Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 5 Nov 2014

Vol. 856 No. 2

European Council Meeting: Statements

The Taoiseach

I am pleased to update the House on the meeting of the October European Council. The main outcome was an agreement, after difficult and intensive negotiations, on a new EU climate and energy policy framework for the period to 2030. I am satisfied this ambitious agreement also represented a positive outcome for Ireland and will provide further detail on our approach shortly.

The European Council discussed economic developments in the Union and we had a more detailed consideration of the situation in the eurozone at a subsequent euro summit. We also considered a number of external relations issues, particularly the EU's response to the Ebola outbreak in West Africa and the situation in Ukraine. The Minister of State, Deputy Dara Murphy, will address in greater detail in his contribution the issue of Ukraine and other external relations issues.

The fifth assessment report by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - the final instalment of which was published last weekend - brings the urgency of tackling climate change into stark relief. The need for concerted global action had been confirmed already at the UN summit in New York in September, which I attended. The European Council was faced with the challenging task of agreeing an EU climate and energy policy framework for the period to 2030 - setting targets for greenhouse gas emissions reductions, as well as for renewable energy and energy efficiency.

A successful outcome at the European Council was by no means a foregone conclusion. Negotiations in advance of the Council had revealed differing viewpoints among member states as to how ambitious our targets should be. Naturally, each member state wanted to see its own priorities and constraints - reflecting a diversity of economic situations, patterns of energy and geography - accommodated in the agreement.

It was a significant achievement that, following lengthy and at times difficult discussion, agreement was reached and a set of headline targets was determined. By 2030, the EU is to achieve a 40% reduction in greenhouse gases, to draw at least 27% of the energy it consumes from renewable sources and to increase energy efficiency by at least 27%. Some have criticised this agreement as insufficiently ambitious. However, it was clear that it represented the best available compromise. It now allows the EU to lead by example in encouraging other countries to bring forward targets and policies of their own in advance of the UN climate conference in Paris in December of next year.

My general aim at the European Council was to secure a fair, balanced and achievable deal for Ireland in the context of an overall agreement. I would like to thank my colleagues, particularly the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Alan Kelly, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Simon Coveney, and Teagasc, for their stalwart efforts during the advance negotiations which were so important in achieving a successful outcome. Our crucial specific objective was for the conclusions to take account of the special position of agriculture, given that emissions from our already carbon efficient agriculture sector make up a much higher proportion of total emissions here in Ireland than in any other member state.

The specific recognition in the final agreement of the multiple objectives of the agriculture and land use sector represented a major breakthrough for Ireland, as did reference to ensuring coherence between the EU's food security and climate change objectives. There was also an acceptance of the sector's limited mitigation potential. Overall, this represents a successful outcome in the context of our ambitious plans to sustainably increase food production in line with Food Harvest 2020.

On the basis of a proposal from Ireland, the contribution of afforestation to greenhouse gas mitigation and sequestration was also recognised by the European Council. Again, this is crucial for Ireland as we put in place major investments with a view to expanding new forest cover. We await further detailed proposals from the Commission as to how these important and clear principles will be fleshed out, but the parameters of the future approach have been laid down.

A further key issue for Ireland was the setting of a national target for the reduction of emissions in non-traded sectors. The starting point is that the 20% target agreed some years ago for 2020 has proven to be ill-founded, unrealistic and unattainable. It did not recognise the implications of the particular importance of agriculture in Ireland. In addition, our capacity to invest in the wide-ranging infrastructural and energy efficiency measures required has been severely limited by the difficult state of our public finances. Even though our economy is now improving, the need to reduce our national debt burden will continue to impose significant fiscal constraints.

At the European Council, I emphasised the economic and fiscal challenges that Ireland has endured and still faces. I stated emphatically that our agreement to the headline targets was based on the clear understanding that our national target for the non-emissions trading scheme sector, which includes agriculture, must take account of our specific circumstances and should be both deliverable and economically sustainable. However, as the negotiations progressed, it became clear that there was not going to be an agreement on the so-called non-ETS targets at this time. Therefore, I focused on ensuring that the European Council itself, which operates by consensus and not by majority voting, must return to this question in due course to make the necessary decision on national targets.

This was agreed and made quite clear in the conclusions. The European Council will keep all the elements of the framework under review and, as is its role under the treaties, will give strategic orientations, notably - and I quote language I successfully proposed - "with respect to consensus" on the non-emissions trading sector and some other issues. It is an important issue in that when the European Council comes back to review issues, it will come back for a purpose, and that purpose is to have consensus, because the Council operates on consensus. That means our negotiators will have that as a backstop on each occasion the European Council reviews the issues.

While the outcome of the Council is clearly a positive one for both Ireland and the Union as a whole, much work remains to be done. The negotiations to agree binding national targets will undoubtedly present challenges and the Government will remain fully engaged. Meanwhile, we will continue to play our part in realising the EU ambition of becoming a competitive low-carbon economy by 2050. This will call for sustained action at a domestic level.

The current low rate of growth in Europe remains an overriding concern for the Council. We shared our perspectives on recent economic developments, as well as ideas for boosting economic growth and investment. There was a separate discussion among leaders of eurozone countries. The President of the European Central Bank, Mario Draghi, made a comprehensive and, I must say, stark presentation on the difficult issues facing the eurozone and the need for a broad and multifaceted policy response. One common theme in interventions at the European Council was the importance of structural reforms. Ireland was referenced several times as a positive example of how such reforms, while painful in the short term, can provide a strong foundation for boosting growth. Member states were encouraged to continue on the path of reform, notwithstanding the challenges.

Many of my colleagues emphasised that low investment is eroding Europe's growth potential and called for the boosting of investment levels. Support was expressed for the incoming Commission's intention to mobilise an additional €300 billion in public and private investment over the coming three years, and we expect to have further detail on this initiative in advance of the December European Council. The European Council also welcomed the establishment of a task force, led by the Commission and the European Investment Bank, with a view to identifying and addressing blockages to investment and also developing a pipeline of potentially viable projects of European significance. Meanwhile, the Euro Summit called for work to continue to develop concrete mechanisms for stronger economic policy co-ordination and tasked the new President of the Commission, in conjunction with the other relevant individuals, to prepare the next steps on better economic governance in the euro area in general.

This European Council did not take detailed decisions on economic issues, focusing instead on the difficult and delicate negotiations necessary to achieve agreement on the climate and energy policy framework. However, our discussions provided valuable orientation ahead of more substantive decisions at the December European Council. It was clear that, right across the Union, the unwavering focus remains on addressing the challenges of low growth and high unemployment.

One issue which had not been foreseen for the European Council but which, in the event, featured prominently in discussions and related media coverage was the issue of EU budget contribution adjustments, which, on the basis of a leaked document, was highlighted in the UK media on the Friday morning. Deputies will be aware that the UK in particular has serious concerns in regard to the volume of, and basis for, its additional assessed contribution. The issue is now being considered in more detail by finance Ministers, and I hope the matter can be quickly clarified and resolved in a way that assuages political difficulties but respects the agreed treaty and legislative rules.

The European Council had an important and productive discussion on the EU's response to the Ebola crisis. This followed on from a detailed consideration of the issue by EU foreign Ministers earlier in the week. The spread of the Ebola virus in west Africa is unfortunately continuing at an alarming rate. The most recent figures provided by the World Health Organization indicate over 13,500 confirmed and suspected cases of Ebola in west Africa, with almost 5,000 reported deaths. The disease is continuing to spread faster than the Governments of the worst affected countries in west Africa - Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone - and the international community can respond. We must unfortunately prepare ourselves for a further deterioration of the situation in west Africa in the short term, and we therefore have to redouble our efforts to limit the human, social and economic impacts of the epidemic.

Recognising this imperative, the European Council registered its deep concern at the spread of the virus and at the increasing number of people in west Africa infected and dying from it. We agreed that the EU must be at the forefront of international efforts to combat the virus. We committed ourselves to bringing the total for EU financial assistance to €1 billion, a target that is already close to being met.

From the outset, Ireland has been playing an important and active role in the Ebola response, and we are providing over €17 million in the region this year, directly and through NGOs. Our programmes in Sierra Leone and Liberia are focused on strengthening health systems in the two countries, and we have reprogrammed other funding directly to the Ebola response. Last week a grant of €1 million was approved for the newly established UN Ebola Trust Fund, which supports the activities of the UN Mission for Ebola Emergency Response. We are looking at what more we can do through our embassy in Freetown, given that we are one of the relatively few EU countries with an embassy on the ground.

The European Council also noted that EU member states are committed to increasing the deployment of medical and support staff in West Africa. In this regard, the earlier agreement at the Foreign Affairs Council on a co-ordinated EU mechanism to guarantee appropriate care for international health workers, within available resources, was very welcome. The European Council also welcomed the appointment of the incoming Commissioner for Humanitarian Aid and Crisis Management, Christos Stylianides, as EU Ebola co-ordinator. I wish the Commissioner every success as he takes on this critically important role.

Given the gravity of the Ebola crisis, the European Council will consider the state of play again at the next meeting in December. To inform this discussion, we also called on the High Representative and the Commission to develop a package of measures addressing the wider political, security and economic implications of the crisis in the region.

I am very pleased that the European Council was able to conclude the institutional changeover by formally appointing the new European Commission. This followed a vote of approval by the European Parliament on 22 October. President Juncker and his team of Commissioners are now in their posts. Together with my Cabinet colleagues, I look forward to working closely with President Juncker and the 27 other members of the college over the new legislative term, building on the strong relationship we enjoyed with the outgoing Commission.

I would also like to place on record my thanks to the outgoing Commission, particularly to President Barroso and Commissioner Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, for their excellent work. During the course of this Government, I had quite a deal of interaction with Commissioner Geoghegan-Quinn. I must say I found her, as one would expect, to be both courteous and very efficient in dealing with any queries we raised on behalf of the country, and I thank her for that. In what has been an extremely difficult period for the EU, their commitment to improving the lives of EU citizens has never been less than total. I wish them well in whatever paths they may pursue from here on.

I also note that the October European Council was the final such meeting to be chaired by outgoing President Herman Van Rompuy. President Van Rompuy has been an extremely able, skilful and committed President, both as the chair of our internal negotiations and in representing the EU on the global stage. He demonstrated enormous patience in many of the interminably long meetings that took place during the Presidency and on other difficult issues. I would like to thank him most sincerely for his leadership. I look forward to working closely with his successor, Donald Tusk, who takes up duty on 1 December.

I will return in due course to update the House on the preparations for, and outcomes of, the next European Council, which will take place on 18 and 19 December.

Deputy Micheál Martin

There have been many significant developments in the European Union since we last had statements.  It is unfortunate that the Government decided not to have statements concerning the Council’s various discussions in July and August. The Taoiseach’s approach to cancelling and not replacing sessions of questions means that the practical opportunities to discuss and review European matters have been reduced significantly.  I hope this will not continue.

The latest summit had some important items on its agenda but it was, yet again, highly complacent when one looks at the range of urgent issues confronting the European Union and its member states. It was a striking feature of last month’s budget that the Government decided to ignore completely the growing threat of deflation in Europe and the impact this might have on Ireland.

Equally, no credit was given to the central role which the policies of the ECB under Mario Draghi have played in our return to growth. The Government's sole focus on the next election means that it is unwilling to acknowledge how important European policies still are for us.

The publication of the latest round of bank stress tests and the coming into effect of the single supervisory mechanism yesterday have brought back into focus the issue of the link between banking and sovereign debt. It is over two years since the Taoiseach and the other leaders announced that the link between banking and sovereign debt had been broken and that Ireland would be receiving justice for the debts it took on because of failures in European policy. If the Taoiseach looks back at a number of his statements to the Dáil since then, he will find that he repeatedly said that retrospective justice for Ireland on bank-related debt would be achieved when the single supervisory mechanism became operational so why are the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance so reluctant to say anything now?

The Taoiseach will remember that he and his colleagues announced that the decision on recapitalisation was a "game changer" for Ireland. At a press conference held in Government Buildings, the Ministers for Finance and Public Expenditure and Reform were positively giggling about the billions of euro which were to come to Ireland. When asked how much we were looking for, the Minister for Finance confirmed that we would be looking for retrospective recapitalisation. However, he refused to give a figure saying "it's clear you've never been to the Fair of Glynn or sold a calf.  Sure, if I told them the minimum, that's what they would give me." Well it appears that we are receiving nothing so is that what we asked for? The reason why this still matters is because at the heart of the budget is the fact that the fiscal leeway for next year is supplied solely by the impact of debt-related issues. As Fianna Fáil’s spokespeople have laid out in detail, interest changes available to all countries and EU-wide reductions in bond yields account for nearly €2 billion in the improved fiscal situation next year. In other words, every single element of the budget which Fine Gael and Labour Deputies have tried and failed to sell to the people depends on getting the handling of debt-related issues right. The evidence is that there is a lot to be concerned about.

For various technical reasons, the decision of the Central Bank of Ireland to sell its holding of Irish bonds faster than planned is a short-term windfall but expert commentators are saying that this will come at a medium and long-term cost. In fact, under many conditions, the entirety of the benefit of the promissory note deal could be lost. The Government has so far bet correctly that these issues are too abstract and technical to have a public impact. However, it is also increasing the risk to Ireland, which may be felt sooner rather than later. In a weak moment two years ago, the Taoiseach said in Paris that Ireland was different from other countries because it was not allowed freedom of action on bank recapitalisation and resolution in 2010. He has not repeated it because he saw that the truth undermines his partisan political attacks. The fact remains that the full justice of Ireland's cause on bank-related debt has not been recognised. We have not even been given the benefit of the same deal as one other country in that the ECB does not return to us the profits it makes on our sovereign bonds. Instead of ignoring the issue, the Taoiseach owes it to the Irish people to say exactly what was sought and whether Ireland is still looking for a deal.

The summit's discussion about the state of the economy was short and general. The joint Commission and European Investment Bank, EIB, task force is welcome. It is not large enough to lift the overall European economy but it can help if it means that projects get moving faster and co-funding is less of a problem. This raises the question of what Ireland is doing to take advantage of the availability of long-term, low-cost, non-market financing for major investment. As Fianna Fáil pointed out in our budget statement, there is an urgent need for a new investment plan. Our domestic economy desperately needs it. It might not fit the election cycle but it is no less urgent. Instead of using EIB financing simply to pay for elements of the public capital programme which would be funded anyway, it should go into a new programme to support the competitiveness of the economy and tackle long-term social and economic issues. There has been some but not enough flexibility in respect of excessive deficit procedures. Ireland needs to get off the fence and join those countries which are calling for an end to avoidable austerity. Where countries have manageable debt levels, the entire European economy needs them to help stimulate activity. The pro-cyclical, austerity for all approach has failed and will continue to fail.

In recent days the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its most conclusive and alarming report yet. Man-made climate change is happening, it is happening fast and its impacts, which are already serious, may become catastrophic unless long-term action is sustained. Under this Government, Ireland has deliberately stepped back from the position of taking an active role in climate change policy. It has made no constructive contribution and has set no vision for how Ireland will achieve its targets. The Taoiseach was right to seek a special acknowledgement of the distinct position of agriculture and in believing that it is wrong to put agricultural omissions on the same level as others. There exists little or no mitigation potential beyond dramatically reducing beef production, something which would impose dramatic social and economic costs and undermine food security targets. However, this matter has not been finalised. It has been acknowledged as a legitimate concern for discussion. Just like the so-called deal on banking debt two years ago, only when the details are worked out, will we know how significant it is.

In general, I welcome the Council's increased focus on climate change and energy and the broad agreements that were reached at this summit. The severity of the potential crisis is enormous. The state-controlled Russian company which supplies much of Europe's gas has been attempting for months to try to stop Europe building up its reserves to survive a cut-off. Even the most naïve or compromised observer will now have to admit that Europe's largest energy supplier is willing to use supplies to achieve political aims. The need to diversify supply is no longer just a matter of economic sense, it is vital for the ability to stand against bullies. Ireland should support any proposals to increase storage and capacity for alternative sources. The understanding that a more urgent approach to building interconnection is essential for Europe is welcome. Only then can intermittent supplies be properly integrated into a market which delivers more secure and less expensive energy for Europe's citizens. This has been a crisis which has been developing for many years. The Russian policy of seeking to be a dominant supplier was allowed to proceed, particularly because of the work of some political leaders with close ties to the Putin regime. Now that everyone seems to understand the problem, let us not lose the opportunity to take rapid action.

Leaders adopted the formal resolution of appointment for the next European Commission. We wish them well in their important work and hope that President Juncker's early passion will not be allowed to disperse into bureaucratic management. Fianna Fáil would also like to congratulate former Deputy Phil Hogan on being allocated the agriculture portfolio and his success in the Parliament. Through the years, our Commissioners have a unique record of being willing to ignore party labels and work in the broader interest. Different Governments have always been able to develop a constructive relationship with the Irish Commissioner irrespective of who nominated him or her. I appreciate the comments the Taoiseach made about outgoing Commissioner Máire Geoghegan-Quinn who has been exemplary in her approach to her role as Commissioner, particularly in terms of Horizon 2020 and the centrality of research and developments in terms of the future of Europe. The research and development portfolio is arguably the most important portfolio of all and she did an excellent job and linked in with Ireland's universities and institutes of technology, Enterprise Ireland and others on a continual basis to guide them in drawing down funding from FP7 and the various research programmes. I am sure that our new Commissioner will continue this tradition. Commissioner Hogan's appearance at the Parliament was impressive and it is a pity that there was an attempt by some to grandstand for a domestic audience. We wish him well in his work in the Commission.

As was seen during the SARS and H1N1 crises, co-operation across Europe in dealing with public health emergencies is absolutely essential. I welcome the discussion which leaders had on Ebola. Under the Lisbon treaty, the Commission has a new role in helping member states with protecting people at a time of disaster or a major threat. This role should be allowed to develop. The decision to use the European Response Coordination Centre as a clearing house is very welcome as is the contribution of the EU and its member states to helping nations with Ebola outbreaks. This contribution will soon reach €1 billion, although I think we could improve on that. I would argue that the international response was too tardy and too late and that there must be concern about the role of the World Health Organization in the early stages of this disease.

An internal document was released some time ago regarding the political nature of appointments in the west African countries where Ebola first emerged, the lack of urgency in responding and the lateness of notification to the powers that be in Geneva. Europe could usefully engage with the WHO in terms of learning lessons and having accountability for what happened. As was seen with the news about Nigeria successfully containing the spread of the virus, there is nothing inevitable about this becoming an international epidemic. I welcome the announcement of Irish support for work in west Africa and acknowledge the wonderful work done by Irish aid workers and experts in the worst affected countries. As a nation we should be extremely proud of their contribution.

Since we last discussed the situation in Ukraine, direct Russian army intervention succeeded in throwing back government forces and extending the area under de facto Russian control. Unfortunately it appears to be very close to achieving its objective of creating another frozen conflict. In recent months it has been amazing how far some people and parties have gone to avoid attacking Russian aggression against a neighbouring state. Russia has already partitioned and annexed part of Ukraine. In Crimea it is now illegal to state publicly that Crimea should belong to Ukraine. Tartars have been banned from commemorating the genocidal action of Stalin in removing them from the peninsula. The OSCE, an entirely impartial international agency, is still prevented from gaining access to territory under Russian influence. This is old-style imperial aggression and there can be no stepping back from calling it this.

In a classic example of Sinn Féin double-speak, it claims to be an anti-imperialist party while criticising everyone but the aggressor in this case. I look forward to Deputy Adams telling his audience at his next fundraising dinner in the United States that country is equally to blame for Russian partition of Ukraine as Vladimir Putin. This is the line Sinn Féin and its partners in the European Parliament once again trotted out when voting against an EU association agreement which has the support of the overwhelming majority of Ukrainian citizens. The EU eventually stumbled onto a set of sanctions which have hurt the increasingly authoritarian and anti-democratic Putin Government. They have clearly caused a step back from further aggression, although provocations against EU members are happening every week. What has been happening in the Baltic and elsewhere is alarming. These sanctions should not be lifted until Russia ends the partition and occupation of Ukraine. In previous debates in this House and in the writing of some commentators, there has been an effort to push a Russian propaganda line about the Ukrainian side being dominated by fascists but this has completely fallen apart because of the results of both the Presidential and now parliamentary elections. In both elections, mainstream democrats overwhelmingly triumphed and the extreme right fared much worse than in many long-established democracies. Not only did the people of Ukraine overwhelmingly vote for committed democrats, they voted for parties and candidates committed to building a permanent relationship with the European Union based on the association agreement. It is time for the Russian apologists and knee-jerk anti-Europeans to admit that the people of Ukraine have freely chosen what they want. Ireland should stand with them against the partition of their country and in support of a democratic future.

It is unfortunate that the summit did not take up in a significant way issues relating to the Middle East. Fianna Fáil has tabled a motion calling for Ireland to formally recognise the Palestinian state, and we were successful in this regard in the Seanad. The progress of events and the refusal of the Netanyahu Government to take any constructive steps mean that simply waiting for everything to be sorted before recognising Palestine is no longer an acceptable route forward. Over the decades Ireland has taken a lead in seeking justice for Palestine. We have not been afraid to speak up for the interests of this stateless and impoverished people. Nobody can or should attempt to justify acts of terrorism or indiscriminate bombings. Many people and groups who claim to fight for Palestine have been, in fact, its greatest enemies but the two state solution remains the only long-term solution and it is time to take a stand. I call on the Taoiseach to show some leadership by supporting the call for recognising the state of Palestine.

This summit saw another episode in the ongoing anti-EU grandstanding of the British Tory party. Prime Minister Cameron’s tantrum relating to budget contributions was not only ridiculous but also it exposed his strategy as being bereft of any substance. These contributions are linked to agreed technical assessments. They are not controversial. The amount involved is tiny in comparison to the size of the British economy. It could have been brushed aside as a technical matter of no consequence but he chose to be led by his fear of UKIP and the demands of hardline anti-EU newspapers. It is long since past time for him to stop the posturing and publish a statement of his demands for changes in the EU. We cannot continue with a government endlessly saying it will leave unless it gets what it wants even though it has yet to state what it wants. This once again brings to the fore the fact that our own Government has not stated its policy on the bulk of the current debates about the future of the EU. Depending on what happens in the British election, a treaty negotiation may start next year. Let us not wait until then to start our discussion.

Deputy Gerry Adams

It is hardly surprising that the Taoiseach has welcomed the new European Commission. Sinn Féin voted against the Commission because we have serious concerns over its make-up. We regret that it is still suffering from a major democratic deficit and continues to have too much power over EU policy and member states. The hearings have shown that the new Commission will continue on the path of the former Commission and will not shift the current political orientation towards a real social Europe. Jean-Claude Juncker's new European Commission has presented a programme which essentially constitutes a continuation of the failed austerity policies of its predecessor. There is also a major overlap between the private business interests of certain Commissioners and their portfolios. There appears to be a possibility for major conflicts of interest. For example, the Spanish Commissioner, who now has the climate action and energy portfolio, held significant shares in oil companies until a few months ago, and his family members still have shares in oil companies. Will this man be more of a lobbyist for energy companies than a Commissioner for climate action? Sinn Féin also regrets that no progress has been achieved on the representation of women in the Commission team. Of the 28 members of the Commission, 19 are men and nine are women. Even the Taoiseach selected a man to go forward. The EU should be working towards getting a 50-50 gender balance on the Commission.

Last month the Government brought forward a budget which rewards the wealthy elite and punishes ordinary working families. It did that in tandem with its punitive and totally unnecessary water charges. The Government has talked up a recovery that appears on the balance sheets but not in the pockets of citizens, particularly those on low and middle incomes. While I suspect that the Government went to this European Council meeting to present a picture of the recession being over and Ireland's economic problems being solved, communities across the State have been ravaged by emigration and towns and villages are marked by dereliction.

Astonishingly, it seems the Government wants the Irish people to forget about the prospect of retroactive recapitalisation of Ireland's banking debt. It is not really our debt but was foisted on us. Last month the Government voted down a Sinn Féin amendment to the European Stability Mechanism Act 2012, which would have compelled the Minister for Finance to apply for retroactive recapitalisation. We were told by the Taoiseach and former Tánaiste, Deputy Gilmore, two years ago that we had achieved a great victory on retroactive recapitalisation, which they called a game changer. Now, however, the Government does not want to discuss the matter. Another European Council meeting has come and gone and, again, the conclusions do not mention any move towards retroactive recapitalisation for Ireland. Did the Taoiseach even raise retroactive recapitalisation during the economic issues section of the European Council meeting? The reality is that the banking debt has cost every man, woman and child in this State €14,000. It is the primary reason why families' incomes have been slashed, public services decimated and thousands of people forced to emigrate. When Sinn Féin pressed the Government on applying for retroactive recapitalisation we were told time after time that we had to wait until the system was in place. It has been now in place since yesterday but the Minister, Deputy Noonan, will not commit to applying to it. The fact that this Government voted down our amendment last month, which simply compelled him to apply for retroactive recapitalisation, adds to our fears that Irish citizens will not see a cent of that banking debt recouped.

Fianna Fáil also voted against our amendment. Perhaps the leader of that party will take the time, when he is finished with other distractionary pursuits, to explain why that happened, given previous indications of an intent to support it. Can the Taoiseach confirm today that the Government will apply for retroactive recapitalisation and undertake to inform the Dáil in due course about his plans to do so?

I welcome the Irish contribution to the effort to tackle the Ebola crisis. However, we must do more. I commend, in particular, those Irish people who are working in west Africa to alleviate the suffering that is happening there. Poverty is at the core of these problems. It is interesting that none of the United States citizens who contracted Ebola has died. I presume anybody in Dublin who contracted it would likewise survive, notwithstanding the poor quality of our health service. It is poverty that underlies this problem and it is poverty that must be tackled.

The Taoiseach made no reference in his statement to the situation in the Middle East. Last month, Martina Anderson, a Sinn Féin MEP, was selected as chairperson of the European Parliament's delegation to Palestine. I hope the Taoiseach will acknowledge and welcome the importance of such a prestigious and important role being placed in the hands of an Irish MEP. In October I met with Dr. Mohammed Maqadama, head of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, UNRWA, medical mission in Gaza, who was visiting Ireland. As I detailed yesterday, Dr. Maqadama spoke of how devastating Israel's military bombardment of Gaza was, how medical personnel were directly targeted while on duty, and how much money and goodwill are needed to rebuild Gaza. The Government has been generous to UNRWA and I hope this will continue to be the case. However, its non-policy on this issue amounts to support for the current Israeli regime. The Government's abstention on the UN Human Rights Council motion regarding Israel's indiscriminate bombing of Gaza was a disgrace. Its vote against a motion calling on Israel to sign up to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty degraded Ireland's work on creating a nuclear-weapons-free Middle East.

Last Thursday Sweden recognised the state of Palestine. Last month the Seanad passed a motion calling on the Government officially to recognise the state of Palestine. The British House of Commons passed a similar motion and the Spanish Parliament is considering the matter. I have raised this issue regularly with the Taoiseach, the former Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and the current Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. Will the Taoiseach engage with the Swedish Prime Minister and others on the possibility of getting together a progressive bloc of EU countries to recognise jointly and officially the state of Palestine and thereby restore the potential for a two-state peace process?

Deputy Seán Crowe

It does not seem very long since we were debating the Lisbon treaty in this House. The Taoiseach and his party argued for a "Yes" vote on the basis that it would lead to jobs for Irish people. "Yes to Europe, Yes to Jobs" was the slogan on Fine Gael posters throughout the country. We eventually had a "Yes" vote from the electorate, but the jobs have been very slow in coming. Sinn Féin and others called for a "No" vote on the basis that the treaty's provisions would increase the democratic deficit and reduce Ireland's influence and voting powers.

As of 1 November, under the provisions of the treaty dealing with the voting system in the Council, key decisions will now be made on a straight population basis. We have moved away from the consensus approach, with a clear shift in power towards the larger states. The new provisions have led to a doubling of Germany's voting weight from 8% to 16% and increased the weights of France, Italy and Britain from 8% each to 12% each. At the same time, the changes have seen a reduction in the voting weight of smaller and middle-sized EU states - in Ireland's case, that reduction is from 2% to 0.8%. Were these changes marked at the European Council meeting? Was the increased democratic deficit discussed or was it business as usual, with the changes written off as progress?

Before the European Council meeting, MEPs voted to extend the Council's proposed 2015 budget by €2 billion, a position that may lead to tough negotiations. It is clear from the discussions last year that a minority of influential member states will seek to continue austerity policies and further reduce the EU budget in real terms. Sinn Féin, together with many others across Europe, is of the view that in this time of social and economic crisis the EU needs to invest in and spend more on cohesion projects, creating real jobs, sustainable economic growth, tackling poverty and disadvantage, and addressing the causes of youth unemployment. There are clearly two groups in Europe, one arguing for more stimulus and investment and the other pushing the austerity line.

We are all agreed that there is fat to be trimmed from the EU budget. Last month the European Parliament sat in its second home in Strasbourg. This once-a-month travelling circus is estimated to cost nearly €170 million per year. This continues despite the fact that a majority of MEPs are against it and have voted to scrap the Strasbourg Parliament. Surely this is one of the areas in which cuts should be sought, rather than in vitally important social and economic programmes. What position did the Taoiseach take on behalf of the country when the Council discussed the EU budget? Was he on the side of those who want to invest in member states' economies, stimulate economic growth and jobs and improve quality of life for workers and families across the EU? Or did he place Ireland on the side of the harsh austerity advocates who wish to see the budget decreased in a way that will leave it not fit for purpose, failing people and locking more and more citizens into poverty, including intergenerational poverty?

The Taoiseach mentioned that the European Council had extensive discussions on the EU's climate and energy policy framework. I welcome the commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by at least 40% by 2030. It is only a first step, however, and, sadly, watered-down energy efficiency and renewable energy targets of 27% were agreed for 2030. We all got a wake-up call this week following the publication of the intergovernmental report on carbon credits, which spoke about pushing for zero carbon emissions by 2100. Some countries spoke out in favour of the report while others began to talk about derogations. People do not want meaningless formulae; they want real action. We have the capacity to move towards a low-carbon economy, but what is lacking is ambition and responsible political leadership. As one of the largest polluting blocs in the world, surely the EU should be playing its part in rectifying our coal and fossil fuel reliance. Will the Taoiseach agree to champion something better than these weak proposals at the next Council meeting, something more in line with the strong binding targets suggested by European parliamentarians?

The Taoiseach referred in his statement to increased investment in afforestation. Will he expand on that? We all want to see that type of investment, but there is a difficulty in this regard concerning the State company, Coillte.

There was also reference to the nonsense of buying carbon credits from developing and poorer countries.

Again, I question the validity of how this nonsensical approach will help our planet. Rich countries and companies will continue to pollute the planet, while smaller and poorer states supposedly offset, through reforestation and so forth, the environmental damage caused by them.

Deputy Paul Murphy

I wish to share time with Deputies Shane Ross, Richard Boyd Barrett and Clare Daly.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Paul Murphy

The key item on the agenda for discussion at the recent European Council summit was climate change. Unfortunately, EU leaders, including the Taoiseach, the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, and the French President, François Hollande, do a good impression of fiddling while the world burns. We are hurtling towards an absolute catastrophe. In 30 years the Artic could be ice-free and those who would pay the price would overwhelmingly be those in lesser developed countries and poor people.

A recent report by DARA International suggests 100 million people could die by 2030 as a result of climate change. Another recent report from the IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, confirms what we already know, namely, that the world faces severe, pervasive and irreversible damage caused by global warming, that human activity is the cause and that drastic action is needed to deal with it. According to the chairman of the IPCC, “To keep a good chance of staying below 2 degrees, and at manageable costs, our emissions should drop by 40% to 70% globally between 2010 and 2050, falling to zero or below by 2100.”

We need radical action to tackle this issue. The European Union loves to pose as the leading force across the world on climate change. Its ambition and commitment are, however, 1 million miles away from the rhetoric it uses. Accordingly, there was a huge row at the recent Council meeting over haggling as to whether 27% or 30% should be a target for energy efficiency. What we need are binding targets and regulations to ensure a 50% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 and 80% in 2050.

When one reads the Council conclusions, they are entirely focused on the emissions trading scheme, ETS. The ETS is a failure and it is not just those on the left who are saying this. One can read articles in The Economist and the Financial Times stating the same. The ETS saw a massive windfall for some of the largest polluters in Europe because they received carbon credits and were able to sell them on. Electricity and other utility companies earned between €23 billion and €71 billion in windfall profits in phase 2 of the scheme alone. As a consequence, the European Union uses more coal today than it did in 2007, the highest coal consumption levels since the 1960s.

The ETS is not an answer to global warming. It is rooted in the nature of that mechanism which is about the commodification of pollution and nature. It is about the offering of profit opportunities to traders, with no protections for the environment. Major polluting corporations measure their own pollution only nominally and through estimates. They fiddle the figures and there is massive fraud under the ETS in order that the polluting companies make even more money.

A recent report in the journal Climatic Change stated a mere 90 companies had produced 63% of the cumulative global emissions of industrial carbon dioxide and methane between 1751 and 2010. They include oil firms such as BP, Chevron, Exxon and Shell, as well as the range of obvious polluters. What we have is profit-driven global warming. If we are serious about tackling climate change, we need system change.

There is an attack on democratic rights for the next European Council meeting with the extension of QMV, qualified majority voting, to over 30 policy areas. This is about a concentration of power in Europe within the hands of a small number of countries in the centre. One could now have a majority of member state governments on the periphery opposing certain measures, but they could be overruled by a strong core of right-wing governments pushing in an authoritarian, neoliberal direction for the European Union. Some of these areas are the Common Foreign and Security Policy and the Common Security and Defence Policy. One only needs to look to eastern Europe and Ukraine where one sees the reality of an expansionist imperialist vision for the European Union driven by its leaders.

Deputy Shane Ross

I want to touch briefly on our relationship with the European Union, particularly the fact that we appear to have an inferiority complex. Provided we can abuse the patronage we are given to make appointments to the European Commission, we do pretty much what we are told by the Commission elsewhere. The last time I debated this issue in the House we were about to appoint a Commissioner. It has happened since. I deplore the fact that we parachuted someone into that position whose primary qualification was that he had political loyalty to the Taoiseach, as well as saving his bacon while he was in opposition. Like Deputy Micheál Martin, I applaud the activities of the MEPs Luke ‘Ming’ Flanagan and Nessa Childers, as well as others from whatever quarter, who opposed former Deputy Phil Hogan’s ascent to the commissionership. It was right that they should be talking to a domestic audience, exposing the fact that this post was used exclusively by all Governments as the prime prize of political patronage.

It is symbolic the way the country is run domestically and when it has the ability to place people in plum jobs in the European Union. We do it here with judges and gardaí and in semi-State bodies and elsewhere. The prize job in the European Union is always taken by someone with a political allegiance to the party in power. It has little to do with his or her qualifications to be a Commissioner. His or her actual job is not considered before he or she is appointed either. It is right that those Irish MEPs, from all political backgrounds, should highlight that this is the way it is done in Ireland and that they oppose it. They are doing the nation a service by exposing it in the European Union and at home.

It is a great pity that the Taoiseach who has done the European Union’s bidding so loyally and faithfully, bowing and scraping to the crowned heads of Europe, was not beating the table in recent weeks when the French and the Italians tried to cheat the deficit targets with which we had been so compliant. It is well known that member states’ individual budgets must be passed by the Commission. The first attempt by the French - France is the second largest economy in Europe - and the Italians - Italy is the third largest - to do so saw them cheat on their deficit targets to which they were committed. The French blatantly said they would breach the deficit to percentage economic output target, while the Italians said they would breach the structural deficit target. What happened then was that the bureaucrats in the Commission, as well as the Germans, became a bit iffy. The two eyeballed them back and, as they are such large nations, they were not told they would have to pay the penalty but to come back with slightly revised and doctored budgets. Contrast this with the case of Ireland which bends over backwards to beat the targets or get well within them. This, of course, exposes the fact that as a small country Ireland is treated differently from the larger countries.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

One of the most popular slogans chanted by the 200,000 people who took to the streets at the weekend was: "Enda Kenny in your ivory tower, this is called people power." As the Labour Party in the Seanad rebels against the Government over a referendum on Irish Water and as a crisis is gripping the Government in the face of a massive popular rebellion against the hated water tax, should the Government not be telling its European counterparts that it may not be in government the next time the European Council meets? That is because the people have finally lost patience with the cruel injustice of taking out €8 billion in interest on a debt that is not citizens' debt. It is being sucked out to pay off bondholders and financial institutions in Europe, while ordinary people are being crushed with water taxes, property taxes and all of the other austerity cuts and charges. In all seriousness, should the Minister of State not be telling his European counterparts that he may not be in government the next time the European Council meets because the people have had enough and are rising up against him?

It is the supreme irony that Ireland's new European Commissioner was the very Minister whose fingerprints were all over this shambles and fiasco that was Irish Water and the water charges. Does it not say everything about Governments in ivory towers that are utterly out of touch with the people they are supposed to represent that the Minister who was responsible for this debacle has been rewarded with the highest position we can give an Irish politician in the European bureaucracy? It is really beyond belief.

In some ways, is this not the answer to the questions European leaders have debated among themselves, namely, why is the European economy on its knees and why is investment down? Why are they panicking now about a lack of growth? The answer to that question is that we do not have the money to invest in the economy to generate real and sustainable economic growth here or elsewhere in Europe because we are being sucked dry by banks and financial institutions. They are sucking €8 billion out of the economy and the pockets of citizens.

Similarly, the European economy has been devastated by the cost of putting bankers, bondholders and financial institutions ahead of the needs of ordinary citizens and the need to invest in real economic activity to generate genuine and sustainable economic growth. Instead, the European Union, as well as the current and previous Governments here, have shoved the bubble economy and the corporate vulture economy down our throats for the past 25 years.

The Minister of State should take this message to his European counterparts. If they do not lay off and give us a break, he will be swept out of power by a movement of people power. It will not be too long before other governments in Europe face the same rebellion, unless they come out of their ivory towers and listen to the voices of the people.

Deputy Clare Daly

It is incredible that we are having another discussion on the European Council, yet there was not a single mention in the Taoiseach's introduction of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, TTIP, discussions. It is ironic that we have just had a vote in the Seanad on protecting the water supply, but if this agreement goes ahead, the decision of the Irish people or any other European nation to protect its own resources could be in serious jeopardy as a result of the discussions behind the scenes on the TTIP. Every time we try to raise this matter in the Chamber the Government has a standard response, that it would be good for jobs. The Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Richard Bruton, even went so far as to say it would deliver an extra 8,000 jobs for Ireland and that we would see an increase in GDP of 1.1%. These figures were plucked out of the sky and there has been no substantial research to verify them, never mind the bad analysis of GDP, given transfer pricing and profit repatriation, and the nature of the jobs created by the Government.

The TTIP talks serve as a great threat and there is no transparency. The leaked documents from them describe the sensitive alignments that will take place in private meetings of the proposed joint EU-US regulatory forum. That means that anything that will come out on paper will be ignored behind the scenes later. While the Government seems to be determined to keep this issue under wraps, in fairness, Irish farmers have begun to notice that their livelihoods will be in danger if these trade talks and the TTIP agreement go ahead. The harmonisation of agri-business trade legislation will, in essence, will lead to Europe being flooded with previously banned US beef which is not labelled and is filled with genetically modified contents. It will force Irish farmers to lower their standards in order to compete not only with US beef but also to deal with the threat posed by GMO crops.

The Taoiseach talks about the agreement being good for us and business, but what does he mean? The reality behind the agreement is that what the Government is calling the removal of trade barriers is actually the removal of protections for the public against multinationals and others interested in making a fast buck. That is really what the agreement is about and I would expect nothing less from Fine Gael, being the party of big business. The Taoiseach sometimes says we need a disputes resolution mechanism, but who is "we"? Is it the people of Egypt whose government was sued by a French multinational for raising the minimum wage? Is it the people of Germany who were sued by the nuclear industry for shutting down the sector? This is the direction in which the Government will go in the case of water services.

It is ironic that the mass movement on 11 October coincided with a movement of European citizens in Hamburg, London, Paris and elsewhere against the TTIP, yet the Minister of State and the Government have not even deigned to discuss these issues in this Chamber, despite the serious threat they pose to Irish citizens.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We will now have questions for a period not exceeding 20 minutes.

Deputy Micheál Martin

The first question I would like to ask the Minister of State concerns the separation of sovereign debt from bank debt, now that the single supervisory mechanism is in place. The Taoiseach said repeatedly that once that mechanism was in place, Ireland would apply for retrospective recapitalisation. Over two years ago the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, with the then Tánaiste, Deputy Eamon Gilmore, said a decision by the European Council was a game changer. The Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan, said he would not tell anybody what he was looking for. He said he had experience of many markets and fairs and would not announce in advance what he was looking for. We have got nothing and one is tempted to say we did not ask for anything. That is one of the basic questions. Now that the mechanism is in place, has the Government applied for retrospective recapitalisation? Has it pushed the case that Ireland is in a unique position? As the Taoiseach admitted in Paris, the European Union imposed a solution on Ireland which was not imposed on other countries because of its own failings and inability at the time, at a European and eurozone level, to deal with bank resolution issues and banks that were failing.

On climate change, the Government states it recognises that afforestation can mitigate the effects of greenhouse gases. Will the Minister of State acknowledge that this is an item for further discussion and that the details have to be fleshed out? Will he broadly outline the Government's approach to the climate change agenda in terms of the targets the European Union has set?

Third, with regard to the summit meeting, does the Minister of State accept that Russia is leveraging other countries' dependence on Russian oil for political purposes? This is dangerous in terms of the politics and geopolitics of Europe and energy across Europe. We have seen examples of this in the past when the pipe was turned off, and it is worrying that Russia is so cynical in its use of gas and oil reserves to advance its geopolitical agenda. I would appreciate if the Minister of State would comment on that.

In his speech, the Taoiseach described the presentation by Mario Draghi, the President of the European Central Bank, as being stark at times in terms of the challenges the eurozone faces. The Taoiseach did not elaborate on that or outline what he meant, and it would be useful if the Minister of State could indicate what the Taoiseach meant by that. How stark was the Governor and what are the implications for the wider economy that the Taoiseach spoke about?

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Deputy Dara Murphy)

With regard to the single supervisory mechanism that was put in place recently, the Minister for Finance and others made it clear that the important decision - the so-called game-changer to which the Deputy referred - was that the facility would be open to Ireland if it were in the best interests of the country to apply for the retrospective bank guarantee.

Deputy Micheál Martin

That is not what was said back then.

Deputy Dara Murphy

We have seen significantly more money returned to the Exchequer for Bank of Ireland than was put in. The State is a significant owner of AIB and Permanent TSB, and choices will be made on our options.

The Deputy is correct about the specifics of afforestation and climate mitigation. The detail of the overarching targets will be discussed over the period coming up to the international conference in Paris at the end of 2015, but the overarching targets for the European Union as a whole have been set at a 40% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. The objective is that Europe would show leadership for other parts of the planet in having a clear target. There have been discussions, but the specifics for any country with respect to afforestation and mitigation have not been decided.

Europe is now at level II sanctions against Russia with respect to the conflict in Ukraine. A decision was taken on increasing or reducing the level of sanction at the last Council meeting and a holding pattern was decided on. It is undeniable that Russia has retaliated with sanctions against the European Union and holds a variety of reciprocal sanctions, including those mentioned by Deputy Martin.

With regard to the use of the term "stark", we saw in the figures published over the past days that European growth is exceptionally flat. Youth unemployment continues to be very difficult for the Union as a whole, and my understanding is that, given the focus on the economy and the package of €300 billion introduced by President Junker at the next Council meeting in December, the President was marking out the urgency of the situation with respect to unemployment, growth and investment. That is an iteration of the current position, and its starkness was what the Taoiseach was referring to.

Deputy Seán Crowe

There is no reference in the conclusions to ISIS, Turkey's position on ISIS or its response to the attacks on the city of Kobane, which is seen by many as immoral and shameful. Turkish forces attacked Kurds on the Turkish-Syrian border while well-equipped soldiers sat on tanks. The heavy-handed and uneven approach of the Turkish authorities has resulted in the death of 21 Kurdish protesters. Turkey is giving in to international pressure because of drops by Americans on Kobanê. Last month, they bombed Turkish forces in the south-east of Turkey, officially breaking a two-year ceasefire. Was that discussed on the sidelines or at the Council meeting? Is the Government concerned with Turkish policy? The Minister of State can let me know if he cannot answer these questions. Across Europe, people are concerned about this.

Ebola was discussed. The focus has moved away from what is happening in African countries and towards European capitals. What would happen if it occurred in Ireland? The readiness of the Mater hospital was discussed. Bob Geldof said that people are not dying of this dirty little virus but dying of poverty. The focus must be on possible famine and food insecurity. Has the Irish Government adopted a position that the focus must be on stopping the virus in Africa, supporting people in Africa and averting a possible famine?

I was going to ask about Ukraine, but Deputy Martin has dealt with that. The Council discussed the disgraceful actions of Turkey and its renewal of tensions with regard to the sovereign rights of Cyprus in its economic zone by trying to chart gas deposits. The actions caused the suspension of peace and reunification talks on the island. Was this point raised with the Taoiseach's Cypriot counterpart? Did the Taoiseach give Ireland's full support to the Cypriot people in respect of their sovereignty and the reunification talks process?

With regard to Kosovo, news of corruption in the EU rule of law mission in Kosovo, EULEX, leaked out last week and it was reported that top officials had taken bribes from Kosovo gangsters. When two senior officials faced the European Parliament's foreign affairs committee on Monday, they declined to comment on details of the corruption allegations on the grounds that it is an ongoing investigation. Does the Government have a position on this? What is it? Some MEPs are proposing that OLAF, the European Union anti-fraud office, should look into the allegations, while others think the EU should recruit an independent investigator. I have other questions but I am conscious that other Members are trying to speak.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

A stark position was outlined by the head of the European Central Bank, Mr. Mario Draghi. He referred to the European economy as being on the floor and that it needed a massive investment programme in order to stimulate real economic growth. Notwithstanding the fact that the Government is blowing its own trumpet about successes, there will be no sustained recovery if the European economy does not move in a different direction. As we never tire of telling the Government, there is no real recovery for ordinary families who continue to be hammered. Is there any lateral thinking at the discussions as to why this is the case? Why, after six years of a response to an unprecedented economic crisis, have the strategies adopted by the European Union failed to kick-start recovery? This links with the climate change issue. At what point will it dawn on our European partners - and us - that the law in Europe which essentially precludes major public investment in any of these areas is blocking recovery?

We can take afforestation as an example. The State forestry company cannot contribute one iota to afforestation because of EU rules which insist on the process happening via the private sector or it will not happen at all. The State company which was established to contribute to afforestation in the country which would contribute in a serious way to reducing the effects of climate change, while creating employment and generating sustainable economic growth, cannot contribute to this process because of EU rules. This is unbelievable. At what point will we stand up and argue that it borders on madness that the vehicle we set up specifically to contribute to afforestation is precluded by the European Union from doing so?

The same principle applies to housing - we cannot build houses for homeless people because there must be matching funding for the private sector. Unless the private sector can make money from engaging in the activity, there will not be enough housing and people will be homeless. This again is related to EU rules.

Yesterday I asked the Taoiseach about what was happening in Kobane and I did not receive a straight answer. There is a big campaign across Europe - it is correct - to have the Kurdish PKK delisted from the list of international terrorist organisations. It has been engaged in peace discussions with the Turkish Government for many years and in recent weeks has been the major bulwark on the Turkish-Syrian border against ISIS, the organisation about which everybody in Europe and America is concerned. The Kurdish Peshmerga and PKK are resisting the ISIS offensive in Kobane, but the Turkish Government is frustrating their attempts to defend themselves against ISIS by putting tanks along the border and so on. It would be a major contribution if this country and Europe as a whole acknowledged the Kurdish PKK as a legitimate representative of the Kurdish people. It is fighting a liberation war against ISIS and some of the despotic regimes in the region.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

As there are just six minutes remaining, I ask the Minister of State to reply to the questions posed before wrapping up the discussion.

Deputy Dara Murphy

ISIS was discussed at the meeting in August and it is expected that it will be discussed again in December. I do not, however, have an update for Deputies in that respect.

The question on Cyprus, to an extent, is similar. At the last minute, the Cypriot Prime Minister took ill, which meant that the level of detail considered in the discussion was curtailed. However, Ireland supports the idea of a bi-zonal and bi-jurisdictional solution being found through negotiation.

I agree with the comments made on Ebola. Deputies referred to the focus nationally and within the European Union on protective measures and I take the points made. Equally, every government and state has an obligation to ensure that if, God forbid, there is an issue, hospitals and emergency services will be prepared to deal with it. The level of funding and support for the three main countries affected has been increased and the appropriate Commissioner has been put in charge of co-ordinating efforts. The matter will, once again, be on the agenda for the November General Affairs and Foreign Affairs Councils, as well as the full Council meeting that will take place in December.

Deputy Clare Daly is no longer here, but she asked about the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership which was not specifically on the agenda last week. Nevertheless, there was a separate informal discussion in Italy which was attended by the American trade representative, Mr. Michael Froman, and Commissioner de Gucht. I also attended the event. The Deputy mentioned that multinationals would benefit from a trade deal, but the sense among all European countries is that because multinationals have the capacity to move between jurisdictions, a trade deal would be more likely to benefit smaller and medium-sized enterprises. The concerns the Deputy raised about the beef industry and classifications are shared by the Government. One approach does not necessarily contradict the other. There is a strong view that the growth generated in Ireland, the European Union and the United States as a result of this deal would be very significant. Perhaps the best example of all to consider is the introduction of the Single Market which was of major benefit to Europe when initiated.

As the Taoiseach outlined, the main focus of the General Affairs Council was on the preparation of the climate and energy policy. In this regard there were very significant measures put in place that will be of benefit to Ireland. To summarise, the discussions concerned the principle that there were competing but very important ambitions that all of us shared. We need to protect our very fragile climate and environment, but, equally, there is an obligation on us to ensure food sustainability and security. That competing objective is fundamental to the security of the planet. In this regard, Ireland has secured, through the negotiations of Ministers and particularly the Taoiseach, an acceptance by our European colleagues of a policy on the production of food. We already produce energy-efficient beef and dairy products because the stock is grass-fed and not as intensively farmed as it is in other parts of the world. This is an important point. With the removal of the Common Agricultural Policy, we will be allowed to continue producing in an even more energy-efficient manner the food we require, whether it be dairy or beef products. That was perhaps the most significant point for Ireland, although other measures related to connectivity and afforestation were discussed.

It is difficult for me to address all of the issues raised at a meeting that took place over a number of days.

My time is now up, but I think I have covered most of the main areas.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I thank the Minister of State. That concludes statements on the European Council in Brussels, pursuant to Standing Order 102A(2)(b).