Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Government-Church Dialogue

Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 5 March 2013

Tuesday, 5 March 2013

Ceisteanna (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22)

Gerry Adams

Ceist:

1. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach the contact he has had with European leaders since the EU summit on the 22 November 2012. [53845/12]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Micheál Martin

Ceist:

2. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he has met or spoken to Chancellor Merkel recently; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [55444/12]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Micheál Martin

Ceist:

3. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he has held any bilaterals when he attended the Nobel prize ceremony in Oslo, Norway; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [56527/12]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Micheál Martin

Ceist:

4. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he has been speaking to Prime Minister Monti since he announced his intention to resign; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [56528/12]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Micheál Martin

Ceist:

5. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he has any bilaterals planned with EU leaders for the month of January; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2311/13]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Gerry Adams

Ceist:

6. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach the contacts he had with Chancellor Merkel since the December 2012 EU summit. [2331/13]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Joe Higgins

Ceist:

7. Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on recent discussions with EU leaders since the EU summit on 22 November. [2341/13]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Micheál Martin

Ceist:

8. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he has many bilaterals with European leaders scheduled for January; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2350/13]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Micheál Martin

Ceist:

9. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the details of his recent conversation with Chancellor Angela Merkel; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2378/13]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Micheál Martin

Ceist:

10. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he has had bilaterals with any EU leaders since 1 January; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2379/13]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Micheál Martin

Ceist:

11. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he has held a bilateral with Prime Minister Katainen of Finland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2390/13]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Micheál Martin

Ceist:

12. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he has held a bilateral with Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt of Denmark; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2391/13]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Richard Boyd Barrett

Ceist:

13. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if he has spoken to Prime Minister Cameron regarding his proposed referendum on EU membership; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4038/13]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Micheál Martin

Ceist:

14. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he spoke with President Hollande recently; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5086/13]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Gerry Adams

Ceist:

15. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach the contacts he has had with British Prime Minister David Cameron in relation to his intention to hold a referendum on Britain's membership of the European Union. [5090/13]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Richard Boyd Barrett

Ceist:

16. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if he will report on any meetings he has had with Prime Minister Monti at the EU Council meeting in December or at any subsequent meetings at EU level; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8567/13]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Richard Boyd Barrett

Ceist:

17. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach the EU leaders he has met with since the EU summit and if he will report on these meetings. [9966/13]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Richard Boyd Barrett

Ceist:

18. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if he has had any discussions with the Greek Prime Minister since the EU summit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9967/13]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Richard Boyd Barrett

Ceist:

19. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if he has had any meetings or discussions with the recently resigned Bulgarian Prime Minister since the EU summit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9968/13]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Micheál Martin

Ceist:

20. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he has met the Spanish Prime Minister recently; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10968/13]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Richard Boyd Barrett

Ceist:

21. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if he will report on any meetings or conversations he has had with the German Chancellor Angela Merkel including any discussions he has had with her on banking debt and the economy here; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11391/13]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Richard Boyd Barrett

Ceist:

22. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11392/13]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Freagraí ó Béal (98 píosaí cainte)

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 22, inclusive, together.

I attended the Nobel Peace Prize award ceremony in Oslo on 10 December last. While there, I availed of the opportunity to have a number of bilateral meetings, including with Prime Minister Stoltenberg of Norway and Prime Minister Thorning-Schmidt of Denmark. During these meetings, I emphasised Ireland's efforts to make legacy bank debt more sustainable and set out the priorities of the Irish Presidency. In addition, I outlined the difficulties we have faced in our economy and the sacrifices made by our people.

I also attended a lunch meeting hosted by Prime Minister Stoltenberg for the Heads of State or Government attending the Nobel ceremony, as well as Presidents Van Rompuy, Barroso and Schulz. I met Presidents Van Rompuy, Barroso and Schulz a number of times during recent months on Presidency related issues, most recently Presidents Barroso and Schulz in Dublin on Thursday last, 28 February. These meetings focused in the main issues on the current EU agenda, especially the Union's future budget. I also used these opportunities to update the Presidents on the Irish economic situation, including on our banking related debt.

Last Thursday's meeting focused on the next steps on the EU's multi-annual financial framework. We also touched upon the agenda of this month's European Council, strengthening economic and monetary union and the work of the Irish Presidency. As a courtesy, Prime Minister Cameron telephoned me before he delivered his speech in the UK and the EU on 23 January to brief me in general terms on its contents. I will meet Prime Minister Cameron in London next Monday for our annual review of British-Irish relations.

As part of my attendance at the World Economic Forum on 23 to 25 January, I took part in an interactive plenary session, entitled "The European Crisis - the way forward", with Prime Ministers Monti, Rutte and Thorning-Schmidt. As separate questions relating to my attendance at the World Economic Forum have been tabled, I will not go into the detail of this meeting in this reply.

I met Prime Minister Reinfeldt of Sweden in Dublin on Friday, 22 February. Our discussions focussed on the work of the Irish Presidency; strengthening economic and monetary union; trade; the multi-annual financial framework, youth unemployment, the Single Market and the Swedish experience of recession and return to recovery. While I have not very recently had formal bilateral meetings with President Hollande, Chancellor Merkel or Prime Ministers Katainen, Samaras, Rajoy and Borisov, I did see them and all of my European Council colleagues at the European Council in Brussels on 7 and 8 February, and will, of course, see all of them again at the European Council later this month.

I would like an opportunity to ask further questions on another issue, but for now I want to ask whether the Taoiseach has discussed with the other European leaders the currently stalled Middle East peace process. The EU heads of mission Jerusalem report was handed to EU governments in January and I wrote to the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste about it last week. The report finds that Israeli settlements in east Jerusalem and the West Bank are the biggest single threat to the two state solution. It finds Israeli policy to be systematic, deliberate, provocative and aimed at making it impossible for Jerusalem to become the capital of two states. The report concludes the Israeli Government is pursuing a deliberate policy of seeking to drive Palestinians out of east Jerusalem through restrictive zoning and planning, demolitions, excavations, discriminatory access to religious sites, an inequitable education policy, little access to health care and inadequate provision of resources. It identifies some settlement construction on the southern flank of east Jerusalem as being the most significant and problematic.

As we do not have time I will not take the Taoiseach through the rest of the report which, coming from EU heads of mission, calls on the EU to prevent, discourage and raise awareness of the problematic implications of financial transactions, including foreign direct investment from within the EU in support of settlement activities, infrastructure and services. It recommends the EU, which is Israel's largest import and export market, take sanctions against settlements in east Jerusalem and the West Bank. This is under our Presidency and I ask the Taoiseach to act on these recommendations. What steps have been taken since he received the report? Does he support the recommendations?

A Palestinian prisoner, Arafat Jaradat, a young man who was arrested for throwing a stone, died and the Palestinian authorities allege he was tortured. This situation was exacerbated because two children were killed and two Palestinian-only bus lanes were launched. There are 4,500 Palestinian prisoners. Under our Presidency and given our history of peace making and conflict can these issues be raised? Has the Taoiseach read the report? Will he act on the recommendations?

At each European Council meeting a report has been given on the Syrian question by the EU High Representative, Baroness Catherine Ashton, which outlines the devastating consequences of the conflict. I have not had time to read the report to which the Deputy referred but I have it in my office. The conflict in Syria, as the Deputy is well aware, has been a major priority for the European Union for the past two years. Latest UN estimates put the death toll in Syria at up to 70,000, including more than 500 children. At least 2 million Syrians have been displaced internally and a further 2 million are in serious need of humanitarian assistance. The High Representative has given evidence that the Christian population in particular has suffered unprecedented attacks. A total of 820,000 Syrians have fled to neighbouring countries as refugees from the violence. During the Presidency the Tánaiste and Minister for Affairs and Trade is treating this as a major priority and recently discussed the question with Secretary of State Kerry. We will fully support the efforts of the EU High Representative on this issue and we will use our influence in so far as we can to advance the efforts of the Union to bring about a political solution to the conflict and deal effectively with the humanitarian fallout.

We must continue to focus our efforts on finding a way to end the violence and initiate a political process. We are supportive of the mediation efforts led by the UN Arab League joint special envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi, in search of a political breakthrough and we call on the political opposition in Syria led by the Syrian National Coalition to work more closely with the special envoy. We also welcome the initiative by the president of the Syrian National Coalition, Sheikh al-Khatib, in proposing direct talks with the Syrian regime and the ongoing diplomatic efforts to give effect to this initiative and promote the beginning of dialogue which might lead to a peace process.

During its Presidency of the EU, Ireland will remain actively engaged in addressing the appalling humanitarian situation which has arisen since the crisis began. The Government allocated an additional €4.7 million in Irish Aid funding and emergency supplies to help meet the needs of some of the civilian population in Syria. This brings the total value of the Irish Government's response to the crisis to just over €7 million. We have been very supportive of efforts to refer the situation in Syria to the International Criminal Court. We have been at the forefront of EU efforts in this regard and will continue to be so. When I had the privilege of meeting former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton in Dublin we discussed this in the course of our conversation and when she left Government Buildings it was to proceed to a direct discussion with the special envoy, Mr. Brahimi, on the question in Syria.

At the Davos World Economic Forum a contribution was made by Javier Solano who stated Europe in particular must look at what is happening across the Mediterranean because the situation is evolving globally and there may well be a requirement for far more focused and more detailed analysis of how Europe should look at its relationship with the entire Middle East in the time ahead. The two state solution has been a central feature of this for many years, but starting with the Arab spring the focus has moved around the perimeter of the Mediterranean and Syria, unfortunately and tragically, is a very bad case. In so far as Ireland is concerned, as a member of the Union and as the holder of the Presidency we will proceed in respect of the actions I have mentioned. I suggest the Deputy tables a Topical Issue matter on the specific issue of the report and the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade would be happy to respond to it, or on the next occasion we have questions I will be able to answer the Deputy in greater detail.

I have tabled 11 of the 22 questions being taken. I will not get to all of them but I hope I have another opportunity to speak later. Last week I raised with the Taoiseach the fact that the European Central Bank earns more than €500 million per year in profits from the holding of Irish bonds. Six months ago the European Central Bank agreed to return all profits on Greek bonds to Athens. Ireland and other countries forced out of the market by current EU policies have a clear right to be treated in the same way. The original reduction on the interest rates on loans occurred because of a decision taken on the Greek situation.

The current alleviation of debt in terms of Portugal and Ireland is welcome, but it follows the Portuguese initiative on the basis of what happened to Greece. Last week, I asked the Taoiseach whether he had formally asked for the ECB profits on Irish bonds to be returned to Ireland. He was not in a position to answer the question then but said he would seek information from the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, and would then inform the House of the result. So I am asking again, has the Taoiseach formally asked for the ECB profits on Irish bonds to be returned to Ireland or not?

The Taoiseach has declined to say anything regarding the British Prime Minister, Mr. Cameron's position on a possible exit of his country from the EU, other than that he did not want this to happen and that it would be bad for Ireland. We do not necessarily want it to happen and know that it would be bad for Ireland. However, will we do anything to prevent it from occurring? Given that we are looking at the potential exit of our largest trading partner within the EU, have we commissioned any studies - beyond the general to the specific - on the impact of such a decision if the UK was to proceed along that path?

Does the Deputy mean in respect of stopping a potential referendum?

No. I am referring to quantifying the impact of a British exit on the Irish economy. Have we commissioned any study on what the actual impact would be on the Irish economy?

On 21 February, the governing council of the European Central Bank decided to publish the euro system's holdings of securities acquired under the securities markets programme, or what is called the SMP. That decision is in line with the envisaged transparency stance for the outright monetary transactions, as was communicated on 6 September 2012. At that time, the securities markets programme was terminated. That showed total holdings on 31 December 2012, with a nominal value of €218 billion, comprising Italian, Greek, Spanish, Portuguese and Irish bonds. Of this total, Irish bonds amounted to €14.2 billion nominal value with an average remaining maturity of 4.6 years. The statement did not include any estimate of any profit which the ECB may or may not realise on such bonds. However, the ECB also raised its annual accounts on 21 February. The press release accompanying that showed that the ECB's total interest earnings on a securities market programme, and its holdings of Irish, Greek, Spanish, Italian and Portuguese bonds in 2012, was €1.1 billion. The statement confirmed that some €555 million of this interest arose from its holdings on Greek bonds, which amounted to €33.9 billion. The remaining €463 million of the ECB's SMP interest earnings arose from its combined holdings of Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and Irish bonds.

We should be cognisant of the fact that the ECB is bound by its obligations under the EU treaties and that member states must respect that. The package of measures that was agreed for Greece on 26 November 2012 by eurozone finance Ministers was designed to put the Greek economy on a path to sustainable growth and its domestic finances on a sound footing. That package was agreed in the context of the statement by the euro area Heads of State and Government that the scale of the Greek problem was so large that it required special attention.

It is important to note that the concessions that were agreed specifically for Greece were accompanied by a significant additional conditionality. One of the measures that was proposed in November - the SMP profits measure - will see member states pass on to Greece's segregated account an amount equivalent to the income on the SMP portfolio that would eventually accrue to their national central banks as from budget year 2013.

Member states under a full financial assistance programme, such as Ireland, are not required to participate in this scheme for the period in which they receive financial assistance. Ireland is obviously in a very different position from Greece. Our programme is working. We have completed 190 agreed targets and have surpassed many, including our annual deficit targets. Growth has returned to the economy and I welcomed last week's figures showing positive employment growth. Furthermore, as a country exiting a programme, our situation cannot be seen as comparable to Greece. We continue to examine the Greek package to see if any aspects of it offer any possible benefit to Ireland, particularly in regard to our exit.

In January, EU finance Ministers agreed that the request made by Portugal and Ireland for an extension of the maturities of their loans from the EFSF and the EFSM would be considered by senior officials before coming back to finance Ministers for further consideration.

Deputies will be aware that we have had some positive news recently: the elimination of the promissory notes in IBRC; the sale of the Bank of Ireland contingent convertible capital notes, known as Cocos; the recent sale of Irish Life; and, just this week, the announcement of the ending of the bank guarantee. These are significant milestones on this country's way back to recovery. Obviously, we still have important and necessary decisions to take as is evidenced by the recent agreement on public sector pay, but Ireland is continuing to restore the damage done and is returning to more normal circumstances, albeit not without risks along the way.

I would recall the benefits we have already received, notably assistance in the form of a reduction of interest rates and extended maturities. In addition, last June, the Heads of State and Government agreed on breaking the link between banks and sovereign. They made explicit reference to Ireland in that decision. It is important to remember that Ireland is exiting a programme and we should have regard to what we need to assist that exit, rather than focusing solely on measures that are provided for a country in very different circumstances than ours.

As Deputy Martin is aware, the ECOFIN group under the chairmanship of the Minister for Finance has been discussing this matter today. While the situation has been agreed in principle, clearly the troika needs to analyse the details of that. If it is agreed, it has to be put to each country. In the context of extending the maturities of the loans given to both Portugal and Ireland, this would be of further significant benefit to us as we make our way to exiting this programme. These moneys from European institutions are at lower interest rates than we could achieve on the markets, and therefore a longer extension of that would be of benefit to us. However, it is too early to make a definitive statement about it until these matters are finished.

The Deputy asked whether we have done an analysis on the impact of the potential exit of the UK from the EU, were that to be decided by the British Government and the British people. I have already said that this would be of the most serious import for this country and, indeed, in the context of the European Union. I expect to devote some of our time to this matter next week when I meet with the British Prime Minister in London. Britain is our closest neighbour and biggest trading partner, as well as being close in so many other respects. I would not like to see a situation where Britain decided to leave the European Union. As a founder member of the Single Market, this must be seen in the context of discussions that will take place under the Irish EU Presidency on trade issues with Japan, Singapore, Canada and other countries. Hopefully, we will also get a mandate to start the negotiations on EU-US trade talks once Ireland's EU Presidency is finished. If we get that mandate during our EU Presidency, the talks would commence subsequent to our EU Presidency. The figures, however, indicate the possibility of the creation of at least 2 million jobs in Europe, with the opportunity to increase economic growth in the various countries by up to 3%. I intend to discuss these issues with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Cameron.

Has the Taoiseach commissioned any such studies?

We have not carried out an analysis on the impact of it. From our viewpoint, however, having voted 60-40 in favour of the fiscal stability treaty, the euro and the eurozone, we also want to keep our ports and gates of business open to and from Britain. That would be of such fundamental importance for us here and for them because of their exports to Ireland and vice versa. I will discuss that issue with Mr. Cameron when I meet him next week.

In his contacts and discussions with European Union leaders, what role does the Taoiseach play on the issue of Ireland's debts, as distinct from or complementary to that of the Minister for Finance? Both just now and this morning, the Taoiseach trumpeted as a great breakthrough the fact that the repayment of the bank debts to the troika and to the various programmes will be drawn out over a further period of perhaps 15 years. The Taoiseach trumpeted this as being a great success. Will the Taoiseach explain this to the Irish people? Will he explain that instead of telling the troika that it was unsustainable to continue to pay the debt it insisted was put on the shoulders of the Irish people to salvage its financial system with the savage austerity that it imposes on the people, the Taoiseach turned around and extended the time for repayment in order that it becomes like a war reparation situation, whereby not just the present generation but generations yet unborn will be carrying the debt? Can the Taoiseach justify this please? In respect of the promissory notes and the changes that were made there, Members never heard what will be the total cost to the Irish people over the 40 years or so that this arrangement will spin out. Equally, can the Taoiseach tell me what are the cost implications for what was announced this morning in regard to the total bill the people will pay, whether it is over 12 years, ten years or a further 15 years added on to that?

Second, I have read that for the European Union Presidency, the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Gilmore, has stored a virtual lake of a fine French wine, Lynch Bages, at €80 per bottle. The elite of Europe who are coming here to drink that fine wine are the ones who are demanding savage austerity on the Irish people. Would it not be more appropriate perhaps to serve them chilled buttermilk instead of fine expensive wine, which is a further burden on the Irish people and thereby make them practice what they preach a little?

I assure the Deputy that at the working lunch I had the other day with the Swedish and Norwegian Prime Ministers, cool clear water is what was on offer.

As befits the Scandinavians.

However, I think it appropriate that the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade should have available some refreshment for international visitors of-----

-----connection with this country. Even from his socialist perspective, I do not believe the Deputy would begrudge the grape pickers in the vineyards in socialist areas the right to produce fine wine and to be able to sell it to boost their own economies.

A price of €9 per bottle would be more appropriate.

The Deputy would never begrudge them a sip of red or white, as the case may be. I assure the Deputy that the Government and the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade are highly conscious of the requirement to be realistic in expenditure these days, much more so than what happened in the past.

The Deputy asked me what is the role of the leaders in respect of our debt. The Deputy is aware of the process and, as a former Member of the European Parliament, knows what it is like. These matters go through a process until they come eventually to the Heads of State and Government for decision. In between, it may be necessary to have contact on an occasional or bilateral basis with individual leaders from other countries. However, the case must be put by an individual leader or Head of Government at the Council meeting to have something either adopted unanimously or agreed in whatever form. This is what happened in the case of the decision of 29 June 2012, where all the preparatory work was gone through by the permanent representatives, that is, the public officials. While it went through the process of Ministers for Finance, it was agreed by leaders. I did not describe this as a great breakthrough this morning. What I did say was it would be of considerable benefit to the country, were it to be agreed. I cannot foresee the conclusion of the discussions that will take place. As I stated, Commissioner Rehn stated this morning that were this to be agreed, it would happen at the meeting here in Dublin next month. Clearly however, Deputy Higgins should be aware there is quite a long way to go in this regard. The troika must carry out its analysis of the details of how this will work in respect of the different loans, the maturities and when they are due and so on. Moreover, it will be necessary for this to be adopted by each member state.

The Deputy asked me what is the benefit of extending maturities. Potentially, it is highly significant and will be beneficial for Ireland as it will reduce the amount the National Treasury Management Agency, NTMA, will be obliged to re-finance on the debt markets in those years in which the loans originally were due to be repaid. I speak now in respect of the extension already agreed here. In addition, the cost of such term loans from the European Financial Stability Facility, EFSF, and the European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism, EFSM, is likely to be lower than what Ireland would be obliged to pay in the debt markets, given the superior credit rating of these institutions of Europe in the coming years. It will be cheaper for Ireland to hold onto that. This is particularly important as there are significant amounts of existing non-European Union-IMF debt maturing between 2015 and 2020 and accordingly, an extension of those maturities would be viewed positively by the debt markets and therefore would benefit Ireland's overall cost of borrowing.

That decision serves as an example of the progress the Government has made and is making at European level in reducing the cost of the European Union-IMF programme entered into by the previous Administration. Some of the issues that have happened in this regard, such as the replacement of the promissory notes, the liquidation of IBRC, the agreement on 29 June last and the specific reference to improving the sustainability of the programme here, are issues that are relevant to us. Moreover, Ireland will not be obliged to repay principal on promissory notes until 2038, which gives us a real opportunity to get our house in order, to have our economy well run and to have a prosperous country in which we can really focus on the question and the challenge of creating jobs. I listened to President Clinton when he visited two years ago when he made the point that the historical fact about every country that goes through a recession is that when it is over, it takes at least ten years to make that benefit filter down to people on the ground in the context of creating jobs. He stated the challenge for Ireland was to short-circuit that and to prove it can have real benefit from exiting a programme, restoring its public finances and getting its economy back to good health but to focus on the creation of jobs and not to have a so-called jobless recovery.

This is a challenge about which this House and Oireachtas have a lot of ideas. The Government is willing to act in the interests of getting people off the live register, of making decisions that will increase flexibility and access to credit for small businesses in order that jobs can be created and to retain the strong elements of what we already have. I refer to both Enterprise Ireland, in terms of exports and jobs being created here and in other countries but with profits accruing to Ireland, as well as to the continued line of strong foreign direct investment into Ireland, further evidence for which was demonstrated today. Deputy Higgins should be aware this is the really big challenge for the country. It must sort out its public finances and put its economy into a place where it is growing and becoming prosperous but must do so with a direct beneficial impact on the creation of jobs. The extension of maturity dates would be of benefit to Ireland with regard to the cost of its borrowing and the sustainability of its capacity to repay, as well as by giving the Government the opportunity to make decisions to grow job numbers and to give the people hope, confidence and real benefits by short-circuiting what has happened in other countries on a regular basis.

That is what we will focus on for the next period, to see how we can really create jobs and get people off the live register. The Minister for Social Protection is making a huge structural change to give effect to that.

Does the Taoiseach not realise that ordinary people in this country are sick of hearing constant announcements about progress on restoring the public finances and announcements such as we have had over recent weeks about great deals for stringing out the period over which we must pay these enormous debts, declared as victories and reasons to celebrate, when there is no commitment to anything to alleviate the burden of cuts and austerity inflicted on those citizens this year, next year and the year after? The truth is that extending maturities makes no difference to the fact that this year we will pay over €8 billion in interest on this massive debt on which the Government will not even ask for a write-down. We will continue to pay that enormous level of interest on this utterly unsustainable debt year on year for years to come. Almost as much as the education budget is being paid out in interest on a debt largely either not ours at all or not the responsibility of ordinary citizens in that it resulted from a collapse engineered by others. That is the problem and unless the Government addresses that we will be bled dry.

The Taoiseach rightly suggests that we are facing into a decade of this misery, of bumping along the bottom with mass unemployment, negligible growth and no prospect of improving that situation if this money continues to be drained out of us year on year. In the Taoiseach's discussions with other European leaders and in his statements about likely improvements in our financial situation when he says we will meet the 3% target and that will be the end of it, then the worst will be over, why does he not admit that will not be the case because when we reach the 3% target we immediately come under the demands of the fiscal referendum? Even though there is a three year time gap we will be required under that treaty to move towards 0.5% and will be required to reduce this debt of €200 billion by half, paying one twentieth per year, requiring billions of extra cuts and austerity after we meet the 3% debt target. We are facing into a decade of further cuts to pay off these debts and to meet the deficit targets. Where is the relief? Where is the light on the horizon for ordinary people given the requirements to which the Taoiseach has signed up and committed?

I do not think the Taoiseach should be light-hearted about the wine bill. Can he explain the wine bill that has been built up under his Government in the Department of Foreign Affairs? Why has the wine bill for the year that he came into office quadrupled? The amount spent by the Tánaiste's Department in the year that the Government came into office quadrupled. It appears that we now need four times more wine than we needed in the last year of the previous Government to entertain the great and the good of Europe. Is our strategy to get them a bit tipsy in the hope that they will give us the break in respect of our debt that we have not succeeded in getting from them? It is unconscionable that faced with the level of austerity being inflicted on ordinary people, we have to spend four times more on wining and dining delegates from Europe.

It might be better if Deputies were to table questions of that nature to the individual Ministers so that they can get a proper answer.

That might be helpful.

Priority Questions to the Taoiseach have become a comprehensive debate and those who have genuine questions down are not getting answers. Perhaps Deputies should stick to the questions that have been tabled and then we might get answers to them or to the supplementary questions based on those questions.

I am sure that Deputy Boyd Barrett does not want whatever meagre shelves they have in the Department of Foreign Affairs to be stocked with Blue Nun or Black Tower for the people who arrive from foreign countries.

The bill has quadrupled.

Maybe he does, I do not know. If we had somebody who could transform the water into wine he would be very welcome as well, I am sure.

The Taoiseach took the embassy away from the Vatican so that is no longer an option.

I do not agree at all with Deputy Boyd Barrett about this decade of misery. My point was that former President Clinton said that the challenge for Ireland was to short-circuit what has happened in most other places. He said we have the capacity to do this because the big decisions that are made about our programme, exiting the programme, improving our debt sustainability, having cash flow because of the decisions made to extend the maturities of the promissory notes and hopefully, the discussions arising in respect of other loans will give us that breathing space. That is why the Government is focusing on the decisions for investment and changes to structures that will allow for a much more immediate impact on the people whom I and Deputy Boyd Barrett represent who are on the live register, want to be employed and to contribute, and who at the moment, for one reason or another, might not have a great degree of confidence about finding a job. The Minister for Social Protection is changing the structure so that the way in which the Intreo offices deal with people on the live register is fundamentally different from what applied in the past.

As the Deputy is aware the IMF-EU programme was for €85 billion. That is what we inherited two years ago this week. The programme for Government set out very clearly to make decisions to deal with that public financial problem to change the structures for the way in which we make decisions and do business. That €85 billion was made up of €17.5 billion from our own resources, cash reserves in the National Pensions Reserve Fund, NPRF, €22.5 billion from the IMF extended loan facility, €22.5 billion from the European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism, EFSM, €22.5 billion from the European Financial Stability Facility, EFSF, and €17.7 billion in bilateral loans, including €3.8 billion from the United Kingdom, €0.6 billion from Sweden and €0.4 billion from Denmark. It is in our interest to extend the loans from the EFSF and the EFSM because they are borrowed at lower than market rates to give us the capacity to have cash flow to invest in business and therefore create profit for the country and the economy. The EFSF accounts for just under €18 billion of programme funding and to date Ireland has availed of almost €13 billion of that in six tranches with original maturities ranging from 3.1 years to 29 years. That is what the troika will examine in the case of the loans, their rates and the dates of maturity. The EFSM accounts for €22.5 billion of the programme and we have availed of €21.7 billion of that in nine tranches with original maturities ranging from five to 30 years.

While the Deputy might not think it, most of the external funds borrowed were used for the provision of public services such as health and education and social protection and most of the funds that were used to recapitalise the banks have come from the NPRF. What has been borrowed from abroad from those institutional funds was for our people, for education, health, social protection services and wages.

I am sure even Deputy Boyd Barrett would not want that not to have happened.

Some €3.6 billion of the EFSF loans will fall to be repaid within the next three years, with an additional €5 billion of ESM debt maturing. This, along with the existing debt securities, places pressure on the State, through the NTMA, to borrow the money on the debt markets at that time. That is the reason why, in respect of these matters, we are hopeful of further progress. I do not accept the Deputy's assertion that because it happened to others, we are condemned to bobbing along the bottom in a decade of misery. These are challenging times for everyone but it will not get better unless the Government works with colleagues in Europe and makes decisions here in the interests of all our people. The public pay talks are important so that everyone, from the highest to the latest recruit, puts their shoulders to the wheel and makes a contribution. In many cases, the contributions are challenging and difficult to make. It is in the interests of our country and in the interest of the generation behind us to sort that out. The decisions of Government must be as fair as possible across the board. I do not accept the assertion of Deputy Boyd Barrett of being confined to a decade of what he described.

It was my intention to ask a different supplementary question but the Taoiseach did not answer my question. He spoke at length about Syria and I share his concerns and agree with much of what he said but my question was not about Syria but about the recent report of EU heads of mission, the Jerusalem report. The Presidency of the EU will last six months, which will quickly pass. After that period, if the Taoiseach wants to reflect on what big thing he has done, there is nothing better than to have taken the report produced by EU heads of mission for the EU and ensured it is on the clár of the summits and discussions the Taoiseach is involved with. Dealing with the clear recommendations, which are entirely within the remit of the EU, will greatly assist in trying to bring some sense to what is happening in the Middle East. Without significant international intervention, the situation will only get worse. I am no prophet of doom; I am from the optimistic wing of politics but it is certain the situation will only get worse. The Taoiseach has visited the region and I have been there a few times, including a visit to Gaza. I always come away with a sadness because leadership is lacking. We need people from outside the bloc to come in and take lateral action. The ball is with the Taoiseach. The EU heads of mission produced a report with specific recommendations and, under the Presidency, the Taoiseach can act on it and can certainly ensure they are discussed.

One of the issues concerns 4,500 prisoners and one prisoner dead in custody. The allegation is that he was tortured and two children were also killed. I commend these issues to the Taoiseach. Does the Irish Presidency have a role in these matters? Given our history, I would like to think the Taoiseach sees it as his definitive historical role to use the Presidency to focus on peace in the Middle East and particularly the report brought forward for his attention.

Will the Taoiseach outline what has been achieved, if anything, on the issue of retrospective bank recapitalisation at this week's ECOFIN and Eurogroup meetings? In June, there was a commitment to separate banking debt from sovereign debt. The Government interpreted it as being retrospective. Some €28 billion has been put in by the former Fianna Fáil Government and this Government. Can the Taoiseach clarify the present situation? The major question is whether the Taoiseach will act on the Jerusalem report.

Deputy Adams is aware the country with the Presidency does not drive individual issues. In the case of the Middle East, it is constantly on the agenda of the European Council and the countries participating in the rotation of the Presidency. The High Representative, Catherine Ashton, makes the report to the Council and at whatever other meetings of the Foreign Ministers apply. The Tánaiste has been in attendance at a number of these meetings. The Presidency has a close working relationship with the Heads of Government and, as a consequence, with the High Representative. From that point of view, Deputy Adams can take it that the Tánaiste has already been involved in this insofar as the Council meetings are concerned. It is on the agenda and I will be happy to raise it at the next Heads of Government meeting as Presidency Chairman and as a member of the Council.

With regard to the decision of last year, the Minister for Finance made recommendations for the architecture of the single supervisory mechanism. The discussion started in the new year under the chairmanship of the Dutch Finance Minister at the Eurogroup and at ECOFIN by the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan. This morning, further progress was made on principles agreed but not yet delivered upon because of the requirement for the troika and each of the individual countries to accept them. We hope that it will be so and the Minister for Finance is working on that.

Discussions are ongoing in respect of the single supervisory mechanism leading to banking union, which will take place in 2014. I do not expect it to be concluded before then. Some of these matters are very complex, given the range of banks to be covered and the issues involved. The credit resolution directive, which was debated this morning on the basis of an Irish proposition, will be something that must be delivered upon by an enhanced majority. It affects the entire European area.

I asked earlier in respect of the ECB and the profits it is making on Irish holdings of Irish bonds. The Taoiseach read from a lengthy document and I ask him to forward the document to me.

It is on the public record.

Will the Taoiseach send a copy to us?

Deputy Martin can get it from the public record.

The Taoiseach is very helpful.

I will send it to Deputy Martin, of course.

The Taoiseach did not answer the question I asked, which was whether he had formally asked for ECB profits on Irish bonds to be returned to Ireland. If a deal is done for Greece, the same should apply to Portugal, Ireland and other countries in programmes. That has been the principle since the outset of the crisis. What is provided for in one country is provided for in another, as we had originally with the reduction in interest rates.

The Taoiseach has not quite answered the question. Given what happened for Greece in this context, why should it not happen for Ireland and Portugal? Have we put this suggestion on the table?

Why have we not commissioned a study on the economic impact of a potential British exit from the EU? Do we know what the impact would be on the Irish economy? This seems to illustrate a lack of proactivity in terms of future planning as regards the EU. I have made this point numerous times in the House. What is our overall position on the Union's future, what is our understanding of a fiscally federal Europe, for example, and do we agree with the concept, and what scenarios will arise from the Van Rompuy analysis, including treaty changes that may come down the tracks? Are we hanging around waiting to see what emerges and making quick decisions on that basis?

Why have we not commissioned a report that would specifically quantify the impact on our economy were Britain to withdraw from the EU? Will the Taoiseach commit in the House to the Government undertaking such a study? It would be important, given the fact that we are dealing with our largest trading partner within the EU.

The figures of the scale of trade between Ireland and Britain on a daily basis over and back across the Irish Sea are well known. The year 2017 is a very long way away in terms of politics and the views that might be expressed by the British Government and the British people. Clearly, the general election in Britain will take place in the interim.

Everyone does scenario setting.

No, the Deputy is asking for an analysis to be carried out of something that is four or five years away, depending on what the-----

No, it would have been helpful now.

We have all of the figures as to what the trade is now.

I am not referring to trade.

Please, through the Chair.

We have them on a daily basis.

I am referring to the broad economic impact.

We know what they are over and back across the sea every day. We have all of that. If the Deputy wants a mountain of that material, I will give it to him.

The Deputy asked me for specific details about work that has been in progress here for quite some time. He is coming from a base at which he said this could never happen, that it would never become a reality-----

What could not happen? Answer the question I asked.

-----that we would never deal with promissory notes, that we would constantly have to borrow €3.1 billion every year, and that we would not have a sovereign debt and bank debt. These are issues that he raised and-----

This is more of it. I asked the Taoiseach a brief question. Can he not answer it?

The Deputy talks about being proactive.

I asked about the British-----

Deputy, please.

For Deputy Martin to come with that line of talk is simply absurd.

He does it on a regular basis as if people have not forgotten what happened in the past. I want him to understand this - we have set out a very clear strategy and plan-----

Will the Taoiseach answer the question? Did the Government ask the European Central Bank or not?

-----to reduce our cost of borrowing and to enhance our debt sustainability. The topic about which Deputy Martin asked is work that is in progress. I have pointed out to him in the lengthy document that he mentioned-----

Did the Government ask?

-----that we are very different from our colleagues in Greece. We have made that position clear. The Heads of Government were very specific, in that Greece was a very specific case.

Did the Government ask?

The matter about which the Deputy asked is work that is in progress.

Did the Government ask the ECB, yes or no?

Has the Deputy a further supplementary question-----

I just want to ask the question again.

-----that is relevant to the questions on the Order Paper?

Yes. I have 11-----

I have listened all afternoon.

I have not spoken at all.

Deputies are asking questions that are not even on the Order Paper. Can we stick to the Order Paper and get replies, please?

I have tabled 11 questions. My interventions-----

Does the Deputy want me to read out those questions to him?

I have read them. I know what they are.

They have nothing to do with what the Deputy is discussing.

They actually do. The Taoiseach has met every European leader, including President Barroso. To be fair, I have been brief. I have only contributed twice, and for short periods.

Go on. I have called the Deputy.

The Taoiseach filibusters on Question Time time and again.

The ECB is completely independent of politics.

We are straying from what is on the Order Paper.

Once the Taoiseach gets to his feet, it is 15 or 20 minutes per answer. This is not a one-way street. When we ask questions, we do not get answers to them.

We are all straying. Time is up.

I asked a brief question on whether the Government had formally asked for the ECB's profits on Irish bonds to be returned to Ireland. It is a "Yes" or "No" answer.

Deputy Martin is well aware that the European Central Bank is an entirely independent operation.

Does the Taoiseach believe that?

Our representative on the European Central Bank is the Governor of the Irish Central Bank, Patrick Honohan-----

That is not what the Taoiseach stated three weeks ago.

-----who is working diligently and relentlessly in the nation's interests. The question that the Deputy asked on the issue of the best return for Ireland and Ireland's taxpayers is a focus of Government and is work that is ongoing on a constant basis.

The Taoiseach referenced President Clinton with regard to policies he advocates to short-circuit the process of recovery, as he put it. In passing, may I caution the Taoiseach about taking President Clinton as an expert?

I am sorry, but time is nearly up. Will the Deputy ask his supplementary question, please?

President Clinton presided over the disastrous deregulation of banking that gave us the crisis in the first place.

Are the surveillance of EU budgets, the two pack and the six pack being discussed in the course of the Irish Presidency? This is an entirely new process that provides for strict surveillance and new powers for the European Commission to dictate aspects of the budgets of member states and to insist on continual austerity. Is the manner in which the process will be implemented in 2013 on the Presidency's agenda? What are the implications of a demand for further austerity on the Irish economy?

I call Deputy Boyd Barrett to ask a supplementary question, as our time is up.

Is it not disingenuous to refer to the recapitalisation of the banks as coming out of the National Pensions Reserve Fund, NPRF, when that was part of an overall package in which we were forced to hand over the rainy day funds of the State and its citizens as a condition for getting loans, all of which were to pay back the gambling debts of private financial institutions, our banks, or to protect the banks in Europe? The Taoiseach's reply was not an answer to the substantial question that I asked him on the debt mountain of €200 billion on which we must pay interest, draining the economy's lifeblood and taking from us the funds that we could use to invest in job creation and growth. Why is it that the Taoiseach will not address this issue with EU leaders?

In respect of the two pack that Deputy Higgins mentioned, this actually was the focus of an element of our Presidency. I was very happy to welcome last month's agreement on that, which was brokered by the Irish Presidency, together with the European Parliament and the European Commission. It is an important part of the eurozone's economic architecture. It means that the new rules will improve budgetary and economic co-ordination among eurozone countries. They will ensure we have full knowledge of developments across the eurozone and assist in preventing future crises that might arise. The agreement will now have to be approved by the Council and the Parliament before becoming law.

For programme countries, enhanced EU surveillance will remain in place until the balance of EU loans outstanding falls below 25% of the total. There are still a number of precise details to be worked out. The impact of it here, as was referred to on a number of occasions, will mean an earlier budget than the date on which the last budget appeared. The details of that will emerge in due course.

For Deputy Boyd Barrett I have to repeat again that the moneys that were borrowed were for wages, for salaries, for social protection services, for educational services and for health services. If he wants to ask questions about the NPRF, maybe he might address them to Deputy Martin when the former gets a chance.

The Taoiseach brought it up.

Written Answers follow Adjournment.
Barr
Roinn