Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 10 Nov 2005

Vol. 609 No. 5

Other Questions.

Diplomatic Representation.

Pat Breen

Question:

6 Mr. P. Breen asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he has communicated with the Iranian ambassador to Ireland since the recent comments of the President of Iran relating to Israel; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [33271/05]

Emmet Stagg

Question:

67 Mr. Stagg asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the Government’s position on the recent statement by the President of Iran regarding Israel; the subsequent decision of the UN Security Council in this regard; and the actions the Government favours in terms of reducing tensions in the region. [33500/05]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 and 67 together.

I was appalled by the reported statement by President Ahmadinejad on 26 October on the existence of the state of Israel. Officials of my Department immediately contacted the Iranian Embassy in Dublin to convey the Government's clear view that the reported comments of the President were entirely unacceptable. The ambassador of Iran was not in Dublin — we have since been formally notified that he has been recalled by his Government — and our views were conveyed at the most senior diplomatic level available. I also made a public statement condemning the reported comments and in subsequent media interviews repeated the view already conveyed to the Iranian authorities that remarks on these lines can only have a negative effect in a troubled region and contribute nothing to relations between the EU and Iran.

The President's statement came on the day of another horrific suicide attack in Israel which took the lives of five people and injured many more. I strongly condemned this attack and expressed my concern that the President of Iran should have chosen to make these comments against such a background of hate-inspired violence.

On the same day, the UN Secretary General, Mr. Annan, expressed his dismay at the remarks of President Ahmadinejad and on 28 October they were condemned by the UN Security Council. The Secretary General has also postponed a planned visit to Iran.

The meeting of the General Affairs and External Relations Council, which I attended in Brussels on 7 November, also condemned the President's comments in the strongest terms. The Council deplored calls for violence and for the destruction of any state. It emphasised that these comments cause concern about Iran's role in the region and its future intentions.

I welcome the immediate and firm response of the international community on this issue. The Iranian Government can have been left in no doubt of the international isolation in which its President's remarks placed it. It is notable that the Iranian Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, has already stated publicly that Iran is not threatening any other state.

Looking to the future with a view to the reduction of tensions in the region, the General Affairs and External Relations Council underlined the long-standing importance which the EU attaches to sustainable political and economic reform in Iran and the importance of the comprehensive dialogue between the EU and Iran as an appropriate framework for discussing issues of mutual interest and concern. These include areas of long-standing concern to the EU, such as terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, Iran's approach to the Middle East peace process, human rights and fundamental freedoms and regional issues. The evolution of the long-term relationship, including the avoidance of a deterioration in relations between the EU and Iran, will depend on action by Iran to address effectively all the EU's concerns.

As I have tabled Question No. 9 on Iran's nuclear programme, I will discuss that issue further when the question is being addressed.

My original question concerned the communications made with the ambassador. There have been press reports that the ambassador, who came here in June, was arrested in Teheran during his summer holidays and is now being held on charges in Evin prison. Has official notification been received from the Iranian Embassy regarding the status of the ambassador?

I condemn the outrageous comments made by the President of Iran with regard to Israel. His statement is merely a further example of the incitements of that region. What does the European Union plan in response to the statement?

The Iranian ambassador is not in residence in Dublin. Previous to the President's comments, we were made aware from newspaper reports of the detention but we only received official word in the past week to the effect that he is no longer the ambassador.

I note the Deputy's response to the Iranian President's comments.

The EU response was issued last Monday. It was a very strong response from the 25 members of the EU. However, this is built into the issue of the nuclear programme currently in place in Iran. The discussions on the nuclear issue are at a very sensitive phase and in the next fortnight there will be a board of governors' meeting of the IAEA. Obviously we are trying to arrive at a situation where the dialogue that has taken place, but which is now temporarily suspended, will be renewed. Ultimately, we want to arrive at a point where there is full transparency regarding what is going on in Iran with its nuclear programme to ensure that it fits in with the NPT.

I issued a statement some time ago, when the Iranian President's comments were made, which was very similar to that issued by the Minister. I condemned the comments. Question No. 67 refers to the response of the UN Security Council. I suggest that it is significant that the Security Council was unanimous in issuing its statement.

With reference to the IAEA, the Non-proliferation Treaty needs to be revived in terms of the fullness of its articles, with its obligations on the existing nuclear powers clearly being addressed again. One could argue that the Irish position at the founding of this treaty at the United Nations was very significant. Then we had partial compliance by the super powers for a period but in more recent times the suggestion has arisen that non-proliferation can be interpreted almost exclusively in terms of newly-acquiring States. This is a serious fault line in the international process.

Question No. 67 also refers to the question of reducing tensions in the area and we need to see positive movement on this issue. The Iranian statements against Israel I have condemned unequivocally, as all people should. However, there is also the issue of significant progress on the Palestinian issue, requiring a reduction in the settlement activity, in accordance with the quartet proposals, on the part of Israel itself.

We are right to keep the issue of the comments on Israel by Iran as one of straight condemnation, shared by the international community. However, making progress on the other issues affecting Iran requires putting them in the context of a revived interest in the general principles of the Non-proliferation Treaty and also of regional strategies, including stopping Israeli extension of its settlement activity.

The Deputy has put the issue very well. As I have said, the result of the UN summit and the review conference on NPT was nothing short of a disgrace and I said as much in my statement on behalf of Ireland at that time. It was, and is, hypocritical for the larger powers, that already have nuclear arms, to put a strong emphasis on non-proliferation when in fact, the NPT is also a disarmament treaty and should be seen as such.

There are two sides to this argument and that is why I welcomed what Mr. Kofi Annan said at the end of the UN Summit, in his initial words, where he said that it was "a disgrace" on the international community. I have pledged that Ireland, as one of the authors of the NPT, will assist in whatever way it can. Unfortunately, we are in a world that is even more dangerous now than it was during the post-war era when the NPT was put in place. There are also a number of countries, some of which are in the Middle East, that are not party to the NPT. At least Iran is party to NPT. The important thing now is to keep Iran within that system so that we can use the instruments available to the international community in this respect.

While it is correct to say that the comment on Israel is a separate issue and should be condemned separately, all of this is interlinked. It is linked with the ongoing conflict in Palestine and Israel.

EU Directives.

David Stanton

Question:

7 Mr. Stanton asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the amount of outstanding EU legislation awaiting transposition into Irish law; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [33301/05]

The Government attaches priority to the transposition of EU legislation into Irish law. My colleague, the Minister of State with responsibility for European Affairs, Deputy Treacy, chairs an interdepartmental committee which meets regularly and has as one of its functions the monitoring of this transposition. The Government is committed to attaining the agreed transposition target of 1.5% as soon as possible.

The latest figures on transpositions are contained in the EU internal market scoreboard for July 2005. This shows the record of each member state in transposing internal market directives into national law. Ireland is in 12th position, with a transposition deficit of 1.6%, just outside the transposition target. A total of 11 member states have met the target, with deficits ranging from 0.8% to 1.4%. Among the 25 member states, the highest transposition deficit stands at 4.1%, while the transposition deficit across the European Union as a whole is 1.9%.

The next scoreboard will be published in January 2006. As of 1 November, 30 directives have not yet been transposed or are only partially transposed into national law.

Does the Minister agree that the transposition delays are unacceptable?

I ask him to confirm that there are three directives with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, dating back to 2001, that have not been transposed and that four infringement proceedings have now been served on the Department. I also ask the Minister to confirm that there were seven directives awaiting transposition last June. Can he tell me whether any of these have been transposed since then?

Since 1997 the Department of Education and Science has received two warnings arising from failure to transpose directives on time. Can the Minister confirm that there are 21 directives awaiting transposition in the Department of Agriculture and Food, one of which is late? In the Department of Transport, Directive 2002 of 11 March 2002 on working times for road hauliers, was not enacted into law by the deadline of 25 March.

Why does the Government delay and stall its obligations to transpose EU directives in a timely manner? Does the Minister agree, despite what he just said about league tables and so forth, that this failure places Ireland in a very bad light on the European stage, particularly given the threat of infringement proceedings against the State?

Between 2000 and 2005, Ireland was supposed to transpose 1068 directives and has, to date, transposed 1045, which is not a bad record. In fact, if one looks at the figures for when this Government came into office, we are now three times better than we were at that time, in terms of the percentage. In 1997, the transposition deficit figure was 5.4%, which was probably one of the worst in the EU. We are now just ahead of the average for the EU 25 of 1.9%. We are better than the EU 15 average of 2.1% and the EU 10 average of 1.1.7%.

At the moment there are 30 directive transpositions outstanding. There are nine in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and five overdue in the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, with two further directives partially transposed. There are five outstanding in the Department of Transport, four in the Department of Health and Children, three in the Department of Agriculture and Food and one in the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. The record is quite good and the figures stack up. We are, through the interdepartmental group chaired by the Minister of State, Deputy Treacy, constantly exhorting our colleagues to ensure that these directives are transposed in a timely manner. The only action being taken against the State at the moment relates to alleged inaccuracies. It does not relate to a failure to transpose EU legislation but to the way in which it was transposed. A number of actions are being taken across Departments. However, they are not significant compared with some other countries that are way behind us.

Departmental Staff.

Thomas P. Broughan

Question:

8 Mr. Broughan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the number of new staff members who came from the existing pool of civil servants and those who are contract staff among the intake of staff into his Department over each of the past five years; and if he will further indicate the number of consultancies undertaken by his Department in the same period. [33485/05]

I am circulating with my reply a table indicating the number of staff recruited by the Department of Foreign Affairs over the past five years. It should be noted that a number of staff will also have left the Department during this period on transfer to other Departments or offices. Others will have retired or resigned, or availed of the option to take career breaks or special leave. I am also providing a table indicating the number of consultants engaged by the Department during each of the past five years.

Table: Departmental recruitment during the period 2000 to 2005 to date.

Year

A Number of new appointees to established posts in the Department

B Of those, the number who transferred from elsewhere in the Civil Service

C Number of new appointees to unestablished posts on the basis of fixed-term contracts

D Number of new appointees to unestablished posts on the basis of contracts of indefinite duration

Total (A+C+D)

2000

102

6

8

7

117

2001

134

12

6

4

144

2002

190

13

9

2

201

2003

82

8

13

7

102

2004

57

45

7

1

65

2005 to date

49

19

49

Note 1: The information provided excludes the following categories:

1.Temporary staff recruited to serve in ministerial offices whose appointments are or were coterminous with those of the Ministers concerned;

2. Staff temporarily recruited in connection with the additional work which arose in the lead-up to and during Ireland's EU Presidency in the first half of 2004;

3.Stagiaires; and

4. Staff recruited for seasonal work in the Passport Office and staff locally recruited by Irish missions.

Note 2: Columns B and D above include staff of the former national committee for development education, NCDE, and the former Agency for Personal Service Overseas, APSO, integrated into the Department in 2003 and 2004, respectively.

Table: Consultants engaged by the Department during the past five years.

Year

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005 (to-date)

Total

Number of consultants engaged

98

55

106

80

115

46

500

I would like to the think that the Minister's Department was supported by a greater intake than is revealed in the table. It is interesting that in 2004 there were 115 consultancies and the total intake through departmental recruitment that year was 65. Given that there was an intake in 2002 of 201 and the fact that we were preparing for the increased role of the Department of Foreign Affairs, which I support, at the level of the European Union and the United Nations in international organisations, in particular, the projected increase in the other table which relates to the development division between now and 2012, it appears incredible that, allowing for retirements, leave and so on, the Department is recruiting such a small number. If we are to meet our commitments on overseas development aid by 2012, including the announced expansion in representation abroad, which I support, I do not understand how this can be achieved with this level of intake. Does the Minister propose to go to the Minister for Finance and seek departure from any such embargoes to achieve the policy objectives of his Department?

The Department has no problem fulfilling its functions with the existing cohort of staff personnel. In regard to engaging 500 consultancies over the past five years, 87% of them are in the area of overseas development aid. Most of them are small time related consultancies because we do not have this expertise within the Department. They ensure value for taxpayers' money in regard to the development programmes, mainly across sub-Saharan Africa. I assure the Deputy that the larger intake of consultancies is due to the expansion of the ODA programme. As there will be a substantial increase in funding for the ODA programme in the Estimates next week, I have no doubt the number of consultancies will expand even further, and this will happen again in 2007.

Is there an age limit on people being recruited from outside and, if not, how many people over the age of 45 have been taken into the Department from outside?

Is the Minister in a position to say whether the advisory committee's commissioned reports on the staffing needs of the Department, such as the Cassidy report and others, will be implemented?

I do not know if there is an age limit. I do not have the figures, but if there is, I can get the figures for the Deputy. I would not like to think there is an age limit other than the normal limit that exists in the public service.

Nuclear Armaments.

Michael Ring

Question:

9 Mr. Ring asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the latest report issued by the EU three relating to Iranian nuclear capability and development; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [33287/05]

Bernard Allen

Question:

59 Mr. Allen asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the position with regard to negotiations taking place between three European Union member states and Iran with regard to nuclear capability and development; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [33273/05]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 9 and 59 together.

Negotiations between the EU three and Iran are suspended following Iran's decision on 8 August 2005 to recommence conversion of uranium at its Isfahan facility. This action was in breach of the Paris Agreement signed by Iran and the EU three, France, Germany and the United Kingdom, in November 2004. Under this agreement, Iran, inter alia, re-affirmed that it did not and would not seek to acquire nuclear weapons and committed itself to full transparency and co-operation with the International Atomic Energy Agency. Iran decided voluntarily to suspend all enrichment and reprocessing activities and to invite the IAEA to verify and monitor the suspension. In return, the EU three agreed to commence negotiations with a view to reaching a mutually acceptable agreement on long-term arrangements in the areas of political and security issues, technology and co-operation and nuclear issues.

At the board of governors meeting at the IAEA last September, the EU three co-sponsored a resolution that found Iran to be non-compliant with the agency's statute. The board now has the option to refer Iran to the UN Security Council at a future date. To avoid such referral, Iran has been urged, inter alia, to re-establish full and sustained suspension of uranium conversion and to implement transparency measures, including provision of documentation relating to its nuclear programme and providing IAEA inspectors with access to facilities. The resolution also requested the director general of the IAEA to continue his efforts to implement the resolution and previous resolutions and to report back to the board of governors on any developments on issues raised in his September report. On the basis of this future report, the board of governors will decide what further action should be taken on Iran.

The General Affairs and External Relations Council earlier this week reiterated its grave concern at Iran's resumption of activity at the uranium conversion facility in Isfahan. The Council urged Iran to implement all measures requested by the IAEA board of governors in its resolution on 24 September, including reinstating a full suspension of all fuel cycle activities thus allowing negotiations with the European side to resume before the IAEA board meets again in November. The Council underlined the EU's continued support for a diplomatic solution to international concerns over Iran's nuclear programme and agreed to keep the EU's approach to Iran under close review in light of progress on the nuclear file and other issues of concern. While the Iranian Foreign Minister recently wrote to EU colleagues proposing a resumption of negotiations, Iran has so far taken none of the measures requested by the IAEA board.

I thank the Minister for his response and for his earlier comments regarding the failure of the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons treaty talks. The level of hypocrisy and double standards is breathtaking. The reckless attitude of some states is something we could all live to regret because the longer the indecision and double standards continue, the greater the risk that nuclear materials will fall into the hands of terrorist groups. We could all be at risk at that stage.

My question referred to the EU three, France, Germany and the United Kingdom, representing the EU in talks with Iran. At the meeting earlier this week, where a review of the Iranian situation took place, was consideration given to an opinion which exists that, because of their chequered history, the three countries involved may not be the best countries to represent the European Union in dealing with Iran and its nuclear programme? Has consideration been given to bringing on board, for example, Ireland because of its record in regard to the non-proliferation treaty? A Minister said recently that we do not have the expertise to deal with these complex issues. Has any consideration been given to bringing on board countries like Ireland to deal with this problem? We have the expertise and the scientific back-up and there are no such barriers to our involvement. However, there are barriers because of the chequered past of some of the countries involved at present. Has a review taken place?

A review has not taken place. We have full confidence in the three countries involved. We are fully informed and briefed at all the meetings that feed into the GAERC meetings that I attend. We get full and frank disclosure of the discussions that take place. It is difficult as it is a stop start issue as regards the relationship with Iran. It is important we engage with them in a diplomatic way because the international community is looking to the EU3 and the EU as the brokers. It is one issue on which the international community needs to be vigilant in the months and years ahead because the potential for further destabilising of this area is plain to see in some of the injudicious remarks that have been made. It is vital that we negotiate in a diplomatic way rather than using bully-boy tactics with a country such as Iran, which is pivotal in this area. I had occasion to meet with the representative of Iran some months ago in the UN — I think the Deputy was in the vicinity — and when he asked me about the nuclear issue as a member of the EU I made clear to him Ireland's long-standing position in regard to nuclear disarmament and the entire nuclear defence and non-defence issue. He clearly said to me that as far as they were concerned they were only doing what they were entitled to do under the NPT which was to have a civilian nuclear industry. I said that so long as it was that type of facility, even though we did not agree with it as a policy in Ireland, if they were prepared to allow it to be independently inspected that would be sufficient for the EU. Unfortunately the inspections that have taken place under the aegis of the IAEA have not been transparent and some of the issues that have been unearthed lead the international community to be very concerned.

To return to the Deputy's central point, we have full confidence in those countries, particularly the EU3 in that they do have far more expertise in the area of nuclear armaments and defence capabilities from a nuclear point of view than Ireland.

Will the Minister agree that one of the lasting consequences of the war in Iraq is that the position of Iran has been strengthened substantially and that the Shiites in Iraq are in the ascendency? Will he agree this is partly the reason the Iranians have been emboldened to move forward with a nuclear programme?

I do not honestly know. They maintain they have made a decision to put in place nuclear energy facilities in their state which is their entitlement under the NPT. It was made clear to me when I met the Iranian ambassador to the UN that they had made a policy decision to go nuclear and that they were putting in place facilities. He had with him a member of the Iranian Parliament who said that because of the impending elections their ability, or non-ability, to move on this was a strong political issue within Iran. The Deputy asked if this had emboldened on them in this area. I cannot honestly say but this area is a tinderbox and it has to be dealt with strongly and to a large extent in a diplomatic way. We have to show there is a mutual interest for the EU, the wider international community and also for Iran in regard to better relationships with a block such as the EU which is on its doorstep.

Written answers follow Adjournment Debate.

Top
Share