops on Ukraine's borders is ominous, but it does not seem there is an immediate likelihood of their annexing further territory.

In spite of repeated provocation, it appears that the eastern areas of Ukraine have not been destabilised.

The red line which the summit drew, beyond which escalating economic sanctions would be imposed, is a restrained and reasonable response. Any escalation will be because Russia has decided to escalate the crisis and not because of anything the European Union has done.

It is also correct that the association agreement with Ukraine starts first with the political aspects. The undermining of Ukrainian democracy in recent years has been profound. Wider civil society has suffered a sustained attack and democratic roots are weak. The European Union cannot compromise on its democratic principles and must hold the Ukrainian Government to account. The extremist elements who gained prominence during the last months of the Yanukovych regime are not acceptable partners. Thankfully, there are signs of democratic parties pushing back against their influence and we should do everything possible to support them. The European Union’s aid programme must prioritise support for civil society organisations which provide the essential counterbalance for a political system which has repeatedly failed the Ukrainian people.

It was timely that there was a discussion about energy on the summit's agenda. Given how often Britain plays a negative role at the Council and its repeated efforts to stop the European Union becoming more active, we should note Prime Minister Cameron’s very positive initiative on energy before the summit. Energy dependence on Russia is a profound strategic weakness for the European Union. The Russian state exerts tight control on its energy sector and has repeatedly shown a willingness to see energy as part of its strategic arsenal when dealing with other states. Now is the time for the European Union to push ahead with a determined effort to secure real energy independence. It must diversify both the sources and types of energy it uses. It must end the practice where individual states are picked off in highly suspicious ways. This has blocked alternative supply routes and increased reliance on Russia. Former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder’s lucrative job with the Nord Stream project still leaves a bitter taste in many mouths. I welcome the summit’s decision to show more urgency on energy independence and hope this resolve will be maintained.

The summit took place against the backdrop of ongoing negotiations with the European Parliament on key elements of the so-called banking union. The Parliament’s position that the resolution mechanism agreed to by leaders is inadequate is correct. It involves too little money; there is too much national involvement and not enough banks. By covering no more than 1% of covered assets and then only after a lengthy lead-in time, it does not provide a credible resolution mechanism. By only phasing in mutualisation it specifically fails to break the link between sovereign and financial debt.

The few concessions secured by the European Parliament are extremely welcome. They dilute somewhat the worst elements of the Council’s deal. For this I particularly acknowledge the leadership of Sharon Bowles of the ALDE, Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, group. Nobody can say with confidence that the eurozone financial system has been placed on sound foundations. We still have a single currency without a genuine banking union. What is much worse is that we are heading into bank stress tests without the confidence that genuine and tough results can be managed.

ECB president Mario Draghi’s letter to Fianna Fáil’s spokesperson, Deputy Michael McGrath, shows that the Government’s complacent line about everything having been sorted is false. The Draghi letter confirms that there are serious issues remaining relating to Irish banks. There is no engagement with the idea of retrospective recapitalisation. Yesterday I directly asked the Taoiseach if he would state what Ireland was looking for in this regard. Just as he has done for a year and a half, he refused to say anything. A year and a half after he and his Ministers announced victory on the issue of bank debt they have not only achieved nothing, they will not even say what, if anything, they are asking for. It is now well established that Mr. Draghi’s decisions have been far more significant for the economy than any taken by the Government, particularly as it waited three years before announcing an economic policy. Mr. Draghi’s commitment to fight against threatened deflation is very welcome. We should note also the news yesterday that the head of the Bundesbank had indicated that he would not oppose quantitative easing in all circumstances. This is the first time he has said on the record that the ECB could buy government bonds at issuance. Instead of sitting on the sidelines, Ireland should make a clear statement that it supports Mr. Draghi’s initiatives and that it believes quantitative easing is an appropriate response to low growth and threatened deflation.

A further major threat to Ireland is emerging. From the very moment the conversion of the promissory notes into sovereign debt was announced by the Government, my party has been pointing out that the deal is worth nowhere near what was being claimed. As recently as December, the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Paschal Donohoe, was involved in inflating the claim even more when he announced on radio that the promissory notes had been “ripped up”. Nothing of the sort happened. Today a very serious piece of news has been reported in The Irish Times. It is right that the appalling behaviour of the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter, and the Taoiseach’s continued support of him have dominated public attention in recent days, but we cannot let other, potentially dramatic, news pass without reference. It is being reported that there is new pressure from the ECB council on the Central Bank of Ireland to sell its holding of Irish bonds. If this were to happen, billions of euro in interest on the bonds issued to replace the promissory notes would be lost to the State. Every single positive economic impact of the arrangement announced last year requires the Central Bank to hold these bonds for as long as possible, preferably to maturity. The Taoiseach owes it to us to explain what is going on. Is he aware of these pressures to sell the bonds? Has he made any intervention? If this happens, a central plank of the Government’s claims will have been destroyed and Ireland will lose billions of euro which should be available for public services.

The sum of the actions agreed to to tackle the financial and economic crisis shows a generation of leaders committed to finding a way to muddle through rather than address core problems. The lack of leadership remains striking. In the discussions about who will serve as presidents of the Council and the Commission we do not need a ready-up between the big parties. We need people of drive and vision who want to reform and develop the European Union and end the damaging policy of maximising disputes and minimising ambition. Given that those in these positions will set the direction of the European Union for the next five years, the Taoiseach owes it to us to come to the House before the informal meeting on 27 May to outline his views. It will not be acceptable if all we get is another case in which the Government waits to hear the outcome before it tells us what it is seeking.

Deputy Seán Crowe

I apologise for the absence of my colleague and leader, Deputy Gerry Adams, who, unfortunately, is attending a funeral at Glasnevin Cemetery. He is speaking at the funeral of its resident historian, curator and tour guide, Shane MacThomáis, who was a long-standing member of Sinn Féin. Ar dheis dé go raibh a anam. I am sure the House shares my view on the unfortunate death of this young man and that at some stage others will have their own remarks to make.

Last week we were told the European Council had agreed the shape of a new single resolution mechanism and its fund as the final piece of the banking union jigsaw. However, it is highly questionable whether that fund is fit for purpose and whether what was achieved last week will do anything to separate banking and sovereign debt. There is serious concern about the European Union's plan for banking union. It appears Germany's interests have, once again, triumphed over everybody else's. This view is shared by other parties across Europe. It will be years before the fund is established as it was meant to be and in terms of how it was perceived it would be rolled out. The ECB stress tests will tell the story of how far down the road to normality the banks have come. The SME sector, in particular, will watch with concern how things develops.

Does the Taoiseach have an update on the restructuring talks with the European Commission about Permanent TSB? This is a concern for many of my constituents and others across the country.

There has been no progress on the important issue of retrospective recapitalisation of Irish banks. Last week a number of players failed to support the Irish cause for retrospective recapitalisation in the European Parliament. It seems the Government's political allies are the roadblock across Europe to retrospective recapitalisation of pillar banks and I am disappointed that there is no agreement on it. There were all sorts of signals that this would happen but that has not come about.

There has been mention of Ukraine, and Deputy Martin spoke about the Sinn Féin position on the Russian invasion of Crimea, implying that Sinn Féin had gone soft on the matter. When the Russian ambassador recently attended a meeting of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade, I thought I was as robust as any member. I was equally robust with the Ukrainian representative when he attended, and I spoke of the worry I had about the make-up of that country's interim government. The European Council has roundly condemned Russia on its actions in Crimea, and I have routinely called for open dialogue between all sides in Ukraine, respect for human rights and for foreign powers to end hostilities and rising tensions by stating they will not militarily intervene and will stop meddling in Ukraine's internal affairs. I have stated this on a number of occasions, and I made it quite clear when speaking during the pre-Council statements in the Dáil. I have also previously mentioned in the House that the zero-sum geopolitical game played by both sides is doing nothing but harm to ordinary Ukrainians and inflaming further tensions.

News broke yesterday that Ukrainian special forces shot dead a far-right Ukrainian leader of the neo-Nazi Right Sector group in a shoot-out. That is another incident likely to raise tensions between Kiev's new interim Government and the rest of the ultra-nationalist groups within the country that have secured between seven and nine key places in the government. These are ministerial positions, including that of the deputy prime minister. This episode highlights the fragility of the new opposition-led coalition, which has so far failed to persuade militia groups to disarm or step aside. This is the difficult backdrop faced by the interim government.

The Council welcomed the Ukrainian Government's commitment to ensuring the representative nature and inclusiveness of the government structures, reflecting regional diversity and a commitment to protect minorities. This does not seem to be what is happening on the ground. Previously I spoke about people from a Jewish background, with the rabbi of Kiev telling us that people have had to leave the country. The European Council has indicated one reality but others indicate the opposite. Am I in a minority in saying I have seen nothing from the interim Government in Ukraine reflecting any inclusiveness or a new approach? The Council has committed to signing new, deep and comprehensive trade agreements with Ukraine, but these depend on macroeconomic reform; I presume this is just another word for austerity. The conclusions state that an agreement with the International Monetary Fund is critical to all economic reforms. The Ukrainian people have suffered enough but it seems they will also come under the observation and dictatorial practices of the IMF, which is the organisation that was central to enforcing the crippling austerity measures in EU countries, including this one, which have brought nothing but unemployment, the destruction of social services and a worsened economic climate.

The conclusions state that substantial progress has been made towards the attainment of EU targets for greenhouse gas emissions reduction, renewable energy and energy efficiency which must be fully met by 2020. I had hoped the Taoiseach would go into more detail about the progress made on that front, and perhaps the Minister of State, Deputy Donohoe, will focus on the area in his reply. We know climate change is one of the most serious and destructive issues facing our planet. According to the annual report of the World Meteorological Organization, the UN's weather agency, much of the extreme weather that wreaked havoc in Asia, Europe and the Pacific region in 2013 can be directly blamed on human-induced climate change. The report states that 2013 was the sixth warmest year on record, with 13 of the 14 warmest years occurring in the 21st century. The big risks and overall effect of climate change are far more immediate and local than scientists once thought. This is not purely a geographical issue or about melting ice or threatened animals and plants. Climate change is making human problems such as hunger, disease, drought, flooding, war and refugee issues far worse.

I am worried that in trying to reduce greenhouse gas and carbon emissions, EU countries will increasingly turn to biofuels. A mass increase in the harvesting of biofuels has its own environmental impact, such as soil erosion and drought, and there is a massive impact on food production and price volatility in that market, which affects the poorest on the planet. I hope these issues were discussed in an open and frank way at the meeting, and I hope the Minister of State will focus on the Council's intentions in this regard. For example, will there be discussion on replacement by European countries of food crops with biofuels, what companies are involved and what Europe will do about this?

I also note that the recent revival of the Cypriot reunification talks was raised at the European Council meeting. We all welcome the recommencement of these talks and give the Cypriot Government complete support in its efforts to reunite the partitioned country. Unfortunately, although it was agreed between negotiating parties that no inflammatory statements would be released while negotiations were ongoing, the Turkish Government has continued to release unhelpful comments relating to the talks, specifically by referring to "two nations" and "two states". Like me, I am sure the Taoiseach sees that as being extremely unhelpful and a breach of faith. Will he use this opportunity to call again for a cessation of such unhelpful statements?

The European Council conclusions state it will support any confidence-building measures agreed by the parties in that region. Does that include the Famagusta declaration? This declaration proposes the formula for a return of Varosha to the UN, the opening of the Famagusta port to international maritime lines and the declaration of the walled city of Famagusta as a UNESCO world heritage monument as a key confidence-building measure. I hope the EU and the Irish Government will take a more proactive approach to the issue, giving the Cypriot Government and the negotiators their full support. Considering the history and current partition of our nation, I would like to see the Government play a much more supportive role in this regard. Were any of the issues discussed with the Cypriot leadership at the meetings?

The Cypriot people will look to Ireland to take the lead, as it has in the past.

It is welcome that the Council discussed human rights, accountability and reconciliation in Sri Lanka and that its conclusions call for the adoption of a resolution on Sri Lanka at the Human Rights Council which would provide for an international investigation into alleged war crimes, as recommended by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. The Sri Lankan Government has continually tried to dodge all calls for an independent international investigation into these crimes and continued abuses of Tamil citizens’ human rights. I hope the Council and individual member states will place serious pressure on Sri Lanka and insist that it begin this investigation.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

There should be no ambiguity about our attitude to the Russian actions in Ukraine. They should be condemned outright. President Putin’s regime is vile. It has been involved in vicious repression of the Pussy Riot movement and gay people and carried on a terrible and brutal campaign of Russian imperialism in the smaller nations surrounding Russia which has earned it the title, Prison House of Nations, which it still deserves. That imperial impulse is driving its actions in Ukraine. Russia should get out, as President Putin has no credibility.

The hypocrisy of the European Union and the Government in the assessment of the situation in Ukraine is equally nauseating. The Taoiseach said, “Europe and the world need stability based on the fundamental principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity.” Presumably, the violation of these principles justifies sanctions. How can that be the case when, for example, Israel routinely, systematically, brutally and continually violates all of these principles and human rights, makes regular incursions into other sovereign states, affecting their territorial integrity, and Europe does not impose sanctions? Palestinians and many others have called for sanctions, but instead the European Union gives it privileged trade status, the opposite of sanctions, despite its vile breach of the principles the Taoiseach says we must uphold. That hypocrisy suggests this is not the real motive. These principles are a cover for the European Union engaging in a geopolitical battle to try to expand its borders at the expense of another geopolitical rival and being willing to play around in the most dangerous way with vile right-wing and neo-fascist forces inside Ukraine. There has been no outright condemnation of Svoboda and the Right Sector and all they stand for, in a worrying echo of what happened at the beginning of the First World War or Germany’s unilateral actions which pre-empted the war in the Balkans in the mid-1990s.

I will keep raising my next point until it is acknowledged. Is there any discussion of social objectives in Europe, or this country, particularly homelessness, poverty and unemployment, in all of the discussions about banking union and bank resolution mechanisms? Will the Government acknowledge and discuss with its European partners how property and housing are again being deployed as speculative commodities, stoking a property bubble here reminiscent of the one that led to the crash? The banks and the Government are actively encouraging this with tax breaks for speculation, banks seizing properties to maximise their value and evicting people, leading to a crisis of homelessness. What is the Government stating about the human impact or the macroeconomic danger that represents?

Deputy Mick Wallace

Two weeks ago the latest round of US-EU negotiations on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, TTIP, took place in Brussels. The lack of transparency in these talks is outrageous. Negotiating documents and stakeholder contributions are not published; neither are the agendas nor minutes of meetings. This is in stark contrast to public statements made about the talks by Commissioner De Gucht who wrote in The Guardian last December that “There is nothing secret about the EU trade deal. Our negotiations over the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership are fully open to scrutiny...” Last month the Corporate Europe Observatory received 44 documents about the European Commission’s meetings with industry lobbyists as part of preparations for the TTIP talks, 39 of which were heavily censored and released only after a freedom of information request submitted by the observatory almost ten months ago. The documents show that Commissioner De Gucht's officials invited industry to submit wish lists for regulatory barriers they would like to be removed during the negotiations. There is no way for the public to know how the European Union has incorporated this into its negotiating position or even what has been asked for and by whom, as all references have been removed. Responding to the Commissioner’s claims of openness and transparency, the organisation stated that, according to Global Research:

Not only is the text of the EU’s negotiating position secret the public is even denied access to sentences in meeting reports that refer to the EU negotiating position. This is especially problematic as these are minutes from meetings with industry lobbyists who were clearly given information about the EU’s negotiating position in the TTIP talks, unlike the public ... sharing information about the EU’s negotiating position with industry while refusing civil society access to that same information is unacceptable discrimination.

We can ascertain from the heavily censored documents released by the Commission that in advance of the TTIP talks it was extremely active in seeking guidance from big business and its lobbyists. The documents also show that the major issue in the negotiations is the removal of differences in EU and US regulations. As the Corporate European Observatory has highlighted, regulatory co-operation is one of the most worrying aspects of the TTIP talks and its repercussions will be felt long after the deal is concluded. As George Monbiot of The Guardian pointed out recently:

Nothing threatens democracy quite as much as corporate power ... When everything has been globalised except our consent, corporations fill the void. In a system that governments have shown no interest in reforming, global power is often scarcely distinguishable from corporate power. It is exercised through backroom deals between bureaucrats and lobbyists.

I am no fan of what Russia does, any more than what the United States or China gets up to, but Russia has acted to protect what it sees as its security interests, just as the United States did in Cuba a long time ago. International experts warned as far back as 2008 that if the United States and the European Union continued to encroach on Ukraine, there would be social and economic chaos, but NATO ignored such warnings and boasted that Georgia and Ukraine would become part of it. The West seems to think it is always right, no matter what its stance. I wish the people concerned would read history because they might learn something. It was interesting to hear Mr. David Cameron launch his attack on Russia for having the audacity to invade a neighbouring state while he was coming back from a friendly visit to Israel. When he was there, did he propose a plebiscite on the West Bank? It might have been a good idea to do so.

Deputy Clare Daly

It is difficult to concentrate on anything today other than Garda matters, but the issues under discussion are of critical importance. We need to put the spotlight on the conduct of the European Union and how this country, as a neutral country, within a league of nations conducts itself. We have to examine seriously the European Union’s policy on Ukraine. It has not been motivated by humanitarian concerns or democratic interests for the well-being of the people of Ukraine. The conduct of the European Union has been based on an economic and political agenda directly competing with Russia’s economic agenda.

The people of Ukraine will be the ones who suffer. Like other Deputies, I find it nauseating to listen to western media cheer the coup against the corrupt former leader, Victor Yanukovych. I have no sympathy for him but his demise was cheered not because he was corrupt but because it destabilised the region and allowed the advancement of the neoliberal agenda in Ukraine. The same neoliberal agenda is riding roughshod across the EU. It is ironic to hear the Taoiseach argue yesterday that all the people of Ukraine want is the right to join the EU in order to enjoy the same great living standards as the people of Poland. Clearly he does not know many Polish people because living conditions in Poland are not worthy of applause. The idea that Ukraine will be joining the EU is laughable because that will not offer a way out. The fact that the new regime has installed its own oligarch shows it is not democratic and is putting the interests of a tiny elite ahead of the general population.

It is appropriate to condemn the hypocrisy of the EU and US in threatening sanctions. We must be consistent in remembering these countries' history of undemocratic and bloody actions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia and Kosovo. The idea that the EU has somehow morphed into the great defender of human rights and borders is an insult to our intelligence. When US interests are at stake it has no problem embarking on military interventions or invasions of sovereign territory. The EU is engaging in doublespeak because it also wants to protect its economic interests in the Ukraine. Some European powers are pulling back somewhat because of their concerns in this regard. We are in a unique position as a neutral country to do something different. Nobody in this House is a cheerleader for the rotten Putin regime but some of us would argue for consistency and putting the interests of the people of Ukraine at the heart of this discussion instead of the interests of multinationals, NATO and those who want to enrich themselves at the expense of the many.

Deputy Luke 'Ming' Flanagan

I will begin by speaking in general about this House and the equality we were meant to enjoy when we came in here.  Yesterday the Technical Group was left out of a briefing on the issue of Garda bugging and today, as usual, the Taoiseach left the Chamber before Members from the Technical Group began to speak.  I am amazed that he remained for the contribution from the Sinn Féin Member.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Bernard J. Durkan)

There is limited time for this debate and I ask the Deputy to refer to the subject matter.

Deputy Luke 'Ming' Flanagan

He rarely stays for contributions from Sinn Féin but he stays to listen to Fianna Fáil.  We know why he does so given that he has a lot in common with that party.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Bernard J. Durkan)

If the Deputy wants to use his entire time this way he can do so but he is out of order.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

He is not out of order.

Deputy Luke 'Ming' Flanagan

Everyone agrees that we should condemn Russia for what it has done in Crimea.  It is obvious that it will be a difficult situation for many people there.  However, when we consider who is condemning Russia it does not do a lot of good.  Deputy Martin referred earlier to the democratic principles of the EU.  In what EU has he been living? The democratic principles of the EU dictate that a referendum be held again if it does not produce the desired result and that countries be warned they will be penniless if they do not vote the right way. It is remarkable that the EU would preach to anyone about a referendum. When Greece wanted to hold a referendum, the EU refused to allow it.  The brilliant democratic principles to which Deputy Martin referred did not seem to matter to Italy when a banker was installed as the leader of that country.  If anyone is to lecture us on democracy, perhaps it should be someone other than the EU.  The conflict between Russia and Ukraine is like two adolescent lads chasing after a girl.  It is not for the conversation that they are doing the chasing.  They are looking for what they can get and they do not care what destruction is caused in the achievement of their aims.

  At what stage will this Government, which is supposed to represent me and the people where I live, hold its head high in Europe and state that, far from being takers, we are the givers?  When will it remind Europe that since we joined the EU every citizen in this country has benefitted the Union to the tune of €46,000?  When one includes Cohesion Funds and CAP and takes away the money sent back to Europe in banking debt and the appalling deal we got on fishing, that is how much each of us has given to the EU.  The EU does not care about democracy and it certainly does not care about us.  If the Government cared it would fight for us.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Bernard J. Durkan)

We will now take questions to the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Donohoe, followed by his closing statement.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

I ask the Minister of State to comment on the property sector.  I have spoken previously about the growing homelessness and housing crisis but the macroeconomic dimension of this issue has not been discussed.  I raised the issue with the Fiscal Advisory Council at the Joint Committee on Finance and Public Expenditure and Reform.  The council was introduced by the troika to monitor imbalances in the macroeconomic environment in this country.  It is alarming that we are putting in place property based tax incentives and that the Taoiseach is going to the United States and God knows where else to encourage big corporate investors to make money out of the housing crisis.  Large numbers of property assets currently in the hands of the State are being unloaded to these investors.  Alarm bells should be ringing in Europe in this regard.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Bernard J. Durkan)

Ask a question.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

Is the Government concerned about this or is anybody in Europe discussing it?  The point of the troika's intervention and the establishment of the Fiscal Advisory Council was supposedly to ensure these kinds of imbalances do not arise again.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Bernard J. Durkan)

The Deputy needs to concentrate on a question.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

I am asking the question.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Bernard J. Durkan)

It should not take that long.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

Are these issues being discussed or is the focus solely on banks recovering value from asset portfolios?

Acting Chairman (Deputy Bernard J. Durkan)

I call Deputy Dooley.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

The Chair only interrupts Members from the Technical Group.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Bernard J. Durkan)

I want the Deputy to withdraw that remark because it is not true. The Chair does not interrupt; the Chair intervenes when a Member is out of order.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

The Taoiseach told us that two different approaches to the Crimea situation were proposed at the summit. We know what the final agreement was but we do not know what stance Ireland took. I ask the Minister of State to clarify that issue.

The other issue is one that has been raised by my colleague, Deputy Michael McGrath, in communication with the ECB President, Mr. Draghi. That sets out clearly the concerns of the ECB on the funding position of the Irish banks. Notwithstanding comments that are regularly made about the nature of the recovery that has taken place in the balance sheets of those banks, they are working through a considerable amount of distressed assets, and certain targets have been set by the Central Bank of Ireland in that regard. What still seems to be at the core of all of this is the retrospective recapitalisation, and nothing that I have read and none of the comments that have been made, either by the Minister of State, Deputy Donohoe, or the Taoiseach, would lead me to believe that we are any closer to that position being resolved. Clearly, it will be a requirement if the Government is serious about addressing the funding deficit that seems to exist.

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Deputy Paschal Donohoe)

I will respond to the different points the Deputies made.

Deputy Boyd Barrett asked about the property sector and what he believes is taking place with regard to property prices and the significant difficulties to do with homelessness. He first asked me whether there was a European sphere of engagement on this topic. I must emphasise that policy on the delivery of housing, whether it be social housing or planning policy overall in the development of private accommodation, is nearly entirely a matter of national competence for governments. Decisions on areas of planning and public housing are made at national Government level as opposed to decisions that require engagement or consent from other Governments or from European bodies.

I note that Deputy Boyd Barrett went on to rephrase the question in the context of macroeconomic imbalances. Of course, the Deputy is correct to note that the fiscal governance treaty and the European semester process make reference to macroeconomic imbalances, a macroeconomic imbalance being a development within an economy that could have a seismic effect on either the health of the economy or society itself. In terms of engagement with Europe on whether what is happening in the property market represents a macroeconomic imbalance, I would argue that it does not. The reason I say so is that the property price increases are happening in the context of prices - for example, in Dublin - having come down by nearly 51% from their peak. It is also happening in the context of a property market that does not have as many properties available for sale as would be the case in a normal housing market, which, hopefully, will develop in the coming period. As to whether I believe the increase in house prices is a cause of the homelessness problem, I would argue it is the lack of housing supply that is more a direct cause of homelessness than the changes of price in the housing stock, and that is something to which the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government and Dublin City Council are responding. I am aware of the work they are doing in my constituency in that area.

On the point Deputy Dooley put to me regarding the different approaches at the European summit in dealing with Crimea and Ukraine, different views were articulated in public on how a response of this magnitude should be dealt with, but I would emphasise, before I come to the Irish response, that there was complete unity from all the Governments - Deputy Martin acknowledged this in his statement - regarding the measures that were agreed at the European Council. Everybody agreed with the plans that were in place and the overall framework that Europe has for dealing with this issue.

In terms of where Ireland was specifically in relation to this, Ireland supported the expansion of the phase two list - in other words, the subjecting of further individuals to the measures of which the House will be aware - and supported the work that the Commission is now doing to scope out possible measures for broader action and the cost and benefits of those different approaches.

On Deputy Dooley's concluding point with regard to the banking sector, I re-emphasise that due to the investment that has already been made in the banks by the Irish taxpayer, the Government is strongly of the belief that the banking sector is capitalised and is able to deal with the difficulties that we know are still there. I point to the fact that some of the banks have been more successful in selling their own bonds, which would indicate that those who are looking to invest in those banks hold the same view as they look to buy that debt.

On his point regarding retrospective recapitalisation, to be clear, it was due to decisions that were made by the previous Government, led by his party, that we have difficulties of this scale. The Taoiseach has been clear that in the context of a banking union that will be operational within the next 12 to 18 months, we will look at all measures to get value back for the Irish taxpayer in the banking system.

Deputy Luke 'Ming' Flanagan

Mr. Jim Higgins, MEP, made an announcement on local radio - I brought this up on the last occasion and I am curious about where he is getting this information - that before the next general election there would be a deal on retrospective bank recapitalisation. He was definitive about that. I am curious as to what magic hat he has pulled this information out of.

Negotiations are heading towards a conclusion on the Common Agricultural Policy. I wonder whether the Minister of State ever brings up the reports that €4.5 billion of the previous CAP funding was not spent on-farm but off-farm. It was spent on buy-to-let apartments in Ireland and on apartments in Bulgaria, Croatia, Italy, etc. Given that we are coming close to finalising the latest round of CAP, I wonder what is being done to ensure that such funding is not spent yet again on what it should not be spent on. By the way, we get approximately half as much from CAP as we give away through fishing, and I ask the Minister of State not to respond by saying we are lucky to get it. We are not.

Deputy Seán Crowe

I asked a couple of questions in my contribution and the Minister of State might have missed some of them. One related to the European Commission and the Permanent TSB restructuring talks. Is there any update in that regard? On the recapitalisation of Irish banks, was any progress made?

The Council's statement welcomed the Ukrainian Government's commitment to ensuring its representative nature and inclusive government structures and protecting minorities, which seems at odds with what we are being told is happening on the ground. The Minister of State might expand in that regard. I am particularly concerned about the attacks on the Jewish population and other minorities in cities such as Kiev and I wonder what steps are being taken by the Government in welcoming such commitments.

I asked about climate change. Is there any update in that regard? I also asked about the situation in Cyprus, particularly the Famagusta declaration, the need for confidence-building measures and the fact that to date Ireland has been quiet on the issue. Does Ireland have a view on some of the statements that have been made by the Turkish side in that regard? There was agreement on unhelpful statements that would cause difficulties in those negotiations. Will the Government use its direct links with the Turkish and Cypriot Governments to encourage these talks?

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

I have two questions. First, the Minister of State did not respond on the contrast between Europe's apparent concern in Ukraine to uphold territorial integrity and sovereignty as a fundamental principle, which is what the Taoiseach stated, and its absolute failure to do that in relation to Palestine. In fact, these are starkly contrasting approaches. One country gets sanctioned for breaching those principles while another country gets favourable trade status, not sanctions, despite repeated calls for sanctions. I would like to hear a comment on that.

I accept there is another dimension to property and it concerns housing policy, which we will take up elsewhere. There is a major macroeconomic dimension at national and European levels and it is often forgotten in intricate discussions about European economic architecture that property was at the heart of the crash across Europe and the United States. For us not to see the issue as a central consideration when looking at the question of macroeconomic imbalances or potential warning bells about developing imbalances is crazy yet I do not hear talk about it. I ask for this to begin to feature in our discussions. Is there any discussion about whether property-based tax reliefs, encouraging speculation in property, are inherently dangerous?

I see a link between the failure to look at the problem and the imperative of the EU, which the Government has adopted, to say that the banks must restore as much value from the distressed assets as possible. If that means inflating the property market, so be it. They are not worried about it.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Bernard J. Durkan)

There are five minutes for a summary after the question and answer session. After 85 minutes, the session must conclude.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

I will respond to questions that were put to me, beginning with Deputy Boyd Barrett. I did not answer questions about Ukraine because he did not put such questions to me. Now that he has, I will respond to that point.

With regard to property, I refer to a point I made earlier. Do I believe house price increases at the moment constitute a macroeconomic imbalance? I do not believe so because house price increases are happening in the context of a gigantic decrease in house prices since 2007. As other parts of our economy begin to strengthen, additional houses and, depending on the area, apartments will be made available to further deal with the price increases. What is the bigger cause of homelessness at the moment - a lack of housing or the increasing price of housing stock available? I believe it is a lack of housing.

An earlier point dealt with the social consequences of this crisis. I do not need to tell Deputy Boyd Barrett about the social catastrophe and the tens of thousands of people who had been working in a construction sector that got far too big. Just because we had a construction sector that was far too big in our history does not mean that an economy and a country of our size should not have a smaller and better regulated construction sector that is able to deal with housing needs of the people to whom the Deputy refers. While that is being created, I do not believe the housing market as currently constituted represents an imbalance.

On Ukraine and the contrast made with the Middle East, the European Union, through High Representative Ashton and many foreign Ministers, has been to the fore in bringing a just settlement to the Middle East. It has done all it can to support the development of the peace talks, which hopefully will pick up momentum to deal with the many issues of injustice referred to by the Deputy.

With regard to Deputy Sean Crowe's question on Cyprus, there was a discussion of Cyprus at the European Council. The view of the European Union, shared by Ireland, is that the division of Cyprus has taken place for too long. We welcome the discussions taking place and emphasise the need for more momentum. I understand the role Turkey must play in that respect. The Taoiseach joined his counterparts in emphasising our support for the UN framework and for the achievement of a successful outcome of the negotiations under way.

In terms of climate change and whether there is a focus on this at the Council meeting, the Deputy is aware that it formed a substantial part of the conclusions that emerged from the Council. Progress has been made in Europe in dealing with the climate change emissions that are causing such harm to our environment. In 2012, we saw greenhouse gas emissions decrease by 18% relative to 1990. They are expected to reduce further by between a quarter and just under a third between 2020 and 2030.

With regard to Ukraine and inclusive political arrangements, the Deputy has picked up on what I believe is one of the key concepts in the engagement of the European Union with Ukraine. This point also applies to the contributions of Deputies Clare Daly and Wallace. It is essential that an inclusive, fair and legally and legitimately elected government be elected by the people of Ukraine. Unless there is an inclusive government properly constituted under Ukrainian law, the difficulties in respect of minorities and upholding human values will become more fraught. That is why the Union has always emphasised the need for inclusive political arrangements and a democratically elected government.

On the question about Permanent TSB, the Minister for Finance can directly answer it through the Sinn Féin spokesperson on finance, Deputy Pearse Doherty. The Department of Finance will continue to work on the matter in its efforts to restore health to our banking system.

Deputy Luke 'Ming' Flanagan asked about agriculture policy and whether I raise agriculture matters when representing Ireland at the General Affairs Council. I do, and did so most recently two weeks ago in respect of discussions on climate change. With regard to allegations and claims the Deputy made about the Common Agricultural Policy funding-----

Deputy Luke 'Ming' Flanagan

George Lee made those claims. He used to be in the Fine Gael Party.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

-----I am certain those in receipt of funding in Ireland use it for the purposes to which it is intended. I am certain of that. If there are any question marks about it, I am sure it will be investigated by the proper bodies.

Deputy Luke 'Ming' Flanagan

Was George Lee wrong?

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

On the comments about someone who is a respected and experienced MEP from my party, I have already said the approach of the Government is, at the best possible moment, to take the right steps to gain value back for the Irish taxpayer.

With regard to the broader points put to me and in concluding on other areas that have not been touched on in the European Council discussions, I refer to manufacturing and what happened in Europe and in Ireland. Deputies are aware of the 6 million jobs lost in Europe. Just under 4 million of those jobs have been lost in manufacturing, which is a gigantic share of employment loss. I am encouraged by the growing momentum in the area of re-shoring, where manufacturing jobs that went to lower-cost economies all over the world are now beginning to come back to Europe. There are greater opportunities for the jobs to come back to Ireland. The Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Richard Bruton, and the Secretary of State, Vincent Cable, MP, recently published a joint article on this point. There is a major opportunity for Ireland in the context of the hundreds of thousands of people we want to support getting back to work.

The European Council's conclusions make reference to a number of decisions on supporting industrial policy in Ireland and Europe and to doing all we can to ensure the overall recovery is built with a stronger contribution from industry and manufacturing. They make reference to further progress in the areas of the Single Market and external trade. Reference is also made to what needs to be done to ensure the banking system is able and has the right capacity to lend to small and medium-sized enterprises. In addition, reference is made to what more needs to be done to put in place strong networks to support the development and commercialisation of research and development in Ireland and across Europe. In considering all of these points we must ensure there are no artificial distinctions for different parts of the economy and the services sector. The reality is that successful participation in value chains all over the world increasingly requires the use and development of business services to ensure progress and work in the area of manufacturing can lead to good jobs and their contribution to economic growth.

A further point concerns the progress made in the regulatory fitness and performance, REFIT, policy, something the European Commission has adopted in recent months. It is about ensuring the levels of regulation within the European economy and inside the European Union are appropriate and that unnecessary proposals are withdrawn.

I wish to conclude with some comments on the EU-Africa summit and the discussion that took place on the situation in Sri Lanka. The Taoiseach will attend the fourth annual EU-Africa summit which will take place in Brussels next week. The theme of the summit will be "Investing in People, Prosperity and Peace". It will form an essential part of the Africa-EU strategy. This is a great opportunity for Ireland and Europe to reiterate that we remain committed to building a partnership of equals with Africa. What the European Council's conclusions stress is that continued international support for African partners in the area of security continues to be vital but that further work needs to be done to support African countries as they seek to increase their capacity and develop their ability to govern their people and communities well. Ireland will intervene in the summit next week. The particular areas on which we will focus will be sustainable and inclusive growth, specifically agriculture and food security.

On several occasions the European Union and Ireland have articulated their strong concerns about human rights in Sri Lanka and urged the Government of Sri Lanka to implement effectively the recommendations of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission. In last week's conclusions the European Council called for the adoption of a resolution on Sri Lanka at the United Nations Human Rights Council that would provide for an international investigation into serious human rights abuses by both sides in Sri Lanka’s civil war, as recommended by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. With this in mind, Ireland, as an elected member of the Human Rights Council, will continue to work with international partners to urge the Government of Sri Lanka to adhere to its international obligations and respect human rights.

Sitting suspended at 2.25 p.m. and resumed at 3.25 p.m.