Vol. 607 No. 1
1 Mr. Allen asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will report on his recent attendance at the UN World Summit in New York; if he will further report on the failure to reach agreement on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27215/05]
The Taoiseach and I, along with the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Conor Lenihan, represented Ireland at the UN World Summit 2005 in New York from 14 September to 16 September. I was honoured to act on behalf of the UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, as one of five envoys helping to do the groundwork for a summit outcome that would reinforce the multilateral system and enhance the capacity of the United Nations to address the threats and challenges of the 21st century.
The Secretary General's recommendations for a decision at the summit were based on the premises that without development there can be no security, without security there can be no development and without respect for human rights there can be neither. While the summit outcome did not contain everything we would have wished, it nonetheless contains important commitments and agreements on critical issues in these areas. It also sets out a programme of reform of the United Nations, and its secretariat, to better equip it to meet today's challenges and help enhance political and public confidence in the organisation.
The outcome unequivocally commits states to the millennium development goals. Donor countries agreed to step up efforts on official development assistance, financing for development, and debt. Developing countries are committed to ensuring the effective use of assistance through sound development policies, good governance and the rule of law. The imperative to meet the special needs of Africa and to combat HIV-AIDS and other communicable diseases was acknowledged.
As Deputies will be aware, the Taoiseach in his address to the summit committed Ireland to reaching the UN official development assistance target of 0.7% of GNI by 2012, which is three years ahead of the EU target, and to reaching an interim target of 0.5% by 2007.
The summit reached important decisions in the area of security. It reaffirmed the authority and primary responsibility of the Security Council to mandate coercive action. It supported the efforts of the European Union and other regional bodies to develop peace support capacities. The significant decision to establish a peace-building commission by the end of this year will help countries emerging from conflict to avoid a return to strife.
The General Assembly has been mandated to complete and adopt a counter-terrorism strategy on the lines proposed by the Secretary General and to conclude without delay the negotiation of a comprehensive international convention on terrorism.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
Leaders reaffirmed universal human rights and agreed on the need to strengthen the human rights mechanisms of the United Nations. The collective acknowledgment of the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes and crimes against humanity is an important concrete achievement of the summit. Leaders decided to double the budget of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to enable it better to assist states to implement their obligations to their citizens. The summit decided in principle to establish a human rights council to replace the Commission on Human Rights and to complete negotiations on its establishment as soon as possible. A key concern for Ireland is that the positive aspects of the Commission on Human Rights, particularly the involvement of civil society, should be preserved. The summit also supported the Secretary General in his efforts to strengthen the UN's secretariat and management, and invited him to make further proposals in this regard.
In light of these valuable and far-sighted commitments and decisions, it is deeply disappointing that the outcome is silent on disarmament and the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and on the need to strengthen the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, NPT. The UN Secretary General has described this failure as "inexcusable". The Taoiseach made it clear at the summit that he agreed with him, as did I at the General Assembly. Efforts to strengthen and ensure respect for all the provisions of the NPT, which remains the cornerstone of the nuclear non-proliferation regime and the essential foundation for the pursuit of nuclear disarmament, must remain our highest priority as we pursue the twin and mutually reinforcing aims of disarmament and non-proliferation.
There was not a mention of the issue I raised in my question, namely, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the failure to reach agreement thereon. I offer my sympathy to the Minister because of the fact the summit was such a disappointment, despite his best efforts as a special envoy for Kofi Annan. The opportunity of a generation has been squandered because there was no agreement on reform of the Security Council, the five members of which can still veto any reform. There was no agreement on debt crisis management, except an acknowledgement that the issue has not been resolved. There was no agreement on trade reform, which has been left for the conference in Hong Kong.
One of the most serious failures is that there was no agreement at all on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. Does the Minister agree that the failure in this area is most serious in that it is almost inevitable that nuclear weapons will fall into the hands of elements that owe nothing to democracy or the democratic system? Does he agree that, at some future date, the failure to reach agreement will mean that democratic states will be open to blackmail or threats? Does he agree there is a double standard to the effect that some countries regard themselves as the pillars of democracy while they continue to develop nuclear programmes? These countries are making open and threatening noises towards certain countries about whose nuclear programmes I have reservations but which have the right to develop nuclear energy in a peaceful way.
If I had time to complete my reply, I would have dealt with the issue of non-proliferation. Both the Taoiseach and I referred in our separate addresses to the fact we were very disappointed about the lack of an outcome in respect of the NPT. At a previous review conference on the NPT some months ago, I addressed the General Assembly on behalf of Ireland and referred to the fact that the original treaty was called the Irish treaty. Ireland was the first country asked to sign it. The treaty was, in effect, the brainchild of a predecessor of mine, the former Fianna Fáil Minister Frank Aiken. I said at the UN General Assembly and privately to Kofi Annan that Ireland is ready, willing and able to assist in the continuing efforts to achieve an outcome regarding this issue. As the Deputy may know, there will be a discussion in the General Assembly on all these issues, particularly at the first committee which refers to disarmament and non-proliferation.
I do not accept what the Deputy said on the lack of achievement and my involvement in this matter. I was asked specifically to get the European Union to back the proposals so other blocs and countries might follow a similar path. The European Union was the leader in these reforms in respect of the entire remit of the proposals. It is true that there was disagreement at EU level regarding the Security Council, just as there was in every other bloc and area. This is ultimately a matter for the nation states. Members may question the Irish position regarding the Security Council but the decision we took was vindicated. If I had come down on one side or the other, particularly while wearing my hat as UN envoy, it would have placed me in a somewhat invidious position in view of the fact that Kofi Annan had said, time and again, that neither he nor his envoys should involve themselves in the discussion on the Security Council given that the decision thereon was entirely a matter for member states. If we had concentrated on the Security Council, as some states did, it would have been to the detriment of the other topics, which were far more important to ordinary human beings.
I do not accept that there were no achievements. There was a very dramatic achievement regarding the peace-building commission. Ireland was a great supporter of this from day one. A complete commitment was made regarding the millennium development goals, which surprised some people. A further dramatic achievement included the commitment to abolish the Commission on Human Rights in favour of a human rights council, which I believe will happen over time. Further progress was made regarding the responsibility to protect principle, which in effect means the types of incidents we saw in Rwanda and Srebrenica will not happen again. I therefore do not accept what Deputy Allen stated. There was a good outcome. As the new President of the General Assembly, a Swede called Jan Eliasson, stated, the achievement of the outcome is a bridgehead for further development regarding all these issues.
2 Mr. M. Higgins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he favours an arms sale treaty in this jurisdiction and in the European Union, such as would end the sale of armaments to conflict zones in the poorest regions of the world by member states of the European Union; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27214/05]
Ireland fully supports strict controls on arms and is working within the European Union and at a number of international fora to develop such controls, including an international arms trade treaty, as referred to by the Deputy. There are too many examples of conflicts which are fuelled by the proliferation of conventional weapons. This is especially an issue of concern in Africa, where the proliferation of small arms and light weapons in particular continues to bring much suffering to societies throughout that continent.
At present, the export of arms from EU countries must conform to the EU code of conduct on arms exports. Ireland was actively involved in the establishment of this politically binding code, which lists the factors to be taken into account when deciding whether to allow an export of military goods. These include respect for human rights, the internal conditions in the country of final destination and the preservation of regional peace, security and stability. Discussions are ongoing in the EU on the possible reinforcement of the code of conduct.
At UN level, EU member states, including Ireland, actively participated in negotiations which concluded last June with agreement on an international instrument on the tracing of illicit small arms and light weapons. This instrument will help the international community to understand, track and crack down on the illegal trade of these weapons.
With regard to the proposed international arms trade treaty, the General Affairs and External Relations Council at its meeting on 3 October acknowledged the growing support throughout the world for an international treaty to establish common standards for the global trade in conventional arms. It also agreed that binding standards, consistent with the existing responsibilities of states under relevant international law, would be critical in tackling proliferation. It was further agreed that the United Nations was the only forum that could deliver a truly universal instrument and the Council called for the start of a formal process at the UN at the earliest opportunity. Given the sensitivity and complexity of the issue, however, the realisation of such an international instrument is likely to be a lengthy process. Ireland will continue to participate fully within the UN and at other international fora to promote the objective of strengthening arms controls globally.
Is the Minister in a position to comment on the complete review of the 1998 European Union code of conduct on arms sales? Will he also comment on the significance of the support by 13 countries at the recent meeting at the United Nations for such a treaty? Is it of concern to him that one third of all arms deals in the world now come from the European Union? With the enlarged EU, more than 400 companies are involved in the production and sale of small arms. Is Ireland actively canvassing for the international arms sales treaty? Is he in favour of an induced requirement in terms of the production of armaments which may have dual uses?
Export control is primarily an issue for the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, which is exploring the issue of strengthening controls and legislation in that respect.
On the question of whether Ireland is canvassing, I am vocal at all international fora and have been supportive of the proposal at recent EU meetings. While its need is acknowledged, most member states, not least Ireland, fully understand that this treaty should achieve a worldwide spread and account must be taken of the proliferation of small arms. I have figures on the type of financial assistance which we give to efforts around to world to deal with the proliferation of small arms. In the region of 600 million small arms are available worldwide and 300,000 people die from them annually. We are strong on this issue, given that we are a country which does not have an arms trade, and can speak with conviction to it.
Is the Minister concerned that the amount of funds committed to development is about 5% of the annual expenditure on armaments? Some EU countries, including participants in the recent Edinburgh summit, are major exporters of arms, in particular to African countries and sources of conflict. It is not a matter of export being a neutral measure. Arms make their way to third countries through, for example, Yemen with the practical co-operation of countries such as the United Kingdom, Sweden, Germany, France and Italy. These are all leading countries in the discourse on development.
The European Union speaks at the United Nations with ashes in its mouth when it has expanded its production and sale of armaments even into conflict zones and at the same time has not completed its review of the 1998 EU code of conduct on transfer of arms. Nor is it implementing an induced requirement, by which I mean allowing armaments, particularly from small companies, into the system without assuming responsibility for where they will eventually be used.
I have raised the point made by the Deputy on what could only be termed hypocrisy in some of the statements on the issue of overseas development assistance from major countries which at the same time trade arms with developing countries. That is why Ireland can speak with some conviction with regard to our place in the world in this respect. I concur that a disproportionate trade exists in this area compared to some of the assistance given. It is also fair to say, however, that between 2003 and 2005 the EU spent in the region of €88 million in efforts to address the issue of excessive quantities of small arms. The code of conduct is being reinforced and discussions are ongoing in that respect.
The Deputy may not be aware that there are regular instances where countries refuse licences for the export of arms into other countries because of the principles set down in the existing code.
Despite the prohibition on export of arms to Zimbabwe, the export of 66 four-wheel trucks was defended by the Austrian Government on the basis that they were not fitted out with guns and combat equipment. Does the Minister agree that is a breech of the fundamental principle of the limited ban introduced by the EU regarding Zimbabwe?
I cannot comment on that but we would be willing to investigate any matter which might break sanctions on Zimbabwe and to issue a condemnation if they are breached.
3 Mr. Gormley asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the action he will take to prevent Shannon Airport being used to transport hostages to Guantanamo Bay or anywhere else in violation of international law and human rights conventions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27233/05]
The situation remains as set out in my replies to several previous questions, most recently Questions Nos. 603 and 616 of 28 September 2005. I am aware a number of recent media reports repeating concerns about the alleged use of Shannon Airport by the US to transit prisoners to Guantanamo Bay and other locations. Although no concrete evidence of such use has been produced, I want to assure the Deputy and the House that these concerns have nevertheless been raised at regular intervals with the US authorities, both through the Embassy of Ireland in Washington and with the US Embassy to Ireland.
The Government has on several occasions made clear to the US authorities that it would be illegal to transit prisoners for rendition purposes through Irish territory without the express permission of the Irish authorities, acting in accordance with Irish and international law. The US authorities, for their part, have confirmed that they have not done so and that they would not do so without seeking the permission of the Irish authorities. No request for such authorisation has been received from the US authorities. The assurances provided by the US authorities in this regard were once again confirmed at a meeting with my officials last week.
If any citizen or other person has specific evidence that Shannon Airport or any other Irish airport is being used for the purposes described by the Deputy, I of course reiterate the call of my colleague, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, that this evidence be shared with the Garda authorities responsible for investigating such matters.
How can the Minister say this with such certainty when no checks have been carried out by the Garda Síochána or any authority in Shannon Airport to see if these planes are carrying prisoners to Guantanamo Bay? All the evidence we have accumulated seems to suggest this is the case. It seems the Government is once again adopting a hypocritical line of "see no evil, hear no evil" regarding the US. We know that 70% of US troops in Iraq have passed through Shannon Airport. The Minister does not accept that we are complicit in that war, but most Irish people believe we are hand in glove with the United States, and that this is the case in this regard. Did the Prime Minister of Denmark, which is a member of NATO, not make it clear to the CIA that its airspace, not to mention its airports, could not be used by the US for such activities?
The Minister said there have been media reports, which there most certainly have been. Has the UN been in contact with the Minister's Department as part of the ongoing investigation into renditions? If so, what has been the Minister's response?
I can confirm that the Office of the Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights has been in contact with the Department to confirm that neither he nor anyone on his behalf is currently investigating or inquiring into this matter. He did that on the basis of media reports that appeared in the Irish media. His office got in touch with us to confirm that they were not in any way contacting us. My officials contacted his office yesterday to confirm if anyone has been in contact since he made contact with us over two weeks ago. There has been no complaint in this respect.
Deputy Gormley said the Irish Government is complicit in the conflict in Iraq, but that is not the case.
It is absolutely.
I remind the Deputy that the multinational force is in Iraq with the authorisation of UN Security Council Resolution 1546 of June 2004, which called on states to support the efforts of the multinational force in Iraq. I am a democrat and accept the democratic voice in this regard.
The 50 year practice in regard to the transiting of troops through Shannon Airport which has been used in different conflicts was approved by the Dáil in 2003. Is the Deputy suggesting that we board and check every plane?
One plane would be enough for me.
If a government of the stature of the US Government which has such a connection with this country gives us an absolute assurance in this regard, we accept it. Every time this matter has been raised in the media and in this House my officials have contacted the US Embassy and people in Washington and on every occasion they have said that there has been no such transiting. They have said that they do not intend to do so and that if they did, they would ask the Irish authorities about that. They have given that guarantee whether it be Shannon or any other airport. We accept their word like we accepted the word of any other country in regard to such transiting. Did we stop any of the Russian planes transiting through Shannon when they were going to Cuba for many years? We did not because we accepted that the conditions under which they were flying through Shannon were in place. In the case of the US which has given huge amounts of financial support to this country, are we to turn around and deny what US officials, speaking on behalf of a sovereign government, have told us? We would not do so. If the Deputy was on this side of this House with some of the parties to which his party is cosying up, is he saying he would adopt a different attitude to not only accepting the US Government's word but to continuing to allow what is happening at Shannon?
I wish to correct what the Minister said about there having been a 50 year practice in this regard. A High Court case brought by my colleague, Ed Horgan, clearly established that there was no such 50-year practice.
That is not correct.
That was the judgment given.
The Deputy is not prepared to accept the judgment in that case.
The judge in that case said that neutrality was not enshrined in the Irish Constitution and that was the difficulty. The Minister said we have to take people's word in this regard. We took people's word for this on previous occasions when we were told categorically, and I would like him to confirm this, that there were no weapons going through Shannon, but a number of observers there saw that the troops were carrying weapons with them and the Minister had to do a U-turn on that point. If the Minister had the bottle to arrange for the carrying out of searches on these planes, I am convinced he would find that people are being transported to Guantanamo Bay. Why will he not arrange for the carrying out of searches on these planes?
There is no evidence to support that. No evidence has been brought to our attention by anybody who has made such allegations and, furthermore, we have not received any such evidence. When the US Government gives us categoric assurances in this regard, as it did no later than last week, we accept them.
The conditions of transit are the conditions which have been in place in regard to many conflicts such as that in Kosovo and those in many other countries. These facilities have been allowed over the years in regard to conflicts in Lebanon, Vietnam, Granada, Panama, Kuwait, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo and Korea. These facilities were only allowed on strict conditions, the same conditions as have pertained for 50 years.
The Minister is making it up as he goes along.
It is the Deputy who is hypocritical.
The Government has an ad hocposition on this matter.
If the Deputy was on this side of the House with Fine Gael and Labour he would have to swallow that pill.
The Government always has an ad hoc position on this matter.
The Deputy is a hypocrite.
It is the Minister who is the hypocrite.
I ask the Minister to desist. We must move on to Question No. 4.
The Greens in Germany do the exact same.
I ask the Minister of State to take Question No. 4.
That is what Deputy Gormley would be doing if his party cosied up to those parties.
The Minister seems to be confident that we will be on the opposite side of the House.
How can the Deputy's party join them when what they want is in NATO? He should answer that question.
If you want to switch sides——
I am the Minister——
The Government has ditched our neutrality.
Will the Deputy tell the people where stands his party on this issue?
Who will be leading him by the hand?
This Government has done more than any other to do that.
The Minister is behaving like a political bootboy. I am surprised at him.
How can we do business?
Where are we now with the Mullingar accord?
The Minister is acting like a political bootboy. He is supposed to be in the diplomatic area.
We are very diplomatic on this side of the House.
4 Mr. Allen asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his plans for the decentralisation of Development Cooperation Ireland; his views on the potential for disruption and loss of staff arising from these plans; his further views on the way in which decentralisation may impact upon the coordination or effectiveness of overseas development aid spending; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27216/05]
Under the Government's decentralisation programme, announced in December 2003, the development co-operation directorate of the Department of Foreign Affairs, currently based in Dublin, is scheduled to decentralise to Limerick. This will involve the relocation to Limerick of 123 posts and is scheduled to take place during the first quarter of 2007. The Office of Public Works is currently assessing a number of accommodation proposals in Limerick.
A detailed implementation plan was completed by my officials in March of this year and submitted to the Flood committee for its consideration. The plan addresses a wide variety of issues, including human resource considerations, training and development, business issues, risk management and accommodation needs. The plan, together with regular updates, can be accessed on the Department's website.
Already, a total of 26 posts in the directorate are filled by staff who have expressed an interest in decentralising to Limerick, including seven officers recruited from other Departments via the central applications facility and five staff recruited from interdepartmental promotion panels. The process of transferring to the directorate staff currently serving elsewhere in the Department and of recruiting staff via the central applications facility will be accelerated in the new year. The aim is that by the second half of 2006 most posts in the directorate will be filled by staff who will decentralise to Limerick.
The Government is aware that the decentralisation process will take place during a period of significant growth in the overseas development aid budget and the strategies outlined in the implementation plan are designed to minimise these risks. The following are among the steps being taken. To ensure continuity and to minimise disruption, Department officials are currently involved in detailed planning on strategies for retaining corporate memory and ensuring there is adequate training and induction for new staff. To guard against a very rapid turnover of staff in the months immediately preceding decentralisation to Limerick, Development Co-operation Ireland has already started the process of bringing staff in from other Departments who have applied for decentralisation with Development Co-operation Ireland.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
Development Co-operation Ireland's work involves liaising with other sections of the Department of Foreign Affairs, other Departments, NGOs such as Concern, Trócaire and GOAL and a wide range of international organisations. In order to ensure this important networking continues, a liaison office will remain in Dublin following decentralisation. In addition, the Department will invest in video-conferencing facilities. Development Co-operation Ireland is consulting other Departments who have experienced decentralisation, for example, the Office of the Revenue Commissioners in Limerick and the UK Department for International Development which relocated some of its operations from London to Glasgow in the early 1980s.
If I am reading the Minister of State's figures properly the situation appears to have worsened since his last answer in June. He said then that 21 applications had been made from within the directorate to the Central Applications Facility, which indicated that about 17% of the staff had taken up the offer of decentralisation, which is a minuscule level. Now he says there are 26, but six of those are coming from somewhere else within the Department, which makes the situation even worse.
Is the Minister of State aware that the Ireland Aid review committee in its 2002 report said that the loss of key staff within the directorate would affect seriously the efficiency of the aid programme? Has he carried out any risk assessment as regards the erosion of key staff within the directorate? If so, what were the findings of that assessment? Will he say how many sites are being looked for the decentralisation programme and what is the projected cost of site acquisition?
My key question, however, is concerned with risk assessment. How many of the 15 principal officer and senior specialists are in favour of moving?
To take the last part of the Deputy's question first, I do not get myself involved directly in the identification of a location or site for this particular office. Clearly that is a matter for the Office of Public Works. The Department is very happy to allow the OPW to continue to handle that aspect. It has identified a number of sites. I cannot shed any light for the Deputy on the value of the Limerick site——
So the Minister of State does not know where he is going.
——or what will be spent.
It is not like the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Our Department does not pick sites.
What about principal officers and senior officials?
I want to be fully transparent with the Deputy on this matter. My officials have been to Limerick and have looked at a number of different sites identified by the OPW.
Were they from within the directorate?
The desire is that whatever accommodation the division concerned decentralises to in Limerick is of a reasonable standard and can accommodate the many different people who want to be there. The Deputy issued a statement earlier today, and this is fully understandable, deriving the figure of 17%. In fact 33% of the required level of staffing that we need——
It is not a political lie.
——is the actual percentage. It is not the Deputy's fault because he read that directly from the CAF. The CAF would not include——
I read it from the Minister of State's reply on 2 June.
I ask the Deputy to bear with me. The Central Applications Facility would not reflect the numbers of staff to move within DCI from overseas, or indeed people who did not come through the CAF and came into the Department on promotion. Indeed, in the last few months five people have come into the Department on promotion and indicated a strong willingness to decentralise to Limerick. Of the senior development specialists he referred to, none of the current three officials has indicated a desire to relocate to Limerick.
What about the principal officers and specialists?
In terms of the overall situation on specialists, a great number of them are willing to travel to Limerick. I understand the figure is in the region of 11 or more among the development specialists who have indicated a willingness to go to Limerick.
Out of how many?
The figure is 11 out of 24 development specialists. Obviously there is a shortage of numbers as regards senior development specialists.
The House must move on to Question No. 5.
I ask the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, to give way as I have another question to ask.
I was called, to be fair, by the Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
Is any risk assessment being carried out as regards the move?
Not only is there a risk assessment, but a number of measures have been put in place to avoid the losses the Deputy spoke about as regards corporate memory. We have installed a very strong system which provides for a one-month hand-over period, with new staff coming in. That is not the norm in the rest of the public sector——
Will the Minister of State make the risk assessment available?
——when positions are being replaced. A number of risk assessments have been done on this. As a result of those a number of specific measures have been put in place to ensure that such damage does not occur.
Will the risk assessment be made available?
The data are available on the website, so there is no problem.
I am asking a simple question. Will the Minister of State make the risk assessment available?
If the Deputy wishes to see the data I will try to ensure that he gets them.
I am afraid to get up. The last time I was called I was accused of interrupting.
The Minister was interrupting.
I was called by the Leas-Cheann Comhairle and I rose when he called the next question.
I had not got my answers.
5 Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the manner by which the Government actively monitors discrimination and inequality issues in Northern Ireland; and his views on whether these monitoring measures are adequate. [27232/05]
The protection of human rights and the promotion of equality is at the heart of the Good Friday Agreement. This was collectively affirmed by the parties in the commitment in the agreement to "the mutual respect, the civil rights and the religious liberties of everyone in the community". This included in particular "the right to equal opportunity in all social and economic activity, regardless of class, creed, disability, gender or ethnicity".
The Government has consistently sought to pursue the equality agenda set out in the agreement and which was further elaborated in the Joint Declaration by the British and Irish Governments in April 2003.
The Government actively monitors the situation on the ground in Northern Ireland as regards discrimination and inequality. This is done through regular official level engagement with community contacts, with political representatives, members of the NGO and academic community and with representatives of the relevant official bodies, such as the Equality Commission and the Human Rights Commission. These measures are effective, equipping us to actively advance the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement in the equality area.
During my own frequent visits to Northern Ireland I make a point of meeting individuals and community representatives from both traditions. These visits are a very valuable direct source of information, including of course on equality issues.
In keeping with the high priority which the Government attaches to the equality agenda, we use the institutional framework of the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference and meetings of the conference to engage with the British Government on the implementation of the equality provisions in the Good Friday Agreement and the joint declaration. Equality issues are a regular item on the agenda for ministerial and summit meetings of the conference, as the communiqués of those meetings make clear.
Overall, while there has been some progress, we should like to see more — especially as regards the employment differential and the allocation of public housing. The issue was discussed at the last meeting of the BIIGC and will be pursued further at the next meeting planned for later this month. We will, of course, continue to keep individual cases under review and raise them, as appropriate, through the framework of the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference.
I have a number of quotations from the Minister. In March 2005 he said that the type of discrimination that took place in previous decades had all but disappeared. Last month he was quoted speaking about "endemic unemployment in loyalist areas which is not as clear cut in nationalist areas, where perhaps the ability to advance individuals because of their education has not been the same in loyalist areas". Does the Minister stand over those comments now? Will he agree that anybody who made such comments, despite the reality of the situation, well-documented by British statistics, is blind to inequality, blind to discrimination and blind to religion?
It is naive to suggest that the existence of anti-discrimination legislation translates into the disappearance of discrimination. Is the Minister aware of the most recent statistics published by the British authorities? I will give him a copy. It gives a full list, area by area, with an indicator by indicator on every one of them. Those communities regarded as Catholic and Nationalist are less well off than their counterparts in loyalist or Protestant areas. I can quote a number of them, but it is sufficient to say that Catholics were twice as likely to be unemployed in 2004 as those who lived in Protestant areas.
The differential has increased since 1990. Northern Ireland Housing Executive figures for the period 2002 to 2005 show under-allocation to Catholics of 16% and over-allocation to Protestants of 21%. Other similar figures have also been published. On every indicator relating to objective need Catholics are shown to be worse off. Does the Minister not agree that objective need should be the only criterion governing the allocation of funding to communities and informing equality building measures as stipulated in the Good Friday Agreement?
Yes, objective criteria should be used. Polarisation is not needed in this type of debate. I accept that inequality is wrong no matter where it is found. I made my earlier comments in the context of the type of discrimination against Nationalists, which was endemic for decades in Northern Ireland, being all but eliminated as a result of the legislation now in place. Northern Ireland probably has more legislation on discrimination than any other country in Western Europe and is probably watched more than any other society in that respect. In recent years, significant progress has been made in addressing discrimination against Nationalists and Catholics across all areas.
On the general level of discrimination and inequality, which Deputy Ó Snodaigh also raised, the Government raises these issues time and again. I have raised them at every meeting I have had with the Northern authorities, whether in the person of the Secretary of State, Peter Hain, or his officials, and will raise them again at the British Irish Intergovernmental Body which will meet towards the end of the month.
With regard to my comments on deprivation in loyalist areas, even Deputy Ó Snodaigh will accept that in recent decades many people from loyalist areas have completed their education and moved to the UK. By failing to return they have, to an extent, denuded loyalist areas of people who have advanced in society, leaving behind those who cannot get jobs. In Nationalist communities, on the other hand, those who have obtained third level degrees have remained in Northern Ireland and have been a great resource to their communities not only through their community work but simply by staying in their communities. It is important that we be even-handed in all these matters. These problems are less a result of conflict than social and economic difficulties present in Northern Ireland and perhaps not as stark in the South. They are particularly acute in loyalist communities where people used to be guaranteed jobs for life in industries to which Catholics may not have had access. The fact that this is no longer the case causes difficulties in loyalist areas. We must try to understand the difficulties faced by both communities. We raise these matters with the Northern authorities at every meeting to ensure the principles of the Good Friday Agreement are expressed in legislation.
The Minister is correct that certain loyalist working class communities are deprived because of a lack of leadership. While monitoring is well and good, what additional function can the Government undertake to advance equality for Irish citizens in the Six Counties and reduce the rate of unemployment in Catholic and Nationalist areas? The disparity between these and other areas appears to be increasing. If we are to believe British Government statistics, other indicators of social need, as expressed in the percentages affected in Nationalist and Unionist areas, show that Nationalists are worse off now than they were ten or 15 years ago.
It is not all bad news. In 1990 unemployment was higher in Northern Ireland than the rest of the United Kingdom. The unemployment rate in Catholic and Protestant areas has since fallen dramatically and is now lower than the average UK rate. While significant pockets of unemployment remain and significant differences remain in the ratio of Catholics to Protestants unemployed, the figures are improving. I received figures on the PSNI, for example, which show the number of Catholics in the police has dramatically improved in recent years.
Monitoring and assessment of all these indicators continues right across the spectrum and liaison between officials from the South and their Northern counterparts is continuous with a view to ensuring equality remains high on the agenda. I welcome the recent appointment of Mr. Bob Collins as chairman of the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland.
