Joe Higgins
Question:1. Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Taoiseach when the last meeting of the Cabinet sub-committee on public service reform took place and when the next meeting is scheduled. [30898/14]
Ceisteanna - Questions (Resumed)
Public Service Reform Plan Update
The Cabinet Committee on social policy and public service reform met yesterday, 29 September.
In the statement of Government priorities 2014-16, the Taoiseach said the Government - Fine Gael and Labour - was now setting its key priorities and that priority number five was the rebuilding of trust in politics and public institutions.
In the week that is in it, when the Taoiseach wove such a tangled web that he does not really know where he stands by using and abusing a public institution and State body - the Irish Museum of Modern Art - what changes is he going to make in regard to putting the public services and the use of those institutions to advance the political interests of the major right wing parties in this State beyond the reach of sleaze, cronyism and favouritism? Is this a subject he thinks the Cabinet sub-committee should take up?
As it was the Irish Museum of Modern Art the Taoiseach abused, would he consider offering himself as an artistic installation there for a day, perhaps by going down and standing in stocks in sackcloth and ashes as atonement for his abuse of that institution?
The Government made a decision this morning, in respect of a memo brought forward by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, to deal with the changing of the model and structure by which ministerial appointments will be made. This has been agreed and approved by the Government. All of the positions on boards will be advertised openly on the State's portal, StateBoards.ie, which is operated by the Public Appointments Service, PAS. This means that every Minister will, in respect of the boards under the aegis of the Department, be required to set out the criteria, the conditions and the skills necessary for service on any of those boards. It is expected that every Department will advertise its vacancies and those criteria on the StateBoards.ie service.
While the appointments to the board will remain exclusively the responsibility of the Minister, the relevant statutory conditions will have been assessed elsewhere. For instance, where a number of non-remunerated vacancies might exist on a board, a Minister will receive a list of appropriately approved candidates with qualifications from the Public Appointments Service for consideration.
In the case of boards under the aegis of NewERA, we have ESB, Ervia, Bord na Móna, Coillte, EirGrid and Irish Water. Bord Gáis and Irish Water become Ervia. These are specialist commercial entities which require a specialist set of skills, perhaps accountancy, legal expertise, communications or data skills. These will be assessed, in consultation with NewERA, to verify what is being sought and the vacancies on these boards will be ring-fenced to the NewERA system.
The Minister of Finance has responsibility for a number of boards concerned with the Central Bank and a process of validation is required for those appointments.
The result of this will be that from 1 November this year, an entirely new regime applies. All of the public appointments advertised on StateBoards.ie will be vetted and validated in respect of the conditions set out for each of the boards under each Department and the Ministers will be supplied with a list of named, qualified, credible persons. This process will apply from 1 November.
I do not propose to take up the suggestion made by the Deputy.
The Taoiseach has been in government for three and a half years. Why are the proposals he has just made, which I have not yet had the opportunity to study, being proposed for 1 November, some three and a half years after he stood and promised his democratic revolution and the cleaning up of politics?
Both Fine Gael and the Labour Party are up to their necks in the cronyism stakes, with failed or unsuccessful council candidates for the Labour Party finishing up on boards and sitting councillors finishing up on other boards.
The Deputy put one in Europe.
It is business as usual. This is the same type of patronage and cronyism I have seen going on in Irish politics by the right wing political parties in the State for 40 years. What the Government is doing now is what Mr. Haughey and the rest of them and other Governments did over the past 40 years, yet it is three and a half years into office and it is now promising that from 1 November this business will be cleaned up. Can anybody believe there is any credibility attaching to that?
As the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, has pointed out on many occasions, there has been a raft of reforms here, including those on lobbying, the Ombudsman, FOI and StateBoards.ie. In respect of StateBoards.ie, an excess of 60 individual campaigns was undertaken, involving 2,500 expressions of interest - approximately 40 candidates per campaign. Some 200 appointments have been made from that system. In approximately one-fifth of the campaigns, no appointments were made from PAS applicants. In general, the PAS process related to from one to two vacancies on each State board.
By 1 November, every Department will have set out the criteria, standards and skills necessary for persons to serve on their boards and all of this information is transferred onto StateBoards.ie. This means the public will be have a transparent, accessible way of understanding the vacancies, the places to be filled, the criteria necessary and how to make an application. These applications will be assessed by the Public Appointments Service and not by any internal, political dynamic. Credible, qualified candidate names will then be submitted to the Minister in question for consideration.
The exclusive responsibility for the appointment lies with each Minister, but this system-----
Wrong; they are political appointments.
-----transfers the validation and assessment to an outside, independent organisation, so that when Ministers get names for appointment, they will have been assessed as suitably qualified and appropriate for the board on which they wish to serve.
The Taoiseach has outlined reforms on the nomination or appointments of citizens to the various State board, but we will wait to see the detail of these reforms before giving our view on them. This brings into sharp focus the function of the Cabinet sub-committee on public reform.
The Taoiseach appeared earlier to accept that Mr. McNulty's appointment to the board of IMMA was an abuse of the public appointments process and that has led the Taoiseach to bring in these reforms. I asked the Taoiseach earlier about the appointment of a former Fine Gael councillor to the board of Uisce Éireann - he happened to pick the example of Uisce Éireann as perhaps being a board that required some particular talents or skills. Can he tell us what particular skills this former Fine Gael councillor brought to that-----
We are straying a long way from the question, which was about the meetings of the Cabinet sub-committee that took place.
I am just trying to understand how all of this works. The Minister, Deputy Paschal Donohoe, also appointed a former Labour Party councillor to the Irish Aviation Authority, and the Taoiseach did not answer any of those questions when I asked him that earlier.
They can be brought up directly in another question.
All right. Can the Taoiseach outline the role and purpose of this Cabinet sub-committee, particularly in the light of this recent debacle, and how he sees it working within the overall Government structure?
I point out to the Deputy that the Cabinet sub-committee has already published two reports in respect of over 200 individual actions, and they are available for him to read, if he wishes. The role of the sub-committee is to provide a basis for cross-departmental co-ordination in the areas of social exclusion, social inclusion, poverty reduction and service delivery, including providing assurance about coherence in the engagement across Departments with all of the different target groups. The combination of social policy issues with the public service reform agenda will ensure that questions about how services should be reconfigured and tailored to guarantee their effectiveness will certainly be something that is of critical analysis.
For example, we had a very good meeting yesterday where the publication of a national dementia strategy was discussed and approved and where the national drugs strategy was considered in regard to how that should evolve beyond 2015 and 2016 in order to make preparations for dealing with the challenges that are there. The Cabinet sub-committee has done and is doing a great deal of work in these areas of social inclusion, poverty and homelessness, which obviously has implications for the greater Dublin area in particular but also in so many other areas around the country, where there are also homeless people and housing issues.
In regard to this question, and given what the Taoiseach said earlier in terms of the Minister, Deputy Howlin's announcement today, I point out that we had a similar announcement three and a half years ago. The Labour Party manifesto in 2011 stated it would:
...end the system whereby appointments to State boards are used as a form of political patronage and for rewarding insiders. In future, appointment to boards must be based on a demonstrable capacity to do the job.
The Fine Gael manifesto stated something similar. All political parties since the foundation of the State have appointed either members of the party or associates of the party to State boards - that is a fact. I can go through the first ten years, having studied it myself, and we can see what went on. Even today in Northern Ireland, Sinn Féin does it quite regularly-----
Name names.
There is the case of the Minister, Conor Murphy, and the appointment of Máirtín Ó Muilleoir to the board of Northern Ireland Water. I believe there were other appointments which ended up in legal wrangles due to the shenanigans that went on. I could say there are many quangos and community boards in Northern Ireland that have the Sinn Féin imprint. I am just making a statement. All political parties have been involved in it in Northern Ireland, in the Republic and in all democracies.
The big difference was that everyone signed up for a different politics at the last general election but the rhetoric that was articulated then and since has not matched the reality of what has happened. That is the point. The McNulty appointment is not actually about political patronage. It is a more profound issue of how a distinguished arts institution was undermined by the process of appointment. He was appointed not because he could serve the board; he was appointed in order to qualify him to run for the Seanad. That was the more fundamental issue which, in my view, separates it from the, if one likes, normal system for State appointments, which needs to be changed.
Is there a question? This is a speech.
The parliamentary question was asked by Deputy Robert Troy in July last and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform has announced the changes today. However, to take his own Department, where I acknowledge there were only 22 appointments to two boards up to July, not one of them was of a public applicant. That is 0% in the percentage of public applicants------
What were the two boards?
This is from a parliamentary reply. I do not know the boards.
They are the ones that were statutorily provided for. One is the Public Appointments Service, PAS.
To continue, the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government made 177 appointments yet the number of vacancies advertised was nil and the number of public applicants selected was nil. I do not know what the then Minister, Mr. Hogan, was doing but he clearly did not believe in any of the rhetoric from before the election or any of the principles that both parties announced would be the basis for making public appointments. The Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources made 108 appointments since March 2011 and the number of vacancies advertised was nil, although 17 public applicants were selected. Out of 120 appointments made by the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, 28 were public appointments. Therefore, while different Ministries had different outcomes, we are looking at the most at one out of every five appointments across all Ministries being of public applicants.
Huge lip service is paid to all the talk about public advertising. The question is how valuable is this Cabinet sub-committee on public service reform, given all this was going on over the past three and a half years under its watchful gaze? The Minister has said that all future vacancies will be advertised on the State boards portal and that it "will be processed by way of a transparent assessment designed and implemented by the independent Public Appointments Service (PAS) to support the relevant Minister". Does this mean the Minister will still end up making the appointments?
Yes.
Therefore, the power resides with the Minister anyway.
That is the law.
Yes, but the Government is not changing that fundamental point.
I am just trying to get clarity. There is a lot of smoke. All of this was said three and a half years ago and the performance did not match the rhetoric - that is the point I am making. How do we know that now, following today's announcement, it is going to be any different for the next year and a half? Clearly, some Ministers ignored completely the principles outlined by the Taoiseach, particularly the Ministers for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources and the Environment, Community and Local Government, which more or less ignored what the Government was claiming it was doing with public sector appointments. Would we be better off abolishing the committee? Does the Taoiseach think there is any point in it meeting?
Does the Deputy read the reports of the committee?
No, I do not agree at all with that. The Cabinet sub-committee, as he is aware, is able to bring together different personnel from different Departments with a view to focusing on particular issues like homelessness, dementia or other social inclusion areas that need to be dealt with, be it anything from the post office network on.
The Deputy asked how we can now be sure this is going to happen. First, the Government will continue on with what it has already been doing in terms of ending corporate donations, radically reforming the local government structure, the reduction in the number of authorities from 114 to 31, the banning of political expenses, State cars, increments and pension entitlements, all of which has been done, as well as the introduction of gender quotas and the establishment of a constitutional convention, with a number of reports to come before the House.
Between now and 1 November, whatever appointments have to be made to boards, the Ministers will announce those publicly - in other words, Minister X might say, "We have three vacancies on board X". Rather than having to find out what actually applies, from 1 November, as the Minister pointed out, all of this will be clear on StateBoards.ie and all Departments will have set out the criteria for serving on the boards under their responsibility. As vacancies occur and people apply, that vetting process by PAS will be available to the Minister of the day. He or she still retains exclusive responsibility for the appointment of members to the board but those members in such cases are vetted, validated and certified as being competent people to serve on the boards in question.
It is a different model. It is a much more effective, streamlined and co-ordinated system and the public can check for themselves what vacancies are occurring on what boards, the criteria that apply and how they might apply if they wish to participate in that public service.
That is different from the others that are ring-fenced for NewERA or the commercial semi-State bodies where particular sets of skills might be required to serve on those boards.
In answering Deputy Joe Higgins's questions the Government has failed to see the point. We cannot pass judgment on the actual criteria used yet because we have not seen them. However, the problem is fundamental and it is this what the Taoiseach should be tackling. It is the fact that since the foundation of the State, the Minister has had the ultimate responsibility and Ministers, from whatever party, have continuously abused their right to patronage. There is absolutely no reason to believe that by setting new criteria, this abuse will not continue. This sounds suspiciously like the way judges are appointed. In a similar situation - over which a Government fell in the past - a body called the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board was set up. It is known in the Law Library as "JAABs for the boys". It was cosmetic legislation to fool the public as camouflage that something was changing in the appointment of judges. Nothing has changed. We still get nominees from a board and the Minister has the responsibility. Ministers from all sides have continuously abused that responsibility by appointing their cronies to the Judiciary.
Which judges does the Deputy have in mind?
I do not think I am allowed to name them and it would be utterly subversive and wrong if I were to do so. For a Minister to suggest it is very wrong.
Therefore, the Deputy impugns all of them.
We are getting away from the question.
Will the Taoiseach, please, forget about the camouflage, the criteria and the bodies he put in the middle? Will he announce in this House that the problem has been ministerial appointments and that he intends, as a great reformer and part of a great reforming Government, to end the system whereby Ministers have the facility to appoint their friends and cronies to State bodies? Take it out of the political arena and we will then believe him. Say, "Yes, the system has ended" because he knows from what happened when on this side of the House and this side of the House knows from what is happening on the other side, that no Government has been able to resist the temptation of abusing this responsibility and that there is absolutely no reason to believe the camouflage about which we are about to hear will fulfil that objective.
There is actually because the people who apply on StateBoards.ie apply on the basis that they know on which board they would like to serve and the conditions, criteria and skills set necessary to serve on such a board. It is not the Minister who assesses their validity to fit the criteria but the Public Appointments Service system. When it comes back to the Minister with a list of names, they are all deemed to be credible and suitably and appropriately qualified.
When the recommendation of the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board comes before the Attorney General and the Minister for Justice and Equality, the candidates have been assessed by the President of the High Court and an eminent panel. Obviously, they know them better than anybody else in terms of their qualifications and experience. Seven judges were appointed to the Court of Civil Appeal and the appointments were made by the President-designate, the Chief Justice and the President of the High Court. That list of eminent judges came before the Cabinet and was approved unanimously; therefore, things have changed; they are not the same as they were.
What the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform has done is set out an entirely new model for State appointments to remove that element of politics such that all appointments will be credible and all appointees will be qualified and appropriate for appointment. It may well be that a Minister may say in keeping with his or her exclusive responsibility, "These people are well known or you do not have enough suitable applicants for what I think we need." Perhaps other applications come through on StateBoards.ie. It is a genuine attempt to transform a system that has been very unclear for many years to a position of clarity, assessment, validation and selection for service on the boards in question. As I said in respect of the Court of Civil Appeal, the seven member panel was selected by very eminent legal personnel.
It is very important for the Taoiseach to comment on the employment of a member of the board of Irish Water as a personal driver for one of his Ministers. Does this not show contempt for an already outraged people who are facing water charges from today? He appointed a member of Fine Gael who already held down two jobs in Waterford where 20% of the people were unemployed. That is appalling and outrageous. This is the only appropriate place in which I can bring the matter to the Taoiseach's attention. If he listened to the radio this morning and people in Waterford, he will know that they are completely outraged that this has happened. A man who already holds down two jobs and is a member of Fine Gael and a member of the board of Irish Water will be paid €625 a week to drive one of the Taoiseach's Ministers of State around. It is appalling.
I ask the Deputy to, please, resume his seat. He should raise the issue in some other way. The question is about meetings of the sub-committee on the public service.
While it has nothing to do with the question, the person mentioned as being the driver has resigned from the board of Irish Water.
Are we finished with these questions?
Did he take Irish Water with him by any chance?
Official Engagements
Joe Higgins
Question:2. Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meetings with other Heads of State in Brussels in May; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26764/14]
Joe Higgins
Question:3. Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with government officials during his visit to Germany in July 2014. [30901/14]
Joe Higgins
Question:4. Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the European Council meeting in August; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35189/14]
Joe Higgins
Question:5. Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meetings with the President of the European Council, Mr. Donald Tusk. [35191/14]
Joe Higgins
Question:6. Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his discussions with other Heads of Government on the issue of Ukraine; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35194/14]
Gerry Adams
Question:7. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his discussions at the most recent European Council meeting in Brussels. [35211/14]
Gerry Adams
Question:8. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach the outcomes in respect of the situation in Ukraine that were agreed by the leaders at the most recent European Council meeting. [35212/14]
Gerry Adams
Question:9. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he raised at the European Council meeting the recent Israeli onslaught against the citizens of Gaza. [35214/14]
Gerry Adams
Question:10. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach the aid that has been agreed by EU leaders in support of Gazans. [35215/14]
Gerry Adams
Question:11. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he raised at the European Council meeting the recent land grab by the state of Israel of 1,000 acres on the West Bank. [35216/14]
Micheál Martin
Question:12. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he has met or spoken to Chancellor Merkel recently; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35618/14]
Micheál Martin
Question:13. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he has met or spoken with Mr. Mario Draghi recently; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35620/14]
Micheál Martin
Question:14. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the position regarding the discussions at the August European Council meeting on the Ebola virus in west Africa; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35625/14]
Micheál Martin
Question:15. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he has discussed Ireland's retrospective debt with any other EU leaders recently during, before or after an European Council meeting since June 2014; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35638/14]
Micheál Martin
Question:16. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the position on the discussions at the European Council meeting in August 2014; if he made a contribution at same; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35662/14]
Micheál Martin
Question:17. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the position regarding the discussions on Israel and Gaza at the European Council meeting; if he made a contribution; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35663/14]
Micheál Martin
Question:18. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the position on the EU increasing the sanctions on Russia; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35664/14]
Micheál Martin
Question:19. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if the Israel-Palestine situation was discussed at European Council meeting; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35670/14]
Micheál Martin
Question:20. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he has spoken or met President Hollande recently; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35672/14]
Micheál Martin
Question:21. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he has met or spoken with Prime Minister Renzi; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35673/14]
Gerry Adams
Question:22. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he will report on decisions taken by EU leaders in respect of Russia at the recent European Council meeting. [35674/14]
Micheál Martin
Question:23. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the bilateral meetings he held when he attended the European Council on 30 August 2014; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36509/14]
Richard Boyd Barrett
Question:24. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if he has had discussions with other EU Heads of State with regard to Israel following the recent attacks on Gaza; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36517/14]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 2 to 24, inclusive, together.
I attended European Council meetings in June, July and August. The main purpose of the special European Council in August was to elect a new President of the European Council and appoint the new High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. I am very pleased that the Polish Prime Minister, Donald Tusk, and the Italian Foreign Minister, Federica Mogherini, were selected for these key positions. I have worked closely with Donald Tusk in his capacity as Prime Minister in the past few years and believe his experience and professionalism will serve the Union well. I have told him that I look forward to working closely with him in driving forward the agenda of growth, jobs and investment. I take the opportunity to record my thanks to the outgoing President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, and the outgoing High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Catherine Ashton, who have guided the Union through some very difficult times in the past five years.
While I did not have separate bilateral meetings with Chancellor Merkel, Prime Minister Renzi or President Hollande at the August European Council, I did, of course, engage with all of my colleagues during the course of discussions, including those to whom I have just referred. I also met Chancellor Merkel during my visit to Berlin in July. My replies to previous questions about that visit are on the record of the House. I have not had a specific meeting with the President of the European Central Bank, Mario Draghi, recently. However, he participates regularly at European Council meetings when core economic issues are discussed.
At the European Council meeting in August we discussed the economic and employment situation in the Union. We reiterated the need to progress the country-specific recommendations under the European Semester and implement the strategic agenda agreed at the European Council in June. We will return to these issues at the European Council and the Euro Summit in October which President Draghi will also attend.
During the European Councils in June, July and August and on the margins of these meetings I engaged in discussions with a number of colleagues about Ireland's economic situation, as well as about broader European economic issues. The possible use of the European Stability Mechanism for bank recapitalisation was not up for discussion at these European Council meetings, but it is for consideration by finance Ministers.
At the July meeting of the European Council Heads of State and Governments repeated their call on Russia to actively use its influence over illegally armed groups and to stop the flow of weapons and militants across the border with Ukraine in order to de-escalate the situation rapidly. The Council regretted the lack of progress on four key steps set out at the June meeting and agreed to take a number of new measures in response to the deteriorating situation in the area. A special European Council meeting on 30 August took place against a backdrop of a very serious intensification of fighting in eastern Ukraine in the previous two weeks. The meeting included a discussion with President Poroshenko. The European Council condemned the increased flow of fighters and weapons from Russia into the Donbas region, as well as the aggression of Russian armed forces on Ukrainian soil, and called for their immediate withdrawal. We reiterated the importance of implementing President Porosheko's peace plan without delay and set out the essential actions required to achieve this.
The European Council also requested the Commission and the European External Action Service to present proposals for further restrictive measures against Russia within seven days for its consideration. These measures which reinforce the restrictions already in place since July were adopted on 8 September and entered into force on 12 September. We also called on all parties to support the UN-led international relief effort aimed at providing urgently needed humanitarian assistance for the local civilian population. The European Council conclusions reiterated the urgent need for a sustainable political solution based on respect for Ukraine's sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity and independence.
While the emergency Foreign Affairs Council in August focused on recent events in Gaza, the special meeting of the European Council in late August adopted conclusions which flowed from the Foreign Affairs Council welcoming the recent ceasefire and stressing, in particular, that efforts must continue to bring about an end to the closure regime operated by Israel, an improvement in the condition of the people in Gaza and an end to the rocket attacks on Israel. The Council reiterated the European Union's willingness to assist in Gaza and stated Gaza must be part of the comprehensive resolution of the conflict in a two-state solution. Further humanitarian and reconstruction aid for Gaza will be discussed at an international conference in Cairo on 12 October.
The European Council in August also expressed concern about the crisis caused by the ebola virus in Africa and stressed the importance of the international community as a whole providing substantial co-ordinated support for the countries of the region, NGOs and the World Health Organization to help them to tackle the disease as swiftly and effectively as possible. The European Council welcomed the additional funds provided by the European Union and its member states and their efforts to provide further financial and human resources to meet, in particular, the increased demands for experts in local areas. The European Council paid tribute to the efforts of humanitarian and health workers on the front line. It called for increased co-ordination at EU level in the assistance provided by EU member states and invited the Council to adopt a comprehensive EU framework response to address the crisis.
I have answered questions on the special meeting of Heads of State and Government in Brussels in May and these replies are included in the Official Report.
As we have a short amount of time, I ask Deputies to be as brief as possible.
After the euro area summit in June 2012, the Minister made lavish claims in the Dáil that this meant one of the euro financial mechanisms would be used to replace the massive €64 billion Fianna Fáil and the Green Party, followed by Fine Gael and the Labour Party, had forced Irish taxpayers to pay to bail out the European financial market system. That was two years and a number of months ago. Why did this not feature at the summit on which the Taoiseach reported to us? Where are the funds? Where is the relief that was promised? When the Taoiseach and the former Tánaiste came here to talk about seismic changes and earth-shattering events, we thought a tsunami of relief was to follow shortly. Not one cent has been seen and I ask the Taoiseach for an explanation.
Has the position and future of Hong Kong featured at EU summit level in the recent period? I am sure the Taoiseach knows that China is declaring that its Stalinist totalitarianism will be imposed on the people of Hong Kong who, in particular the youth but also wide ranges of the population, are in revolt and absolutely correct to be so. Is the Taoiseach embarrassed about this recent development, as he feted the Chinese leadership and failed to criticise the nature of the regime when it visited Ireland? There is massive repression at the diktat of the Chinese regime and we cannot rule out the possibility that a horror like what happened at Tiananmen Square could be visited on Hong Kong, either before or after the 2017 elections. Will the matter feature in upcoming meetings? Is it an issue on which the Taoiseach will engage and raise at meetings?
I refer to the horrors and atrocities visited on the people of Gaza by the overwhelming miliary power of and bombardment by the Israeli regime. How do the Taoiseach and his fellow EU leaders justify Israel being a favoured state of the European Union as far as trade issues are concerned? How does he justify the weak-kneed, cowardly, dishonest and hypocritical failure of the European Union to call what the Israeli regime is doing in Gaza by its name?
The situation in Hong Kong was not discussed at the European Council meeting. It had not erupted in the manner it has in more recent times. I deplore that kind of activity and hope the situation can be stabilised quickly. There is no doubt that it will be discussed in the future.
On the question of finances, the banking union structure has continued to be put in place at official level and towards the end of the year the stability mechanism and banking union will be in place. It will then be a question of considering what is the best option for recapitalisation. The taxpayer put €4 billion into Bank of Ireland and received €6 billion in return and it still owns 15% of the entity. The appropriate time for it to be disposed of is a matter for consideration by the Minister for Finance and the Government in due course. The same applies to AIB. The option of deciding which entity would give the best return to the taxpayer remains. The option of being able to pursue the process of direct recapitalisation of the banks remains open and on the table, all of the elements having been completed.
In regard to the situation in Gaza, we were appalled by it all summer.
The loss of life was not acceptable under any circumstances. Ireland has consistently warned that if this was not resolved it would lead to a new outbreak of exceptional violence, which happened with loss of life, particularly on the Gaza side, following the shootings in the West Bank. The situation has stabilised somewhat, but the place is destroyed. There is an exceptional requirement for reconstruction funds to bring in material to rebuild the many thousands of dwellings and houses that have been flattened in Gaza.
The ceasefire on 26 August brought about some sense of stability, and I noticed the reaction of the people in Gaza to that. Political discussions must continue. The attitude and the political position of the different groups from Hamas to so many others is an issue that requires constant analysis because of the changing nature of what is happening there. It is unacceptable to have had a continuation of attacks from Israel into Gaza. I could never understand why one would hear comments that they were investigating incidents in which schools were hit and comments as to whether stocks of arms were held in United Nations buildings. It always struck me that the United Nations is doing a remarkable job out there and clearly those buildings should be sacrosanct for the purposes for which they are intended. How they could become places for arms to be stocked is something I could never get to grips with. The ceasefire is tenuous. It is another beginning, with thousands of lives having been lost.
It is not appropriate that the acquisition of land on the West Bank and the building of very significant numbers of houses and apartments continue without restriction. The European Union and the international community must be focused on this. I note, for the attention of Deputy Joe Higgins, from the discussions which took place at the European Council that 1 million people have fled from Syria into southern Lebanon and a million people have moved from Syria into Jordan, and they have had all sorts of humanitarian crises in Syria. There is a civil war in effect in Libya, and we have ISIS or ISIL and the other challenging issues that apply across the greater Middle East region, including the extermination of Christian communities and the Christian population at Mosul, formerly Nineveh. Deputy Higgins will be aware that the UN Human Rights Council has appointed a panel of inquiry to examine breaches of human rights in the recent conflict, and I am sure it will find many. We support the council and its work on this. Ireland supported an investigation, and now that the panel has been established, I am not sure whether any other format will be brought forward. The position has been grossly unacceptable and we hope the tenuous ceasefire that is now in place can continue and that these people in a devastated area can have some sense of family living. It is a couple of years since I was out there, but one has to go there, as the Deputy knows himself, to see the extent of the devastation - flattened buildings, unemployed young people and the struggles they have to deal with every day under different regimes, always with the awareness that another incursion might take place. This was an issue that was raised also.
The financial position and issues with regard to repayments were raised. I note for information the approval, of which the Deputy will be aware, that has been given from our European colleagues for the early purchase of IMF loan repayments. The Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, and his team did an excellent job here. Ireland borrowed €22.5 billion at 5% from the IMF, the most expensive portion of which is the €18.3 billion portion which is subject to the IMF's highest credit surcharge. It makes practical common sense that if we can borrow at much lower rates than applied previously, there is an opportunity to buy out the loans. Thanks be to God we can, as the rates currently available on the international markets are well below the 5% level. Our ten-year bond in Ireland is now less than 2%. By buying out the loans at a lesser charge, we can save the taxpayer approximately €1.5 billion over a five-year period. That would be a positive indicator for Europe, a very significant advance for Ireland and a very worthwhile saving for the taxpayer here due to the emergence of the country as a stronger and more competitive economic unit. We are grateful to our EU colleagues for that.
Under the terms of each of Ireland's loan agreements with the EFSF, the ESM and the three bilateral lenders - the UK, Sweden and Denmark - we were supposed to pay back those loans at the same time as making repayments on the IMF loans. However, at the meeting of 12 and 13 September, Ministers expressed broad support for Ireland's proposal, as did the bilateral lenders. For some member states, this approval is subject to the necessity of reverting to their national parliaments for parliamentary approval and authorisation. That is being done. For the EFSF loans, the Eurogroup mandated the euro working group to take this proposal forward while ECOFIN mandated the economic and financial committee to do likewise. The Minister for Finance wrote to the EFSF, the ESM and the three bilateral lenders on 19 September to formally request their agreement to our proposal to repay up to €18.3 billion of our IMF loans ahead of schedule and to the waiving of the mandatory proportionate repayment clauses set out in each of the loan documents. Once the national procedures are adopted, it will be possible for Ireland to start discussions with the IMF on the detailed arrangements for early repayment. I am sure Deputy Higgins welcomes that.
I suggest we group the questions of the three Deputies offering to speak: Deputy Adams, Deputy Martin and Deputy Boyd Barrett.
I have about ten questions.
There are only 12 minutes remaining and I cannot leave anyone out.
I will be as brief as I can, but I note that this is not a satisfactory way to do business. I asked a number of questions of the Taoiseach about Gaza and the onslaught there and he did not answer one of them in his response. We all know that more than 2,000 people were killed by the Israeli Defence Forces, including more than 500 children, and that the Israeli Government is in breach of international law, humanitarian law and criminal law. The question is what the people of Palestine are to do. If the international community stands back and does not uphold the rights of citizens there, the Israeli Government will continue to do what it is doing.
The Taoiseach said in his remarks that the international community must be focused on this, but our Government is not focused on it. Our Government, this State and the island of Ireland could be leaders in conflict resolution and the promotion of human rights globally, but we are not. We have the shameful decision by the Government to abstain on a UN vote calling for an investigation into war crimes during the slad on Gaza. It is beyond comprehension that we abstained on that issue. Similarly, while the Government recognises the mission of the State of Palestine in Ireland, it does not provide it with the same privileges, immunities, exemptions and facilities granted to other diplomatic missions in Dublin pursuant to the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. In response to a question I asked, I was told that a formal recognition of the Palestinian state and the establishment of formal diplomatic relations should take place in the context of a comprehensive peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians.
That is not good enough. I ask the Taoiseach to ensure that we become champions of peace in the Middle East, that we stand up for the rights of the people of Israel, particularly those who are the victims, and for the rights of the people of Palestine. He can do that by affording full diplomatic status to the Palestinian mission in Ireland and raising all those issues in a consistent and ongoing way.
I note the response to what is happening in Ukraine is markedly different from what is happening in the ongoing crisis in the Middle East and the onslaught upon the people of the Palestinian territories.
I have tabled 11 questions in this group and it is unsatisfactory that I have to deal with them all now in a short space of time. We should do it thematically - Gaza, Palestine, Ukraine separately-----
Maybe, yes.
-----and the debt issue separately. Whoever decided to group them should have at least divided them up in that way because this is totally unsatisfactory.
First, in terms of the debt issue and the retrospective debt, for three and a half years the Taoiseach and the Government defined relief on banking debt as European agreement on retrospectively funding the debts that were effectively imposed on Ireland. In fact, two senior Ministers went so far as to say that up to €60 billion could be retrieved in such a manner. That followed the famous 2012 meeting when Mario Monti and those others forced Chancellor Merkel's hand but what we have witnessed since then essentially has been the unravelling of that decision. The Taoiseach has completely changed tack and the idea of getting such a sizeable retrospective deal has abated; he has given up on that. He now uses vague language to do with existing options, and no one quite knows what those options are. There was always an option to sell the banks later on. That was never off the table, but that was not the point. The point was that Europe imposed a solution in Ireland at a time when Europe itself did not have solutions for what was a wider eurozone crisis, not just an Irish crisis. That is at the kernel of this, and it did not treat Ireland fairly. The former Tánaiste, Deputy Eamon Gilmore, said that the 2012 meeting was a game changer. It has not turned out to be a game changer. Can the Taoiseach confirm to the House that the European leaders are not prepared to do a deal on Ireland's debt retrospectively? The separation of sovereign and banking debt, which was proclaimed, will not be retrospective. Can the Taoiseach give a straight answer regarding what he is being told now by Chancellor Merkel and others?
Second, regarding the Palestinian crisis and the appalling strategy being taken by the Israeli Government, we have condemned the Hamas rocket attacks on Israel but those rocket attacks were no justification for the declaration of war on Palestine, and on Gaza in particular, by the Israeli Government. It cannot bomb with impunity and do those kinds of military operations without killing many innocent women and children, and innocent civilians generally. What was appalling was the lack of any pulling back when innocent children running across a beach were murdered. To be honest, the Taoiseach pulled his punches in terms of the UN committee on human rights but there was a lack of unequivocal condemnation of that kind of activity emanating, in my view, from the Minister for Foreign Affairs and from others. I got the sense that there was a decided lack of comfort within Government circles about what was transpiring and how to react to it. There comes a time when we have to say that the use of such lethal force on a civilian population had no justification and was a disproportionate response to what was happening.
There is a sense that the Government has a particular position on this debate than that it had three and a half years ago in that it was far more tolerant of Israeli strategy, which I believe is a flawed strategy. I have no difficulty in terms of Israel as a state in the sense that I recognise its right to exist and I recognise the two-state solution as the ideal solution, but I am not sure Israel believes in a two-state solution. I am not sure that its political strategy is designed to achieve that. In fact, one would have to come to the conclusion that its political strategy is to do the exact opposite. The recent announcements in terms of further land settlements is flying in the face of United Nations rules, regulations and law and makes it far more difficult to ever have a two-state solution or a Palestinian state that has the capacity to be effective as a Palestinian state.
All the Israeli strategy succeeds in doing is undermining moderate opinion within Gaza and moderate opinion within the West Bank, and undermines Abbas and his Government, Fayyad and all those who showed that progress could be made if there was some dialogue. It is almost as if Israel has a vested interest in ensuring that the extremes stay vibrant and in existence. People may disagree with my position on that but that is my sense of it. There is an urgency for Europe in that regard. The UN Secretary General summed it up when the conflict ended when he asked - "What do we do now?". Do we rebuild it yet again? How many more hundreds of millions of people will come from Europe to rebuild Gaza for another war in two years' time, which will level everything again? I recall being at Foreign Affairs Council meetings at which Tony Blair said the sewage treatment plant would be rebuilt. None of the promises made after the flotilla disasters, which the Taoiseach might remember, have been kept. It is an appalling crime against humanity that an entire population is imprisoned to the degree it is, and western states and the European states have not called it what it is, for a range of reasons. It is time some countries within the European Council, including Ireland, spoke a few truths now and again about this issue. I ask the Taoiseach to give me some indication of what transpired at the summit meeting with regard to that issue.
Third, regarding Ukraine, I welcome the Taoiseach's support for the tough sanctions against Russia in terms of its aggression against a neighbouring state. The Sinn Féin leader said there seemed to be a different response from the Government side to Gaza than there would be to Ukraine. One could make the same statement about Sinn Féin's stance in terms of Gaza and Ukraine.
That is not the case.
It is because Sinn Féin has followed the same line in the European Parliament as it followed here-----
We have been very clear.
-----which is that it attacked the European Union and the United States, and it tried to draw an equivalence between the behaviour of the EU and the United States to Russia's behaviour.
All of them are wrong.
That is my point. The Deputy has just confirmed what I said. The Taoiseach should always remember, and I hope he would agree with me, that the association agreement was the No. 1 item on President Poroshenko's election programme when he won an overwhelming majority in Ukraine. He has full democratic legitimacy, and he should be accepted as such, but for some reason Sinn Féin does not accept it. Russia has behaved as an aggressive imperial power.
I agree with that.
It has partitioned a state it believes should be subject to Russian control.
I agree with that.
Throwing in the equivalence aspect that they are all wrong is giving it a fool's pardon.
Not at all.
I want to call Deputy Boyd Barrett. I know there are no time limits, Deputy-----
The Deputy is refusing to call it what it is, and that only encourages President Putin in terms of further aggression. I ask the Taoiseach to assure us that Ireland will continue to stand with the people of states threatened by Russian aggression. It is a very serious issue in that part of the world because they have experienced terrible events in the past and they do not want to go back to that.
My final question is on Ebola in west Africa. Europe and the developed states have not responded with the urgency necessary from the outset of this crisis. It is an appalling, devastating crisis, not only in terms of Ebola itself. The entire public health system in Sierra Leone, west Africa and across the entire continent is in danger of collapsing. There will be far more deaths from malaria, maternal mortality and other conditions because people are no longer turning up to hospitals. Hospitals are closing. Health staff have left because of the impact of Ebola. People are not taking medicines or going onto the system. I acknowledge that the Government has donated €600,000. He might see if Irish Aid could do more and if the public health community in Ireland could meet with a view to determining if there is anything they could do on a more practical level to assist the international effort.
This is a public health crisis of extraordinary consequence and demands a far greater international response then it has received to date.
My question concerns double standards when it comes to the way Europe deals with the situation faced by Palestinians, and the people of Gaza in particular, in the wake of the recent assault by Israel on Gaza. I would like the Taoiseach to explain how on earth the EU can continue to confer trade privileges and effective associate EU membership on Israel, contribute €840 million in recent years to Israel to develop weapons and missile systems through the EU scientific research programme and continue to allow the EU to be largest trading partner of Israel by a mile. We give them trade privileges, unprecedented access to EU funds and we contribute directly to the development of weaponry and military research that Israel uses against Palestinians in what François Hollande described as a massacre. The president of an EU state described what they did to the UN school as a massacre.
The Russell tribunal met in the past week in Brussels and found that Israel's Operation Protective Edge displayed evidence of war crimes, crimes against humanity, crimes of murder, extermination, persecution and incitement to genocide. It does not get much more serious than that yet the EU confers trade privileges on a state accused of these things. At what point do diplomatic niceties, realpolitik and blind submission to the diktats of the wider EU and its strategic interests give way to standing up and showing moral backbone and saying it is no longer acceptable to treat as a normal state and confer privileges and trade benefits on a state guilty of massacres and accused of genocidal action?
The same European Union can, in an instant, impose sanctions on Russia. I absolutely condemn what Russia is doing in Ukraine but nobody is accusing Russia of genocide. Israel is being accused of genocide and there is no question that it engaged in massacres yet we do nothing. When will the Taoiseach speak out and stop hiding behind EU silence and the claim that it is a decision for the EU? Will Ireland speak out about this and say it is not good enough that genocidal assaults over many years are being conducted against the people of Gaza and we continue not just to treat Israel as a normal state but to confer privilege on it? It is an extraordinary moral contradiction and I ask the Taoiseach to explain it.
It is just not good enough. Deputy Martin raised Gaza as well. It is a country surrounded by Arab countries and on three occasions in the past 30 or 40 years a two-state solution was offered but rejected because of the inability of Arab nations to get agreement on this very controversial situation. It is unacceptable in any circumstances that, as pointed out by Deputy Micheál Martin, disproportionate use of lethal force should be directed at a confined entity like Gaza. Ireland has been forthright in unreservedly condemning that scale of attack and also condemning the rockets from Gaza indiscriminately fired into places in Israel. Ireland has its experience and the professionalism of our troops serving in the UN based on our proven capacity to do things differently in the case of conflict resolution, including decommissioning weapons and building tenuous peace. I was speaking to someone yesterday who was in Belfast 25 years ago and I asked him what he thought. He said that the walls are higher and that it is not the way it used to be despite the fact that things were difficult then. Deputy Gerry Adams is aware of the discussions to be led by both Governments that may bring about a renewed sense of activity about what we must do in Northern Ireland. I share the view of Deputies Boyd Barrett and Micheál Martin on the question of water, accommodation and the scale of reconstruction funds that must go in to Gaza for the nth time. The blockade of its seaward side and its sea fishing exits is crushing people. This is a case of attempting a different kind of conflict resolution but it must involve the capacity to reach out to different forces. The question of decommissioning is an issue.
Ebola has frightened millions of people listening to international newscasters. If people contract symptoms that look like ebola and decide to leave the local region, they carry this with them. The capacity to beat this is obviously there and it may be that countries allocating money for humanitarian aid may be better off giving a proportion of it to the World Health Organisation, which has the logistical capacity to deal with it but not have the funds. Countries with good intent allocate funding for humanitarian works. A portion of it might be better spent by the World Health Organisation to deal with rehydration of people and developing the capacity to treat people locally rather than have them travel long distances where the disease can spread. My layman's understanding of this is that it can peter out with proper treatment but new movement brings about a resurgence and causes major anxiety. With regard to Deputy Martin's comment about the Irish aid already given, we will see whether something else can be made available.
President Poroshenko was very forthright at the European Council meeting, as was the response from the European Council in respect of the extra sanctions implemented within seven days. Europe became serious in terms of these very wealthy individuals who are being seriously compromised by these sanctions. With regard to the grouping of the questions, I will look into that matter.
The June 2012 decision still stands and Ireland is one of the few countries that could make a claim for recapitalisation under that decision. It was not possible to do anything until the banking resolution and banking union mechanisms were put in place, which will be from November. The Government will make its decision on the best option.
The Deputy is correct in that the option of the sale back of the banks was always available. With direct recapitalisation, it took a hell of an amount of complex and tortuous discussion and negotiations to get to the present point. It is now being finalised and is the subject of decisions by countries if they wish to make a claim under it.
The Government will make its decisions in due course on the testing of the value of banks or the option of pursuing the question of the decision of 2012, which is still there and very much on the table.
Written Answers follow Adjournment.