Vol. 603 No. 5
6 Mr. P. McGrath asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if Cabinet approval has been sought to set a new date for the achievement of the UN target for overseas development aid; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18614/05]
33 Ms Burton asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will elaborate on the public statement he issued on 11 March 2005 in response to comments made by Mr. Bob Geldof on the Development Aid report; the provision he has made for the allocation of moneys in forthcoming years to allow Ireland to meet its commitments in regard to overseas development aid; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13369/05]
78 Ms O’Sullivan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will set a new, short, achievable timetable for the target of 0.7% of gross national product for overseas development aid in time for the UN General Assembly in New York in September 2005 when the UN millennium development goals will be re-examined; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18496/05]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6, 33 and 78 together.
I refer the Deputies to my answer to Question No. 1.
The Minister of State said earlier that his Department was in discussions with the Department of Finance regarding future aid. He indicated that he will be announcing the new target before the end of the year. I am sure he will publish a nice glossy brochure again next year. Will he agree that the cynics among us would say the announcement of a new target before the United Nations summit meeting will be seen as providing a figleaf to the Taoiseach when he returns to the scene of his crime in New York where he made the original commitment to0.7%? Will the Minister of State assure me that any new target will be adhered to?
If the Deputy followed my progress since I took up office, he will see that I have been very clear on this matter. We must set a realistic and achievable timeframe on this occasion. We must plan properly how to achieve this target and an achievable timeframe must be set. I agree with the Deputy that it would be dangerous to set an earlier target date that might not be achievable. This would have a damaging impact on the long-term public support for development assistance. It is important in this historic year for development generally precisely because we have this summit in September that noteworthy people such as musicians like Bono and Bob Geldof are doing very good work trying in an idealistic manner to urge people to increase their contribution. The contribution needs to be increased outside the European Union.
It is interesting that the targets set at the meeting in Brussels, including the interim target for 2010, will bring an additional €20 billion into the development field, which is very important. It means there will be an extra €20 billion to deal with the three diseases to which Deputy Higgins referred, namely, tuberculosis, malaria and AIDS. Some €20 billion extra will come into the development aid pool because of the decision taken in Brussels last Monday. I am proud we led the way in that regard. We must be careful about the targets we set. However, we should not forget that the Estimates package I achieved in the last budget was the largest ever in the history of the State. Some €1.8 billion will be spent over the next two years. This represents an increase of €190 million, €70 million this year, €65 million next year and €65 million the following year. This is an extraordinary achievement on which I hope to build.
Question No. 33 refers to the Taoiseach's remarks in reply to a statement made by Bob Geldof. Mr. Geldof has continually stressed the connection between aid, trade and debt. In the case of Zambia, for example, one of the requirements of the International Monetary Fund for Zambia was that it would privatise the Zambian bank, which had many small depositors. The Zambian Government said "No" and it had €1 billion removed from its debt relief. None of the countries we discussed this afternoon has a life expectancy of 50 years. It is 32.5 years or 33 years in Zambia. Some €1 billion in debt relief was taken from a country with a life expectancy of 33 years.
In regard to the points made, it is important that we make our commitment to the 0.7% contribution. In case we lose the run of ourselves, the Minister of State referred to the UN millennium development goals. They would require aid to increase from €121 billion in 2006 to €189 billion in 2015. How will this happen all over the world if we do not meet our 0.7% commitment because we have been growing too quickly? The Taoiseach's position appears to be that we became too rich to meet our commitment. His view is that if the economy went into decline, we would be able to reach the 0.7% commitment more quickly.
The Deputy may be misquoting the Taoiseach's response to Bob Geldof's statement on the African commission. He is correct that there is a significant link between trade, debt and aid. One cannot isolate one to the detriment of the others. It is hoped this year not just to get the volume of increases required to meet the extraordinary figure the Deputy mentioned by 2015 but also to make tangible progress towards achieving this. We are providing an extra €20 billion at European level because of the decision on the interim target of 0.51% by 2010, which is good news. This is why Ireland took such a strong role within the Council of Ministers to have these targets set down for the 15 old member states and the ten new member states who went for a lower figure. This was done to send a strong signal to other countries outside the European Union, but in the OECD, who are not prepared to match the commitment Ireland and other European countries have made. It was set to act as a pressure point on other countries to come to the mark and make similar commitments to achieve the figure by 2015. Most people in the development community welcomed the announcement in Brussels for that reason. To borrow a French phrase, Pour encourager les autres.
The Minister has confirmed that he intends to reach this target by 2015.
Will the Minister of State agree that if gross national product is at its highest level in this country and we remain at 0.3% or whatever, the amount of money involved will increase anyway? Therefore, to talk about an additional €180 million is playing with figures.
Have any credible development organisations agreed that the EU target of 0.7% by 2015 is acceptable? What feedback did the Minister of State receive in terms of the Government reneging on the 2007 commitment during the public consultation process? Has the issue been raised with him?
I thank the Deputy for attending the public consultation process in the Helix. He was the only Deputy from the Dublin area to do so, for which I thank him. We are currently on the figure of 0.41% of GNP, which is a higher figure than he perhaps thought.
It is 0.39% really.
The current figure is 0.41%. However, the figures will be subject to revision when we see the full end of year outturn, but this is the figure which is available at the moment.
On the question of the 2015 date, the UN said that developed countries like Ireland should achieve the 0.7% figure by 2015. The EU has committed to that figure. I hope that commitment will be reaffirmed by the Taoiseach and his colleagues in the European Council in the next month or so.
The Minister of State has jumped eight years.
I hope they will reaffirm the commitment made at the development ministers council. This would be a positive signal as we push into the remainder of the year which will involve the millennium development summit. Deputy Michael D. Higgins referred earlier to the important issue of trade matters. The Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Martin, the Minister of State at that Department, Deputy Michael Ahern, and I will travel to Hong Kong in December for the conclusion of the Doha round negotiations. Our intention is to make it the development round of the talks. We want to ensure a good result from a development point of view so the trade deal is of significant assistance. Developing countries are likely to gain seven times more from a trade concession than from an aid concession from developed countries. That should also be the focus of our efforts in the months ahead.
Is the Minister of State satisfied overseas development aid funding filters down to the most needy in Third World countries? Is the Department generating value for money in the projects? Many members of the public are concerned that the money does not always go to the most needy. With regard to the consultative process, what is the general reaction of NGOs and others interested in this issue? Has the issue of the 0.7% target been raised at the public meetings? Are people satisfied with the target date of 2015?
I do not wish to misrepresent the comments of people at the meeting and my comments will be subjective. However, the discussions have been involved. Deputy Ó Snodaigh attended the public meeting at the Helix and he may enlighten the Deputy further on it. He may be more independent because he is not a Government Member. The 0.7% issue has been raised and it is clear it is passionately held that this target should be met by people interested in development aid. Two thirds of the audience at the meetings has been dominated by NGO representatives and Fairtrade groupings while the balance comprises ordinary citizens with a strong interest in this area. The discussions have been interesting for that reason and it has been a genuine listening exercise.
Concerns have been raised about whether the money is reaching its intended target and filtering down to the poorest of the poor. Other issues raised include respect for human rights, respect for proper governance and corruption. It is difficult to explain to people that 80% of our assistance is provided government to government in programme countries. Our programme was been well evaluated over the years both in value for money and the efficacy of spending. Thankfully, our aid programme has not been the subject of corruption involving the funds advanced to countries. The reason for that is our funding is ring-fenced and devoted to sectors such as health and education and it is tracked appropriately to ensure it is used for the development of these sectors. Our programme has produced spectacular successes. For instance, in Tanzania, over a three-year period, primary school attendance increased by up to 15%, which is extraordinary.
What about issues such as housing and water?
Our programme has resulted in enormous successes, which I hope to share with Members in the next few months in a supplementary package similar to that described by Deputy Michael Higgins. It will explain what is being achieved through the programme. It is important that this knowledge should be shared with the public.
7 Ms Lynch asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on the Kennedy-McCain initiative in the United States to deal with the status of Irish emigrants to the USA; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18488/05]
9 Mr. Bruton asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the position of the Government with regard to the Kennedy-McCain immigration Bill; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18621/05]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7 and 9 together.
Since the tragic events of 11 September 2001, immigration has become a highly sensitive and divisive issue in the United States. The Bill recently published by Senators Kennedy and McCain and their colleagues, represents an important, timely and positive contribution to advancing the debate on this sensitive issue and it is warmly welcomed by the Government. Among the provisions in the Bill are proposals that would grant undocumented people an opportunity to regularise their status.
As with all legislative proposals in the US, the Kennedy-McCain initiative must be considered in detail by Congress. We can anticipate a vigorous debate in the period ahead on this and other proposed immigration measures but the clear and constructive proposals put forward by Senators Kennedy and McCain will stimulate a debate, which we hope will be fruitful and lead to a positive outcome.
The Deputies can be assured that the issues of our undocumented citizens and immigration reform have the highest priority for the Government. The Taoiseach and the Minister raised the issue of the undocumented, as well as the issue of wider immigration reform, with President Bush when they met with him on St. Patrick's Day and also on Capitol Hill at that time. President Bush re-affirmed his willingness to work with Congress on immigration reform. Our priority in the period ahead will be to lobby strongly in support of the Kennedy-McCain Bill and to encourage the White House to become involved in support of the reform process.
When the Taoiseach met President Bush, one of the difficulties was he could not state how many undocumented or out of status Irish were in the US. As the Taoiseach stated, estimates vary. I wish the Kennedy-McCain initiative Bill well. Is the REAL ID programme not a more imminent danger to out of status Irish? Irish people will not be able to obtain a driver's licence, which will prevent them from driving to work. This programme is in place in New York. President Bush estimated the number of illegal Irish in the US at 3,000 while the Taoiseach's ball park figures ranged between 20,000 and 50,000. If the REAL ID programme is implemented, it will create deep distress for out of status Irish.
The reaction of the Minister of State's colleague, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to immigrants entering Ireland who are out of status is not encouraging for those who would like help to be given to the illegal Irish in the US. We would like consistency. The scale of the problem is much lower in Ireland but the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform's comments are appalling given that, at the same time, the Government is appealing to the US for more generosity.
It is not easy to arrive at an exact figure because travel options mean people can come and go from the US to Ireland and elsewhere. The UNHCR has praised Ireland's immigration policies.
The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform stated he regards the procedures as a burden. He made a disgraceful remark about international law; it was scandalous. He said he would like to deal with cock and bull stories of immigrants at the airport. No Minister in the civilised world has said anything like that in recent times.
It is important that this issue should be approached in a consistent and uniform way, irrespective of whether that is in Ireland or the US.
The Deputy referred to the legislation known as REAL ID, which was signed into law in the US on 11 May. States have three years to introduce its provisions. Since the tragedy of 11 September, immigration has been a sensitive issue in the US. This Act, which was prompted in part by the report of the 9-11 Commission, establishes minimum standards for state issued driver licences and identity cards so that they can be eligible for use as federal identification. The impact of the new legislation cannot be foreseen but it could have an impact on undocumented Irish people for whom a driving licence is their main form of identity. However, we are hopeful that proposals that offer undocumented people a path to legalisation such as those brought forward by Senators Kennedy and McCain will be adopted.
Representatives of all political parties recently attended the conference on immigration in the US where the attitude of the US was made clear, as were the efforts being made by official Ireland on behalf of our people. Representations have been made at all levels, including the meetings at Dromoland Castle last autumn and the White House on 17 March. The Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs raise this issue at every opportunity on behalf of our people. They will continue to do so and we hope the proposed legislation will go a long way towards resolving the problems faced by our people in the US.
I pay tribute to the people from the Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil parties who travelled at their own expense. As the House knows, the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs will travel on Monday, 6 June. I also pay tribute to the work done to encourage production of this legislation. I support fully the provisions of the Bill as published by Kennedy-McCain. Has the Minister of State identified the points of opposition the Bill will face due to the influx of people, mainly the large number of illegal immigrants from Mexico? Has the Government worked to address those areas of opposition? Can the Minister of State offer any advice to the committee members going out next week about what they can do to convince those conservative elements that see any such Bill as a general amnesty to all illegal immigrants?
It was made clear to our representatives at the conference in the United States that the word "amnesty" is not one that should be used in this context. There are up to 10 million undocumented people in the United States, presenting a great difficulty for that country's Administration. Officials at our consulates and embassies around the US are maintaining close contacts with various figures in the US Administration and legislature in respect of all possible avenues towards achieving positive conclusions to immigration reform.
Increasingly, immigrants in the US originate from countries in the Americas and Asia. In these circumstances, it is difficult to see how a proposal designed to cater for Irish interests alone could gather sufficient consensus in Congress to be accepted. In this context, we must support measures for immigration reform that would benefit undocumented people in general, including the Irish. There is much good will and respect for Irish people at every level within the US. We will work together to achieve progress and are optimistic that this can be done.
Is the Minister of State aware of Titles VI and VII of the legislation? Title VI promotes family unity and would reduce backlogs. Title VII would provide a mechanism by which the status of eligible undocumented immigrants in the US on the date of the Bill's introduction can be adjusted to temporary non-immigrant status. Does the Minister of State support the Bill and these two provisions in particular? In light of his earlier answer concerning the need for consistency in terms of these issues in Ireland, would he support the introduction of similar provisions to promote family unity among immigrants and to provide a mechanism whereby eligible undocumented immigrants are given the facility to adjust their status here? If the Minister of State believes in consistency, will he ensure there is some between the American Bill and what the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has been trying to implement?
I do not understand why the Deputy would ask a question pertaining to whether I support this US Bill. I support it, as do our diplomats, ambassadors, consulates, Government and Irish Americans. We are working through all of those avenues to achieve a positive conclusion to the matter. We will leave no stone unturned in assisting the Bill's development, taking into account that this must be an inclusive Bill as otherwise it would not work. There are 10 million undocumented people in the US, which highlights the challenges, complexities and difficulties. There is no comparison between the situations here and that in the Unites States vis-à-vis our undocumented people.
How does the Minister of State know that?
We have far fewer but the situation is much worse.
We are speaking about a distinct situation that is unique to the US and clearly identifiable from our perspective in terms of Irish immigrants. If one were to speak with any member of the immigration staff of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform who are dealing with this matter here, one would learn about the difficulties they experience in identifying people and getting information or documentation. There is non-co-operation with their requests for information.
This is a refusal of family unity.
All of this must be taken into account. The important critical point at the end of the day is that we must deal with this matter in a systematic, consistent administrative way to ensure that fair treatment is given to each individual on the basis of meeting the required criteria.
Will the Minister of State elaborate on the proposed idea for an on-line database for illegal Irish immigrants living in the USA, to gain an accurate picture of how many such persons there are? As the Minister of State knows, the estimates vary. The US Government estimates 3,000 while we estimate between 20,000 and 50,000. What is the exact figure? Could there be potential difficulties with this idea, in that people do not wish to put forward their names because they are illegal? Is there a problem that perhaps could be solved if they remained anonymous, but then we would not get the accurate data?
Deputy Gormley's conclusion is correct. We have examined this issue in great detail. The Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, had a positive discussion on immigration reform with President Bush on Saint Patrick's Day and prior to that in Dromoland Castle. Following this, the Minister asked his officials to again consider ways of getting a more precise sense of the size of our undocumented population, including the possibility of setting up an on-line database for this purpose. However, the widespread view after much consultation was that our undocumented people would be unlikely to register on a database for the reasons the Deputy suggested. This is understandable and, under these circumstances, it has been decided not to go ahead with the approach.
I welcome the Kennedy-McCain Bill, which is a positive and constructive initiative. Does the Minister of State agree that it is for all parliamentarians and Members of the Dáil to support Irish immigrants? Does he accept that the Government has a brass neck in calling for support for Irish emigrants while deporting 110 immigrants from Ireland in recent months? I strongly support Deputy Michael Higgins's comments about how some of our Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform's remarks were out of order and disgraceful.
Does the Minister of State accept that, as political leaders, we have a duty to lead in the immigration issue? Even if doing so loses votes, it is essential that we lead. Does he support the proposal put forward by many Deputies to extend the franchise, allowing Irish emigrants to vote in our elections? Will the Government reconsider the situation of some immigrant families in Ireland? A group of Kurds living in Marino, have family in a refugee camp in Iraq. They have been trying to get their family together for the past six months. I have been pushing their case but all sorts of doors have been slammed in my face. If the Government is serious about the immigration issue, we must accept out international obligations as a sovereign state to assist immigrants all over the world.
I asked the Minister of State an additional question about the current estimates for illegal immigrants. What is the Government's present estimate and how did it arrive at this figure?
I do not have a de facto figure. From our consultations with the United States, there are at least 3,000 Irish immigrants there. From other estimates made, the figure could be 20,000 and is certainly not more than 50,000. We are not sure, which is a serious difficulty. We know there has been much mobility of Irish immigrants into and out of the US through other countries, sometimes to return to Ireland and sometimes to leave again. We are not sure of the final destinations in certain cases. Hence, it is difficult to have a final figure.
In response to Deputy McGrath, it is unfair to say that the Government has a brass neck in the situation. In the 23 years that I have been in this House the elected Members have always been supportive and have assisted our people in all parts of the world, no matter what the situation. There is a unity of purpose there.
If one examines the situation last May, when new members joined the European Union, Ireland was the only country to give an absolute guarantee that anybody from an EU country could come to work here. Everybody said that was a crazy decision, that the floodgates would open——
Nobody said that.
Many people said that.
We supported that decision.
Yes, but many people criticised the Government for that decision.
A small minority of people criticised it.
The Minister of State should be very careful in what he says. We supported that decision. We supported the Government.
I appreciate the support that existed. I am not referring to people in this House.
It was a small minority.
The Government was criticised for that decision. It was consistent, open and accommodating and there has not been a crisis in that area since. When it comes to the situation pertaining to citizens of our country and citizens of the European Union, we are all one. We have that commonality, there are equal rights in that situation and we have a fundamental responsibility to ensure that where we require workers, priority is given to people in the EU.
Non-EU citizens have come here for a number of reasons. Some are economic migrants, others seek their human rights or are fleeing tragedies in their countries and so on. People have come here but we must be measured and reasonable. In a small island and open country we must ensure that we have a system that is equitable, fair, systematic, clear and properly administered and that nobody can get through the system easily and cause problems for the country. We must be very careful that we are reasoned and measured in our actions. We all have a duty, as parliamentarians, to have a unity of purpose in discharging our responsibilities and ensuring that, together, we manage what is a difficult, complex and humane situation. All of us have that serious responsibility.
The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, does not speak for me.
That concludes questions for today.
I understood there were four minutes remaining.
There are three minutes remaining. Is that correct?
There are two minutes remaining.
I wish to hear a reply to the question regarding the Warsaw speech.
The reply is rather long.
The reply can be brief. It was a very slight speech.
To what question is the Deputy referring?
I am referring to Question No. 8. It was a very slight speech so it will not take the Minister of State very long to comment on it. It is extraordinary because it is of a very low standard. I hope that I do not get someone into trouble by saying that. However, it is not up to the usual standards of Iveagh House. Perhaps the Minister for Foreign Affairs wrote it himself.
8 Mr. Sherlock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will report on his address to the foreign policy club, Centre for International Relations, in Warsaw in May 2005; the position regarding the reform of the United Nations system; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18506/05]
74 Mr. Kenny asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the number of meetings with his European counterparts he has held since assuming the position of responsibility concerning the reform of the United Nations; the outcome of these meetings; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18607/05]
84 Mr. J. O’Keeffe asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the contact he has had with other EU Governments regarding UN reform; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18608/05]
101 Mr. O’Shea asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will report on his recent visits to Copenhagen, The Hague, Belgrade, Ljubljana and Vienna in his capacity as the UN Secretary General’s special envoy; the issues that were discussed during these visits; and if any further visits are planned in the immediate future. [18494/05]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 8, 74, 84 and 101 together.
Deputies will be aware that preparations are well advanced for the summit that will take place at the United Nations next September at which Heads of State and Government will seek to restore momentum to the achievement of the millennium development goals; agree on reforms that will strengthen the system of collective security, based on the United Nations; enhance the human rights function of the United Nations; and reform its institutions and management structures. It is a priority for the Government to do whatever it can to promote the success of the summit.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, was honoured to be appointed by UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, as one of five envoys to act on his behalf in encouraging governments to take the decisions necessary to ensure a satisfactory outcome at the September summit. The appointment is an indication of the esteem in which Ireland is held by the Secretary General and of its track record of commitment to the United Nations. As UN envoy, the task of the Minister, Deputy Ahern, is to make the case for the broad package of recommendations and reforms set out in the UN Secretary General's recent report, In Larger Freedom.
The Minister was asked by the Secretary General to focus his efforts on Europe. However, none of the envoys is confined in his or her activities to any one geographic area and the Minister has recently undertaken a number of bilateral meetings, as envoy, with colleagues from a range of Latin American and Arab states.
We cannot see him at all.
There are two men representing him. That is not a bad response by Government — to give two instead of one.
Two in a row, in fact.
The work of the envoys is vital to the preparatory process as it is evident that success in September will require governments to step back from hitherto entrenched positions and take decisions in the wider interest of all members and the multilateral system that serves them. The work that the envoys are carrying out with governments is intended to complement the dialogue and debate in which members' delegations in New York are engaged, under the guidance of the president of the General Assembly.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs commenced his series of envoy visits shortly after his appointment by the Secretary General on 4 April and his subsequent briefing of his EU colleagues at the informal meeting of EU Foreign Ministers held on 15 and 16 April. He has subsequently met a number of Foreign Ministers, including those from within the European Union, as well as high representative Javier Solana and external relations Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner. The Minister gave an updated briefing to partners at the General Affairs and External Relations Council on 23 May.
To date, the Minister has travelled to capitals to meet his counterparts from Belgium, Italy, San Marino, Switzerland, Denmark, the Netherlands, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovenia, Austria and Spain. In his capacity as envoy, the Minister addressed the Council of Europe summit, held in Warsaw on 16 and 17 May. On 18 May, he met the President and Foreign Minister of Poland. He also took the opportunity to confer with the Foreign Ministers of Andorra, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Liechtenstein. He further conferred with his fellow envoy, President Vike Freiberga of Latvia. The Minister also, on 17 May, gave the opening statement at the meeting of the foreign policy club at the Centre for International Relations in Warsaw.
The Minister is a busy man.
He is very busy. In his statement, the Minister set out the case for the reforms necessary to ensure that the United Nations is able to act effectively in the maintenance of international peace and security, the promotion of human rights and the promotion of economic and social progress. The Minister, as envoy, addressed the meeting of the Euro-Atlantic partnership council, hosted by Sweden in Åre, on 24 May. At the council meeting, he took the opportunity to meet the Foreign Ministers of Sweden, Albania and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, as well as the US Undersecretary of State, Mr. Burns.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
The European Union held an extensive and substantive discussion with its Latin American partners on the preparations for the September summit at the EU Rio group meeting held on 27 May. At the invitation of the Presidency, the Minister briefed the meeting on his role as envoy and discussed the prospects of and priorities for a successful outcome from the summit. The Minister also had interesting and useful meetings with his Argentinian and Chilean colleagues, at which they discussed UN reform.
The European Union also discussed UN reform and the September summit with its Mediterranean partners at the seventh Euro-Mediterranean ministerial meeting on 30 May. The Minister discussed the preparation of the summit in bilateral meetings with the Foreign Ministers of Egypt, Algeria, Syria and the Palestinian Authority. Yesterday in New York, the Minister had meetings with the UN Secretary General, the president of the General Assembly and the other envoys where they took stock of the current situation and discussed the preparation of the summit. The president of the General Assembly is expected to publish proposals in the coming days which will form the basis for future consideration by the member states.
I am not in a position to comment on the contents of the Minister's meetings with his Foreign Minister colleagues. He has undertaken to convey the views expressed in his meetings to the UN Secretary General in strict confidence. The effectiveness of his mission and that of the other envoys demands that the exchanges remain confidential. I confirm that the meetings to date have been productive, informative and of value to the Secretary General and his support team.
Regarding the current position on UN reform, discussions are continuing at the United Nations on the recommendations contained in the Secretary General's In Larger Freedom report. Ireland and its European Union partners continue to press for the adoption of a positive and balanced package of measures at the September summit.
The time allowed for questions has elapsed.
I understand that, but we lost time during the earlier confusion.
I have allowed for that.
I have a short, supplementary question. Obviously the Minister for Foreign Affairs is casting his net wide. However, I referred to his speech in Warsaw, which includes the following statement:
International law has long recognised the right of states to take action to pre-empt an imminent attack. Preventive action against a potential threat, however, should remain a matter for the Security Council.
Therefore, what the Minister had to say on Iraq was misleading. Article 51 of the UN Charter enables a country to defend itself, to pre-empt attack that is imminent, but it must respond with reasonable force. In fairness to the Government, I understand that it was against the principle of pre-emptive strikes which led to the fundamental illegality of the strike against Iraq with its appalling consequences which are still obvious today.
I welcome what Deputy Higgins has said. He is correct in his interpretation of the Government's position. While the Minister for Foreign Affairs may have cast his net wide from an international perspective, he has been asked to do so on behalf of the United Nations. That indicates an excellent attitude on our part and it also shows that Ireland is held in great regard by the UN. The Minister is doing his utmost, as a Member of this Parliament and a member of the Government, to make a unique contribution to the continued evolution and development and modernisation of the United Nations at a critical time in the history of mankind.
Written answers follow Adjournment Debate.
