I welcome everyone to the meeting. The first item on the agenda is a discussion on the forthcoming General Affairs Council meeting, with the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Lucinda Creighton. I will hand over to her. The Chairman is on his way from the Dáil Chamber and will take my place and then I will be going in to speak myself and then to conclude another committee meeting I am at. I thank the Minister of State for attending and ask her to make her opening remarks.
General Affairs Council: Discussion with Minister of State
I am glad to see the Vice Chairman in the Chair, even temporarily. He is clearly multitasking this morning.
I welcome this opportunity to brief the committee ahead of next week's General Affairs Council meeting, which will take place in Brussels on Monday, 26 March. The GAC will meet for a morning session on Monday at which I will represent Ireland. The substantive focus at this meeting of the Council will primarily be on elements of the next multi-annual financial framework, MFF.
Deputy Dominic Hannigan took the Chair.
It is the Danish Presidency's intention to have an orientation debate on a discussion document which it has prepared which sets out a draft partial "negotiating box" on a number of the elements within the next MFF. The other main item on the agenda for this month's meeting is a follow-up to the spring European Council meeting at the beginning of this month. The Presidency has prepared a very useful note on follow-up by the Council to the orientations set by recent European Council meetings. This note is expected to provide the basis for the Presidency's briefing of Ministers. An extensive discussion on this point is not anticipated for next Monday's GAC meeting.
The first item on the agenda next Monday is a discussion of the EU's next multi-annual financial framework, MFF. At the December meeting, the European Council called on the incoming Danish Presidency to press ahead with work on the MFF. The Presidency aims to develop the main elements of a so-called "negotiating box", a draft outline of the final agreement on the MFF, which it will present to the June European Council meeting with a view to settling as many issues as possible at that time. Of course, nothing will be agreed until everything is agreed.
The discussion at Monday's GAC will be guided by a paper prepared by the Danish Presidency, containing a partial draft of the negotiating box. The paper covers those sections of the multi-annual financial framework relating to smart and inclusive growth, except cohesion and the connecting Europe facility, security and citizenship, global Europe and administration, and also EU instruments that fall outside the MFF. At Monday's meeting, the GAC is not being asked to discuss the Cohesion Policy or CAP, the two largest areas of expenditure. These will be addressed at a later Council meeting. This month's meeting will therefore allow an opportunity to discuss policy priorities outside of the two main spending areas. This is a welcome approach.
As the committee well knows, we want a properly funded and properly functioning EU, with the right mix of priorities, fair allocation of resources and a focus on jobs and growth. We see a need for continued food security and safety, which warrants only gradual changes to the Common Agricultural Policy. We also have an express national interest in defending our share of CAP payments. We expect the overall resources directed at the CAP to remain fixed at best, and it will be in the research and innovation areas that we will see any future increases. Accordingly, we want to identify all possibilities for benefiting from available EU funds, especially in the Europe 2020 areas, including competitiveness, productivity-enhancing measures, employment, climate change and energy.
Our concern for this GAC is that the draft negotiating box should adequately reflect the importance of job creation as well as growth. We warmly welcome the emphasis being placed on support for research and development through the Horizon 2020 programme. We have made clear that there should be restraint in the EU's administrative spending in line with the efforts towards fiscal consolidation being made by member states, not least of all by Ireland. More broadly, the key issues, and the most difficult ones, in the MFF negotiations in the coming months will be the overall size of the MFF, the relative proportions allocated to CAP, cohesion and other headings, and the funding of the EU budget, including arrangements for rebates and corrections. I do not expect these questions to be resolved until close to the end of negotiations.
The Danish Presidency has said that the MFF will be discussed at each GAC during the remainder of its Presidency, and I expect the Cypriot Presidency in the second half of this year to likewise schedule regular GAC discussion of the MFF, so this committee will have many more opportunities to consider this matter.
The GAC meeting on Monday next will also take stock of the follow-up now required at the level of the Council of Ministers in response to the orientations provided by EU Heads of State and Government at the spring European Council. This reflection will be facilitated by a very useful information note which the Danish Presidency has prepared on follow-up to recent European Council meetings. The Presidency note sets out the steps already taken to implement European Council orientations, as well as the further measures that will be pursued by the Danish Presidency, with a particular emphasis on jobs and growth.
A firm focus on growth and job creation was again at the heart of discussions at the most recent meeting of the European Council at the beginning of this month. We now have a balanced approach in Europe which encompasses fiscal consolidation as well as action to foster growth, competitiveness and employment. Leaders concluded the first phase of the European semester. This saw them endorse the five priorities for 2012 set out in the Commission's annual growth survey - pursuing differentiated and growth-friendly fiscal consolidation; restoring normal lending to the economy; promoting growth and competitiveness; tackling unemployment and the social consequences of the crisis; and modernising public administration. These will be reflected in the national reform programmes, NRPs, to be submitted by member states in April under the Europe 2020 Strategy. Ireland, as a programme country, is not required to submit a full NRP. We aim, however, to engage constructively with the second European semester, and are preparing a comprehensive review of national progress under the Europe 2020 Strategy for submission in April. The European Council also discussed action required at EU level such as moving ahead with completion of the Single Market, including the digital Single Market, and boosting innovation and research. The Competitiveness Council will now take forward work in many of the priority areas identified for growth enhancement and job-creation, such as governance of the Single Market and access to finance for SMEs. The employment package is expected to be presented by the European Commission in April. The Presidency will consider possible preparatory work in the Council with a view to addressing the package at the June EPSCO Council.
While the Danish Presidency will be driving follow-up within the various Council formations across the full range of issues addressed recently by the European Council, many of these priorities – those areas with the greatest potential to contribute to growth – will remain right at the top of the agenda during Ireland's Presidency in the first half of next year. We will be seeking to make progress on issues that are of great concern to our businesses and our people, whether it be reducing the costs of high-speed broadband infrastructure or making it easier for people with professional qualifications to move and work in Europe. We will be looking to make life easier for businesses, including cutting the red-tape burden and advancing measures to support micro-enterprises. There is now a better fit between this renewed emphasis on the growth agenda at EU level and our own national emphasis through the programme for Government.
The March European Council set the EU priorities for the forthcoming summits of G8 to be held on 19 and 20 May and the G20 to be held on 18 and 19 June, with a particular emphasis on growth enhancing measures and reforms. Leaders also set EU priorities for the UN "Rio +20" conference to be held from 20 to 22 June 2012. The European Council underlined its strong support for an ambitious outcome at the "Rio +20" conference, a view which we welcome and would share nationally.
The spring European Council considered developments one year on from the Arab Spring and set guidance for future EU action to support follow-up processes. The European Council also discussed the situations in Syria and in Belarus and adopted related conclusions. Of course, foreign policy issues will be taken forward by the Foreign Affairs Council, which this month will meet in Brussels tomorrow. The Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade will represent Ireland at tomorrow's meeting.
Very significantly, the spring European Council endorsed the granting of candidate status to Serbia. I welcome this important first step in a process which will now unfold. Leaders further agreed that the Council should revert to the issue of Bulgaria and Romania's accession to the Schengen area in order to adopt a decision at the JHA Council meeting in September. As requested by the March European Council, the Presidency is taking steps to identify and implement measures which would contribute to the successful enlargement of the Schengen area to Bulgaria and Romania. We look forward to solutions being found on this issue at the earliest opportunity.
During its meeting earlier this month, the European Council re-elected Herman Van Rompuy as its President, for a further two and a half year term. We warmly support the leadership which President Van Rompuy has provided over the last, more than, two years. This has been a time of real challenge for the EU and Europe and we have been fortunate to have had a person of Herman Van Rompuy's qualities at the helm. The euro area Heads of State or Government also separately appointed Herman Van Rompuy as the first President of the Euro Summit.
I appreciate the attention of the Chairman and members of the committee. I look forward to hearing the comments and observations of members. I will, of course, do my best to answer any questions.
I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Lucinda Creighton and thank her for appearing before the committee today. I offer my apologies for not being present at the start of her presentation, but I was speaking in the Dáil. I thank the Minister of State for appearing before us today.
Ms Phil Prendergast, MEP
It is great to welcome the Minister of State back to this forum. I thank her for her attendance.
I am a member of the European Parliament committee on the internal market and consumer affairs. Yesterday I chaired a meeting of the Irish MEPs at which we considered the professional qualifications directive which will provide for free movement around the European Union for people with a professional qualification. I have met Ms Annette Kennedy, director of professional development of the Irish Nurses and Midwives Organisation; Ms Sheila Dickson, president of the organisation; and Ms Aisling Culhane of the Psychiatric Nurses Association of Ireland. One of the concerns they have identified is that although 25 of the 27 member states have agreed that the minimum educational qualification requirement should be 12 years, Germany is entrenched in its view that ten years is sufficient. If Germany does not avail of a derogation, there could be a dilution of certain professional qualifications such as our standard four year degree programme in nursing and midwifery. There is a concern that there could be a yellow packing - if members will pardon the expression - of the profession that would allow for a lesser trained or educated grade of nurse than the grade in this country. We, therefore, need to flag this issue, on which the rapporteur is due to deliberate by September. It will be possible to propose amendments in October. This country needs to actively engage with the professional qualifications directive which may have implications for standards of education, professional competency and recognition. Specifically, we need to engage with An Bord Altranais which is responsible for the regulation of nursing in this country.
I will have to leave in 15 minutes, unfortunately, as I am due to speak during the Private Members' debate in the Dáil. As a consequence, I might not be present for some of the Minister of State's responses to our questions. She is aware that the subject of the Private Members' debate is the timing of the European Stability Mechanism legislation that the Government will have to introduce. She will recall that when she appeared before this committee while the negotiations on this matter were ongoing, she acknowledged that she did not want the treaty to provide for conditionality in accessing the European Stability Mechanism. The view at the time was that Angela Merkel's Government, in particular, wanted such conditionality to be included. We conceded to this during the negotiations. The stock achievement of the Government during the negotiations was, first, the inclusion of the word "preferably" to try to deny the people their say on the matter and, second, the inclusion of what we call the "blackmail clause" in accessing the European Stability Mechanism. That is what we consented to during the negotiations. The Minister of State has acknowledged that the Government did not want these matters to be included. It has since accepted the Attorney General's recommendation that it proceed with a referendum. The Taoiseach and many Ministers have expressed concern that if we do not support the treaty on referendum day, we will not be able to access the European Stability Mechanism. They keep using the word "backstop" in that context.
I will make our request clear because the Minister of State seemed to be confused about it when she responded to us in the Dáil last night. I repeat our request to the Government to give the people a commitment that it will not introduce legislation on the European Stability Mechanism before they have their say on the treaty. Will the Government respect their decision which will be based on the merits or demerits of the treaty as they see it? If they decide to reject the treaty, will it put in place a veto that would give it a strong hand in seeking the removal of this clause when the negotiations take place? This is about the position of the Government. If it is sincerely concerned, it will act in the interests of the people by deciding not to introduce the legislation until we have had a say on the treaty. It has the right to do this. As the Minister of State knows, the Government can also veto the Article 136 amendment which is required to facilitate the European Stability Mechanism treaty. I have been very clear about the question I am putting to the Minister of State and would like to hear her answer to it.
I would like to speak about the issues of growth and job creation. The Minister of State's party - Fine Gael - is in coalition with the Labour Party. What is her view on the positions of the Labour Party's sister parties in Germany, France and Holland which have expressed grave concern about the implications of the treaty for economic growth? Some of them have stated that if they were elected, they would seek to have the treaty renegotiated, amended or put before their respective parliaments. What is the Minister of State's opinion of this view? What does she think of the view expressed by the European Trade Union Confederation which is closely allied to her coalition partners in the Labour Party? The confederation has expressed strenuous opposition to the treaty and concerns about its implications for job creation and growth and its ability to counter the recessionary economic cycle.
I refer to the multi-annual financial framework. One of the big priorities in Ireland should be the maintenance of our proud history of providing overseas development aid. I hope the rest of the committee will agree with me when I say that as part of the negotiations, Ireland should lead the defence of the European Union's overseas aid budget. There are proposals to strengthen the European External Action Service. It should be strengthened. Concord, the European umbrella group of non-governmental organisations involved in the provision of relief and development, has expressed concern about the direction the action service is taking. It has been suggested the service does not appear to have a sufficient focus on development but is instead advancing the foreign affairs priorities of member states which are often geopolitical and military in nature. Does the Minister of State agree that although there is an urgent need to strengthen the resources of this important service, we should ensure it is used, in the first instance, as a beacon of hope? We have spoken previously at this forum about the need for the service to defend human rights, promote real and sustainable development, advocate responsible trade policies that do not undermine the development strategies of individual governments and work in partnership with the non-governmental organisation sector.
I would like to hear the Minister of State's opinions on the matters I have mentioned.
I will ask a question later about what our EU partners are doing to stimulate growth.
I thank Ms Phil Prendergast, MEP, and Deputy Mac Lochlainn for their comments. It is no problem if the Deputy has to go to the Dáil Chamber.
I will wait to hear the Minister of State's response. I am sure I will make it to the Chamber in time.
That is appreciated. It is a pity the debates are happening at the same time.
Absolutely.
Many members of the committee - not least the Deputy - are interested in the debate on the European Stability Mechanism. I thank Ms Prendergast for speaking about the concerns expressed by a number of health care professionals about the proposed professional qualifications directive, of which I wish to make it clear that I am very supportive. Labour force mobility presents one of the biggest challenges in the internal market. Although there is a 50% youth unemployment rate in Spain and other member states, young people are unable to access job opportunities in neighbouring member states. It is widely predicted that the demographic evolution of the European Union will require and demand immigration because the Union has such an ageing population. Young people who are highly qualified, competent, capable and employable are unable to access work opportunities in other member states. I, therefore, support the proposed directive as a fundamental plank of our approach to overall growth and job creation targets across the Union. In that context, it is hugely important for professional qualifications to be standardised and recognised across member states. I am keen to make the point that speedy implementation of the directive is necessary. That is not to say we should accept low standards or a dilution of professional qualifications or standards. I would be happy to hear in more detail of the discussions Members have had with various professional bodies. If they wish to convey their concerns to me or to the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Richard Bruton, we will be happy to deal with them. I stress our commitment to a speedy implementation of the directive.
Deputy Mac Lochlainn asked a number of questions, the first being on the European stability mechanism. We had an exact exchange on the last occasion I appeared before the committee when he said the stock achievement of the Government was simply to insert the word "preferably" whereas today he has added to the list, the so-called blackmail clause, which is becoming more comprehensive. There are a number of elements in the treaty that we failed to acknowledge, for example, the transition period and the special recognition of programme countries which was the major achievement of the Government in our negotiation of the EU fiscal stability treaty because it has a direct impact on the country and on the other programme countries. The conspiracy theorists tried to suggest we were negotiating to avoid a referendum when in fact we were trying to ensure that what was agreed would be manageable and sustainable for the economy and the recovery. That is what we have achieved.
On the ESM treaty we did not set out to negotiate that the conditionality that applies would be included but that is the nature of negotiation and it has been agreed and signed by member states, including Ireland. We intend to fulfil our commitments that access to the ESM will be subject to ratification of the stability treaty. That is a logical, rational and fair position. I stress we do not intend to access ESM funding and Members are aware of that but countries that may require access to the ESM - Ireland may, in due course, require access to the ESM - are required to sign up to rules and a framework agreed by all member states to govern our currency. That is reasonable. I do not agree with the Deputy that it would be right or proper to try to use a veto and I do not agree that a veto exists. Our commitment in respect of ratification of the ESM treaty is clear.
The Minister for Finance and his Department in conjunction with a Cabinet decision will determine when the ESM comes in to the House. We are committed to implementing the ESM with other member states by the middle of the summer. That is a fast tracking of 12 months and is the right thing to do. We will ensure legislation comes before the House on time to facilitate that. There is no link in terms of the referendum plans. The referendum will be held in due course, the date for which will be announced by the Government. It will not be linked in any sense to the European Stability Mechanism passing through the Houses.
I am not planning on appearing before the committee and commenting on the Labour Party in government. It is quite competent and capable of speaking for itself. I note the Tánaiste took Leaders' Questions this morning. If the Deputy missed his chance this morning he may have a second bite at the cherry next week.
In regard to the trade union movement I genuinely do not believe that the decision to amend the Constitution is one for anyone other than the Irish people. It is a matter for the trade unions as to what position they take and how they recommend their members to approach the treaty, not for any European confederation of trade unions. It is a national issue and a matter for the domestic trade unions to make a choice. It would be extraordinary if the trade unions did not recommend strongly a "Yes" vote. Workers have benefited beyond recognition in terms of their rights, a matter on which the Deputy has spoken and acknowledged before the committee. I pay tribute to him for his honesty and frankness on that subject but as I said during the Private Members' debate on the European stability mechanism I feel strongly that stabilising the currency is the first step to growing the economy. Anybody who suggests we can ignore the fundamental problems facing the currency by recommending against ratifying the treaty and that somehow that would benefit the growth or job creation agendas is completely incompatible and defies logic. I hope the trade union movement, recognising the urgent need to prioritise growth in the EU, will clearly identify the fiscal compact treaty as being an essential element of preparing the ground that growth to occur.
The Deputy asked about overseas development aid. I have had some good exchanges with Dóchas. I received correspondence from Plan Ireland and I am sure other agencies will be in contact with me. I agree with the Deputy that Ireland has great moral authority. When it comes to Ireland's per capita contribution to overseas development aid and our commitment to the developing world, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa and in other regions, we have a proud record through our monetary contributions and our contribution through missionaries for many years in various parts of the world. I hope that contribution will continue. It is fair to say we will strongly advocate the continuance of a strong ODA element to the EU budget. I would not like to see the budget diminished or reduced.
I agree with the Deputy in terms of the European External Action Service and its role across the world in being a beacon of hope and reflecting European values and our commitment to human rights, democracy building and rule of law; all the principles we hold dear in Ireland and across the European Union. People sometimes ask what binds us together as Europeans. These are the values that bind us together, this is what makes us European and this is what the European External Action Service is all about. It is about reflecting our values in the rest of the world and showing that the EU can provide leadership and support for the poorest regions of the world. Whether that is through responsible trade policy or the promotion of human rights, through all the various strands of our external relations policy, the European External Action Service plays a valuable role. Contrary to what some may have us believe it has nothing to do with militarisation. The EEAS is about diplomatically representing the EU across the world and it should enhance and complement the work of our missions overseas. A small country such as Ireland can only have so much effect. Unfortunately, through cutbacks in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade we have had to scale down our missions. We are literally operating on a shoestring in many of our missions around the world. Having the backup of the EEAS in many countries should be viewed as a big opportunity for Ireland and also for the other EU states. It is through pooling resources and working together through the EEAS that we can pursue our objectives and agendas. The EEAS is only in its infancy but it has huge potential and I am supportive of it.
Thank you. I may be able to shed some light on what the Labour Party is doing at European level. Our leader is meeting with various representatives of the public employment services, PES, around Europe, as are various members of the party. Yesterday, I met Mme. Axelle Lemaire, a candidate for the French Assembly elections and we had a very interesting conversation about the need for growth and the need to do something about unemployment, particularly youth unemployment. A few weeks ago in Brussels, I met Commissioner Šefcovic who is pursuing an agenda trying to stimulate employment growth and some reports are expected on that in Europe in the next month or so. My colleague, Deputy Alex White, is speaking in Brussels today on unemployment and on what the European Union can do to promote growth. He is meeting Mr. Schultz on that also. For us, it is not just about the fiscal compact. That is part of the solution, but it is about trying to ensure that we have a stimulus package in place to get growth. We see that as vital.
I spoke earlier in the Dáíl about the ESM and the need to ratify Article 136. For us, this is about showing solidarity with the rest of the European Union. We need the ESM in place to ensure that the citizens of Portugal, Spain or any other country who may need access to the firewall can get that access. We would not be showing solidarity with our European comrades and neighbours if we tried to veto the ESM. That would be a retrograde step. Anything we have got from Europe has come through negotiation and compromise, not through aggression or blackmail. I look forward to the introduction of the legislation to ratify Article 136 and hence the ESM.
I share Deputy Mac Lochlainn's comments on Dóchas and I welcome Hans Zomer, its director to the Visitors' Gallery today. We can lead Europe on this issue as we have a tremendous reputation with regard to our overseas development aid programme. I have seen at first hand the fantastic work we do throughout the world. I probably speak for the rest of the committee members when I ask the Minister of State to take this message with her and try to ensure that Ireland remains at the heart of the European aid programme.
I agree with and support the sentiments expressed by the Chairman. I congratulate the Minister of State on her address to this committee and her colleagues, the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and Minister for Finance, on the tremendous work they have done over the past 12 months. I do not wish to be self-congratulatory on that, but wish to record the results of continued, persistent, objective pursuit of ideals that are not only in the interest of this country but also in the interest of the rest of Europe.
I particularly compliment the Minister of State and her colleagues throughout the European Union on the degree to which the European Union as a unit has eventually focused on the issues that matter and on the priorities that need to be addressed at the earliest possible date. In approximately ten years, I have not seen so much emphasis placed on the issues that require urgent attention. There has not been a focus in the past ten years like the focus at this time on the economic issues. As Bill Clinton said: "It's the economy, stupid." Never was it more apt to apply this comment than in the European context. I compliment all the institutions on their work to date and wish them well in the future. The job is not done yet by a long shot.
I would like to issue a word of caution about another issue of concern, the economy. There is a danger that people will think it is now time for stimuli to resolve our problems for evermore. We need to be cautious about this. In an address to this committee during the past week, examples were given of what happened during the Great Depression in the United States and of the sequence of events in addressing those issues. These were not as presented at that meeting. The sequence of events was different. For example, if a stimulus package is introduced before the economic fundamentals have been put in place, that will be unsuccessful and will mean one is throwing good money after bad, which is a serious matter. That happened in the United States in the early years of the depression because it was not possible to decide the proper means and ways to address the issues. Countless attempts were made over a ten to 15-year period to address the various aspects of that depression. The current situation here is of a similar nature and that must be recognised. We must recognise that intervention must be at the right time and come on the back of decisions that have already been taken, which are excellent.
I am not making a political point with the following example. In future, the public will take a very harsh attitude to politicians who mislead them in these circumstances. For example, in 1977, the then Government was working its way out of an economic crisis due to the two successive oil crises and it was decided at election time to create a stimulus by putting more money in people's pockets, fuelling the fire and revving up the engine to bring economic benefits for all. It took 18 months of that to sink the country almost beyond belief and to create a level of debt for which the people are still paying. This happened in 1977 and it has happened several times since. This is a serious issue and one about which we must be cautious. Some politicians are calling for the spending of more money at this time, although that money does not exist. We must learn to crawl before we can run. The public can be misled by this propaganda which suits some politicians and their purpose of selling their wares to consumers. However, what is effectively happening is that the electorate is being bought. The public will be forced to pay for that purchase from the public purse, as is happening.
Arising from the cohesiveness and objectivity emerging throughout Europe, it is necessary for us to approve what has been achieved. We must do this in order to protect not only ourselves but also Europe from future wild promises by political or non-political organisations here and in other European countries. It is essential that to do this we adopt the stability compact in its entirety. John Bruton once proposed that legislation should be passed to prevent wild promises and the purchase of the electorate, with consequent damage to the economy, by groups, political parties or individuals. That would be good and the European Union now recognises this. In the past ten or 15 years I have not seen the kind of objectivity that is now emerging and I compliment all those involved, no disrespect to my colleagues who regularly go on the rampage to promise easy options. There are no easy options and anybody who pretends there are is misleading the public. People who mislead the public in this fashion must pay the price in the future. The electorate will see to that, because it is they who will eventually have to pay.
I want to mention the food sector and security of supply and the emphasis that has been placed on this sector and its future. This sector is of particular significance in the current economic climate. I suggest that careful consideration should be given to discussions that will take place at WTO level. In the past, these discussions have had the unfortunate knack of undermining some of the useful, progressive objectives and achievements of the Common Agricultural Policy and Common Fisheries Policy. There are difficulties emerging with regard to fisheries policy and this committee has discussed those issues at previous meeting. This issue is very important in the context of the food sector here, our exports and our economic recovery. It is important that our EU colleagues recognise that we also have an entitlement to a fair share of what is available and that each country makes its fair contribution towards conservation measures, and that this does not just apply to two or three countries in particular.
I welcome the Minister of State and I thank her for her contribution. Deputy Mac Lochlainn mentioned the Private Members' motion and it is unfortunate that people continue to describe the treaty as an austerity treaty, when quite clearly it is a stability treaty. Deputy Durkan summed it quite well in terms of the 1977 budget which will go down in folklore for achieving the electoral result that was intended in that manifesto, but we lived with the consequences of it for a long time. If anything, the new treaty will force governments to plan for the rainy days to ensure that they do not go on a spending spree, such as hiring public servants that we cannot afford. This Government now has to deal with that consequence.
Is the Minister of State concerned that some issues outside of the treaty will be used by some rural people - we have seen what has gone on in respect of bogs and septic tanks - to try to achieve a negative response to a European treaty? The Minister of State has said that the cohesion and CAP policy will not be discussed at the GAC meeting on Monday. What other areas of funding are being discussed that would impact on this country? The CAP is of huge importance to this country and the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine has indicated from his negotiations that there will be no overall change in the European context and in Ireland's share. The question is about how it is distributed in Ireland, which I will not get into now. The CAP is of huge importance to the prosperity of the country. What other areas will be examined on Monday?
Many of the questions are very introverted in respect of our own needs in the economy and I would like to raise a matter of grave concern that I raised with the Minster of State yesterday. The matter relates to a young woman who took her own life on 10 March. She was a 16 year old Moroccan girl who was forced to marry her own rapist. The names and details have been made available to the Minister of State and I ask her to call in the mission from Morocco in relation to the circumstances surrounding a child who, as a consequence of a directive from a judicial court in Morocco, was forced to marry her own rapist in order to avoid shame and dishonour on a family. This has come from a specific code in a provision of the Moroccan judicial and legislative framework. Can the Minister of State investigate why there are significant protests in Rabat surrounding the unfortunate death of this young person?
I raised this matter with the Minister of State yesterday, and I will not drop it. I raised it with her because I know she is very tuned in to human rights and is concerned about poverty in emerging nations. However, there is no justification for a forced marriage to avoid a penal outcome to a rape situation. As Minister of State for European affairs, I ask her to speak to the Moroccan mission in this country in respect of the unfortunate circumstances surrounding the death of that named child. I ask her to bring as much pressure as possible to bear on the European Union and on the Moroccan Government and Kingdom in respect of the unacceptable judicial provision that allows an escape clause for a rapist to marry his own victim. As a consequence of his own perverse nature, a rapist can now avoid a penalty by marrying his own victim.
We are great to focus on everything that happens in this country, but we tend to forget about those people who are less well off than ourselves. In the midst of our own economic crisis, I ask the Minister of State to spare some thought during the meeting to deal with the situation and to report back to us at her earliest possible convenience to deal with this matter.
Would the Minister of State like to respond to those questions?
I would indeed. Thank you, Chairman, for your remarks. We are very much committed to ensuring that development aid is at the core of the EU budget. I will certainly be speaking on that element of the debate on Monday and I am happy to reiterate Ireland's support for development aid.
I thank Deputy Durkan for his very passionate contribution. If it were a Twitter comment, I would be adding "+1" to indicate my approval and support for what he said. He said it very well. There are no easy options. Unfortunately, it is politically expedient to put it out there in the public domain that there are simple solutions to the current crisis, when quite clearly there are not. We cannot spend money that we do not have. We simply have to get our finances in order. We have to begin to balance our budget and I am pleased to say that both of the current coalition partners in the Government have a good record in doing that, as the Deputy would know as a Minister of State in the rainbow coalition. He is aware of the way in which the public finances were left in 1997 and I will say no more than that.
We have a lot of work to do and I fear that we have very difficult years ahead, but we are getting there. Slowly but surely, we are making positive progress, both domestically and on the European stage. The statement in the Dáil last night by the Minister for Finance is confirmation of that. There is no easy negotiation. All of these things are complex and have a political context involving all other member states, but we are making progress and that is the most important thing.
I agree with the Deputy entirely in respect of food security and fisheries policy. The way the MFF will be negotiated is that the horizontal negotiations across the board happen at the General Affairs Council, which I will attend on Monday. The detail on fisheries policy, agriculture policy and so on will be negotiated by the relevant Department and by the relevant Minister. The Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine is leading on that, but we are tick-tacking and liaising closely on it. There is no doubt but that the sort of standards which apply for one member state in respect of conservation and sustainability in fisheries will apply to every member state. There are no exceptions to that, and nor will there be. Ireland is and will remain very insistent on that. We have a huge amount of work to do on things like discards, which is disgraceful and cannot continue.
I do not want to veer off on a tangent in respect of issues that are relevant to a different Council meeting, but suffice to say that a lot of work is being done. In terms of the multiannual financial framework negotiations, overall the key priority for us will be the Common Agricultural Policy. It accounts for 85% of the funds drawn down in this country from the European Union budget. It is of considerable importance to Ireland not only to farmers but to rural Ireland, rural life and so on. I realise Deputy Kyne is also concerned about this issue, as are other members of the committee who have expressed their views on previous occasions.
I wish to address Deputy Kyne's question on the matter. Since Cohesion Funds and CAP are the two largest elements of the budget they will be dealt with separately. There have been several General Affairs Council meetings dealing with the multiannual financial framework where agriculture and Cohesion Funds have been discussed in general terms. There will be specific, dedicated Councils to deal with these two major topics during the spring in preparation for the June Council. I will be before the committee to discuss them in greater detail in the months ahead. I suggest that at some point before the June Council, the key Council under the Danish Presidency which will bring the negotiating box to a head, we should hold a dedicated meeting of the Joint Committee on European Union Affairs to discuss this matter. I would be pleased to appear and we could go through all elements of the budget in more detail.
We would appreciate that.
It would be a useful exercise. I would be pleased to offer myself to the committee at some point closer to June. I believe I have addressed generally the points made generally by Deputy Durkan.
The question of rural communities and the connection between so-called extraneous issues and the fiscal stability treaty referendum was raised. Naturally, there is a risk that extraneous issues can impact on the treaty but I have great faith in the people. I have written about this in one of the Sunday newspapers. I strongly believe that the people take their Constitution seriously. It is a great honour for the public and for the citizens of the State to take a document which has served us remarkably well over the decades and to amend it to facilitate the Government in ratifying the treaty, with all the attendant consequences. They will not do so on the basis of short-term anger, much of which is justifiable. I genuinely believe that when it comes to the moment the people will determine how they vote on the treaty on the basis of what is best for Ireland today, tomorrow and in future. For this reason I am confident that issues which spark considerable debate, much anger and much justifiable concern will not be a central part of the debate on the fiscal compact treaty because it is too important for that.
There may be difficulties or issues in complying with our obligations in terms of septic tanks but it is in our interests to do so. Anyone who believes it is not in our interests to have clean water and not to allow toxic fluids into farmland-----
We will poison our neighbours otherwise.
Such people are sorely mistaken. These measures are necessary. We may not like the short-term consequences but they are necessary. However, they are not relevant to this referendum. I am confident that the people will vote on the basis of what the treaty is and what it means to Ireland in terms of stabilising our currency and creating the conditions for growth and employment opportunities.
I refer back to the important word "hope", which someone mentioned earlier. It is not only a case of hope in the developing world or through the development aid programme. It is also a question of hope in the European Union and it is about giving our citizens hope, a belief and a confidence that the European Union can deliver for them as it has for us and for this country during the past 40 years. This is the message we must communicate and I believe that the people are receptive to the message. They understand that we must sort out our currency to sort out the larger challenges facing us and inherent in the economy at the moment. I remain optimistic about that.
Deputy Kyne asked another question about the topics up for discussion under the multiannual financial framework, of which there are many. It is a vast budget, one which has an impact on all our lives in many ways. The discussion on Monday under heading 1, excluding cohesion matters, relates to smart and inclusive growth, research, innovation and competitiveness issues, SMEs and so-called human skills. Justice will be discussed under heading 3. Heading 4 deals with global Europe. This includes development assistance which we referred to earlier. Heading 5 refers to administrative matters. We hope to see greater efficiency in this area. One of the key objectives of this budget is simplification and this applies across the board. Members who represent rural communities should bear in mind how we will deal with CAP at the next meeting of the General Affairs Council. Simplification will be a central issue as will making life easier and eliminating or reducing red tape. This is a theme throughout the budget, whether through the drawdown of funding under research and innovation headings or the Common Agricultural Policy. We will return to this topic in more detail at a later date.
Deputy Colm Keaveney raised a question about the brutal case in Morocco. There was a good exchange in the Dáil during Topical Issues yesterday. I undertook to speak with the Tánaiste about this case to decide how we should handle it. I made it clear that I have no difficulty with either myself or the Tánaiste speaking to the Moroccan ambassador. I have met him already and I have found him to be very open. There may well be a need to discuss the case with him but I would prefer to speak to the Tánaiste first. He is my boss and I must proceed in this fashion. Deputy Keaveney put it very well. The case is brutal and gruesome. It is almost inconceivable for people living in this country to imagine that this could have occurred. It is appalling. It is more than appalling. I take it very seriously and I agree entirely with Deputy Keaveney that the Government has a moral obligation to deal with it and to confront it. As I stated yesterday, I would be pleased to do so.
I thank the Minister of State.
Thank you, Minister of State, for presenting to us. We are all appreciative of the fact that you take the time to come here to engage with the committee. We also appreciate the comprehensive nature of your replies to our questions. We wish you all the best next week and we look forward to having you back before the committee in the near future to tell us how you got on.
The joint committee went into private session at 12.40 p.m. and adjourned at 12.50 p.m. until 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 28 March 2012.