Gerry Adams
Ceist:1. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his pre-EU Council meeting with the incoming European Commission President regarding the appointment of Mr. Phil Hogan as an EU Commissioner. [35213/14]
Ceisteanna - Questions (Resumed)
Micheál Martin
Ceist:2. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the position regarding the appointment of Federica Mogherini as High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy; if he has spoken with her recently; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35628/14]
Micheál Martin
Ceist:3. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the position regarding the appointment of Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk as the next President of the European Council; if he has spoken to or met him recently; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35630/14]
Joe Higgins
Ceist:4. Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he has had contact with Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk; and the position regarding his appointment as the next President of the European Council. [41696/14]
Richard Boyd Barrett
Ceist:5. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if he has spoken with Federica Mogherini since her appointment as EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy; if so, the issues that were discussed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [44907/14]
Thomas P. Broughan
Ceist:6. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Taoiseach his views regarding the current leadership of the European Commission in view of the President of the Commission having executive responsibility for the taxation policies of the State of Luxembourg over the past 18 years and in view of recent disturbing revelations regarding the administration of those policies; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [44952/14]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 6, inclusive, together.
As I have said previously, most recently in my statement to this House on 5 November after the October European Council, I warmly welcome the appointment of the new European Commission, which took office on 1 November. This is a critical time of institutional change and renewal for the European Union. President Juncker and the 27 other new Commissioners were formally appointed by the European Council on 24 October. Earlier that week, they had been approved in a plenary vote of the European Parliament.
Ireland enjoyed a strong relationship with the previous Commission, most particularly in our shared work of addressing the challenges of promoting job creation and economic growth at home and across Europe. Ministers have already begun meeting formally with the relevant new Commissioners, and I look forward to strengthening Ireland's relationship with the college of Commissioners during the legislative term ahead.
After the Government's nomination of former Deputy, Phil Hogan, to be a member of the Commission, I wrote to and spoke with President Juncker about his possible portfolio. I was delighted that the former Minister was nominated as Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development, one of the most important commisionerships in Europe. This is not only testament to his considerable experience and abilities, but also recognition of Ireland’s sustained commitment to the EU, and follows on from our success during last year’s Presidency of the EU, including in securing agreement on the Common Agricultural Policy reform package.
I was also pleased with the appointment of Federica Mogherini to the pivotal role of High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and I look forward to working with her in her new capacity.
President Juncker has set out a clear agenda for the Commission for the next five years, focusing on jobs, growth and investment, on energy union and climate and on the digital single market. His agenda, and the Commission's work programme for 2015, both reflect the strategic agenda for the EU. That agenda was set out by the European Council in June this year.
President Juncker has my full support and I am delighted he is President of the Commission. He is a very experienced and capable politician. He understands that the European Union must remain focused on jobs and growth and on delivering for our citizens. I look forward to working with him.
He organised tax evasion on an industrial scale.
In addition to the new Parliament and Commission, the new President of the European Council, Donald Tusk, the former Polish Prime Minister, took office yesterday. I believe President Tusk will provide excellent leadership for the Council. His appointment is recognition not only of his own wide experience and knowledge, but also of how far EU integration has progressed since 2004.
Although I have not recently held formal meetings with President Tusk or with the High Representative, I have spoken with both of them at the recent European Council meetings which I and they attended. I also wrote to Mr. Tusk at the time of his appointment to congratulate him and reiterate our commitment to a strong working relationship. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has also written to Ms Mogherini in similar terms and he met her in her new capacity at the Foreign Affairs Council meeting on 17 November.
While welcoming the appointment of an Irish Commissioner to this EU agriculture post, I have to say I continue to have grave concerns about many of the actions of Commissioner Hogan when he was a Government Minister here. I am also highly critical of the method of selection of Commissioners. Right across the EU, citizens want a social Union, but the Commission and the way the Commissioners are selected does not reflect that.
The Taoiseach may want to comment on some of the decisions taken here when Commissioner Hogan was in office, particularly the delivery of Leader programme and the role he played in dismantling the local development sector. The European Commission sent the Government a list of 266 questions - or over 400, depending on what piece of documentation one reads - in regard to the Government's proposed changes to the delivery of the Leader programme. In my opinion, these are attempts to redefine this programme, which was essentially a genuine grassroots, community-based measure, as a programme that is completely subject to whatever local authority or Government happens to be in power. Given the threat to the local development sector and the concerns raised by many about the impact on local rural communities, and given the European Commission's questions to the Government on its programme for rural development for 2014 to 2020, will the Government review its proposed new measures?
I want to make a brief comment on the appointment of Ms Mogherini as the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. We might get a chance later to return to this issue, but I want to ask the Taoiseach one simple question. At the beginning of November, Ms Mogherini said: "I would be happy if by the end of my term, a Palestinian state existed". On a visit to Gaza last week, she said: “We need a Palestinian state - that is the ultimate goal and this is the position of all the European Union”. Does the Taoiseach agree with this objective? Will the Government make it very clear if it does agree, given that in the past it has said it has to keep pace with Europe, almost as if we did not have an independent foreign policy mandate? Now that the European Union has put its flag firmly to that mast, will the Taoiseach declare that the Government is also for a Palestinian state?
We have supported a two-state solution in respect of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for many years. That means support for Palestine. It was always part of the principle that there would be a comprehensive response to this from a European perspective. This has been very difficult to achieve, however, despite the fact that interventions from both Europe and the United States over many years were in some cases on the brink of achieving agreement, and it never actually worked out in the way people would have expected. I note Sweden's comment and I note the comment from France in the last period. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade is reflecting on the best way to go forward. There is a question of whether it is feasible to have a comprehensive response to Europe's principle of a two-state solution, as defined for many years, and whether that is likely to become a reality, as people have different judgments on this. The fact that Ireland supports and has supported for many years a two-state solution for Palestine and Israel answers the Deputy's question inherently.
The Deputy mentioned the European commissionership. I wrote to the President elect on 29 July in respect of the nominated Commissioner-designate from Ireland and, in that letter, I stated that I hoped he would assign Mr. Hogan to a position in line with the strength of his skills and of Ireland's political priorities. The agrisector, as Deputy Adams knows, will grow significantly over the next period, and the potential is very significant, particularly with quotas going in 2015. It is important also to recognise that while a number of Vice-Presidents are appointed at Commissioner level, the agrisector and the agricultural portfolio is one that stands alone. It is of such importance to our country that there is probably only one other country in the world that has the same profile as Ireland, and that is New Zealand.
It is important to have a strong voice from a European perspective, and this is not focused unilaterally on Ireland. The Commissioner will have to deal with the transatlantic trade and investment partnership, TTIP, negotiations that are going on between Europe and the United States. Obviously, there is a case to be made for opening the US market to Irish beef, but also the Mercosur negotiations and the mid-term review of the Common Agricultural Policy will also be important. Deputy Adams will be well aware that, in the past, a different formula was used by some of the Commissioners for dealing with the agrisector, which was assessed on a per-hectare basis, but this would have done away with the question of the productivity capacity of Irish farms and how sophisticated we have become.
The Deputy also made the point that he was highly critical of the former Minister, Mr. Hogan, with respect to the work he did here. It is as contradictory as ever that Sinn Féin representatives here in the Republic voted against the Commissioner's appointment, yet its Minister in Northern Ireland wrote to him congratulating him. Which is it? I notice the representatives of Sinn Féin in the Twenty-six Counties changed tack afterwards and said they would of course support the Commissioner in what he has to do. If Deputy Adams doubts the Commissioner's credentials, by all accounts, although I do not speak for the European Parliament, at the session dealing with questions to Commissioner designate Hogan, he was outstanding in his delivery, in his knowledge of the subject and in his response to the questions. There seems to have been a bit of a mix-up in the Sinn Féin approach here, or maybe they wanted to cover all bases - the Northern Ireland Minister writes to congratulate the Commissioner, while the members elected from the Twenty-six Counties voted against his appointment. Deputy Adams should remind the farmers of the country and the agrisector that his members did not support the Commissioner's appointment. They might be interested in that when they reflect on it.
This is very important for rural Ireland and, as the Deputy points out, it is a critical area. Clearly, there is a lack of infrastructure in regard to broadband, communications, water in many cases, and roads. However, I point out to Deputy Adams that through the rural development programme we will invest €2.2 billion from now to 2020, which is a very significant amount, and, in addition to that, an extra €100 million will be thrown in for the BMW region. I assume Commissioner Hogan, in looking at the pan-European aspect of his rural development programmes, will reflect on that and see that it becomes effective and operational.
It is important the Commission approve that programme and that the applications for drawing assistance from it are made available as soon as possible.
As I hope to speak to the Commissioner about this in the near future, I do not accept the Deputy's argument. During our Presidency there was a very significant series of decisions on the agriculture sector and the CAP. To have a Commissioner for agriculture from this country heading the EU agriculture process is significant considering that agriculture accounts for 40% of a €960 billion budget.
There are six questions in this group on the appointment during the summer of the President of the Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, as well as of Donald Tusk, Federica Mogherini and Phil Hogan. I have tabled two questions. It is fair to say one of the more consistent factors in the past three years is that Ireland regularly supports people for major European posts without asking them questions. The most dramatic and remarkable was when the Taoiseach agreed to the appointment of Mario Draghi as President of the ECB without even meeting him, let alone asking him about his attitude towards Ireland's issues with the ECB. We have issues with it, yet there was no discussion of them with Mr. Draghi. All the indications are that, once again, we have signed off on appointments without seeking assurances on fundamental policies.
The Taoiseach will remember that it is about seven weeks since the single supervisory mechanism was brought into operation. That is the deadline he set himself for applying for retrospective aid to help us with bank-related debt. He said over two years ago that Ireland had been dealt with unfairly by the ECB and the European Commission and that in order to preserve the eurozone and in the absence of a bank resolution mechanism in 2010, the European Union had forced individual states into positions into which it should not have forced them. I understand the Government has made no application for retrospective bank debt aid and it appears that none will be made. The Taoiseach has not said one word about it. New office holders are in place and the policy remains the same. I can recall how a year or two ago the Taoiseach trumpeted the idea of a single supervisory mechanism as the key catalyst in moving on Ireland's bank-related debt and seeking retrospection. He will remember the then Tánaiste, Deputy Eamon Gilmore, talking about a seismic change and how the Ministers for Public Expenditure and Reform and Finance talked about billions coming back to the country as a result of the famous summit but nothing has actually happened. Will he confirm that he sought no assurance from President Juncker on bank debts before he agreed to his appointment? It is clear enough from what he has just said that he wrote a letter to President Juncker, but it was all about fixing up Mr. Hogan whom I welcome in the agriculture portfolio. That is fine, but it seems strange that in the letter the Taoiseach did not mention anything about Ireland's bank-related debt and the degree to which the European Union owes Ireland some recompense in dealing with banking issues. The Taoiseach says he had a great relationship with him; therefore, I find it strange that he did not press these issues with him prior to his appointment. Will he indicate how his relationship with President Juncker has helped Ireland on the issues of bank-related debt and retrospection?
The Luxembourg tax story, the subject matter of another question, points mainly to President Juncker's hypocrisy in criticising Ireland in the case of Apple. Ireland was unfairly and deliberately singled out by the Commission. Calling for President Juncker's resignation is not sustainable at this point in time because there is no evidence of any illegality and nobody has produced any evidence, but I find the Government's silence on the matter somewhat incredible. Has the Taoiseach recorded Ireland's demand that all countries, including Luxembourg and the Netherlands, be treated equally and examined at the same time in taxation issues?
On Ms Mogherini's appointment, will the Taoiseach explain whether he discussed her approach to the job with her before agreeing to her appointment? In particular, did he seek assurances that she would not continue the Italian policy of ignoring or downgrading the importance of Russian aggression against Ukraine and the partition of Russia's neighbour, which is a very important issue? Did he have any discussion with her prior to her appointment on the situation in Ukraine and Russia's unacceptable aggression?
Did the Taoiseach ask Donald Tusk, the new President of the Council, to support Ireland's case for full justice on the issue of debt before agreeing to his appointment? What discussions did he have with him before his appointment? In short, it seems that he readily agreed to all of these appointments without in any shape or form presenting Ireland's case for retrospection in the matter of bank-related debt, an issue about which he spoke frequently some years ago but on which he has become strangely silent in more recent times.
The Deputy seems to think it is the privilege of Ireland to call people into rooms to interrogate them. He did not table any question here about the issue of recapitalisation, but I will deal with it for him.
I did actually.
The Deputy tabled two questions on the appointment of Federica Mogherini and the former Polish Prime Minister, Donald Tusk.
I asked whether the Taoiseach had spoken to her.
I do not see any question about recapitalisation.
There are two questions.
I said I would answer them for the Deputy who usefully has tabled a bland question on which he can move from here to the South Pole, if he so wishes.
The issue of bank-related debt is not taking us to the South Pole. These are more of the inanities that emerge from the Taoiseach's mouth every now and again.
The Deputy had five minutes.
The Taoiseach will probably go on for about 20 minutes.
The Deputy says appointments are made without us asking questions.
The Deputy is well aware that one does not need to ask questions here. He asked enough questions about the former Minister, Phil Hogan, for many years. It is the European Parliament that puts Commissioners-designate through their paces.
I am talking about President Juncker.
His view and presentation were outstanding. As the Deputy knows, the Parliament refused to ratify one Commissioner-designate because of the inadequacy of the answers given.
I did not ask about Commissioner Hogan at all.
During our Presidency we set out the strategy in respect of the European Parliament and the future of the institutions. The Deputy mentioned President Juncker and his position on the tax issue. First, he was involved in a competition with Michel Barnier for the right to become President-designate of the Commission. That contest and vote were held in the convention centre in Dublin. There was a very enthusiastic and vigorous debate between the two men. Obviously, President Juncker travelled throughout the European Union and to capitals in holding public debates on his views on the development of the Union and so on.
A motion of censure against President Juncker was debated last week in Strasbourg and was defeated by 461 votes to 101. It was proposed by the EFDD group, which represents 48 MEPs of the 751 in the European Parliament. None of the other six parties supported the motion. Most speakers argued that it was a time-wasting exercise and that the Commission needed to move forward and concentrate on important agendas-----
On a point of order, I did not ask anything about that issue.
Yes, the Deputy did.
I did not.
The Deputy asked about President Juncker's tax business in Luxembourg.
I asked the Taoiseach about Ireland-----
The Deputy made a comment on President Juncker's tax position in Luxembourg.
The Taoiseach does not answer questions. We have had a lot of rows in the House about this. If he was more specific and stopped running down the clock every time we had questions to him-----
Did the Deputy mention Luxembourg?
That is all the Taoiseach does. He runs down the clock by answering questions he was not asked.
Did the Deputy mention Luxembourg?
I asked the Taoiseach about bank-related debt. Did he ask President Juncker about the issue - yes or no?
I will come to it. Did the Deputy mention Luxembourg?
The Taoiseach should stop the filibustering.
Did I hear the Deputy mention Luxembourg?
It was in a different context from that about which the Taoiseach is rabbiting on.
Will the Deputy, please, respect the Chair?
He does not like the answers. As I said, tax systems are matters for each individual country, as they are for this country. The Deputy mentioned Ireland's bank debt. It has clearly been a priority of the Government to ease the burden on taxpayers. The Deputy should not get me started because the Government of which he was a member put €34 billion into a black hole for Anglo Irish Bank that we will never get back. Of course, he has no responsibility for this at all, as if it never happened.
The Taoiseach voted for it also.
The Taoiseach voted for it.
Deputy, please.
We have taken a number of steps to achieve this. We recapitalised and restructured the banks, we liquidated the IBRC and we replaced the promissory notes used for recapitalisation with long-term bonds in order to dramatically reduce our own market funding requirements. Those steps have had the effect of stabilising the financial system and reversing the outflow of deposits and other funds that damaged our economy. Deputy Martin is aware that yields are currently at their lowest level in our history. In addition, in 2011 we secured an interest rate reduction in the EFSM and EFSF loans under the programme. In April last year we reached agreement with the 28 countries and eurozone partners to extend the average maturity of the EFSM and EFSF loans by a further seven years. Last December, we exited the programme and, more recently, we secured agreement on the early repayment of a significant portion of our IMF loans, resulting in total interest savings of approximately €1.5 billion. We got approval from all our colleagues in respect of that. It is testament to the resilience of the Irish people and the loyal support of our EU partners that Ireland has been able to return to the markets in a sustainable way, having delivered on all of our commitments in the last three years. However, work remains to be done.
In June 2012, the euro area Heads of State and Government resolved to create a banking union to break the vicious circle between banks and sovereigns, and committed to examining the situation of the Irish financial sector, which was named specifically in that decision. The precondition laid down at that time was for the possible use of the ESM to recapitalise banks directly, with the establishment of a single supervisory mechanism, SSM, for the European banking sector. That legislation was agreed by the Council and the European Parliament during the Irish Presidency of the Council of the European Union last year, and the SSM became operational on 4 November. On 10 June 2014, euro area members reached a preliminary agreement on the operational programme and framework for the ESM's direct recapitalisation instrument. That included a specific provision to keep open the possibility of applying to the ESM for retrospective direct recapitalisation of banks by mutual agreement. This would require unanimous endorsement by the board of directors. An application can only be made when the mechanism enters into force. As a precondition for this, the SSM is now in place and is operational. Another precondition is the completion of national approval procedures for the direct recapitalisation instrument. Our procedures are in place with the enactment of the ESM Amendment Order Act 2014.
Once all member states have completed national approval procedures, the ESM could agree to implement the direct recapitalisation instrument. That could happen as early as this month. It is an issue that the Ministers for Finance will address. The Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, has referred to this issue. Clearly, the objective is to get the best possible result for the Irish taxpayer, and the question of keeping open the application for direct recapitalisation still stands.
Who is keeping it open?
The Minister has stated that, unlike in 2012, the ESM is no longer the only option we can use to recover the money provided to recapitalise our banks. Investors are again willing to invest in Irish banks, and the market value of our investments has improved accordingly. In Europe, a strategic approach tends to deliver. The Minister for Finance has said that he intends to keep open the option of retrospective recapitalisation, with the timing of any application to be decided in due course.
Did you speak to Mr. Juncker about it?
Gabh mo leiscéal.
Through the Chair.
Sorry. Did the Taoiseach speak to Mr. Juncker?
The Deputy cannot ask another question. Two other Deputies wish to contribute.
I asked a simple question. Did the Taoiseach speak to Mr. Juncker about all of this prior to his appointment?
Please resume your seat.
Mr. Juncker was well aware of this prior to his appointment.
You did speak to him.
Yes, of course. Not only that, but we spoke to Mr. Juncker about a number of other things as well.
You did not make any requests.
Deputy, please.
Mr. Juncker has been a close friend and ally of Ireland.
In formal session of the European Council we discussed the whole question of the European Council's response to the requirement to deal with the OECD programme for BEPS and the tax structures in other countries. Everybody agreed to participate openly and fully in this, as Ireland is doing. That is why, in the most recent budget, the Minister for Finance made the announcement that we have ended the "double Irish" concept with a transition period out to 2020, thereby giving clarity and certainty to companies. We are forthright in our support for that.
The answer to Deputy Martin's question is "Yes." The direct recapitalisation concept remains open and on the table, but there are now other options in terms of the value of the banks.
It was always open.
Yes, but as the Deputy is aware, the banks when he was dealing with them were completely unworkable-----
You told untruths in 2012.
Deputy, please.
-----and self-destructive and needed to be restructured completely. I will return to your original point-----
Perhaps you will reply through the Chair.
-----where you put over €30 billion into Anglo Irish Bank that can never be recovered. We can get the rest back for the taxpayer and more.
In regard to the appointment of Mr. Jean-Claude Juncker to his present position, the Taoiseach has stated clearly that he has confidence in him. Would he agree, however, that the Luxembourg papers, which were mainly from PricewaterhouseCoopers, revealed a system of tax evasion on an industrial scale? A huge number of companies, including Pepsi, Ikea, Heinz, JP Morgan, FedEx, Deutsche Bank, Macquarie, Shire, ICAP and Dyson, had arrangements with Luxembourg which were seen to be facilitated by this country. People might say this is legal tax avoidance, but is it not shameful that Mr. Juncker, as Prime Minister of a small state which is approximately the size of County Meath and which was a founder member of the European Union, presided over and managed a massive system of tax avoidance and tax evasion by these multinationals?
The Taoiseach referred to a vote by the European Parliament in which his own grouping, the EPP, as well as the Party of European Socialists, supported the appointment of Mr. Juncker. They also refused to support a vote of censure. Does the Taoiseach not think it is inappropriate for this person to be President of the European Commission, given that almost any pronouncement he might make about tax harmonisation or countries such as Luxembourg, Ireland or the Netherlands will be tinged with hypocrisy? Is it not appropriate that, as my colleague Nessa Childers, MEP, has called for, a special committee of inquiry be established to investigate the role he played as Minister for finance and Prime Minister of Luxembourg over the two decades in question? Would the Taoiseach support the European Parliament in conducting such an inquiry? To the general public, there is no question that Mr. Juncker is totally unsuitable and inappropriate as leader of the European Commission.
President Juncker is a politician with considerable experience. It is not for me to comment on the tax structures of any individual country. We have our own structures, and we have been forthright in defending them. There were some comments internationally about the concept of the double Irish and the concept of statelessness. We got rid of that. The only way of having a system that really stands up is where all countries work together within an overall framework for a global economy, and that is where we are. The European Council has agreed on that.
I remind the Deputy that on 24 October the European Council, as a representative of the 28 countries, ratified his appointment as President of the Commission and, earlier in the week, there was a free vote in plenary session of European Parliament, whereby the 751 Members, who represent all countries and shades of political opinion, voted strongly in favour of President Juncker and the 27 other Commissioners.
I obviously do not speak for the European Parliament. It is well able to make up its own mind and its decision was clear.
I wish him the best in his Presidency. He has appointed a number of former Prime Ministers to look after groups of strategies. The reason for that, which I discussed with him, was to appoint people who understand politics and that when decisions are made they should be followed through, not swallowed up and strangled in bureaucracy, red tape and administrative obstacles. I hope that when this Commission makes its decisions politically, it will be able to follow through on them on a clearly defined path that will make them effective. Deputy Broughan is well aware of issues that were decided by the European Commission but that subsequently got bogged down in mounds of paper which made them unworkable. The reason for having Vice Presidents of the Commission who were former Prime Ministers in their individual countries was that they understand that political decisions should be followed through in a way that makes them workable and effective for what they are intended to do.
The Taoiseach did not answer the two questions I put to him. One was whether, in light of the threat to the local development sector and the concerns raised by many in local rural communities, and particularly the questions from the European Commission, the Government was willing to review its programme for rural development from 2014 to 2020. Perhaps he will take the opportunity to answer it. Instead, he waltzed off on a little adventure of his own. It is entirely appropriate for a Minister for agriculture to welcome the appointment of a European Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development. It is also entirely appropriate to be critical of the method of selection, as I was today, and to be critical of the actions of the person who was appointed Commissioner.
The other question I asked was, given the position of the EU's High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, whether the Government was for the objective which she outlined, a Palestinian state. This is the position of the European Union. What I have been seeking from the Government for a long time is that it uphold international law and employ our reputation in terms of our peace process and our history to set an example and to defend the two-state proposition regarding the right of the people of Israel and, particularly and especially, the right of the people of Palestine. That can take many forms. One example is the attitude towards the Palestinian mission. I have asked numerous times for it to be upgraded to a full embassy, but that has not happened.
The Taoiseach said that the answer to my question is inherent in the Government's support for a two-state solution. The Taoiseach uses the words "clarity" and "certainty" a great deal, so why can he not just state the position as it is, that we support the right of the people of Palestine to have their own state and that we will accord them the necessary entitlements in that regard? When I raise this issue, the Taoiseach refers to international law. If we do not uphold it, who will? The separation wall and the blockade of Gaza are breaches of international law. There are numerous other breaches of international law, so perhaps the Taoiseach will give a clear answer.
On a more positive note, I understand the Government decided today to request the European Court of Human Rights to revise the judgment on the hooded men. Will the Taoiseach comment on that? If this is the case, I welcome it very much. Not only is it the right of the men and their families, but also in terms of international practice we have seen torture used in other conflict situations and this has been facilitated by that flawed judgment.
The key point I put to the Taoiseach was in respect of the debt retrospection. The Taoiseach accepted in a statement made in Paris that Europe would not accept any burning of bondholders - that was the bottom line - or any bank failing. It was a European-imposed solution, not just on Ireland but also on other countries. In fact, European policy exacerbated the crisis in many respects for the first three years of the crisis. It was only the appointment of Mario Draghi and his intervention that put the euro on a different course. He was responsible for the reduction in interest rates, not anybody else, and he has been responsible for the low yields on Government bonds, not anybody else.
The Taoiseach mentioned the summit in 2012 in his reply. I vividly recall the reaction of the Tánaiste and the Taoiseach at that time. They said this was a massive deal. The Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, speculated that billions of euro would come back to Ireland. All of that sense of excitement at seismic deals and a huge dividend has dissipated and been reduced to the phrase "keeps open the possibility", which the Taoiseach used in his reply. That is all. At the time, however, a different sense was conveyed. When the Taoiseach met Mr. Juncker - Mr. Juncker met all Heads of State prior to his appointment, just as his predecessor did - was he asked if there would be a special deal for Ireland, along the lines of the 2012 June summit, in terms of Europe at least acknowledging that Ireland took one for the rest of the eurozone and deserves some recompense as a result? Did he discuss that with Mr. Juncker prior to his appointment?
With regard to tax, I did not ask about his involvement or that of the European Parliament. The hypocrisy stems from the fact that different countries do different things on tax and their tax offerings and Ireland was singled out in terms of the alleged situation with Apple. Our foreign direct investment, FDI, is extremely important and accounts for more than 260,000 jobs. Apple employes 4,500 people in Cork and many other companies do likewise. They also help small and medium-sized companies. When the Taoiseach engaged with Mr. Juncker on the tax question, did he put it to him, the Commission and Mr. Donald Tusk that all countries must be treated equally, including not only Ireland but also Luxembourg, the Netherlands and others, in terms of their offering on FDI, and that there should be consistent equality across the board?
The Taoiseach did not reply to my question about Ms Mogherini with regard to Ukraine. The Italians have a different perspective from other European states on Russian aggression and that has been consistent for some time. Did the Taoiseach have any discussion with her about the unacceptable aggression by Russia in Ukraine?
There was considerable speculation about the potential appointment of Ms Mogherini in the first instance. People thought that some of the comments that had been made were very soft towards Russia. The Prime Minister of Italy, Matteo Renzi, was very clear that her appointment, if sanctioned, would clearly take into account and follow the European Council's view in respect of the attitude towards Russia and its involvement with Ukraine and earlier with Crimea. The speculation that existed on the part of a number of member states was certainly cleared by the Prime Minister when he spoke and obviously when Ms Mogherini spoke.
The Deputy is aware that Ireland was not the only country singled out by the European Commission on tax issues. The Commission launched preliminary investigations against a number of countries. We defended Ireland's case and will continue to do so arising from the Apple hearings in the US Senate. We have made that perfectly clear. The view of the Minister, Deputy Noonan, is that this case will be dropped. Ireland has been very clear through the years that no special deals were done by the Revenue Commissioners for any companies in Ireland. We are perfectly entitled under international law to discuss options that are open to any company investing in this country, as the Deputy will know from his time in government. Ours is not the only country that was the focus of attention from the Commission. In addition, there was a very clear response from the European Council that every country should involve itself openly in getting an overall international response to the tax position.
When I was in America recently, the question of the double Irish concept arose. Some companies raised it, others indicated they would be nervous of it or would move on it themselves. Last year, Ireland dealt with the stateless concept and this year with the double Irish. I very well recall the European Council meeting at 4 a.m. and Ireland being the first country out through the gap with a debt of €64 billion. It was a very significant achievement to have Ireland named in the Council's decision to separate bank and sovereign debt as being eligible for consideration for recapitalisation. The question is what is the best thing for the Irish taxpayer. We put €4 billion into Bank of Ireland and got back €6 billion, and we still own 14% or 15% of the bank, which the Minister will retain for the sake of ability to influence bank policy. We own 99% of AIB. We must consider its value and what we should do with it and whether it would be better, as the Minister has reflected on numerous times, to lodge an application for direct recapitalisation under the scheme agreed.
In June 2012, it could not have been followed through until the Single Supervisory Mechanism, SSM, and banking union concept were put together. From engaging with officials over those years, I know it was incredibly complex and some of the negotiations went on for weeks and months and faced much resistance from some other countries regarding particular aspects. It is operational and Ireland has a number of options. We could follow the decision and apply for direct recapitalisation on the basis of what we might get from it, which would require unanimous approval from the board of governors. We could consider what is the best option in the interests of the taxpayer. The Minister is reflecting on the concept of AIB, its value and how the value is determined.
I have had a number of conversations with Mr. Draghi about Ireland's position. His impact on the ECB has been very significant and he has said he would do whatever it takes to sustain and protect the euro. With interest rates and inflation as low as they are, he is considering the question of quantitative easing. His presentations to the European Council are very comprehensive and detailed. He wants to stimulate the European economy for growth and investment and, as a consequence, for jobs. I have spoken to him directly about this over recent years. SSM is in place, the conditions are there for an application and the Government must consider what is the best option open to us in the interests of the taxpayer.
I asked the Taoiseach two questions.
Gabh mo leithscéal. Far be it from me to forget Deputy Adams. He mentioned "waltzing off" on a tangent. The Northern Ireland Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development, Michelle O'Neill, wrote to the Commissioner designate, Phil Hogan, and welcomed his appointment. Maybe she forgot to tell the Sinn Féin Members down here that she was going to write as a Minister, not just as a Sinn Féin member.
The Taoiseach's concern for Sinn Féin is touching.
He is very worried.
I expect it will be an important position over the next number of years, given the importance of the agrisector, and 40% of the budget of €860 billion over the next seven years. I expect the Commissioner, Mr. Hogan, in heading up the agrisector in Europe, will allow the different sectors to flourish and, hopefully, it will become evident in Ireland. The rural development programme was adopted and proposed during Ireland's presidency and we have submitted our programme nationally to the Commission for approval, and it included €2.2 billion. I expect the Commissioner will work with the different programmes from the different countries, have them approved, and then we need to move on so the application forms for the various sectoral interests can be sent out to the community and people can begin to draw it down. An extra €100 million was thrown into the pot for the Border, midlands and west, BMW, region because of the low level of per capita income in some of the areas there. I hope it will follow through. It is an important programme. As the Deputy is well aware, rural development throughout many of the counties here must be attended to. While the macro figures are going well for the big cities, the Government wants it to spread throughout the entire district and every county, and hopefully it will happen.
The Government took into account the legal advice received in respect of the European Court of Human Rights, ECHR, judgment decision in the case of Ireland v. the UK, known as the hooded men. At today's meeting, the Government gave authorisation to re-open the case. It must be done before tomorrow, as the Deputy knows. It is a serious matter and the advice has ranged over a number of issues. On 4 June 2014, there was a "Prime Time" documentary called "RTE Investigations Unit: The Torture Files". Today, the Government considered all the implications of it and agreed that a case should be opened in respect of a revision of the judgment. The British Government has been notified. It is not for the Government to determine the outcome of the case. The ECHR will make a decision both on the early presentation of the case involved and what it means. It goes back to a time when a case between Ireland and the UK was brought before the European Commission and the ECHR instituted proceedings in 1971. The deadline is tomorrow. The case dealt with human rights violations arising from internment in Northern Ireland. A particular focus of the proceedings was the use of the so called five techniques of interrogation involving 14 detainees. Last week, a number of these men went to the court seeking a case. This was a matter for the Government to consider and the case was argued very clearly. The Government's decision to reopen the case will be followed through by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Charles Flanagan, and the British Government has been notified of the Irish Government's decision.
We cannot go into the issue because it is not one of the questions tabled. I have been very liberal.
The Taoiseach did not answer my question on Palestine.
I have given this to the Deputy before. Sweden has moved on it. We support the achievement of a Palestinian state. The Israeli Government is building housing on areas of the West Bank. If we are not going to have a comprehensive agreement on what constitutes Palestine and what constitutes Israel, we go back to 1948 and the two state solution. Sweden has made its decision and there has been action in Spain and the UK and talk of it in France. A clear series of messages is going to Israel. The Government can continue to wait in the hope of a comprehensive peace agreement, or it can decide to redefine its support for the achievement of a Palestinian state.
I have spoken to the Minister for Foreign Affairs about this and the Government will consider it in the not too distant future. Given that we support a two-state solution, Deputy Adams is asking me now if I recognise the current status of Palestine. Areas there have been built on heavily, as the Deputy is well aware in terms of the subject of discussion here. The Government will look at a redefinition of recognition of the current extent of Palestine, and the Minister will come to the House in due course to discuss that.
I ask the Taoiseach again if he agrees that the European Parliament should inquire profoundly into the administration of Jean-Claude Juncker with regard to taxation policy. My colleague Nessa Childers, MEP, the only Irish member of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, has been a strong supporter of the idea of an inquiry. Given that we know through the Lux Leaks investigation that Luxembourg gave approximately 550 advance tax agreements or comfort letters to these multinationals, a small number of which this country was also indirectly involved in, is it not an unsustainable situation that the European Commission would be investigating the tax policy of Luxembourg while headed by the person who presided over that tax policy for so long? Will the Taoiseach agree that Jean-Claude Juncker's position is untenable and that he should step aside?
Does Deputy Mathews have a quick supplementary question?
It will take me 30 seconds. Ernest Hemingway was challenged to write a short story in no more than six words. He did: "For sale: baby shoes, never worn." I would like to-----
Sorry: where are we going here, Deputy?
Just listen, a Cheann Comhairle.
What question are you asking?
In 47 words-----
For whom the bell tolls.
Please, Deputy Durkan. The Taoiseach answered and discussed Deputy Martin's questions, but in 47 words there is a short story which says-----
Deputy, hold on a minute, now. This is Question Time-----
A Cheann Comhairle, 47 words-----
-----and there are six questions here, but that does not relate to any of those issues. Please resume your seat.
Am I the only person who is not allowed to introduce a question?
A Cheann Comhairle, give him a break. He is a nice man.
No. This is Question Time.
I want to ask the Taoiseach about the policy of Bank of Ireland that is the legacy----
That is not to do with any of the questions here.
A Cheann Comhairle, thank you again.
He is a nice man, a Cheann Comhairle.
Maybe the Taoiseach will give me leave to ask the question.
But this is not one of the questions on the Order Paper. You have to stick to the questions on the Order Paper.
Deputy Broughan was-----
In respect of Deputy Broughan's comment on Jean-Claude Juncker, I do not accept that at all. There was a full scale plenary session of the European Parliament last week where a motion of censure was put against the Juncker Commission. That was debated and there were 101 votes for the motion and 461 votes against. It was supported by the 48 MEPs of the Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy, EFDD, group, out of 751 members. None of the other six parties supported the motion. Therefore, I do not accept the Deputy's argument at all. President Juncker was endorsed by the European Council, representing all of the 28 countries, and by the European Parliament, covering all shades of political opinion. The Deputy's MEP colleague is quite entitled under the rules of the European Parliament to follow the procedures it adopts, and the European Commission is now a new Commission and is quite entitled to follow its nose wherever it thinks it should go. I will not interfere with the workings of the European Parliament or any of the Members who know the rules and procedures there.
In respect of Deputy Mathews-----
Sorry. We are not going there, Taoiseach.
I was just going to say-----
We are not discussing Bank of Ireland.
Taoiseach-----
I want to go on to Question No. 7.
A Cheann Comhairle, I was going to say-----
Taoiseach, please do not say anything, because I did not actually present-----
We have only three minutes left. In fairness, this is-----
-----that life stories begin with two words: "I do."
Deputy Joe Higgins, who tabled question No. 7, is not present.
That is the longest sentence. But seriously, I have 47 words about the investment of Wilbur Ross, who made a half-billion euro profit in two years and ten months. He was the most influential director of the bank and has left for America-----
Taoiseach, would you mind taking Question Nos. 7, 8 and 9? Thank you.
Cabinet Committee Meetings
Joe Higgins
Ceist:7. Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Taoiseach when the last meeting of the Cabinet committee on European affairs was held and when the next one is scheduled. [35726/14]
Gerry Adams
Ceist:8. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach when the last meeting of the Cabinet committee on European affairs took place. [39818/14]
Richard Boyd Barrett
Ceist:9. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on European affairs last met. [44908/14]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7 to 9, inclusive, together.
The most recent meeting of the Cabinet committee on European Union affairs was on Thursday, 6 November. The next meeting of the committee is scheduled for this month.
The Cabinet committee on European affairs meets regularly throughout the year to discuss and shape Ireland's strategic approach to our European Union engagement. The committee will continue to work to ensure a coherent approach across all policy areas, particularly in relation to priority issues for Ireland and, above all, to anchor Ireland's influence and interests in Brussels. This strategic approach at EU level will continue to include engagement at bilateral level with fellow member states and alliance-building with key partners.
I understand the Cabinet committee on European Union affairs deals with a range of issues and that the Minister for Finance is among its members, yet the huge issue of bank recapitalisation has seen little or no action by the Government. It seems to me that the Government wants the Irish people to forget about the prospect of retroactive recapitalisation of our banking debt. We were told a number of years ago - I know the Taoiseach dealt with this earlier - that we had a game changer and that there was a great victory, but now another European Council meeting has come and gone and its conclusions do not mention any moves towards retrospective recapitalisation for this State. That is costing every man, woman and child here €14,000 per annum. Could the Taoiseach outline the steps that have been taken? Could he tell us - it is not a State secret - when he intends to apply for retroactive recapitalisation and when that will apply, and can he inform the Dáil about his plans around this hugely important issue?
The answer to the Deputy's question is that it is a case of deciding on the options that are in the best interests of the Irish taxpayer. We could not apply for direct recapitalisation under the decision of June 2012 until we put all the steps in place, including the single supervisory mechanism, SSM, the banking union concept, and all those complicated issues.
That is all in place.
That is all done, so it is now open to the Government to apply for recapitalisation if it so decides. What should the Government decide? What the Government has to do, and what it should do, is to make a decision as to what is in the best interests of the Irish taxpayer. In other words, were we to apply for recapitalisation, let us say we would get X amount, whereas if we look at the question of the banks we have an interest in, that is-----
The Taoiseach is not answering the question.
I will answer the question if the Deputy lets me finish. We put €4 billion into the Bank of Ireland; we got back €6 billion. We still own 14% or 15% of that. We own 99% of AIB. Which is the better option? Is it to hold that in the knowledge that we have made a profit for the taxpayer from Bank of Ireland already and we still own that element of it? What do we do with AIB? How do we determine its value? What should we do over a period? Would we get back more for the taxpayer than if we applied for direct recapitalisation? On the latter question, if we do apply, and if we get full consent from all the governors - unanimous agreement - and we get X amount back for the Irish taxpayer, what would we do if we were to suddenly find that the value of what we hold in AIB is vastly greater? The Government has to make a choice here in the interests of the taxpayer. What is the best thing to do? What is the best option? As the Minister for Finance has pointed out, Government will consider and reflect on this very carefully.
We have options. We had no option before because the thing was completely defunct and had to be restructured. The Deputy will recall all the questions he asked here week after week, such as whether we were going to borrow €3 billion to pay the interest in Anglo Irish Bank. That crowd on the opposite side of the House put €34 billion into Anglo Irish Bank and we will never get it back. At least we have a chance with the options we now have for the taxpayer.
Thank you.
Election mode.
How do we get back the most money for the taxpayer? Which decision do we make? Which option do we choose?
(Interruptions).
Thank you, Taoiseach. We are over time.
Deputy Mathews's advice is very good in this regard.
Wilbur Ross took half a billion euro back to America in his back pocket.
A Deputy
What about Roscommon and-----
He has many ideas about what is the proper thing to do, so Government will have to make that decision in due course.
The Taoiseach's answer is that he does not know.
I remind the Deputy that his question was when the last meeting of the Cabinet sub-committee on European affairs took place. He got that one in behind my back.
That is the question.
The Taoiseach does not know.
Written Answers follow Adjournment.