Skip to main content
Normal View

European Council Meetings

Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 16 December 2014

Tuesday, 16 December 2014

Questions (3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22)

Micheál Martin

Question:

3. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the position regarding the discussions at the September EU Council meeting on the plight of the Syrian refugees; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37653/14]

View answer

Richard Boyd Barrett

Question:

4. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach the discussions he had at the EU Council meeting in August 2014; if Ireland's corporate tax rate featured in these discussions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37747/14]

View answer

Gerry Adams

Question:

5. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the recent European Council meeting; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39845/14]

View answer

Gerry Adams

Question:

6. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach the discussions that took place at the August European Council meeting on the issue of refugees from the Syrian conflict; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [40964/14]

View answer

Gerry Adams

Question:

7. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he has discussed the Transatlantic Trade Investment Partnership with other EU Heads of State; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [40965/14]

View answer

Gerry Adams

Question:

8. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if the Transatlantic Trade Investment Partnership was discussed at the August European Council meeting; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [40966/14]

View answer

Micheál Martin

Question:

9. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he had any bilateral meetings at the October 2014 European Council meeting; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [41673/14]

View answer

Micheál Martin

Question:

10. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if Ireland's retrospective debt was discussed at the European Council meeting in October 2014, particularly in the context of the June 2012 Council agreement regarding same; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [41674/14]

View answer

Micheál Martin

Question:

11. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he has met or spoken with Chancellor Merkel recently; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [41675/14]

View answer

Joe Higgins

Question:

12. Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the recent European Council discussions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [41697/14]

View answer

Micheál Martin

Question:

13. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the position regarding the status of his communiqué made in October 2012 with Chancellor Merkel; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43797/14]

View answer

Micheál Martin

Question:

14. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the position regarding the June 2012 European Council agreement; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43798/14]

View answer

Micheál Martin

Question:

15. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he will provide an update on the Government's attempts at European Council level to address Ireland's retrospective debt; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43799/14]

View answer

Micheál Martin

Question:

16. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he has requested support from other EU leaders to deal with Ireland's retrospective debt; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43804/14]

View answer

Micheál Martin

Question:

17. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach his views on whether the June 2012 agreement following the European Council meeting was a game-changer; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43805/14]

View answer

Gerry Adams

Question:

18. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the discussions held at the August European Council meeting; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [45806/14]

View answer

Gerry Adams

Question:

19. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach the position regarding Government efforts at European Council level to deal with Ireland’s retrospective debt; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [45807/14]

View answer

Gerry Adams

Question:

20. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he has sought support from other EU leaders in regard to this State’s retrospective debt; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [45808/14]

View answer

Micheál Martin

Question:

21. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he has any concerns regarding sustainable growth in Europe; if he will be discussing same at the December European Council meeting; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46768/14]

View answer

Micheál Martin

Question:

22. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he has spoken to or written to Mr. Junker regarding Ireland's retrospective debt; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [47786/14]

View answer

Oral answers (23 contributions)

I propose to take Questions Nos. 3 to 22, inclusive, together.

I attended the special European Council meeting in Brussels on 30 August. At that meeting, Donald Tusk was elected as the new President of the European Council and Federica Mogherini was appointed High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.

The European Council also discussed the situation in Ukraine. It expressed its concern about the ongoing fighting there, and condemned the illegal annexation of Crimea and the flow of fighters and weapons into eastern Ukraine. It requested the Commission and the European External Action Service to prepare proposals for further restrictive measures against Russia. These proposals were subsequently enacted and remain in force, with further measures agreed at the Foreign Affairs Council on 17 November.

While there was no meeting of the European Council held in September, the situation in Syria and Iraq was also considered by the August European Council. It expressed its dismay at the deterioration of the security and humanitarian situation as a result of the occupation of parts of the territory of those countries by ISIL. It firmly condemned the indiscriminate killings and human rights violations perpetrated by ISIL and other terrorist organisations, in particular against Christian and other religious and ethnic minorities, who should be part of a new, democratic Iraq, and called for those responsible for such crimes to be held to account. It also addressed the threat posed to Europe by Islamist-extremist terrorism and the need to stem the flow of foreign fighters to the region.

The European Council also acknowledged that instability in Syria, caused by the Assad regime’s brutal war against its own people, had allowed ISIL to flourish and stated that a lasting solution requires a political transition in Syria.

No aspect of corporate tax was discussed at the August European Council meeting.

I also attended the European Council meeting in Brussels on 24 and 25 October. I reported to the House on the outcomes of that meeting in a comprehensive statement on 5 November. The main outcome was agreement on an EU climate and energy policy framework for the period to 2030. The economic situation was also discussed at the European Council and at the separate Euro Summit, and conclusions were also adopted on combating the Ebola outbreak.

While I did not have any separate bilateral meetings in the margins of the October European Council meeting, I did, of course, engage with all of my colleagues, including Chancellor Merkel, during the course of discussions. I have not had a bilateral meeting with Chancellor Merkel since my visit to Berlin in July.

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership was not discussed at the European Council meetings in August or October and I have not recently discussed the issue bilaterally with other EU Heads of State or Government. However, the completion of negotiations on TTIP was included in the strategic agenda for the European Union agreed by the European Council in June.

Moreover, at a Council meeting of Trade Ministers on 21 November, which was attended by Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Richard Bruton, Ministers reconfirmed their strong expectation of concluding a deep, ambitious, balanced and mutually beneficial agreement on all three pillars of the negotiations as soon as feasible.

As negotiations between the EU and US continue, Ireland continues to be a strong proponent of an ambitious agreement.

The possible use of the European Stability Mechanism for bank recapitalisation has not been up for discussion at recent European Council meetings, but it is for consideration by Finance Ministers. During, and in the margins of, European Council meetings, I continue to engage with my colleagues in regard to Ireland’s economic situation.

I have not written to Jean-Claude Juncker on this issue, nor spoken to him about it since his appointment as President of the European Commission.

It is widely recognised, including in the annual growth survey launched by the Commission recently, that the economic recovery in Europe is weaker than had been hoped for. Urgent action is required to re-establish a pattern of sustainable growth and to reduce the persistently high levels of unemployment. The investment plan for Europe announced recently by President of the European Commission, Mr. Jean-Claude Juncker, will be one of the key issues to be discussed by the European Council this week.

I will provide a full statement to the House tomorrow on the forthcoming European Council.

This group has quite a number of questions covering a range of issues from me and other Members of the House. It says something about how often questions to the Taoiseach have been cancelled that some of these questions have been on the paper for three months. It has taken three months to reach some of them.

The Taoiseach said he had not written or spoken to Jean-Claude Juncker on bank recapitalisation since his appointment. In response to previous questions, the Taoiseach confirmed that he did not ask him for support on bank-related debt before agreeing to his appointment as President of the European Commission. The Taoiseach confirmed that he did not ask Donald Tusk about bank-related debt before his appointment as President of the European Council. The Taoiseach made a big song and dance on June 2012, as did the then Tánaiste, Deputy Eamon Gilmore, who described it as a seismic shift. The Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Brendan Howlin, said some €6 billion could come Ireland's way and speculated about how much Ireland would benefit from what was then lauded as the separation of bank debt and sovereign debt. Nothing has happened and the Taoiseach has gone strangely quiet. He has not explained to me why he did not raise this with Jean-Claude Juncker. He is President of the European Commission. Why did the Taoiseach not raise the matter with Donald Tusk before his appointment as President of the European Council? Why is there reluctance to raise this issue when we were told two years ago that this was a seismic change and a seismic shift?

It seems the Taoiseach is waiting until the next crisis comes along and hoping something can be agreed that can be extended automatically to Ireland, just like earlier deals concerning interest rates that Ireland did not deliver but piggybacked on. What is the Taoiseach planning now if he is not going to ask these people or put the case to them? Will we be seeking retrospective relief from Europe?

It is accepted that the Syrian crisis is one of the greatest humanitarian crises in many years and it has the capacity to turn into a disaster on a scale that is truly shocking in the 21st century. The estimate of the number of displaced people is as high as 9 million and there is no sign of any solution. During the summit, support for the refugees was discussed. An entire generation is at risk in terms of the lack of basic sanitation, meagre diets, chronic uncertainty and very little access to education for children and young people.

To be fair to Europe, it has done a lot but it has a lot more to do. Europe should step up its support for Syrian refugees. There is a global crisis with Islamist extremist violence. There is today’s shocking event in Pakistan in which more than 100 children were slaughtered. One must ask, "In the name of what?" It was absolutely barbaric. It is just one appalling episode on top of another one every day. It is as if the values that we cherish in Western democracies, namely the upholding of the basic rights of the individual and of women, are being negated, undermined and reversed in many parts of the globe. This will be of major consequence to Europe over the next several years. We saw the situation yesterday in Sydney, Australia. This type of extreme violence can visit anybody at any time on any street in any country in the world. In Pakistan today, six individuals with suicide vests attached to them were sent into a military school. In Sydney yesterday, innocent people having a coffee in a shop died because of extremism.

Likewise, in the Middle East itself, there have been appalling atrocities. We have heard pleas from minority Christian groups who are being massacred - ethnically cleansed from their regions. Very often their voices are not heard because of the difficulty of getting heard above all the other noise. I use the phrase “noise” in a cautionary way, in the sense that there is so much going on that terrible atrocities very often go unnoticed. Many Christian minorities in the Middle East have been dealt a severe blow as a result of the turbulence, turmoil and terrorism in the region, particularly at the hands of ISIS. Globally and at European level, the bar needs to be raised in the response. I am not talking about an immediate knee-jerk response but a more deliberate and considered one, grounded in an understanding of what is happening. We need education and proper resourcing of the forces of good to deal with these situations. Extremism thrives on counter-extremism. We need a more immediate- to long-term scientific and educated response to what is going on, because it is truly calamitous and creating grave uncertainty across the world, as well as death and destruction. This should feature as a number one priority at the next European Council summit.

If the Deputy wants a facility for a priority system for Taoiseach’s questions, I am happy to accommodate that.

The problem is that some questions were cancelled.

If I made my answers shorter, we might get through them more quickly.

Before he became President of the European Commission, Mr. Jean-Claude Juncker was a strong supporter of Ireland in respect of the European Council's 2012 decision on the question of bank recapitalisation and naming Ireland in that regard, a decision to which the now President of the European Council, Mr. Donald Tusk, was also a party. It was a game-changer in its own right in so far as it allowed for the breaking of the link between bank and sovereign debt. That will not apply again in the future, as happened in Ireland’s case. It was what happened in Ireland, and the negotiations that followed on this complex issue, that led to that decision by the European Council to break that link, which will apply in the future. As the former Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade said, that decision was a seismic shift. Deputy Martin asked me why I did not raise this with Mr. Juncker and Mr. Tusk. Obviously I did when we needed their support in respect of getting that European Council decision which named Ireland.

What are we looking for in this regard? We are looking for the best deal for the Irish taxpayer - namely, to get back as much money as we can by whatever deal can be done. As the Minister for Finance has pointed out on numerous occasions, other options can be considered. One is recapitalisation as per the Council decision. The banking union and the mechanisms to deal with that are in place, so we can consider whether it is appropriate to lodge an application for recapitalisation. The second option is to consider what can be done with the restructured domestic banks such as Bank of Ireland and AIB. The moneys that went into Anglo Irish Bank are gone and cannot be recovered from that particular black hole. The Irish taxpayer put €4 billion into Bank of Ireland and got back €6 billion while still owning 14% of the bank. What does one do with the taxpayers’ 99% shareholding in AIB? How does one value it? Is it a better proposition to sell these shareholdings off rather than lodging an application for recapitalisation, which requires unanimous support from EU Governments?

That was always on the agenda.

The objective is to get the best result for the Irish taxpayer.

The Taoiseach knew that back in 2012.

The state of the Irish banks back in 2012 was very different from what it is now. Obviously, with the decisions made by the Government and the return of confidence, the banks are worth a lot more than they were then.

The Government has these two options. The Minister for Finance has made it perfectly clear that he does not propose to dispose of the shareholding that we have in Bank of Ireland yet. We need to measure its approximate value and decide how best to go about disposing of it, if it is appropriate to do so. We also have to consider the same action for AIB if it is deemed appropriate. We can also consider an application for direct recapitalisation as per the European Council decision. The objective in all of these options, or any others that might come along, is to get the best return for the Irish taxpayer.

The situation in Syria is terrible. Nearly two thirds of the Syrian population, almost 3 million people, are now refugees, which is almost three quarters of the Irish population. This is of the gravest concern, and I agree with Deputy Martin that it now poses a global threat. The ISIS caliphate covers a population of 15 million across various borders. The consequent scale of suffering and humanitarian issues in the region, including south Lebanon and Jordan, caused by the Assad regime and the growth of ISIS as part of a mercenary so-called opposition to that regime beggars belief. This is an issue that is of the gravest concern to the European Council and other global powers. The denial of humanitarian relief and rights to so many people is utterly unacceptable. I have seen the reports on the possibilities with regard to reform of the United Nations to give it the power and authority that it might or should have. Mr. Staffan de Mistura, the UN Secretary General’s special envoy for Syria, has been working hard to find a political alternative to violence in the region.

We remain focused on ending the violence; the experience of this in Ireland may be on a smaller scale but it is of no less importance. We are also focused on the appointment of a new and inclusive transitional governing body and the holding of democratic elections for the formation of a new Syrian Government.

Following the suspension of aid there I am glad to say that Ireland supports the World Food Programme, WFP, in its assistance of Syria. Ireland provided €1.5 million to that organisation for its response to the Syria crisis in 2014 and this was part of a €14 million package of Irish Aid support for the people of Syria this year. Some €1.5 million was provided to Syria in 2013 and €200,000 in 2012 so the total of Irish Aid's funding in this regard is around €3.2 million to date. The total of Ireland's support for the WFP comes to just under €13 million for 2014. This includes an annual un-earmarked contribution of just under €10 million from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and a further €3 million provided by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade through the Irish Aid programme.

This year has seen unprecedented demand for humanitarian aid and the Syrian crisis accounts for a proportion of this. We are very conscious of this fact. At the second international humanitarian pledging conference for Syria in Kuwait in January 2014 the then Minister of State, Deputy Costello, announced that Ireland would contribute €12 million in support of the humanitarian aid effort in 2014. Funds have been provided to a range of established UN partners including €1.5 million to the World Food Programme and €5.3 million to the Red Cross, Red Crescent and other non-governmental organisations, NGOs. There is an enormous strain. Ireland provided €2.5 million for the regional development and protection programme, which is led by the European Commission and Denmark and aims to work in Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq over three years. This programme takes a different approach that bridges humanitarian development programming for both refugee and host communities.

Everyone in this House is appalled at the massacre today of more than 100 children in Peshawar by the Taliban. This act was the wanton slaughter of innocent children and it is appalling. I expect that it will be a focus of the European Council meeting on Thursday and Friday and I expect that the European Council, the United Nations, global powers and those interested in protecting human life will take an exceptionally strong view. This was an act of wanton murder. We will raise and discuss this matter at the European Council meeting on Thursday and Friday and contribute to the response. I expect that more powerful players will also have views on the Taliban's actions today.

In answer to Deputy Martin's question on Syria, a situation of global significance and threat has been unleashed and an appropriate response is required.

My main question relates to corporation tax in Europe but I will first address other issues dealt with by the Taoiseach.

I agree with the Taoiseach in his condemnation of the Taliban attack in Afghanistan, which he rightly described as wanton murder. That attack must be roundly and comprehensively condemned as an outrage but I hope our moral compass will be consistent when it comes to other outrages perpetrated against innocent children and families in Afghanistan. It seems to me that consistency is lacking as I have never heard the Taoiseach or anyone else speak of wanton murder when referring to the use of drones, controlled remotely in the United States of America, to kill innocent people in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Taoiseach and others have, rightly, expressed outrage at this latest atrocity but I hope they do precisely the same and use the same type of language when it comes to the use of drone weaponry by the United States in Afghanistan. If anything has fuelled support for the Taliban it is the US occupation of Afghanistan and its consistent use of drone weapons to bomb wedding parties, villages and so on. Sadly, this is driving some people in Afghanistan into the hands of the Taliban.

Much outrage has been expressed regarding the dire situation in Syria and the appalling record of the Assad government. The Taoiseach made reference to the latter and I could not agree more with the sentiments he expressed. The growth of ISIS in the mess that is Syria presents a serious danger and millions of Syrian people are suffering in the humanitarian crisis as they have been forced to flee their homes or killed. The Taoiseach articulated all of this but, as I have said previously, the key to unlocking this situation is to at least not obstruct the ordinary Syrian people from waging their struggle against Assad and ISIS, both rightly condemned by the Taoiseach.

The Turkish Government continues to obstruct the capacity of Kurds in Syria to take on ISIS and Assad. Incredibly, the international community continues to designate the representative of the Kurdish people, the Kurdistan Workers' Party, PKK, as a terrorist organisation when, clearly, it is the legitimate representative of the Kurdish people and has been the most effective force in protecting ordinary Syrians against Assad and ISIS, most notably in Kobanê. Why does the international community continue to designate the PKK as a terrorist organisation when, clearly, it is not? The PKK has waged an effective fight on behalf of ordinary, innocent citizens who are victims of Assad and ISIS. I ask the Taoiseach to raise his voice on behalf of ordinary Syrian people and their political representatives who are fighting to save their lives and protect them from despots and sectarians. There is a big international campaign seeking the de-listing of the PKK as a terrorist organisation and Ireland should add its voice to this.

On corporate taxation, the new Economics Commissioner, Mr. Pierre Moscovici, rightly said that the winds of change are blowing when referring to multinational companies that engage in aggressive tax avoidance across Europe. He noted that Ireland and Luxembourg are constantly implicated in such aggressive corporate tax issues. I found it interesting that the Taoiseach was effusive in his praise for Mr. Jean-Claude Juncker. He is now at the centre of this storm as, during his premiership of Luxembourg, tax rulings were passed in favour of multinational companies, including Irish multinational companies, that engaged in very aggressive tax avoidance on a massive scale. There has been a serious move against aggressive tax avoidance by the multinational sector in Europe.

The problem is that we seem to be on the wrong side of the dividing line of attitudes in Europe to this phenomenon, with Mr. Juncker and the Taoiseach on one side while others say we have to do something about these multinational companies getting away with blue murder when it comes to not paying a fair contribution in corporation tax. Is that not the case?

We have only 18 minutes left and there are two other Deputies with a large number of questions.

There are reports of a possible siege of Aleppo and attacks by ISIS on the Kurdish population of Kobanê. Some reports indicate a beating back of ISIS in Kobanê. If this is true, it might deal with its perception of invincibility.

It is led by the PKK.

I understand that. The question of the delisting of the PKK and the opposition to the Assad regime generally is one that has given rise to a good deal of discussion at the various European Council meetings, and I imagine it will be at the centre of discussion again this week. I will refer to the point Deputy Boyd Barrett raised.

We do not have any idea of the scale or the reality of what is happening there. One in seven is now a refugee and some 3 million ordinary people from Syria have fled into Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan. This is a humanitarian catastrophe and there is no plan in place other than an immediate response to try to give humanitarian aid to these people. There may be action on the instruction of the special representative of the UN Secretary General to try to talk some sense to people and discuss how something can be done such that the ordinary Syrian people can have their say. An election process is required in order that they can be in control and decide who they want to have in a government in Syria. Obviously, it is now an awful mess. It is a complex situation exacerbated by a humanitarian disaster.

I have always made the point that the question of taxation is a matter for each individual country, as is the case in Ireland, and we recognise that. We have been and we remain one of the leaders in contributing to the European Council debate on sorting out the consequences of the fact that the digital world moves far faster than the legislative world in terms of corporate tax. Ireland has been very up-front by getting rid of the stateless concept last year, the "double Irish" tax arrangement this year and our presentation in respect of clarity between now and 2020, as well as in the development of a so-called knowledge patent box arrangement, which would be appropriate for Ireland's position. We have been very much to the fore in the context of the debate at the OECD, with the view that this deserves a full-scale international response.

We have been in charge of our corporate tax rate of 12.5%, which has been a constant, moving neither up nor down. Similarly, we have been forthright in our support of and contribution to the debate on base erosion and profit shifting, BEPS, and the need to have a final international response to the matter.

A letter was issued from the finance Ministers of Germany, France and Italy to the Commission calling for an EU campaign to tighten up the rules and the tax rules as well as improve the exchange of information between member states. The French minister with responsibility for finance discussed this with the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, during his visit to Dublin last month. The Minister, Deputy Noonan, told him that Ireland welcomes the move in a positive sense as being a contribution to the wider international debate on how best to tackle aggressive tax planning. As Deputy Boyd Barrett is aware, the main thrust of that letter was a call for a new directive that would counter aggressive tax planning in the European Union. The Commissioner indicated that it was the intention of the Commission to propose various measures in this area. These measures will take some time to design, discuss and develop. Of course, tax remains a matter for agreement by unanimity at EU level. We will contribute to this debate.

Sorry to interrupt you, Taoiseach, but only 13 minutes remain and there are two Deputies with questions.

This little session has been rather instructive for me. In response to the first question, the Taoiseach simply withdrew charges that he has made consistently and repeatedly. The position on the big question of retrospective debt was claimed by the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste of the day, Deputy Eamon Gilmore, as being a game changer and a seismic shift. We had all of the spin and responses to that decision, claiming it would deal with retrospective debt. I remember asking the Taoiseach the question repeatedly, because I saw nothing in the communiqué or in what was said that gave any sense that this was going to be the case. Now, the Taoiseach is telling us that it is simply about the separation of banking debt from sovereign debt and that from here on in that is the seismic shift and the game changer. Of course, taxpayers should never have been saddled with private banking debt and it should never have been made sovereign debt. Therein lies the reason the Taoiseach has not discussed any of this, formally or informally, with our partners in the European Union, and the Taoiseach has said as much in his answer today. This is also the reason the Taoiseach has not written or spoken to Mr. Juncker regarding the debt. Ultimately, it was all spin and there was no real substance to it. There is a consistency in the Taoiseach's position, revealed earlier during Leaders' Questions, when the Taoiseach's attitude to the British Government was expressed with a good deal of spin as well.

Now we learn that the Taoiseach has not discussed the transatlantic trade and investment partnership, TTIP, either. This is a highly controversial deal that has been negotiated behind closed doors. Its promoters maintain it will streamline and enhance trade between the USA and the EU. It may well do that, but this will be at the expense of proper regulation, workers' rights and safety, the environment and the public sector. It may well give multinational firms far more power than sovereign governments. Furthermore, there are serious challenges on issues such as food safety. The Taoiseach knows this because we are so dependent upon our agriculture industry. We have high standards and it would be disastrous for our agricultural industry if Irish farmers were directly competing with US farmers, given the vast discrepancies that exist between EU and US standards with regard to animal welfare, growth hormones and the ban on genetically modified crops.

I am mindful that we are running out of time. It strikes me that on all of these issues a certain consistency shines through. The matter was not even discussed by the Taoiseach, although the introduction of TTIP potentially jeopardises the ability of the State to guarantee citizens' rights. It could give control to companies whose only goal is the generation of profit. Will the Government commission an objective report - perhaps the view I have is jaundiced, and it could be incorrect - in the interests of transparency, to assess the benefits and risks that TTIP poses to the people of this State? I emphasise that it should assess the benefits as well as the risks in order that we can have an informed debate on all of these issues.

Let me go back. Our country went over the cliff in terms of the economy. We had a €64 billion borrowing requirement, which put pressure on every person in the country. We have seen mass emigration and unemployment, negative equity and so on. The moneys put into Anglo Irish Bank are gone and cannot be recovered. However, the moneys put up for other banks were the subject of long discussions at the European Council and at the points before this arose at the European Council.

The reason for all that was an attempt by Ireland, particularly because it was the first country to suffer from this, to ensure this could never happen again so it would be able to draw compensation again for its taxpayers. That took a long time, believe you me. The effect of the decision of June 2012 was actually to put and end to circumstances in which citizens, such as those of Ireland, would be the first to be hit or the first point of attack. In other words, the taxpayer took the brunt of everything first.

Because the Government agreed to it.

To break from that, the European Council decided that if issues like this arose in the future - it is hoped they will not – there would be a break between bank debt and sovereign debt. That was the effect of the decision. However, the consequence was that it allowed for potential recapitalisation where applications were merited and where applications would be received. As far as I can figure out, Ireland is the only country that could benefit from the clause in the decision about direct recapitalisation. What is that about? It is about getting money back for the taxpayer. It is a question of determining the best thing to do for the Irish taxpayer if one has to make a judgment. Is it to make that application and process it through the system that is in place, and have unanimity from the governors involved? Alternatively, is it better to consider the option of determining the value of AIB, for instance, and how best it might be determined? It is also a matter of the decision the Government might make in the most appropriate way and at the appropriate time in the best interest of the Irish taxpayer.

That choice was always available.

The objective was twofold. One element was making the decision that what occurred could never happen again in terms of breaking the link between bank and sovereign debt. As Ireland was the first and main negotiator of the arrangement, it is now a case of determining the best option for the Irish taxpayer. In other words, the Government has to make the decision in the best interest of the taxpayer. If one is to get back €10 billion or €15 billion from the direct recapitalisation and finds that one could get back €5 billion or €6 billion more by another option, one would choose the second option as it is best for the taxpayer. However, that is a decision the Government would have to make collectively at the right time and based on all the relevant information. That is why the game changer and the shift in European Council and ECB regulation took place.

I do not mind having a debate here on TTIP and its benefits. Obviously, the seventh round of discussions took place at the end of September and quite significant progress was made. There is a range of very difficult and complex issues. Is this important for Ireland? The United States is one of Ireland's most important trading partners, with exports reaching €18.4 billion in 2013. It is expected that Irish exporters will see a direct benefit from reductions in tariffs and other non-trade barriers to the United States. Obviously, the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation has commissioned a study, being conducted by Copenhagen Economics, on the specific benefits for Ireland, and the final report is expected before the end of this year. Perhaps we could have a debate on that here in the spring. At an aggregate EU level, trade in goods and services with the United States is worth €2 billion daily, almost 50% of global GDP. Studies have estimated the net gains from an ambitious agreement between the European Union and United States could amount to approximately €119 billion for the European Union and €95 billion for the United States, with 400,000 extra jobs across the 28 member states and a very significant boost to European GDP. When the report from Copenhagen Economics, due before the end of the year, is reviewed, I will be happy to have a discussion on what it means here in the spring.

The problem is not that there should not be trade between the United States and Ireland; it is that it is incredible that this matter would not be a subject of major debate at summits of European leaders. That really mirrors the reality of what happens in trade agreements, which involve secretly conducted talks in which representatives of major European corporations have access to key officials conducting the talks on the EU side and in which American corporations and powerful lobby interests have direct access to those on the US side. There is a huge threat, including to environmental standards that the people of Europe demand. Examples concern a prohibition on the general release of genetically modified organisms into our environment, which release the US corporates are strongly pushing for, and the question of allowing into the European Union hormone-treated beef and chlorine-washed chicken, which are anathema to European consumers. In the trade deal between the United States and Canada, for example, a question arises over the right of big business corporations in one state to interfere directly in the other state's affairs by bringing governments to court should environmental standards be too strict according to the corporations' prosecutors. This has incredible implications for the rights of ordinary people, both in Europe and in the United States. It is incredible that the European summit would not be seized of this in a big way.

Second and last, it is also incredible that the taxation scandal is not a major subject of debate at European summits. This shows that, at the very top of Europe, it is really the interests of big businesses, the super-rich and financial markets that are represented, rather than those of ordinary people. It is incredible that literally billions of euro are being saved through taxation deals that are legal but utterly immoral in the cases of Luxembourg, Ireland and the Netherlands, and that the Taoiseach stands over all this. This is evident because the international press has shown that €3 trillion in uninvested profits are lying in banks in Europe instead of going towards creating jobs for the 26 million unemployed. Included are huge amounts that should have been paid in taxes. It is incredible that this is not a source of concern to the Taoiseach.

The Deputy raised the point about transparency. It was during Ireland's Presidency that authorisation was received to put in place the discussions that would lead to the TTIP. This was followed on the American side with the declaration by President Obama at the G8 Summit in Fermanagh that the talks should begin immediately. As I stated, the seventh round took place in September.

Commissioner Malmström outlined two proposals recently for boosting transparency. The first is to extend access to the texts dealing with TTIP to all members of the European Parliament beyond the limited group that currently receives them, the European Parliament's international trade committee. All Members of Parliament will be able to gain access to the documents, including restricted texts, through a reading room facility. Second, the Commissioner took a decision to publish texts setting out the European Union's specific negotiating proposals on TTIP after each negotiating round. These will be made available through the Commission's website. From that point of view, the process is very open and transparent, and it is now being made more so. The Commissioner presented the proposals on TTIP transparency to the international trade committee of the European Parliament on December 2014, and they were also discussed with member states at a meeting of the trade policy committee on 5 December 2014. This, of course, was discussed at the European Council meeting in some detail. The European Council gave its authorisation during our Presidency. We were to seek the approval of the European Parliament so the discussions could begin, and that is what has happened.

I agree with the Deputy that we have particular issues. One of the big obstacles at present for the dairy sector is the question of grade-A equivalence, or the failure by the US authorities to recognise EU and Irish milk production standards, particularly for milk powders, as being equivalent. This is an important issue for us. There was some progress made.

At our behest, Ireland was added to the list of two other European Union member states taking part in a pilot project to move this forward. We recently hosted an inspection by the US Food and Drug Administration and await its report.

Progress has also been made in seeking access for Irish beef to the United States. This matter is not part of the trade negotiations; rather, the restrictions imposed by the United States on beef from Ireland and the rest of the European Union are a hangover from the BSE crisis. The US inspection of Irish plants last summer was very successful and this may be the first country in Europe to gain access to the United States for beef. I am sure this would be welcomed by everybody, particularly those involved in the beef sector. The Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Simon Coveney, has made it very clear that Ireland is exceptionally sensitive about its beef production standards for the reasons mentioned by the Deputy. He has also made it clear to the US Secretary of Agriculture, Mr. Vilsack, who was in Ireland recently that our plan in the negotiations is to ensure the Irish beef sector is declared sensitive and afforded protection.

Written Answers follow Adjournment.
Top
Share