I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Roche, and his colleagues. I invite the Minister of State to make his presentation.
General Affairs and External Relations Council: Discussion with Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs.
The meeting on 23 and 24 February will be very interesting. There is a busy agenda, with many economic issues included. I will outline the agenda and take questions from members. It is a lengthy and challenging agenda for the second such meeting under the Czech Presidency.
The Lisbon treaty will not be discussed next week, but I assure the committee that we are in regular contact with the Czech Presidency on the issue. The Czech Deputy Prime Minister, Alexandr Vondra, visited us on Sunday. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Martin, and I met him. We also met Cecilia Malmstrom, the Swedish European Affairs Minister, as Sweden will assume the Presidency in July. These Presidencies are critical, particularly in terms of the ongoing discussions we are having with the European Union, its legal services and within our legal services on the guarantees which will ultimately be put to the people. The presence of both Ministers in Ireland underlines the importance both countries and Presidencies attach to finalising the legal guarantees offered to Ireland at the December European Council and paving the way for successful ratification of the Lisbon treaty. As the international climate has changed so dramatically in recent months there is increasing concern that the European Union should get on with the job of ratification. Other member states properly point out that the Lisbon treaty is critical to the future of the Union. My discussions with EU counterparts have served to highlight the desire across the Union to banish the uncertainties surrounding the future of the treaty, to give the Irish people the confidence they need in the treaty and to empower the Union to promote the shared economic and political interests of member states in a more effective manner.
Before proceeding with the GAERC agenda, I bring to the committee's attention the extraordinary meeting of Heads of State and Government scheduled to take place on 1 March. It would obviously also have an interest in that meeting, at which the Taoiseach and his colleagues will jointly assess the current economic and financial environment in preparation for the spring European Council on 19 and 20 March. It is intended that the meeting will send a clear signal to the markets that the European Union continues to act swiftly and in a co-ordinated manner in response to the ongoing financial and economic crisis. Everybody in the committee appreciates that this is critical if confidence in the Europe-wide economy is to be restored.
I will now turn to the specific issues that will arise at the forthcoming Council meeting.
One of the key issues to be discussed at the GAERC meeting will be the European economic recovery plan and the proposed funding for energy, broadband and CAP health check projects. Recent events have underlined the importance of energy security, in particular, and it is a matter of priority for EU countries to invest in this sector. The plan signals the commitment of the European Union to match its aspirations with practical action backed by the necessary resources. Ireland supports the plan — we benefit significantly from it — and we need to give effect to the decisions of the December European Council.
I am particularly gratified that the European Commission proposed that the east-west electricity interconnector to Wales be included in the list of energy projects under the plan, earmarking €100 million for that project which is very important for this country. This significant proposal accounts for one-eighth of the total resources for electricity projects throughout the EU. It is a practical example of why we must be at the heart of Europe and how Europe supports this country.
The Council will also be asked to take note of the agenda for the spring European Council. This Council will be critical in the development of the European response to the current global economic crisis. The problems European countries are facing are now more complex and challenging than they appeared even some months ago. The Czech Presidency envisages that the March European Council will: take stock of progress in financial market stability, supervision and transparency; assess the implementation of the European economic recovery plan and steps to improve member states' fiscal consolidation; review progress in implementing the Lisbon strategy; and stress the need for adherence to the fundamental principles of the internal market. Protectionism has raised its ugly head in several international debates, but that would be the way to disaster. It is also envisaged that the Council will reach agreement on a Union position for April's London G20 summit.
All of these issues are hugely important to us and the Government strongly supports the Presidency's approach. We realise more than most how vulnerable a small, open economy is. We also realise that the very economic well-being of the nation is determined by being part of a vigorous and united European response to these challenges. The downturn is affecting all European economies even if its precise impact varies between member states. There is clear need for a comprehensive, joined-up approach across the European Union.
The Government will continue to play its part at EU level in seeking to ensure that the reform of the financial system, and in particular of financial regulation, is consistent with the objectives outlined in the G20 communiqué and action plan. While national financial regulation is one issue, we must also have absolute agreement on regional and international financial regulation. We need strong national and international regulation, given the disease that ran through the financial services, which started in one country and spread like a contagion across the world. Both must operate to create synergy.
It is important to recognise that the Government is implementing a comprehensive set of measures, consistent with the international agenda for a global recovery. We are working to consolidate our national finances, which is a difficult task, and aim is to reach a balanced position by 2013. We are acting to stabilise the domestic financial institutions and improve supervision and transparency. We are tackling our national competitiveness and continuing to invest in infrastructure and skills, in line with the Lisbon strategy.
All of these steps are necessary, and some of them are painful, if we are to return to a path of sustainable economic growth, secure an expansion of employment and produce a balanced fiscal outlook. It is clear that this will be a challenging task and that there are no short-cuts. Sadly, there are no easy solutions and we have to start coming to grips with that. However, by taking appropriate, if difficult, measures the Government and all the parties in the House can put our future prosperity and growth back on a sound basis.
Energy and climate change are critical issues for discussion at the spring European Council. In general, we support the Commission and the Presidency's efforts to make progress in these key areas. The events of recent months when gas supplies from the east were effectively cut off by a series of disputes, illustrate just how critically important it is to have a common approach to this issue. The shut-down of gas supplies through Ukraine highlighted the EU's vulnerability in the energy sector. When one factors in where we are geographically it certainly highlights our vulnerability.
There can be no doubt about the urgency of addressing the issue of energy security. The Commission's strategic energy review makes several far-sighted recommendations to improve the energy security of the EU and of individual member states.
The Government is committed to a comprehensive strategy to ensure our national energy security by raising the contribution of renewable energy, by investing in interconnection and by looking at technologies to improve our national carbon efficiency.
While the recent shutting off of gas supplies did not affect Ireland directly, a more sustained disruption of supply could impact on the entire European energy network, and thus affects even countries like Ireland, who are geographically remote from the location of individual disputes. It is therefore very much in our national interest that steps be taken to reduce Europe's vulnerability, for example, by promoting the physical integration of all European gas and electricity markets and improving the storage of gas. This is a classic win-win situation because one will end up getting more competitive prices and more security. In addition, opportunities will arise for investment and infrastructural development.
The European Council will also set the EU's direction for negotiations on a new emissions reduction agreement, which will take place in December 2009 in Copenhagen. The Union agreed in December 2008 on arrangements for achieving a 20% reduction in emissions, which was a major achievement for the Union. We now move to the UN negotiations on a post-Kyoto Protocol agreement which, no doubt, will pose fresh challenges. It will not be easy to reach an agreement that will satisfy the needs of developed and developing countries. The EU, which has a proud record in the area of climate change, has committed itself to a target of reducing emissions by up to 30% by 2020, as part of a new UN agreement. Even if one set the environmental issues to one side, it makes economic sense to be more efficient in this area.
This process will offer a major opportunity for economies like Ireland's, with a capacity to develop effective green technologies. We are committed to being at the forefront of the green technology sector. Careful long-term strategic planning will help to ensure that Irish workers and enterprises are well-positioned to profit from large-scale international investment in green technology over the coming decades.
Turning to the external relations side of the agenda, the first item for discussion will be the situation in Afghanistan. We do not anticipate that conclusions will be issued until after the GAERC meeting in March. This will allow time for further reflection on the EU's strategy concerning Afghanistan and on the development of US policy. As we have seen overnight, US policy is in a dynamic phase in this area. Afghanistan remains an important foreign policy issue for the EU collectively and for many of our partners nationally.
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister of State, but I wish to draw members attention to the fact that there is a vote in the Seanad.
Thank you, Chairman. EU member states are providing approximately 24,000 troops for the NATO-led and UN-mandated ISAF force. EU member states are also contributing to the EU policing mission in Afghanistan, EUPOL Afghanistan. Seven members of the Irish Permanent Defence Forces are currently serving with ISAF in non-combat roles in Kabul. Five Irish citizens are also working with EUPOL and another is expected to be deployed there shortly. That additional one is on the legal side.
The new US Administration has announced that it will review policy on Afghanistan, including political, governance, security, reconciliation, counter-narcotics and counter-terrorism issues. They will place emphasis on short-term concrete goals to be achieved within a defined period. This strategic review should be completed prior to a NATO meeting in Strasbourg-Kehl in April. As everybody will be aware, President Obama has indicated a significant increase in the number of US troops to Afghanistan. We welcome the commitment of the US to undertake this review and its willingness to engage with partners in the process. It is certainly an improvement on what was the approach until recently. Ministers will discuss how the EU can engage with the Americans during the review and in terms of longer-term EU-US co-operation in Afghanistan.
The goal for the international community, in co-operation with the Afghan Government, has been to extend stable and legitimate government and the rule of law to all parts of Afghanistan. Grave economic and security challenges still remain and these feed in to instability. The lives of the Afghan people, which all of us would have hoped would have greatly improved by now, continue to deteriorate and the number of civilian victims is unacceptable. The Taliban is operating with growing confidence, including in Kabul itself.
In this context, it is essential that every effort be made to enable participation by all communities in Afghanistan in the presidential elections now scheduled for 20 August, which is later than originally planned. The elections represent an enormous logistical task, but it is important that the next Afghan Government should be created on the basis of legitimate elections. Ministers will have a chance at the meeting to discuss these elections and what contribution the EU can make towards ensuring that they are free and fair and meet the standards of democracy.
Ministers will also look at improving coherence in, and co-ordination of, the international effort in Afghanistan, including with the Afghan authorities. In this regard, the EUPOL Afghanistan mission has been engaged since June 2007. Police, law enforcement and justice experts are deployed in Kabul as well as at regional and provincial levels where they are engaged in monitoring, mentoring, advising and training, and they do so at some personal risk. There is a widespread view that the mission so far has been under-resourced and has failed to meet many of its goals.
A decision was taken in December 2008 to double the size of the mission, so there will be 400 staff members in the field. This should enable the mission to reinforce its activities in support of the Afghan national police. While EUPOL has had difficulties in finding appropriately qualified personnel to fill vacancies within the mission, the Brussels authorities are looking at ways to ease this problem. In the meantime, the recruitment process undertaken by the EU to fill vacancies in the mission is under way.
The Council will also review developments in the Middle East where the recent conflict in the Gaza Strip continues to resonate and to cause concerns. At this stage, the Presidency has indicated that it does not intend to produce conclusions for adoption on this area.
This will be a timely opportunity for the Council to review events. A fragile peace continues to hold in Gaza, following the unilateral Israeli and Hamas ceasefires of 18 January. The outcome as to who will lead the next Israeli government following the Knesset elections on 10 February still remains unclear, and that certainly contributes to some degree to instability. Discussions continue in Cairo, under the helpful and constructive mediation of the Egyptian Government, in an attempt to institute a more permanent ceasefire and put in place the necessary elements identified in UN Security Council Resolution 1860 of 8 January. These include the full and sustained opening of border crossings and an end to all rocket attacks on southern Israel. Key outstanding issues include a prisoner exchange, including of Private Gilad Shalit, who has been in captivity since July 2006, and the extent to which Gaza's borders will be opened.
In the meantime, the humanitarian situation in Gaza continues to be very serious, with insufficient access for both urgently needed humanitarian supplies and humanitarian actors being allowed by the Israeli authorities. This must stop. This is not acceptable. The Government would again urge the Israeli Government to remove the unjustified restrictions on humanitarian and commercial traffic into Gaza. This should include the necessary materials to allow for reconstruction of Gaza, where an estimated 40,000 people continue to be homeless as a result of the conflict. If there is anything that will feed into terrorism it is this continuing sore.
Committee members will be aware that the Minister, Deputy Martin, recently visited the region. He met political leaders in Syria, Lebanon and United Arab Emirates, including President Assad of Syria and Prime Minister Siniora of Lebanon. This was a useful visit to countries which are of strategic importance in efforts to advance the overall cause of peace in the Middle East. What the Minister detected during the course of his visit was a strong appreciation of the national position which Ireland has adopted during the Gaza crisis, as well as a strong desire for greater EU engagement in overall peace efforts in the region. This is my personal experience too. There is a positive view of Ireland's efforts in the region and a feeling that the Irish people, not just the Government, have shown extraordinary solidarity with people who live in difficult circumstances. This is notwithstanding the genuine positive appreciation and welcome which exists in the region for the greater attention now being devoted by President Obama to the problems of the region, as evidenced by his inspired appointment of Senator George Mitchell as US Middle East envoy. We all wish Senator Mitchell well. We know of the ingenuity he brought to his appointment on this island.
At this critical juncture, when vital efforts are continuing to consolidate the peace and address the humanitarian situation in Gaza and the important process of government formation continues in Israel, it is more important than ever that the EU should clearly express its willingness to assist the parties in re-launching and taking forward the vital work of peace.
In this regard, the EU must continue to support the current discussions in Cairo and adopt a flexible approach in the event that these negotiations yield agreement on the formation of a new Palestinian national consensus government. The important criterion to apply to such a development will be to judge any such government by its programme and its actions, rather than solely by its composition or rhetoric. We must nurture and suitably support all efforts under way to achieve intra-Palestinian reconciliation, since early progress in reviving overall peace efforts is unlikely to be achieved in the absence of such reconciliation.
Discussion at the Council of Ministers is likely to focus on the forthcoming reconstruction conference for Gaza which the Egyptian Government will host in Cairo on 2 March. The Minister, Deputy Martin, will represent Ireland at this conference which is intended to provide clear political support for the Palestinian people in the aftermath of the Gaza war and to address the daunting reconstruction needs in Gaza.
Ireland provided €500,000 in humanitarian assistance for the people of Gaza last month, and a further contribution of humanitarian assistance is planned. The conference is also likely to be of value in identifying what specific reconstruction needs Ireland may be able to assist with in the coming months. Upwards of 80 foreign Ministers, including most EU partners, are due to attend the conference which is also due to be attended by UN Secretary General Ban.
The issue of Sudan is provisionally on the agenda for the GAERC. It will be discussed if the International Criminal Court comes to a conclusion on the ICC prosecutor's request for an arrest warrant against President Bashir of Sudan. The ICC has reflected on this request for some time, and it is understood that a decision will be made shortly. While there were some press reports last week indicating that a decision had been made, the ICC has stated that the matter is still under consideration.
Ireland fully supports the fundamental role played by the ICC in promotion of international justice, and deeply regrets the lack of co-operation by the Sudanese Government with the ICC to date. The matters alleged by the prosecutor are extremely grave. Those responsible for the gross abuse of human rights in Darfur must face the consequences of their actions for the sake of common justice and to dissuade further acts of this kind.
More generally, the situation in Darfur remains serious. I welcome the beginning of peace talks between the Sudanese Government and one rebel group in Qatar earlier this month, and wish the process every success. However, thousands of people were cut off from humanitarian aid in recent weeks due to fighting in southern Darfur between the government and those same rebels. The ceasefires which the government has repeatedly declared seem to make no difference to its actions on the ground, or to the suffering of the Darfuri people.
Humanitarian access is an important issue for Ireland, and in the event that the ICC issues a warrant against President Bashir, we hope that all possible efforts will be made to ensure that neither humanitarian workers nor displaced people suffer in any backlash. Following the issuing of an ICC warrant, the EU can be expected to stress the responsibility Sudan bears for the safety of foreigners in that country.
In the meantime, Ireland remains committed to supporting the people of Sudan. Ireland gave almost €35 million euro in aid to Sudan, including Darfur, in 2007 and 2008. This funding is largely channelled through UN agencies, and through Irish and international NGOs.
A discussion on the western Balkans during lunch at the Council is likely to focus on developments in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia, Croatia and Albania. In November the GAERC expressed concern at the political situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The Banja Luka Agreement of 26 January 2009, signed by the leaders of three of the main parties, is a positive development. This agreement builds on the Prud Accord of November 2008 and addresses the outstanding areas of conditionality set by the Peace Implementation Council, which include the status of Brcko and that of state level property. It is clear all three communities, Bosniak, Croat and Serb, will have to reach a common understanding of the future of Bosnia-Herzegovina if progress is to be achieved. The EU will continue to encourage the leadership in Bosnia-Herzegovina to achieve the necessary progress in its EU perspective. It is expected the Council will also be asked to approve the appointment of a new EU special representative following the appointment of the incumbent, Miroslav Lajcak, as Foreign Minister of the Slovak Republic. A number of countries have put forward candidates for the role and they will be interviewed this Friday.
Progress on Serbia's co-operation with the international tribunal for the former Yugoslavia will be evaluated by the Council to assess whether sufficient progress has been achieved to unblock ratification of the stabilisation and association agreement. This discussion will be guided by the latest report of the chief prosecutor, which was published yesterday.
The Czech Presidency has made the eastern partnership a particular priority for its Presidency. There will be a discussion over the GAERC lunch on Monday of the Presidency's progress report on the eastern partnership as part of the preparations for the spring European Council, which will approve the initiative. The partnership will then be launched at a summit with the partner countries on 7 May. Ireland fully supports the European neighbourhood policy, including the proposed eastern partnership. It provides a mechanism for sharing the benefits that membership of the Union can bring in a way that remains distinct from the question of EU membership. In particular, Ireland supports the objective of promoting reform in all European neighbourhood policy countries, while recognising that their different capacity, needs and performance will influence the development of their relationship with the EU.
Iraq is not an item for discussion at this meeting, but the Council will adopt conclusions on Iraq as an A point, in other words, without discussion. These conclusions are being agreed at official level. The Council will welcome the successful and almost completely peaceful holding of the local elections in most of Iraq on 31 January. We have all been pleased to observe for some time the improvement in security for the Iraqi people and these elections have provided a heartening milestone on that process. Only a few months ago many doubted elections could be held at all but they passed off with only a few sporadic violent incidents. It was notable that the election results were accepted across the board as an expression of the people's will, even by powerful political movements that saw their support and influence drop, which is encouraging. The full participation of Iraq's Sunni community, from whom the former insurgency was largely drawn, is also a positive sign. Iraq continues to have many problems, and will need our support, but there can be no doubt of the substantial improvement in the situation there.
The Council will also adopt conclusions on Sri Lanka as an A point. The Government has repeatedly made clear Ireland's deep concern at the plight of the war ravaged Tamil population in the north of Sri Lanka, who are the innocent victims of the conflict. I welcome, therefore, the adoption of conclusions, which will express the EU's deep concern about the evolving humanitarian crisis and will call for an immediate ceasefire. The conclusions will also urge the government of Sri Lanka and the rebel Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in the strongest terms to respect the provisions of international humanitarian law. In response to pressure from Ireland and some other partners, EU Troika Ministers will visit Sri Lanka shortly. This visit will be an important opportunity for the Union to further emphasise the necessity for an urgent negotiated solution to the conflict.
I look forward to answering questions from members.
I thank the Minister of State. In future, could the Minister or Minister of State who briefs the committee on upcoming Council meetings also report to the committee on the previous meeting? I do not mean to be unfair to the Minister of State but the issues we raise make no difference to the position put forward by him and his colleagues at Council meetings. How restrictive is the agenda of the meetings? If we raise an important issue, is there a mechanism to raise it at the GEARC? Numerous issues were raised at the previous briefing by the Minister but we do not know if they received an airing or whether we were uttering sweet nothings.
I welcome the developments with respect to Sri Lanka. Many innocent people have been butchered by both sides in northern Sri Lanka and I hope that will cease and an agreement can be put in play on the island.
Zimbabwe is not included on the agenda and the Minister might be unable to raise this at the meeting. Will an aid package be provided by the EU in light of the recent changes, including power sharing? A commitment was given that if power sharing was achieved or Mr. Mugabe moved to one side, the EU would provide aid. What is the status of this commitment?
Our overseas development aid budget took a hammering in the recent cutbacks but this increases awareness about value for money. I have received correspondence from companies. We have always prided ourselves on untied aid and Ireland is one of the few countries to make such a provision. However, this has disadvantages. A number of companies are put at a disadvantage vis-à-vis companies from other countries that are not involved in untied aid. I do not know whether there is room for manoeuvre. Our corporation tax rate is lower and, therefore, I do not want to be the kettle calling the pot black. Is there room for manoeuvre on a coherent aid policy across the EU so that Irish companies are not put at a disadvantage? One company is east Galway is put out about this.
The economic crisis will dominate the March meeting. The Minister of State said, "The Czech Presidency envisages that the March European Council will take stock of progress in financial market stability, supervision and transparency". What will he say to his colleagues when they ask how everything is coming along in Ireland? What will he say about transparency, the re-evaluation of our regulatory system and the chairmen of the boards who were in place when the scandal broke? Will he feel embarrassed when he tells them they are still in place? When he is asked who is the chief executive officer of Irish Life & Permanent, he will not be unable to tell them, as the chairman is doing that job and causing a great deal of consternation among the staff. The chief executive officer of AIB and the Irish Banking Federation said there was no need for the recapitalisation of the banks but their information was incorrect. A number of bankers appeared before Oireachtas committees and blandly stated their banks were solvent but that proved to be incorrect. I do not intend to put the Minister on the spot but how will he deal with these questions when they are put to him? Perhaps he will give his view on how we can indicate we are willing to play our role in cleaning up our act, rather than being the sick man or woman of Europe.
I thank the Minister and the representatives from his Department for coming before the committee. Following on the point raised by Deputy Timmins, I have a concern with regard to the Commission proceedings initiated against Ireland for breach of the Stability and Growth Pact. While this issue is not perhaps on the agenda, it is likely to crop up in discussions with our counterparts in the other member states over the course of the GAERC meeting. What does the Minister expect the response of the Government will be to the initiation of these proceedings? How will it respond and what solutions will it propose? We are not alone in being the subject of proceedings as there are five or six other member states in the same position. I presume all of them will be expected to put forward a package that will help them return within the 3% deficit limit of the Stability and Growth Pact.
I am very interested in hearing more about the developments relating to Afghanistan, particularly with regard to the significant shift in US foreign policy and the redirecting of troops from Iraq to there. What level of consultation, dialogue and co-ordinated action exists between the European Union and the US now? Is there ongoing dialogue or is the Obama Administration making unilateral decisions, albeit welcome ones? What level of joint action exists? Will the European Union merely respond to the shift in focus or is there a more co-ordinated effort involved?
I support the idea of the International Criminal Court, ICC, flexing its muscles with regard to what has been happening in Sudan, particularly Darfur. I note the Minister mentioned concerns about humanitarian workers and a backlash that might affect the civilian population. However, the Government should take a firm line in supporting the ICC initiative and encourage it to happen. It is important that what has gone on in Sudan is seen not to be tolerated by the European Union, particularly Ireland.
I note the Lisbon treaty is not on the agenda for the GAERC meeting, which is unfortunate because from both the Irish and European Union perspective it is the most important issue facing the Union. Clearly the issue has a direct effect on the financial and economic crisis throughout the Union, not least on Ireland where the economy faces unprecedented challenges. The Lisbon treaty must be dealt with as a matter of urgency and priority.
I note the agreements or concessions, as agreed before Christmas, are being worked on quietly in the background. I am aware too there are lobby groups lobbying at Brussels level with regard to the wording and precise formulation of whatever declarations, assurances or guarantees may be agreed later. However, we do not seem to have any consultation at domestic level, which is extraordinary. Does the Minister, as the person with responsibility for European affairs, plan to discuss the wording of these guarantees with Opposition parties, particularly in view of the fact that the Minister, Deputy Martin, and the Taoiseach repeatedly call on them to support the Minister of State to prepare the ground for the next referendum on the treaty.
The Fine Gael Party is very willing to work towards a successful outcome to the referendum, but we need to be part of the process and would like an input into the formulation of the wording. I am concerned that lobby groups in Brussels may have a greater impact than those of us working on the ground in Ireland trying to deal with the realities of a campaign, whenever that may be. I would appreciate it if the Minister of State would indicate to us when he expects that referendum to take place.
May I come in at this stage as there are quite a few questions to answer?
We will take one more contribution and then allow the Minister of State to respond.
I welcome the Minister of State and his officials and thank him for the forthright way in which he presented the Government's views on the agenda for the forthcoming GAERC meeting.
On the global economic crisis, will the Minister of State outline to the best of his ability the situation throughout Europe? There seems to be a misconception, not just in this committee but on a wider scale, that this crisis is confined to Ireland and it seems to be expected that the Minister of State can resolve some of the issues here in his response, but I understand that similar issues relating to finance companies, banks etc. are a problem right across Europe. The Minister of State should not have to answer on behalf of our financial institutions. Many other member states will find themselves in a similar position to ours and perhaps the Minister of State will brief us on the situation, in particular the difficulties being encountered by these other states. Clearly the issues are not unique to Ireland or the political, financial or banking systems here. It would be helpful if the Minister of State would provide some clarification in this regard.
It is important that we see work being done on some coherent policy, from a European perspective, to try to bring stability to the markets. We should also look towards a more consistent regulatory system. The Minister for Finance indicated in the House in recent days that he is actively working with the Department on strengthening and improving the regulatory system, which has been found wanting. Other member states have found similar difficulties with their regulatory systems. It is important for the European Union to come forward with some uniform regulatory system as the open nature of economies throughout Europe, the open market and the capacity for financial institutions to trade within and between member states have shown the need for a more consistent and stronger system.
On external relations, it is important we work with the American Government with regard to dealing with Afghanistan. Has the Minister of State or the Department had any contact with US Secretary of State Clinton with regard to using the bond between us to assist us and Europe to develop a more coherent policy on matters of similar concern in Afghanistan?
The Middle East has dropped down the agenda for obvious reasons, mainly the financial situation. However, it is somewhat disappointing that Afghanistan rates a level above the Middle East on the agenda. This committee has had various discussions in recent weeks and months on the Middle East. The Government and some member states showed a strong resolve to try to deal with the disproportionate Israeli response to the situation in the Middle East and I hope we will not see selective amnesia with regard to what happened. It is important that the Minister and the Minister of State continue to deal with the issues, not just with the current situation, which was mentioned in terms of the "unjustified restrictions and humanitarian and commercial traffic into Gaza". I agree this is still the problem, but we must try to bring some people to heel over the actions that have been taken. We cannot allow the issue to slide into a forgotten area just because of a fragile ceasefire. I hope the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs will continue to seek redress for the disproportionate actions taken during that period.
We will take a contribution from Deputy Tuffy to balance the previous remarks.
I will cover similar ground to that covered by Deputy Dooley. I thank the Minister of State for his presentation. Will he provide further detail on the European recovery plan? He spoke primarily on the issue of energy. How will Ireland benefit from the plan? Will it include funding for education and training or job creation? Will a study be carried out to underpin it by identifying the potential for job creation in the European Union? Discussion has focused on the aspirational area of green jobs. Where will jobs be created in Ireland and the European Union?
The joint committee discussed the Middle East at previous meetings. What aid will the European Union provide in Gaza following the recent conflict? Are the European Union and Israel engaged in consultation on delivering aid to Gaza in the event that problems arise due to Israeli restrictions? If newspaper reports are to be believed, informal and indirect talks on a prisoner exchange are taking place between Hamas and Israel. The Minister of State's paper does not state the Israeli Government remains in place pending the formation of a new government. He has noted that the Irish Government urges the Israeli Government to remove unjustified restrictions on humanitarian aid, etc. Is the Government in talks with the current Israeli Government on this issue and will it engage in talks with the new Israeli Government?
According to the Minister of State, the Minister's recent visits to a number of countries in the region are very important in advancing the overall cause of peace in the Middle East. Will the Minister visit Israel? The Minister of State has stated the European Union should assist both parties and referred to the plans of the Minister to attend a conference at which he will provide clear political support for the Palestinian people. While I agree that he should do this, he should also be supportive of Israel if he seeks to advance a two-sided peace process.
The Minister of State referred to Palestinian unity. From reading newspaper reports, I understand the issue for President Abbas is that Hamas will not officially recognise Israel. If Ireland wishes to influence Palestinian representatives such as Hamas, we should support both sides and act as an honest broker. That is the best way to bring everyone on side. I ask the Minister of State to comment.
I thank members for their contributions, although it is difficult to know where to begin. Deputy Timmins who is a friend and constituency colleague made an excellent proposal that we report back from previous meetings. I am in favour of establishing such a procedure. Perhaps the joint committee could consider how this could be done. We could, for instance, provide a short written report.
On the input of Oireachtas joint committees, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and I have attended all joint committee meetings on this issue. The views expressed here are useful, as we are able to express the views of Oireachtas Members at lunch and dinner meetings. Representatives of member state embassies also attend and carry back the message they hear at these meetings. The joint committees have, therefore, a specific input.
Deputy Timmins also raised issues about the agenda for GAERC meetings. By necessity, the agenda is set some time in advance, as it would be difficult otherwise to provide a coherent response. The Deputy is correct that Zimbabwe is not on the agenda for the forthcoming meeting. The European Union has played a positive role on the issue of Zimbabwe and must wait and see how the new Government in Zimbabwe gels and operates. As the Deputy is aware, an issue arose on the first day of the new government. The European Union has indicated it is willing to consider developments in Zimbabwe and will ascertain if progress can be made on the ground.
We must be careful to ensure aid and support are provided for the right people. There are some worrying signs in Zimbabwe. For example, political prisoners have not been released and Mr. Bennett has been arrested and charged. These are matters of concern. While the issue of Zimbabwe is not on the agenda for the forthcoming meeting, it is not far from our minds.
Overseas development aid is an important issue, albeit not one for the GAERC. Irish aid is not tied which is the most morally defensible position, as I know Deputy Timmins will agree. The tying of aid to weapons contracts and so on is perverse and does not constitute real aid. While I understand the reason some Irish companies believe they are at a disadvantage and could well argue that case, any disadvantage is the result of the inappropriate use of aid as a leverage package. The quality of Ireland's aid has always been regarded as high. Specifically, it has been recognised that we do not try to force poverty stricken people to do business with us simply because we are providing aid. This is a moral issue. I accept the Deputy is not pushing this line and if he provides details of any issues he may have, I will examine them.
Deputy Timmins also referred to our European Union partners raising questions about regulatory failures in this country. To return to Deputy Dooley's point, recent events have not been unique to this small island. Something approaching a meltdown has taken place across the globe.
Deputy Timmins referred specifically to the regulatory issue. The Government has introduced specific measures to ensure the fundamentals of the economy remain strong. We should not lose sight of this fact because one can sometimes talk oneself into a bigger hole. One of the problems is that we always seem to see the dark clouds rather than the bright spots between them. The economy is better placed to emerge from the current difficulties. There have been failures but the regulatory system both here and internationally have been shown to be deficient. It is well established that the economy has the capacity to grow at an annual rate of up to 3% up to 2015 once we emerge from the current difficulties. We will continue to point this out to our colleagues.
Members will be aware that the Minister for Foreign Affairs has instructed all our embassies to send a message that not only is Ireland open and willing to do business but it also offers significant advantages such as a well educated and hard working labour force and a small, developed economy. While we are experiencing problems, they are not insurmountable. We can point, for example, to the tax burden on labour and capital being extraordinarily low. It may well be the case that changes in taxation will be required but the burden remains low.
European Union membership also protects us, which brings me to a point raised by Deputy Creighton. As I have stated on a number of occasions, we must remove large shadows from the landscape. The first is the unquestionable damage we did ourselves on 12 June last. It is time people stopped the cant about this issue. If an international investor reads today all the negative headlines about what is happening here and elsewhere and is told by development agencies in another part of Europe, on the basis of some quite untruthful rationale, that Ireland's position in the European Union is ambiguous, it will not augur well for attracting investment and creating jobs here. It is time we woke up to the fact that while we can make decisions as we did on 12 June 2008 — we all support the decision people made — they come at a cost. We have seen massive increases in unemployment and we have difficulties in making foreign direct investors realise Ireland is still a very vibrant place in which to do business.
Although it would be damaging to do so, I could instance conversations I have had in this regard with individuals on various trips I have made. I sometimes wonder whether the way we operate here is indicative of some kind of death wish. The reality is that this is a wonderful country in which to do business. We have an extremely skilled labour force and very hard-working people in both the public and private sectors. We should not lose sight of the fact that we have significant advantages although we occasionally decide to handicap ourselves. I am not directing my comment at Deputy Creighton because she illustrated in her question the damage we have done.
On the issue of a lobby in Brussels, I am not sure what Deputy Creighton has in mind. There is certainly no lobby being heard in Brussels on the issue of the guarantees. The issue is being discussed daily, as is the wording and the means by which the guarantees will converted into decisions about which the Irish can be confident. Ultimately, this may lead to even more concrete specifics. I assure the Deputy that this process will not be subject to a self-appointed lobby in Brussels. The only dialogue taking place now is the dialogue in which we are engaged daily with the Presidency and the institutions of the European Union.
The reality of the Lisbon treaty is that nothing could be clearer than the position that was set out in the December conclusions. It is worth repeating this because the December conclusions showed just how willing the other 26 member states are to meet us more than half way. They have shown remarkable flexibility. Mr. Valéry Giscard d'Estaing was in Dublin last week. He passionately believes as which he is entitled to as a citizen of the European Union, that a smaller Commission would be more efficient. He can make a coherent argument for this but was willing to say that if the Irish require assurance in this regard, and if the other member states are willing to give it, so be it.
The content of the guarantees in the December Council conclusions was debated in the Oireachtas. The legal guarantees on defence and neutrality, the ethical issues and the question of taxation are the matters on which we will obtain copperfastened guarantees. Deputy Creighton shares my view that the Irish have a right to give their judgment on these. The guarantees will be legally robust, capable of sustaining legal challenge and are of the highest order. Those who say they are not worth the paper they are written on are the same people who trotted around this county unearthing every untruth, half truth and innuendo they possibly could about the European Union.
Deputy Creighton asked whether the Opposition parties will be consulted. The Deputy gave me credit in this regard. With regard to the second Nice treaty referendum, I recall having lengthier sessions with an Opposition party than I did with my own. Everybody knew what we were discussing. This has not arisen yet in respect of the Lisbon treaty referendum but when it does, the Deputy's party will be part of the discussions. There will have to be consultation. My door is always open to any member of any party in the House. Deputy Creighton knows this from our personal contact.
I believe very passionately in Europe. We have made a fundamental error and the fault lies with the "Yes" side. The reality is that we lost a referendum which we know, with the benefit of hindsight, turned out to be critical to the well-being of Ireland and Europe. My main fear is that, if we do not get ourselves through this, we will not have a further set of negotiations but a two-tier Europe. One does not need to be Albert Einstein to realise Ireland will not be in the first tier.
I appreciate the personal contributions of Deputies Creighton and Timmins, and the contributions of Members on all sides of the House, including those of Members with whom I do not agree. There will be discussions.
Deputy Creighton raised several other specific issues, including that of the International Criminal Court. I agree with her in this regard. I happen to be the only person in this country who was ever awarded a human rights fellowship by the United Nations. If we care about the rhetoric we sometimes spout about human rights, we must be absolute in our views. If the International Criminal Court decides President Bashir of Sudan should be subject to an arrest warrant, the international community has a moral and political responsibility to ensure he is made answerable. I agree with the Deputy's comments in this regard.
Afghanistan will comprise a major issue in the upcoming EU-US dialogue. Deputy Creighton is correct that there has been a change of view and this is very important. She also touched on the presidential elections in Afghanistan. There are some delays but I hope they will be overcome.
The Deputy asked about the excessive deficit. Let us not beat ourselves up in that six countries were implicated already. This is round one of the views. The excessive deficit proceedings will apply to Ireland, and they will apply to the other relevant member states. Ireland, Greece, Spain, France, Latvia and Malta are subject to reports but there are other member states in view. We should not relish the fact that misery looks for company but the reality is that there are other member states implicated also.
On the excessive deficit procedure, the point must be made that when the limit of 3% of GDP was established, on foot of very good discipline, who could have envisaged the international meltdown? I have lectured on public finance and have been involved with economics for a long time and as a consequence realise that if 14 months ago I said Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch and Citigroup would effectively disappear, people would have taken me away as some sort of lunatic. There is a fundamental change but we are not alone. The Commission has a job to do, which we accept.
The Government is taking steps, and the first must be to restrain public expenditure. Doing so is not a question of economics but of common sense. If we have a massive hole in our tax take, which arises for a variety of reasons but which we will not discuss as they have been well rehearsed elsewhere, and we want to maintain public services, we will have a deficit. There are some very unpalatable steps to be taken to deal with this. I hope we can take them in concert rather than by shouting at each other.
Deputy Dooley was correct that I contended that the EU economy, with all others, is facing a common challenge. The British economy is facing an extraordinary challenge. It is not just here that there were failures. I admit there were regulatory failures here and I cannot understand what our regulator was doing; I am angry about it. However, when I consider the complete breakdown of regulatory activity in the United States, resulting in the sub-prime market and toxic debt in the system, and the collapse in the United Kingdom, resulting the queues outside Northern Bank, I realise it is wrong to suggest that we are unique.
The challenges of the downturn concerning consumer demand and investment, the slowing of production, the build-up of inventories and the fact that we have one of the most open of all economies must all be considered. Compare our economy with that of Singapore. Both are small open economies that suffered dramatically. This is not a reason to put our hand up and walk away but to put a bit of strength in our back.
Deputy Tuffy raised a number of specific issues, some of which I have already dealt with. Regarding the recovery package, it is specifically focussed on energy resources, broadband provision for building up the smart economy and the health check for the Common Agricultural Policy. It was agreed at a previous Council meeting that it should be focused.
Is there a training aspect to it?
No. For example, one of the main issues under discussion is the interconnectivity of the European energy network. This was highlighted during the gas row between Russia and the Ukraine. In Bulgaria, people were found dead from the cold and in Romania industries were forced to shut down. It illustrated that north-south and east-west interconnectivity is needed.
Ireland will gain from the €100 million funding, a tangible benefit. There will be more energy security and open availability of energy from other markets. It is to be welcomed that there will be competition in electricity supply which will help bring down electricity prices which I regard as too high. The Common Agricultural Policy health check will also benefit Ireland.
The Deputy referred to the EU supporting the people of Gaza. The EU has been a strong supporter of the Palestinian people for some time. There are problems with the divisions in the representation of the Palestinian people. Hamas still has a particular view on the right of the state of Israel to exist. The EU, and Ireland certainly, has never supported this view. We support the two-state solution.
The EU has given €58 million in aid to Gaza. One frustration mentioned at the most recent Council meeting with Tzipi Lvini was that the small infrastructure that existed in Gaza was destroyed in the recent conflict. It was European taxpayers' money that paid for that infrastructure. I accept there are two sides to the issue. The Israeli response was disproportionate and it should move away from this. Its activities in the area are counter-productive and will only feed into terrorism. However, anyone with a historical view of what happened will also understand Israel's concerns. Ultimately, it will be talk rather than weapons that will solve the conflict. One of the requirements for Hamas to allowed into discussions is that it must review its position on the existence of the state of Israel. The people of Israel have a right to live without threat.
I welcome the Minister of State and his team. I know the Lisbon referendum is not on today's agenda. However, does the Minister of State believe the referendum should be held before the European Parliament elections? From some recent surveys, it has been suggested that it might be wiser to do so.
Today's edition of The Times has an interesting article on the concerns of the eastern European economies that are not part of the euro and the dangers of state bankruptcy. Many eastern European commentators have noted that many of their banks are not owned nationally but by overseas investors, including Irish ones. They fear the regard for their economies is not as strong as it would be if the banks were home-owned.
Up to 80% of France's energy comes from nuclear power. Some 43 countries, with up to two thirds of the world's population, have nuclear power generation plants. However, it is never mentioned even as an option in the Irish debate on energy power. Will it be considered as an option?
The Croatian ambassador recently attended the committee. What is the possibility of Croatia's entry into the EU? I understand there is some disagreement over the sea border between it and Slovenia. Where does Ireland stand on Croatia's membership?
Having recently seen a proposal at the finance committee on sub-prime lending, I am conscious that some years ago deregulation was introduced in the UK's financial services, referred to then as the "big bang". This deregulation appears to have meant no regulation. Some investment houses and merchant banks acted like the pirate captains, Teach and Kidd. We are now paying an enormous price for their behaviour.
The fundamental principle that was lost in sub-prime lending was that there was no responsibility by the person who sold on the mortgage book for it. It has been proposed that a 5% retention on the mortgage book would remain with the person selling on the sub-prime loan. However, due to the profit margins and the scope for greed, even with such a retention clause we may have a similar crisis 20 years from now. I request there would be a much higher percentage retained by the seller as a responsibility to the market place. What is termed the "hair cut" on sub-prime lending can be as high as 40%. If there is only a 5% margin, it will not be a sufficient deterrent when the profit is so high.
Will the Minister of State take on board the proposals for the Nord Stream gas supply from Russia through the Baltic? The Russians are reliable partners in gas supply. We have seen the difficulties with transit pipes. This proposal is essential for energy security.
Israel is set to get favoured trading nation status with the EU. Will Gaza and the West Bank be included in this? It would act as a carrot and a lever. It would ensure the neighbourly relations between Palestine and Israel would be allowed to prosper. If they did not observe good relations, removal of the favoured trading nation status could be threatened. It would give Europe greater power in the diplomatic area rather than it just calling for certain actions to be taken.
A couple of points have been made by various speakers that might need particular emphasis. The European economy is the issue that will bring dismay to most people at present. Various commentators have put forward suggestions and proposals. I am not an economist but I have read most of them, including the economic views of the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, with which I was very impressed. I could never understand why only three or four economists raised their hands during the past six or seven years to argue that it was time to slow things down. I just cannot believe that people were taken by surprise. I am not pointing the finger in any particular direction, but I believe at this stage we should get a concession from some quarter that a mistake was made and that it will not happen again.
Another issue relates to the climate change proposals — Senator Feargal Quinn referred to this. I appreciate what he said and that France, for instance, derives 85% of its power needs from nuclear energy. We tend to look at such phenomena in a different light at times of stress and financial difficulty. The only concern I have in this regard is that of safety, which is still a major issue. The Chernobyl experience is an issue that cannot be dispelled from our minds. We must keep in mind that it was a major catastrophe, equivalent to 50 times the impact of Hiroshima or Nagasaki. These were really serious emissions that the world outside Ukraine is still paying for. Again, bearing in mind simple economics, some of the proposals on climate change in the developed countries in Europe, if starkly implemented as they are, will leave an enormous wake of desolation in terms of the economies in Europe as we know it. I said that at the meetings in both Paris and Berlin in recent times. It is simple economics that if an impact is heavily imposed on productive capacity the result will be serious disadvantage. It is as simple as that.
With everyone else here, I have listened in the past few years to the economic theory which says that in the future we in Europe will not be able to compete in the manufacturing sector. That whole economic argument is rubbish. If a country fails to compete in the manufacturing sector, it automatically follows that something similar will happen in its services sector. That amounts to economic disaster and I fail to understand where this notion comes from. The knowledge based economy on which we hope to rely in the future for job creation is fine, but it must run in tandem with competitiveness in the manufacturing and services areas. The Minister of State knows that because he has preached that policy from time to time.
I fully agree with him on Ireland and the Lisbon treaty. Senator Feargal Quinn and others raised the matter of the timing of the next referendum. The Minister of State hit the nail on the head by saying we think our economic problems are bad as they are, but if we have another negative response to the Lisbon treaty and the European institutions, we will have a very serious problem on our hands. Every time we opt out of something and move further from the centre of the European debate, and get to that outer circle, we become less influential, less included in the development of the European project and less of a beneficiary from European membership. It is up to ourselves. We have heard people saying in recent times that they wanted to go back to the good old days. We are experiencing some of the so-called good old days at present and they are not so good after all. Reality needs to dawn. The public accepts this and, incidentally, the agenda on the "No" side seems to be changing on a daily basis. Issues that were not raised in the last referendum campaign seem to appear miraculously at present. I have no doubt that will be part and parcel of the campaign in the future, but that is neither here nor there.
On Darfur, it should be emphasised that the crisis there has gone on for too long. The atrocities occurring there are enormous. Massive atrocities, including genocide, starvation etc. are taking place despite the UN doing all it can. I hope the new Administration in the US may be able to exert greater influence. I do not know whether it can, but Darfur needs help.
I will not refer to Gaza, other than to say that the crisis there has gone on long enough as well. I hope that Senator George Mitchell will be as successful there as he was in this country — the Minister of State mentioned that. It is sad that for reasons of history, tradition, prejudice, politics and sheer hatred, that area seems to be beyond resolution. It is sad in today's modern world, but we must be realistic.
I will address the question raised by the Chairman and Senator Quinn about my personal views on the date of a second referendum. The most important thing is to get it right. The Chairman is right, as is the subscript of Senator Quinn's and Deputy Creighton's questions. If we were to say "No" a second time, for whatever reason, it would be absolutely devastating for the future of this country. I believe that the next referendum, in terms of the history of this State, will be as important as the question put to the people in 1972. The people took an enormous leap into the dark at that time. We had come from a protectionist background. The old Sinn Féin policies had tried to build up infant industries behind tariff barriers. The person who led us over that wall and into a better future was undoubtedly Seán Lemass. There were great debates within the political establishment, in my party, on that issue. We now face the very same question as a country and it is most important to get it right.
As to whether some of the concerns promoting the "No" vote the last time were well based, I do not believe they were, but my views are not important. It is the people who set the agenda for us in government and for us all in these Houses. They made a decision on 12 June and, as the Taoiseach said in October at the European Council, the only voice which must be listened to is that of the people. They were concerned about taxation and whether those concerns were right is not an issue. They were concerned about the moral, social and ethical issues. I heard somebody ask recently where education was in this issue. I know where it was. People were worried about schools and ethos. They were certainly concerned about a whispering campaign that went on about conscription. It was never a reality, and it never would be, but if the people were concerned about those issues, they must be addressed. There were concerns too about labour law and the direction it is taking in Europe.
Our first priority must be to craft the way forward with our European partners. They have given us clear indication and want to help us. They made a remarkable concession to Ireland on the issue of the Commission. If we want one Commissioner per member state, we will get that by voting "Yes", and it can never be changed unless at some stage in the future we agree to such a change. If we want a legally binding guarantee on the issue of taxation, moral and ethical issues, neutrality and our specific policies on defence, we should vote "Yes". One of the great things to emerge from the Union was that there was discussion on how to address these wider issues relating to labour law which are not part of the treaty. That is why the response has had to be different.
However, the Chairman asked the straight question about whether I believe it is a good idea to have an early or a later referendum. One thing I am absolutely certain about — I have never heard a coherent argument in favour of it — is that we should not have the referendum on the same day as the European and local elections. I may be wrong, but I am strongly of the view that this would be a fatal error. We must learn from past mistakes. To repeat history in this matter would be a tragedy.
I started my campaign in September 2007, as I can well recall. We signed up to it on the 13th, and within one week Mr. Mulhall and I issued an information leaflet. We were the very first member state to do that. We were constrained because of the rules but we operated within them. In spite of the fact that we had a campaign which started in December and continued until June, people felt that they did not know about the treaty. We cannot risk that happening again. We must make certain that the public is informed, not in a way that is propagandist but in a way that the people feel that they know.
Fear was used by the "No" side during the last campaign, which was immoral in my view. When I went to school, I learned that telling lies was not the correct course of action to take. Some of those who pronounce themselves to be in tune with the religious ethos of this country did not listen to that particular part of the catechism when they went to school but that is their business. We should not use fear on this occasion. The people are deeply concerned about the way we are going but we are part of Europe and we must embrace Europe because of that. I am not being evasive when I say that we must take as much time as it takes to get it right. We have until next October or November and we should make certain that we get it right. We will only get one other chance.
The only plan "B" is the Nice treaty which gives us a smaller Commission. It does not give Europe the capacity to move forward in the way it wants to. If there is a failure to ratify the Lisbon treaty in Ireland or in any other member state then large countries that have held back for ten years will not hold back any more. There will be bilateral arrangements all over Europe which will be inimical to the interests of this country.
The recent polls have been very positive, especially since only 16% of those polled said that they did not know, which is down from 18% and a fraction of where it was 12 months ago. The auguries are good but we must get it right. Senator Quinn made the point about EU member states outside the eurozone being worried. I have been to a couple of those countries and the Senator is quite correct. I was in Latvia recently and I met ordinary people in the course of my visit. There is fear on the streets across Europe, not just in Ireland. This emphasises how important it is for us to be at the heart of Europe. We have used up much goodwill but it is still there and Europe wants to help us.
Senator Quinn also raised the nuclear issue, as did the Chairman. I must admit that I am on the same side of the Chairman on this. Since I spent some time at Carnsore Point when I had darker hair and a beard, I have not changed my views on that issue. I see the point the Senator is making but the type of energy used by individual member states is a sovereign matter for each state. In Ireland we have been most trenchant in refusing to take advice from any of the other member states. The Senator is right to state that 80% of French energy comes from nuclear power, has a remarkable safety record and has done well from nuclear power. However, no government, including the French Government, has answered the question on the issue of nuclear waste and the intergenerational effect of that. I agree with the Chairman on this point but it is a sovereign issue.
Senator Hanafin is right about the Bonfire of the Vanities. I recall some people currently in the white light of publicity because of the scandals in which they participated, including the destruction of the Irish banking system, preaching to us mere politicians — a lower form of life on this planet than these exalted persons — that we were destroying opportunities by being far too pedantic with too much regulation. The Senator recalls that rhetoric as well as I do. Deregulation became no regulation which is the subscript of what they were saying. The reality is that everyone in business and in public life needs a moral compass and it is clear that some of them removed their moral compass when they went over the reefs of greed. That is the reality. Greed drove this, as did a lack of regulation. The sub-prime crisis was astonishing where people took on so-called toxic debts — they were in fact fraudulent bonds — parcelled them together, and sold them off. There are now class actions against major bankers and not just in the US. There will have to be a fundamental rethink on this. It will have to be done in Europe because if our regulations are not in sync with European and international regulation, we will be in difficulty.
The Senator is right about the two interconnectors from Russia. I was at an EU meeting recently where the main item of discussion was about getting interconnectivity between the southern and the northern routes.
We should not be talking about trade boycotts against Israel. There is a particular history represented in the actions of Israeli Governments that we should not forget. However, we should not make the Palestinian people suffer because of that particular history. By ignoring what was happening, it was the rest of the world that inflicted that history. I do not think that those who argue for trade boycotts are really at the races. Dialogue is better and Europe is in a wonderful position to enable that dialogue to take place.
The Chairman asked where all these economists were in recent years. I remember Mr. Paddy Lynch who lectured several of us in this room many years ago. He lectured Senator Quinn and told me the Senator was a particularly indolent student. He used to say, wisely, that what the world needs now more than ever is one-handed economists, which is the truth. People are always talking about on the one hand and on the other hand. Unfortunately, we have been presented with a difficult set of circumstances. The most important thing to do is to remember what is said in The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, which is to keep your head and not to lose your head. We want to keep a clear view of where we need to go. Running around in ever-decreasing circles will get us into a place that we do not want to be. We want to be in a place where the wonderful realities of this nation can get back on the road to growth and development.
I thank the members of the committee. I will take up the sensible suggestion from Deputy Timmins and will respond positively to it. If the Chairman has some ideas on this, I would be delighted to hear from the committee secretariat.
I thank the Minister of State. The secretariat has put in place a means whereby the committee can have some idea of what transpires subsequent to the General Affairs and External Relations Council, GAERC, meeting regarding the points raised by the committee. This committee proposes to have a number of reports that will focus on the issues raised during the course of the last Lisbon treaty referendum. These reports will address the issues specifically and graphically as opposed to theoretically and in a vague fashion.
Sitting suspended at 1.29 p.m. and resumed at 1.30 p.m.