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.