Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 21 Mar 2007

Vol. 634 No. 1

European Council Meeting: Statements.

I attended the spring meeting of the European Council in Brussels on Thursday and Friday, 8 and 9 March. I was accompanied at the meeting by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, and the Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen.

This European Council meeting, at which we agreed ambitious but achievable targets on energy and climate change, will be remembered as pivotal in the development of the European Union. That we were able to craft these ambitious targets in the enlarged Union shows once again that it can make a pivotal difference to the key issues and challenges facing its citizens. During the meeting, I noted briefly in Irish that this meeting was the first European Council since Irish was introduced as an official working language of the European Union. This will stand as one of the major achievements of Ireland in Europe.

At the dinner of Heads of State or Government on the Thursday night, Chancellor Merkel outlined her plans for the Berlin declaration which is to be made on the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Rome this coming Sunday. This will mark a major milestone in the history of the EU. This great occasion will be marked by the adoption of the Berlin declaration, which will pay tribute to the Union's considerable store of achievement during the past half-century.

It is fitting that the Treaty of Rome should be celebrated in this manner, for European integration has been one of the outstanding political achievements of our time. It has played a vital role in rescuing Europe from the wreckage of the early post-war period. It has helped usher in a prolonged era of peace and prosperity for Europe. The vast European Single Market and the creation of the euro are just two of the conspicuous successes that stem from the bold, creative vision contained in the Treaty of Rome.

The Berlin declaration will not just look back at the Union's successes. It will also reaffirm its democratic values and core principles. The declaration will look to the future, highlighting the key economic and political challenges facing Europeans in a changing global environment. I am supportive of the Presidency's desire for a short, evocative 50th anniversary declaration that will speak to the European public in clear terms about the Union's continuing relevance. As leaders, we must express our determination to ensure the Union can continue serving the people of Europe in the years and decades ahead.

I hope the Berlin declaration will help point the way for the Union to deal with the constitutional treaty in the coming months. The treaty commands strong and wide support. It offers answers to many key questions about the future direction and functioning of the Union. I am confident the German Presidency will succeed in its aim of taking the necessary decisions at the June European Council to bring the treaty back into the spotlight. I recognise that those who now have difficulties with the treaty must be accommodated, but this must not result in the substance and balance of the 2004 agreement being undermined.

The main business of the Council was the ongoing progress on the Lisbon Agenda, the development of a European energy policy and the adoption of ambitious new targets on climate change. The Council noted that Europe is enjoying an economic upswing and that reforms are starting to translate into growth and jobs. It is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that the renewed Lisbon strategy for growth and jobs is beginning to deliver results. An expected growth rate of 2.7% in 2007 and an expected 7 million new jobs created during the 2007-08 period are just two of the positive indicators that the Lisbon Agenda is working.

It is important that we step up the pace to modernise Europe and its economy. The conclusions in regard to the Lisbon Agenda contain, at Ireland's suggestion, a welcome reference to the need to examine how multilateral discipline in respect of state aids can be strengthened. Such an approach will ensure that external competition is fully taken into account in state aids policy.

We also agreed to aim for a 25% reduction in the administrative burdens resulting from European legislation and that member states should set comparable targets at national level. It is important that each member state takes appropriate action nationally to ensure we reduce unnecessary burdens on business, thereby increasing national competitiveness and growth. In this regard, I have agreed with the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Martin, that he will develop and advance a national-level strategy for the reduction of administrative burdens on business to complement the efforts being taken at European level.

Ireland, however, has largely pre-empted the agreement reached last week by the European Council, and we have already significantly advanced work in identifying where unnecessary regulatory burdens lie. Last year, we commissioned the ESRI to conduct a major survey of more than 800 firms on their experiences of regulation. The results of this survey, which I published last week, are encouraging, indicating that Irish businesses consider the amount of regulation in the State is about right, that regulations are appropriately enforced and, in terms of the overall challenges faced by business, rank behind labour costs, increased competition and other business costs.

However, we must look more at how we can reduce the red tape and paperwork in some areas, such as taxation and statistical returns, particularly for smaller businesses. In addition to simplifying our systems and making forms more user-friendly, we must also consider reducing or streamlining the number of times business needs to send in returns and examine how information technology can be of assistance in reducing costs for business.

At the dinner of Heads of State or Government, we also discussed transatlantic trade relations and the significant benefits that would accrue to both Europe and the United States from the smooth and efficient functioning of transatlantic economic and trade relations. This is of particular importance to Ireland. I took the opportunity when I met Prime Minister Blair to stress the importance to Ireland of early agreement on the open skies arrangements between the EU and the United States. The draft agreement negotiated at official level is acceptable from our point of view and I hope that agreement can be reached at the Transport Council of Ministers meeting tomorrow.

The most important elements of Council work were the discussions and conclusions on energy and climate change. President Barroso gave an excellent presentation on the energy action plan, which provided the backdrop to our discussions on the strategy for international climate protection and safeguarding Europe's energy supplies. A step change is needed in Europe's approach to developing renewable sources of energy, and the Council agreed this will only happen with binding targets. The Council has now agreed these targets.

In particular, we have set a target, following the post-Kyoto negotiations, of a 30% reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases over the 1990 level. We have also agreed that, in any event, the European Union will achieve at minimum a 20% reduction. We further agreed a binding 20% target for renewable energy. These targets are ambitious but achievable. Europe has stepped up to the mark and taken the lead on this global issue. It is up to the global community to follow.

The Council added a specific provision to the action plan inviting the Commission rapidly to submit proposals to enable energy efficiency requirements on office and street lighting to be adopted by 2008, and on incandescent lamps and other forms of lighting in private households by 2009. It is clear that if we are to achieve our overall targets, specific measures of this nature will be essential.

Ireland will do its part. The Government's White Paper on Energy, which was launched on Monday, 12 March, following the Council meeting, is a sign of our national commitment to a secure, sustainable and competitive energy agenda. Of particular importance to the climate change debate will be the White Paper's commitments to achieve 15% of electricity consumption from renewable sources by 2010 and 33% by 2020, at least 400 MW by 2010 and 800 MW by 2020 from combined heat and power, at least 500 MW installed capacity from the ocean by 2020 and a target of 20% energy savings by 2020, with a 33% target in the public sector.

The Council also considered several international measures. In particular, it agreed there should, if possible, be an EU-Africa summit later this year under the Portuguese Presidency. The Middle East peace process was also discussed, with the Council acknowledging the important role being played by Saudi Arabia and Arab leaders and welcoming the agreement reached in Mecca on 8 February on the formation of a Palestinian Government of national unity. The immediate effect of the agreement was to end the violence between Palestinian groups, which had threatened a slide into civil war. On 17 March, the Palestinian Parliament approved the appointment of a national unity Government, based on the Mecca agreement.

We have welcomed this positive development. It is a tribute to the sustained efforts of President Mahmoud Abbas to create a political consensus in Palestine around the concept of a negotiated two-state solution. The Government will work closely with our EU partners over the next few weeks to ensure there is a creative response by the Union, which will encourage political progress. The Union must be ready to work with President Abbas and with the new Government on the basis of an end to all violence and a demonstrated and active commitment to a two-state solution. The EU will co-ordinate with our international partners, the Israeli Government and the Palestinians to achieve the resumption of a credible political process that can provide lasting peace.

The European Council reiterated its strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Lebanon. Ireland is playing its part, not least through the 150-strong contingent serving with the reinforced UNIFIL mission in southern Lebanon. We hope the forthcoming Arab summit in Riyadh on 28 March will provide the opportunity for movement to end the political crisis in Lebanon.

I met with Prime Minister Blair on the margins of the meeting. After the meeting, we issued a joint statement that has also been laid before the House. I congratulate those elected in Northern Ireland and wish them the best as they take up their mandate in the Assembly and Executive. The election was the second last step in the St. Andrews timetable. The next and final step is the formation of the Executive.

Taken as a whole, the vote is a clear endorsement for the St. Andrews Agreement. Politics in Northern Ireland has changed and there is no going back. The election was about securing a mandate for power-sharing on 26 March. It is clear that this is what the people want. The onus is now on the political parties to deliver on that mandate.

This European Council marked a major step change in the approach of the European Union to energy and climate change issues. The targets we have set ourselves are ambitious and the agenda ahead of us is daunting. However, I firmly believe that the failure to take resolute action at this time can only lead in the longer term to unthinkable damage both to our environment and to the lives of our children. It is incumbent on all of us as leaders and as citizens to take the decisions now that will avoid the catastrophic effects global warming may carry. Europe, in taking a lead in this area, has given a clear signal that the European Union is still one the most progressive and effective international organisations on the planet. We need to see concomitant efforts by other developed countries and by some of the more advanced developing countries if we are to tackle the problem of global warming. This can be done without overly affecting either competitiveness or the quality of life of the ordinary citizen. Failure to act would have dramatic and adverse effects on both competitiveness and the quality of life of our citizens.

The European Council was a success and proved that European member states can work together in a harmonious and coherent way to deal with the real problems facing both them and their citizens.

I wish to share my time with Deputy Allen.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next decade will see massive changes both within Europe and on a world scale. We will have two American presidential elections and whatever the American people decide will bring a consequent attitude towards foreign affairs and places outside the United States. The current difficulties between the various factions within the Islamic world, Sunnis and Shias, the question of Iran and Iraq, the geopolitics of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, the emergence of Russia as a power broker in energy, both in gas and oil, and the emergence of 40 million highly qualified English speaking graduates from India onto the world market in the area of IT, engineering and chemistry etc. will all add to a mix that creates a world where it is difficult to determine our future accurately.

I find, and perhaps the Taoiseach finds the same at his meetings, that when one sits with the EPP groupings representing the different countries, not all of whom are prime ministers but some of whom aspire to that position, there is always a difficulty in agreeing what Europe should be about, as oftentimes put forward by the President of the Commission. Invariably, the different prime ministers and leaders of the various countries focus on their individual problems. I suppose it is only realistic that irrespective of where they are from, they are all politicians and represent their people and their points of view. This leaves us with a series of challenges, individually as countries and collectively as the European Union.

The issue of transatlantic trade needs to be examined in the context of the next 20 years. With $1 billion a day in trade currently crossing the Atlantic each day, I foresee a time when we could well have the evolution of a free trade area between Europe and the United States. I know this would be resisted in some quarters, but given the fact we need a strong America and a strong Europe, the opportunity for trade has phenomenal potential. The same opportunities for trade are there with regard to Latin America and Canada. The open skies agreement, which I expect will be concluded successfully, will play a significant role in this area. It will probably lead to huge increases in air freight and offer potential to regional and national airports here.

We have never measured up to the targets set following post-Kyoto negotiations of a 30% reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases. While the targets are ambitious, they are achievable. We lie in 22nd place out of the 27 EU countries. The White Paper sets out targets. We are to have 15% of electricity consumption from renewable sources by 2010 and 33% by 2020. The Government must focus on three areas in this regard. We need downward pressure on electricity prices and there has been some discussion on this. The other day, a plant in the mid-west recorded that its electricity cost for last year was €1.3 million. If the same number of kilowatt hours were burned in a similar plant on the Continent, the cost would be between €500,000 and €600,000. This may not be a critical amount in terms of a large plant, but in a smaller plant it has serious implications. The Government needs to invest in renewables and to put the interconnectors in place both North-South and east-west. It has been messing around on this issue for the past ten years. The United States has developed capacity for clean coal technology and is reputed to have 300 years' supply, which will emerge in due course onto the market.

There has been a degree of concern in Ireland about the cost of unit production in industry. The Government has an impact on this cost in terms of the inflation rate, public utility charges, transport etc. This issue has become more of a concern for those involved in industry. The bottom line is important in terms of mobility of the industry and the effect globalisation can have, both from the investment point of view or the unfortunate aspect of downsizing of employment. Infrastructure and inflation are serious elements in this area.

Earlier, I outlined the gap between Europe and the United States. One of the weaknesses is the inability of European leaders as a group to concentrate and focus on improving competitive levels to where they were intended to be after the agreement of 2000 that the European Union should be the most competitive offset against the United States. We are still a long way from that. The Taoiseach will represent us at the 50th celebrations of the European Union. I hope the Union will focus on the issue of competitiveness over the next ten to 15 years when pupils currently entering secondary school will be leaders in society, innovators and entrepreneurs. From a national and European perspective, it is up to our politicians and leaders to lay foundations now on which we will be able to compete and lead over the next 25 years, a period that will be important in staking out Ireland's future as a small, important democracy, but also part of Europe.

I share the Taoiseach's view on Northern Ireland and hope this matter will be concluded by next week. I met Gerry Adams in the hall yesterday. I hope the Government will respond, possibly by the weekend, in terms of putting together a financial package for necessary infrastructure North and South of the Border. Such a package would be an inducement to the politicians to do the business.

The March European Council made a number of key recommendations in the environmental sphere. In particular, European leaders agreed that the European Union would make commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and that negotiations concerning global, post-2012 climate change issues would be launched at the UN international climate conference beginning at the end of 2007, to be concluded by 2009.

Progress in terms of the European response to global warming and greenhouse gas emissions is positive. However, the European face of this Government stands in sharp contrast to its national face. We have failed in the following areas: we missed all our Kyoto targets and Ireland's greenhouse gas emissions are twice the set target; Ireland is ranked 22nd out of the 27 EU countries when it comes to wind, wave and biomass energy generation, despite having the best potential energy generation in these sectors; some 83% of Ireland's recyclable waste is exported according to the EPA; the European Commission took Ireland to the Court of Justice over the appalling state of waste treatment facilities in the country; and under the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government, Ireland has consistently come bottom of EU league tables on recycling. I welcome moves at European Council level to take action on the environment, but the record of this Government tells a different story. Without national action, European initiatives will not result in the type of improvements that our environment so badly needs.

Yesterday I received responses to questions about compliance with EU directives. The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has not complied with seven directives and the Department of Transport has failed to transpose, or is partially transposing, 51 directives. That is a dismal record.

Fine Gael supports the EU constitutional treaty in its present form. Any document of this size, which impacts on so many member state citizens, must contain compromises and finely balance the wishes of individual member states with the needs of all countries choosing to work together in the Union. For this reason, it is difficult to see a way forward for the constitution which involves making selective change to the document. Making any changes to a document agreed by so many countries — post agreement — is fraught with difficulty.

The German Presidency hopes to have a roadmap for action on the constitution by the end of June. This will mark the third anniversary of the hammering out of an agreement on the document under the Irish Presidency. It is not clear how extensive the changes to the text will be. While it has been suggested that a "mini treaty" may be the way forward, I caution against rushing to agree a less ambitious text than the current one.

Changes to the text will be extremely difficult to agree outside the type of process which led to the agreement in the first place. Eighteen member states have ratified the text, including two by public referendum, Spain and Luxembourg. Changes to the text may undermine the support of key groups for the current draft of the constitution. For example, positive elements of the document in the realm of social policy are important in selling the real need for this document, and removing some of the pillars of the current draft could risk pulling the whole structure down.

I was disappointed that the European Council did not consider the question of global nuclear armament. In the context of developments in Iran and North Korea, it is neither advisable nor wise of the European Union not to keep this issue close to the top of the political and diplomatic agenda. The United Nations report of the high-level panel on threats, challenges and change, published in 2004, warned that "we are approaching a point at which the erosion of the non-proliferation regime could become irreversible and result in a cascade of proliferation". The European Council should also have considered ongoing negotiations with Iran, and the recent deal with North Korea about disarmament.

In addition, it was a grave error by the international community to defer the review of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty until 2010. Ireland was a key player in the negotiation of the treaty in the 1960s, and our position then should inform our approach now. The treaty can be strengthened and its scope widened to include the various threats and challenges posed in the 21st century. This must be done urgently because the current vacuum is dangerous and the double standards and hypocrisy about this issue are despicable. I urge that this matter be addressed soon and discussed at the next European Council meeting.

I welcome the opportunity to make some statements on the European Council meeting of 8 and 9 March. It was in ways an historic meeting coming on the eve of the 50th anniversary of the foundation of the European Union. There were some indications at the meeting of the launch of some important initiatives which hopefully will be included in the Berlin declaration.

Europe is at a crossroads. There has been trouble over the constitutional treaty resulting in a period of reflection for a couple of years after the people of France and the Netherlands voted substantially against it. There seems to be little appetite for further enlargement, to judge by the remarks of European leaders at the meeting. Although there has been overall economic progress with a 2.7% increase in employment there have been seven interest rate increases in the past 15 months. These are worrying factors but there are developments to look forward to as well.

While the Palestinian question was not central to the deliberations at the meeting it is a critical issue and pertinent to the Minister for Foreign Affairs who is present. Saudi Arabia has mediated an agreement of the unity Government. In the conclusions of the Brussels summit however the position of European leaders on this agreement appeared to be fudged. Section 41 of the conclusions stated:

The European Council welcomed the fact that an agreement has been reached in Mecca on 8 February on the formation of a Palestinian national unity government. It expresses its appreciation for the role of Saudi Arabia and Arab leaders in bringing about Palestinian reconciliation. The EU stands ready to work with a legitimate Palestinian government that adopts a platform reflecting the Quartet principles. It encourages the Quartet to continue its active contribution to the Middle East Peace Process.

It does not mention the unity Government as the legitimate Government. Norway, however, has fully and formally recognised the unity Government. We should seize the opportunity to recognise the unity Government formally. We are fudging it to the extent that we are abandoning the peace process to a limbo by making preconditions and asking the unity Government to jump through hoops, before we recognise it as legitimate. We should be more forthright. The European Union missed the opportunity to give stronger recognition to the unity Government. It could have stated its intention to henceforth channel funds from the Union directly to that Government rather than bypassing it as it did previous governments.

I hope the Minister will take these remarks on board. Ireland because of its close friendship with the Palestinian people should show that it is prepared to take the initiative to ensure this new Government works and brings peace to the area.

The central initiative agreed at the meeting was on climate change. I was pleased to see the German Presidency seizing global leadership for the European Union on this issue in the most profound way possible by establishing legally binding targets. To achieve, by 2020, reductions in carbon emissions far in excess of those achieved by 2007, considering that we must achieve a reduction of 8% by 2013 and a further reduction of 12% between 2013 and 2020, is a tall order. This is particularly the case because we have been going backwards in respect of achieving our targets, as Deputy Allen pointed out. Rather than making progress, we have been sliding. Ireland needs to put together a far more streamlined plan to set targets, establish auditing mechanisms and put structures in place that will make a real input into achieving our targets.

We did not start very well in this year's budget because the Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, provided €300 million for the purchase of carbon allowances from poorer countries up to 2013 rather than introducing sufficient measures to reduce emissions. It is unacceptable that we should budget to purchase carbon credits from poorer countries over the next five years as it is doing nothing for the strategy and totally contradicts the views aired on 8 and 9 March. It does nothing to achieve the targets set on these dates. If we continue to buy our way out of the problem, there is not a hope in hell that we will be anywhere close to meeting our reduction targets for 2020. Not only will we not meet the 30% target, we will not achieve the 20% reduction in emissions required in the period 1990 to 2020.

EU member states have agreed to reach a global deal to achieve a reduction of 30% by 2030 if other states on the global stage, including the United States, Australia, China and India, are willing. This is wishful thinking and will certainly be wishful thinking for Ireland unless it gets its act together. I certainly welcome the binding targets established on carbon emissions, the renewable energy mix and the boosting of energy efficiency by 2020.

The issue of nuclear energy is clearly controversial and a number of member states, led by France, argued strongly that nuclear energy should be included in the energy efficiency mix given that it yields very low carbon emissions, even though it is not strictly a renewable form of energy. This issue must be resolved. I agreed with the remarks of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, as reported, that this was not part of the agenda we would discuss.

There is certainly no harm in discussing all the options, including nuclear energy and its impact in the European context, but it would be wrong for us to go back down the nuclear energy road or even open the debate on this because we have such strong sources of renewable energy available to us. We, as an island community, have more wind and water than any other country in the European Union. One should remember that our land space under water is ten times greater than that over the water, thereby affording us access to a huge source of renewable energy, including wind and tidal energy. It is in this area that research and development should be conducted and in which investment should be made as quickly as possible.

The proposal regarding energy-efficient domestic bulbs is a great idea. The sooner we have these in place in offices, local authorities, homes and on streets, the better.

Yes, and in the Dáil. We have incandescent bulbs in the Dáil and our first step might be to ensure energy-efficient lighting in the Houses of the Oireachtas, both in our offices and in the Chambers.

We could talk quite a bit about the constitutional treaty but, interestingly, the Heads of State did not do so at the summit talks. It is the central issue and in many ways it was the elephant in the room. It became quite obvious during the discussions that Angela Merkel heard very divisive opinions in her bilateral discussions with the member states prior to the summit and to drawing up the Berlin declaration, which will be launched next Sunday. It seems from the remarks made that the treaty may not even be included as a major section or will only be included in passing. This would be a terrible shame.

Any initiative that by-passes the central issue engaging the Union at present, that is, the constitutional treaty, will be a failure. The delays in respect of the treaty have limited progress of all sorts, including political progress, in addition to enlargement and developments concerning fundamental rights and the values of the Union, which are all ensconced in the treaty. The treaty must be a central part of the declaration and, if not, the German Chancellor will simply have taken on board the more negative aspects of what has been said to her. Let us remember that 18 of the 27 member states have signed up to the treaty, either by way of referendum or parliamentary vote. All the Heads of State have signed the document prior to its being put forward for approval in the member states, which suggests it is not a draft treaty. It is a matter of signing up to the original document.

If there is a dilution or diminution of the substance of the document, we will have to return to all the matters that arose initially. The only way forward is to enhance the document, which can certainly be achieved through the initiative on climate change and through intergovernmental protocols on global leadership regarding the elimination of world poverty and 21st century slavery. Human trafficking is a form of slavery. These are major issues with which we can engage without upsetting the balance of the constitutional treaty. However, we must not by-pass it and pretend it does not exist.

Considerable emphasis was placed on the Lisbon Agenda, which is very welcome. A world-class economy and world-class society in the European Union must go side by side. The increase in overall employment of 2.7% so far in 2007 was particularly welcome.

There were many pluses and minuses in the discussions during the summit on 8 and 9 March but we will not know what progress is taking place until we see the Berlin declaration and determine whether the initiative has really been seized by the German Presidency and whether we will be able to address the major issues of the constitutional treaty, enlargement and reaching the targets on climate change, which we need to achieve so badly. We will await the declaration in anticipation.

Ba mhaith liom cúpla focal a rá faoin gcruinniú ar an 8 agus 9 Márta seo caite. Tá áthas orm go raibh stádas na Gaeilge in ord agus in eagar ag an gcruinniú, go raibh fada buan an stádas sin.

Leis an 50ú bliain sroichte againn, mar chomóradh ar an Aontas Eorpach tá sé go maith féachaint ar ár gcomhghleacaithe i dtíortha agus stáit eile an Aontais. I mention our colleagues from other member states because many of them living in this country ask why people from around the EU who live here are not in a position to cast a vote in this country. It is high time we embraced the spirit of solidarity at the heart of the European project and put that right. It is increasingly difficult to accept that people from other EU member states with whom we work closely on a range of issues are essentially alienated from our democracy because they cannot vote in the forthcoming general election.

The European Council meeting stressed energy security and climate change as issues of social justice and human rights. In future the degree to which Ireland can turn its back on fossil fuel dependency will be the ultimate measures of its economic success and development. It will determine its competitiveness and international standing. The countries that seize the business opportunities presented by the new energy reality will prosper. In Germany, 170,000 jobs have been created through Government support for the renewable energy industry. The decisions taken at the EU Council earlier this month, while modest and conservative, are a step in the right direction.

The Government, however, has failed to join the dots on this issue. Judged by its actions, it is in denial about climate change. It has failed to deliver emissions reductions, to set targets at national level or to say how it will reach the targets it has agreed at EU level. Those failures are damaging Ireland's standing on the international stage, increasingly damaging our economy and causing job losses, resulting in Ireland missing out on business opportunities. Irish renewable energy companies, such as Airtricity and OpenHydro, are making huge investments in China, the United States and Scotland rather than in Ireland because the necessary support is not in place here.

The Government's failures mean Ireland is losing credibility in the European Union. When emissions targets were set for 2012, the EU did its best to give Ireland a dig out by allowing us a 13% overrun on 1990 levels. We are now at least 25.4% above 1990 levels. Emissions jumped by 2% in 2005 and that upward trend continues — they jumped 7% in the transport sector alone.

Our EU partners will not give us that dig out again because the Government has shown that it cannot be trusted with this issue. Playing an béal bocht will no longer wash. We are now expected to pull our weight and pay our way. Already the taxpayer is paying hundreds of millions of euro for the Government's failure through the carbon fund, which will inevitably be voted through by the Government tonight. The message to poorer countries is that our business as usual approach is more important than their development as they are expected to allow us to continue on our hapless way.

I am sure the Taoiseach keeps an eye on information from the Environmental Protection Agency and Sustainable Energy Ireland because last week the EPA published a report showing that drought and flooding will become more common in Ireland. The author of the report, Dr. John Sweeney, said the Government is foolishly trying to buy its way out of trouble, and he is right. The Government adviser in Sustainable Energy Ireland, Mr. Martin Howley, has effectively outed the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources's recent commitment to 33% renewable energy generation as an example of fraudulent green-washing. The target translates as 6% energy generation from renewables, which is fundamentally pathetic.

When taken with the Government's heating and transport energy needs, the figure adds up to an overall target of 12% of total renewable energy generation by 2020. With existing policies under this Government it is not possible to even meet the conservative EU targets. Ireland cannot meet the energy and climate change targets agreed at the European Council meeting. That fundamentally points to the need for green government for us to survive and to thrive.

Loic Comhairle na nAirí ar phobal na hÉireann agus ar phobal na hEorpa. Leanann an Taoiseach, mar aon le hUachtaráin agus Príomh-Airí na dtíortha eile, ag déanamh de réir na mboc móra seachas gnáthphobal na tíre anseo agus dtíortha eile na hEorpa. Bhí sé i gceist ag straitéis Lisbon decisive impact on the eradication of poverty a dhéanamh faoin bhliain 2010. Tá fós méadú ar líon siúd atá i gcónaí i mbochtanas. Tá 62 milliún daoine san Aontas faoi bhagairt ag an bhochtanas agus tá lucht an rachmais tar éis tairbhe a bhaint as straitéis Lisbon agus tá an gnáthdhuine thíos leis.

Those lucky enough to have work are being pushed into low paid jobs with deteriorating working conditions and decreasing job security. Income inequalities continue to grow and now a secret declaration is being negotiated by the EU leaders for a solemn proclamation in Berlin on 25 March to mark the 50th anniversary of the EU. The current draft includes the phrase "we, the peoples of Europe", which is ironic because it was drawn up by the German Chancellor's small and secretive clique. The European Parliament debated the declaration last week without even seeing a draft. Member states have sight of only four passages, a fifth of the entire text, and we do not expect to see the full draft, which is to include a deadline for the de facto introduction of the constitution, until later this evening. This does not bode well for those who wish to see full democratic scrutiny and transparency in future treaty negotiations.

Níl aon duine ann a deir nach bhfuil buntáistí bainte againn as an Aontas Eorpach ach tá eagla ar chinnirí na hEorpa páirt a ghlacadh i ndíospóireacht ionraic agus oscailte faoi láidreacht agus laigí an Aontais, go háirithe an bóthar atá romhainn.

The defeat of the EU constitution in referenda in France and the Netherlands has left the EU leaders running for cover. They are still convinced they are right about the constitution but are unable to find democratic justification for it. Instead they are throwing up a smokescreen of nice sounding words which they hope will obscure the fact that they intend to introduce the constitution without democratic debate and scrutiny, without dialogue and, above all, without for one instant asking if the course they are set on is good for the people of Europe.

The Berlin declaration is an example of the removal of the future direction of the EU from public debate. This is because EU leaders have been unable to win the public argument. If they succeed in putting through the constitution, it will further stifle public debate on EU policy on social and economic affairs, civil liberties and peace and neutrality. It will make for free and unfettered competition and all that implies in terms of privatisation of public services and will undermine workers' rights on pay and conditions, a constitutional requirement rather than a policy choice under the democratic control of elected representatives.

Is é an t-aon rud atá soiléir faoi seo ná gur deis eile amú é. Is gá do pholasaithe an Aontais Eorpaigh a bheith dírithe ar fhás, geilleagar inbhuanaithe, athrú aeráide, agus poist de chaighdeán maith. Ba cheart dóibh tabhairt faoi mhíchothromas ioncaim chomh maith. Is athrú bunúsach san fhócas atá de dhíth. Tá sraith tosaíochtaí nua uainn, tosaíochtaí sóisialta, eacnamúil agus timpeallachta, a mheallfaidh infheistíocht sa gheilleagar sóisialta agus a fheabhsóidh seirbhísí poiblí ó thaobh an chaighdeáin de. Chuirfidh na tosaíochtaí sin deireadh le bochtanas agus idirdhealú sóisialta.

The March European Council meeting was dominated by the development of an energy policy for Europe. With climate change such a pressing and visible issue, it is no surprise that the question of renewable energy targets form the core of the Council's recommendations. The Council's plan encompasses the opening up of gas and electricity markets, security of supply, energy efficiency and renewable energy, and research and development of energy efficiency technologies.

The reaction of European businessmen to the ambitious plan to cut CO2 emissions by 20% by 2020 not surprisingly has been somewhat dubious. To put the 20% target into perspective, in 2004 13.7% of the power generation from the 25 member states came from renewable sources. That 13.7% figure has not changed much in the past 15 years, and 70% of that power generation came from hydropower.

The EU's drive to increase renewal power output to 20% of all energy production is made more difficult by the inevitable time lag before any concerted action is taken. Essentially, the announcement by the Council is a direction to the Commission to prepare some practical mechanism for implementing a broad policy objective on renewables. That will take at least one year following which the mechanism — perhaps an EU directive — will go to the European Parliament for adoption after the inevitable series of political compromises. That will take another year or more.

The question then arises of making renewable power generation mandatory. The European Stability and Growth Pact is a reminder of the difficulty involved in managing binding targets. That practical mechanism will of necessity prove to be extremely complicated. Land-locked nations without mountains lack easy access to renewable resources such as wind or hydropower. The 2020 goal, therefore, must take into consideration the construction of new interconnection capacity and the measurement of imported renewable power across countries.

Business executives are concerned that the EU's pledge could not only stifle economic growth but also prove pointless if other industrial nations do not follow suit. In Sweden, the chief executive of the state-owned energy giant, Vattenfall, agreed that the EU's commitment to cutting carbon dioxide emissions required action in the form of technology development. He said that unless there is much improvement in the way carbon emissions are captured and stored there is no way to solve the problem. He also stated that he does not believe China and India will stop building coal-powered plants to wait for Europe to build the technology.

The European Commission believes that energy security and climate change are two sides of the same coin in that the development of renewable technology such as wind, solar and hydropower energy should increase security of supply. The European Commissioner for Energy said recently that the indigenous oil and gas supply is reducing. He also said that with fewer carbon needs a market is created that favours the development of new technology, with less carbon meaning more energy security. He further added that unless Europe makes a greater shift to renewables, it will be forced to continue paying even higher prices for petroleum products. That will entail creating a new mechanism to enforce tough mandatory targets for renewable power generation to reach the 20% EU renewable power generation target by 2020. However, the European Council could have done more to make the existing emissions trading scheme work. That is an effective mechanism to encourage renewable energy generation in Europe. The European Commission should contemplate setting up a different structure when the current one, compared to the many alternatives, has been allowed to falter badly.

Acting Chairman

We will now have questions and answers on the European Council.

We will have enough questions at 2.30 p.m.

First, on my opening remarks about the Palestinian question, how does the Minister perceive the unity Government that was established in February, the response of the European Union member states to that Government and the response that emanated from the summit? Was it, as I suggested, something of a fudge in that less than wholehearted support was given? While it was welcomed it appeared to be a conditional welcome. Second, does he believe that the European Union should proceed now to channel funding through that Government rather than through other agencies or groups, as is the current position? Will the Minister consider following in the footsteps of Norway in giving full formal recognition to this Government of unity?

I thank the Deputy for his remarks. When the European Council met the Government had not been finally formed and ratified. Indeed, as we met, negotiations were still going on regarding the make-up of the Government and therefore any reference in the Council conclusions to it would have had to be on the basis of the position that existed at that time. Since that time the Government has been announced and Ireland has been at the forefront in giving that a positive welcome, but people must be conscious of the fact that members of that Government remain part of Hamas and still have as their charter the destruction of Israel. That is one of the reasons the international community must be extremely careful in the way it responds to this issue.

As we are aware from our experience and as used to be portrayed, we cannot have the ballot box in one hand and the Armalite in the other. If we transpose that to the Hamas situation, the international community has been very careful, not least in regard to the contact it has with that Government but also in the context of EU funds and our taxpayers' money in that we must be certain that the money being expended by the EU in Palestine is going to the people and not towards some of the aims of that organisation.

In principle we very much welcome the formation of the unity Government and the efforts by President Abbas. It is fair to say, however, there will be others who have a slightly different view, not just in the EU but also outside it. It is Ireland's job to convince the EU to use its good offices to support this effort by the Palestinians to gain some unity of purpose and allow them to negotiate with the rest of the world on a relatively equal basis, but we must take every day as it comes. Regarding contact with the Palestinian Government, Ireland would have no problem relating to the non-Hamas Ministers of that Government, including the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who are non-Hamas. A number of the members of that Government are non-Hamas. We need to be extremely careful regarding the efforts by the international community to ascertain once and for all whether this Government will do all in its power to stop the violence. Since the formation of the Government some Hamas-originated violence has been meted out in Gaza. We need to take it very carefully and work as a unit within the EU given that EU taxpayers' resources are being expended. We need to be absolutely certain that it is going to the people who deserve it and not for any ulterior motives.

I understood that recognition of the State of Israel was implicit in the arrangement made. Given that it was mediated through Saudi Arabia and the other Arab states which give such recognition, therefore implicitly Hamas was changing its clothes in this matter. Even if it has not been formally stated as such, are there not considerable grounds for progress to be made through now seizing the opportunity for the European Union to have direct talks with the unity Government, obviously with the carrot that the funding would go through that Government as quickly as possible rather than bypassing it?

I do not believe that a member of Hamas will ever formally recognise the State of Israel because it goes against the charter under which Hamas was formed. If the Deputy ever gets the opportunity to go to Israel one of the first things the Israeli Foreign Minister would do would be to give him a copy of the Hamas charter, which clearly indicates its core aim is the destruction of Israel.

The IRA charter was to discredit this State.

The international community is waiting to see how by their actions the members of the national unity Government will address the issue. While perhaps not giving formal recognition to Israel it may implicitly understand and recognise that the only solution to the conflict in the Middle East is through the recognition of a two-state solution, which in effect would recognise the existence of Israel. The international community should approach its discussions and negotiations with the national unity Government on the basis that while perhaps not explicitly recognising the State of Israel it would by all its actions ensure that we all move towards the end result of a two-state solution.

Earlier I had the opportunity to question the Taoiseach on a potential energy policy agreement with Russia and the effect the bilateral agreement reached between Russia and Germany would have on a common European Union energy policy. To what extent does the Minister believe the bilateral agreement between Germany and Russia has undermined a pan-European approach?

On nuclear proliferation, I found it strange that there was no reference to Iran, Korea and the nuclear issue in the statement issued following the meeting. Did any discussion take place on the United States-India nuclear agreement and its impact on the NPT? Did any discussion take place on the need to carry out an immediate review of the NPT rather than waiting until 2010?

As always the main issues at the spring European Council meeting were economic. However, this time discussion on climate change was very much to the fore, which was greatly welcomed by Ireland. The NPT review is following the normal five-year cycle, which leads up to 2010. We are now co-ordinating the preparations with others for the first preparatory committee meeting next month. As I have said previously, Ireland was very disappointed with the last review, which was not for the want of trying on our behalf. In the coming months we will continue to work to ensure that some tangible results come from the NPT review.

On the agreement between Russia and Germany, and the energy discussions, obviously countries will have bilateral arrangements with other countries as happens all the time particularly on mainland Europe. However, in coming months the EU as a whole will negotiate with Russia on an energy agreement between the two blocs.

The issue of Iran is always discussed and was discussed among Ministers in more or less an informal way. It did not form part of the conclusions of the Council. However, at a separate meeting, Foreign Ministers discussed the Middle East and the Iranian situation as well as Sudan.

What about the US-India agreement?

There was no discussion when I was present on the EU and India. Later this afternoon I will be answering questions on the matter. The issue of the EU-India agreement has been prolonged. It is not likely that any real movement in that regard will take place for some considerable time.

Further to my earlier remarks on the 50th anniversary of the European Union, does the Minister anticipate any movement on extending the franchise to other EU member state citizens to allow them to vote in this country in all elections rather than in the limited number of elections, as is the case at the moment? What progress might he envisage in that regard and how soon might it be made?

As previously mentioned, the issue of using CFL light bulbs rather than the older less energy-efficient ones, mainly the incandescent light bulbs, was discussed at the European Council meeting. The Taoiseach said earlier that the Government was considering banning the use of the older light bulbs. Is that a competence within each member state or is it a competence that can be dealt with at European-wide level? What progress will Ireland make if it is a national competence and when might it come about? Will any change be made to eliminate or reduce the 66% import duty on CFL bulbs coming from China? What is to be decided by the Government in that regard?

I note the Minister said that economic issues are normally dealt with at the spring Council meeting and now it is climate change. However, the Stern report would probably indicate that climate change is the ultimate economic issue that Europe needs to address if we are to get through this challenge. As mentioned by Deputy Costello, when it comes to the German Government there seems to be a focus on targets for reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Does the Minister envisage the Government adopting a targets approach along the lines of the Bill proposed by my party, the Climate Change Targets Bill? Has it been indicated to our EU colleagues that we will adopt a targeted approach or what indication has been given as to what Ireland will do to play its part in reducing 20% or 30% below the 1990 levels given that our levels are approximately 25% above the 1990 levels? What measures have our EU partners been given to understand will be put into effect in Ireland?

In regard to EU citizens having a vote in Ireland, they have a vote in local and European elections.

That is all.

I am not aware of any move to give them the right to vote in general elections. That issue would have to be taken up with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. It would also have to be dealt with on a European-wide basis because not every country has the same rules across borders.

The Government is strongly considering a move to deal in some way with the incandescent light bulbs. That is being actively considered in the context of the soon-to-be-released climate change strategy which will be an ambitious document. I have been involved in some of the discussions at Cabinet level. In the context of our discussions at the European Council meeting, in recent years Ireland may have been at the rear of the exhortation in achieving targets but this time we were the vanguard in putting in place very ambitious targets and trying to get the EU to be the world leader in regard to our commitments to deal with the climate change issue.

On the question of the implementation of targets, they are agreed at international level and are subject to binding requirements under international law. There has been some criticism from the far side of the Chamber in regard to our Kyoto commitments but we are on course to meet those commitments.

Not until 2012.

That is the case despite our recent figures. It is the case that our greenhouse gas emissions have been over the targets agreed but one has to take into account that the economy grew by 150% since 1990. We have commitments to meet in regard to climate change and climate change strategy but at the same time we have a duty to ensure it is not done in such a way that it is unsustainable from an economic point of view and that people are not put out of jobs in Ireland.

It is new jobs we need.

That is the balance that we on this side of the House have a duty and a responsibility to ensure. We have to ensure that on the one hand we are not making pyrrhic gestures in that we are trying to exhort all other blocs in the world to do their duty in responding to the Stern report. There is no point in Ireland on its own, or the EU on its own or most of the western world on its own responding to climate change in a very dramatic way that could perhaps put its economies in jeopardy while at the same time other blocs——

We are serious offenders.

——such as China, India and Asia are not playing their part for climate change.

They emit far less per person.

It is important that we treat this issue on a national basis, as we are doing, by setting detailed targets and putting this country to the pin of its collar over the next 20 years and at international level exhorting all those other more powerful blocs which are not fulfilling their commitments in any shape or form to ensure they rise to the very considerable challenge ahead of them.

Ireland is not fulfilling its commitments. That is the bottom line.

I wish to ask two questions.

Acting Chairman

Sorry, Deputy Allen indicated first. Only 28 seconds remain and by an order of the House the questions and answers have to conclude in 20 minutes.

The Minister said most of the time was taken up with economic and environmental issues, but in regard to global issues has any discussion taken place recently on Burma and the fact that there appears to be a difference of opinion between the US and Europe on how to tackle the ongoing problem at UN level?

There was no discussion on that matter at the European Council. That matter would normally be discussed at GAERC meetings.

Sitting suspended at 1.35 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Barr
Roinn