Vol. 626 No. 2
75 Mr. Allen asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he has discussed the upcoming accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union with his European counterpart Ministers, with particular regard to the question of opening access to labour markets for the citizens of these States; if consultations between his Department and other Departments have taken place with regard to this issue; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34714/06]
The preparedness of Bulgaria and Romania for membership of the European Union has been a major issue on the EU agenda since they signed their treaty of accession in April 2005. Considerable attention has been given to the Commission's efforts in monitoring the two countries' preparations for accession. The matter has been discussed by EU Foreign Ministers on a number of occasions. The most recent discussion took place at this month's meeting of the General Affairs and External Relations Council, when both countries were commended on the reforms they have undertaken. The Council looks forward to welcoming Bulgaria and Romania into the EU in January 2007.
There has been a particular focus on labour market access in recent months. As Deputies are aware, the Government decided yesterday that Ireland will avail of the transitional labour market access arrangements which are provided for in the EU's accession treaty with Bulgaria and Romania. Therefore, citizens of Bulgaria and Romania will continue to require work permits if they are to take up employment here after the two countries accede to the EU in January of next year. The Government's decision was taken on the basis of careful consideration of the issues involved and following consultations with the social partners. Consultations on this issue have also taken place between the various Departments. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, which has responsibility for labour market and work permit issues, has been particularly involved. The Government had extensive contact with other member states to determine their intentions.
Finland, which currently holds the EU Presidency, is the only pre-2004 EU member state to have announced that it will allow unrestricted labour market access for citizens of Bulgaria and Romania from next January. Other member states have indicated they will impose restrictions. A number of key countries have not yet opened their labour markets to the member states which joined the EU in 2004. The British Government, which did not impose any restrictions in 2004, has decided to apply a work permit requirement on this occasion. The British decision was an important consideration in the Government's analysis of the options available to Ireland. When the last EU enlargement took place in 2004, Ireland was one of just three member states not to restrict labour market access for citizens of the acceding states from central and eastern Europe. As a result, many people from those countries have come to work in Ireland over the past two years. Ireland has taken in almost half as many workers from the new member states as the UK, which has a population 15 times greater than the population of Ireland.
The ESRI has pointed out that many people have moved to Ireland at a time of rapid economic growth. The broadly positive impact of that migration to date may not be evident in a more difficult economic climate. We need to continue to monitor the effects of migration on society, for example on our education, health and social security systems. In that context, and in the light of the intentions of its EU partners, the Government's decision to continue to require Bulgarians and Romanians to seek work permits was the prudent and proper course of action to take. It means workers from Bulgaria and Romania will be able to come here when they can fill a genuine labour market need.
Why was the House treated with such disrespect when this important decision was being taken? The Minister said the social partners were consulted. The Joint Committee on European Affairs wanted to discuss this matter with the Department of the Taoiseach, but no such session took place. The importance of that committee was ignored. A decision was made without any consultation with the other political parties. Does the Minister agree the manner in which the announcement was made was a further example of the downgrading of this House? The announcement was made on the coat-tails of the UK announcement, which was made yesterday morning. When the UK authorities jumped, we jumped after them in the absence of any consultation with the other political parties. The Minister mentioned that an impact study has been conducted on our social services. To what extent has a study taken place of the impact on our hospital and educational services of the influx of workers from the accession states that followed the last round of EU enlargement?
I congratulate Bulgaria and Romania on their forthcoming membership of the EU. Their Governments now have the hard job of explaining to the populations of those countries the reasons they are being excluded in this way. I support the Government's decision, in principle. There should have been some consultation, at least, with the partners which matter most in this country's political structures, including this House.
I do not accept that the other political parties were not involved in this process. I participated in a number of discussions at Oireachtas committees about the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union. The question of whether free access would be given to workers from those countries was discussed at those meetings. I made the point on many occasions, as I did in my earlier reply, that Ireland, Sweden and the United Kingdom were the only three of the 15 pre-2004 member states to give free access to workers from the ten new countries which joined the EU in May 2004. It is estimated that approximately 275,000 people from those accession countries have been given personal public service numbers in this State, which has a population of 4.2 million, over a relatively short space of time. Approximately 500,000 such people went to the UK, which has a population of 56 million, over the same period. Just 10,000 people from the accession states went to Sweden, which was the only other country to allow free labour market access, in the same timeframe. That is an indication that Ireland has done its bit to provide for free access, by and large.
The Government examined the situation carefully before it made this decision. It considered the recommendations of the social partners and the views which were expressed in this House. I cannot comment on the request that was made to the Department of the Taoiseach, which was highlighted by Deputy Allen just now. Like the Minister who has direct responsibility for work permits, Deputy Martin, I was willing to come to the House or a committee meeting to discuss this issue at any time. I welcome the fact Fine Gael supports the Government's view, which concurs exactly with the statements made by the Economic and Social Research Institute and the social partners, on the current situation. It should be emphasised that under the system in place at EU level, countries like Ireland which continue to keep restrictions in place will ultimately have to provide for free access after a relatively short time — a seven-year period at the very most. After separate periods of two years, two years and three years have passed, countries which have put restrictions in place will have to open their labour markets.
A number of countries, including some major countries in the EU which did not allow free access in 2004, have yet to open their borders to the member states which acceded to the Union in that year. Ireland has done more than its fair share by allowing free access to its labour market. While we acknowledge the principle of free access, we ultimately have to bear in mind all the various considerations, which we have done in a reasoned way. We were in fairly constant contact with our colleagues in Britain about what they were doing in this regard. It does not relate to the issue of the common travel area between Ireland and Britain. It relates more to the fact that if the British authorities introduced restrictions but we did not, Ireland would be the only English-speaking country in the EU without any restrictions. In our view, that might have led to larger numbers than normal coming to our shores.
What discussions took place with our other EU partners about the opening of their borders? The decisions which have been made — I accept the Government's decision may have been forced on it — are contrary to the EU principle of mobility of labour. Can the Minister give the House details of the pressures which are being placed on other Governments to open their labour markets, so the impact on Ireland, the UK and Sweden will not be as great in the future as it has been in recent years? Surely the issue of the common travel area was central to the Government's decision. Why did the Government show such indecent haste in jumping to a decision within two hours of yesterday's announcement of the UK decision?
The Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister, Mr. Blair — the two Governments — had agreed the announcements would be made on the same day. We had been in constant contact. It had nothing to do with following the British slavishly, off the top of our heads. This was a result of constant negotiations with the respective Departments and the respective Prime Ministers. The Taoiseach and Prime Minister Blair discussed this issue recently at St. Andrew's in Scotland.
What about the other countries?
We have been in discussion with other countries at EU level and I made the point that Ireland opens its borders. Our colleagues have been surprised at the numbers that have come to Ireland and they acknowledge that Ireland opened its borders for the previous accession.
There is pressure on other countries but they must make their own decisions and cannot slavishly follow others. Similarly, we must make decisions based on the circumstances that pertain at a particular time. A number of countries, including France, Germany and Belgium, have indicated they will probably impose restrictions. Time is running out for those countries regarding the previous enlargement and between 2009 and 2011 they will be compelled to allow full access.
I presume we will try not to use the seven years in question.
76 Mr. M. Higgins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on whether genocide has taken, and is taking place in Darfur; and the most recent and explicit proposals that have been made by the European Union in terms of an adequately resourced and expanded United Nations force being given a mandate either in support of or within the forces of the African Union already in place. [34712/06]
Bringing to justice those responsible for serious human rights violations is an essential element in restoring peace to Darfur. In October 2004, an international commission of inquiry was established by the UN Secretary General. Part of its mandate was to determine whether acts of genocide had occurred there. The commission's report was published on 25 January 2005. While stopping short of a finding of genocide against the Sudanese Government, the commission established that the government and the Janjaweed were responsible for serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law amounting to crimes under international law, which might amount to crimes against humanity. The commission also found credible evidence that rebel forces were responsible for serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law that might amount to war crimes.
The commission pointed out that its conclusion that no genocidal policy had been pursued and implemented in Darfur by the Sudanese Government should not be taken in any way as detracting from the gravity of the crimes perpetrated in that region. The commission also recognised that in some instances individuals, including government officials, may commit acts with genocidal intent. Whether this was the case in Darfur could only be determined by a competent court on a case by case basis.
The Security Council decided to refer the situation in Darfur since 1 July 2002 to the prosecutor of the International Court of Justice. The prosecutor decided to open an investigation into the situation in Darfur, which is still underway. In his June 2006 report to the Security Council, the prosecutor referred to allegations that some of the groups involved in the commission of crimes in Darfur did so with specific genocidal intent. He indicated that this issue remains the subject of investigation and that he would not draw any conclusions as to the character of the crimes pending the completion of a full and impartial investigation. The International Criminal Court is the most appropriate body to investigate and try those accused of the dreadful crimes which have occurred in Darfur. Until the prosecutor's investigation has been completed and his conclusions made known, I would not wish to express a view on whether genocide has taken place, or is still occurring, in Darfur.
The Government remains deeply concerned by the grave political and humanitarian crisis taking place in Darfur. We are using all avenues to work for a resolution of the major challenges that exist there. Both bilaterally and as part of the European Union, we have played an active role in the concerted international campaign to persuade the Sudanese Government to accept a UN force in Darfur. This force was mandated by the UN Security Council. In October, the General Affairs and External Relations Council reconfirmed its full support for the Security Council's decision and urged the Government of Sudan to give unambiguous consent to its implementation. It was emphasised that a UN operation is the only realistic option for a sustainable, long-term peacekeeping operation in Darfur.
In advance of the transition to a UN force, Ireland and the EU will continue to be involved in supporting the African Union's ceasefire monitoring force in Darfur, AMIS, so that its effectiveness can be maximized to the greatest extent possible.
I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and do not intend to pursue the issue of whether the term genocide should be used.
The figures on those who have died suggest a concentrated attack on a particular people. Some 200,000 black, African Muslims have been killed in two years, approximately 1.45 million people have been displaced, with 500,000 in need of urgent assistance, and deaths from disease and malnutrition, secondary causes, have been estimated at 180,000 in 2005 with another 80,000 since added.
I am not interested in the argument of whether this is a conflict between settled and nomadic people. Those with the power to bomb villages have done so in a concentrated way. On the other hand, factions have emerged representing signatories and non-signatories of the peace agreement.
The current UK proposal for an international conference of Heads of State has not been accepted by the President of Sudan. However, there is a suggestion that a meeting at the level of Ministers of Foreign Affairs might be acceptable. Would the Government consider facilitating such a meeting as a preparatory phase for the meeting proposed by the UK?
Most recently, the Sudanese President seems to have accepted the strengthening and increase in the African Union presence. It will act for the United Nations with logistics provided by non-Africans.
The Darfur Consortium represents 40 African non-governmental organisations, NGOs, and it is concerned at the arrest in Saudi Arabia of Abulgasem Ahmed Abulgasem at a conference on Sudan. He is from Darfur and has been subjected to an extraordinary rendition to Sudan where he is now held without access and proper procedures relating to vindication.
I welcome the Deputy's approach to this matter because the question of whether it is genocide is academic. It is an appalling crime. I was there in July and was the first Minister from any country to visit Darfur since the peace agreement the previous May. What I saw in the Abu Shok displacement camp in Al-Fashir, Darfur, was hell on earth. Some 50,000 people there were living entirely on aid from NGOs and I saw in stark terms the difficulties facing people in the circumstances. They came from very fertile land but were driven away by the conflict.
I compliment the British Government and Prime Minister Blair on the move to propose an international conference. On the one hand it would put pressure on the Sudanese Government, while, on the other, it would indicate to the Sudanese that there are incentives to be had. The Deputy will acknowledge that this is not simply an issue of throwing in UN mandated forces from western powers, effectively adding white soldiers to the maelstrom. Some suggest that this would make Iraq look like a picnic. This issue must be handled in a sensitive way and Prime Minister Blair's proposal is welcome.
In principle, the Government has no problem being involved in or hosting such a conference. However, I have been to Sudan and met the Foreign Minister in recent weeks who is of a different party to the president. Sudanese Government decisions are made by the president. If a conference were to be held, it would have to be at heads of state level. At EU level we have supported the call by the British Government for a heads of state conference.
I mentioned a human rights activist detained in Sudan.
I assure the Deputy that we will pursue this case. The Deputy also raised another issue.
That issue related to hosting the conference, but the Minister has already dealt with that.
Having visited Darfur just a few months ago, it is clear that circumstances have worsened and quite a number of people have been killed or displaced since then. The position is going from bad to worse and the international community must adopt a strong stance. However, it is not a simple issue of throwing in a UN-mandated force. I saw for myself when I visited Al Fashir, the headquarters of the AMIS in Darfur, that they were doing a difficult job with relatively small numbers. While I am happy that a decision has been taken to beef up the AMIS, it needs logistical support from major forces. When I was there the force had 7,000 troops in an area one and a half times the size of France. One can see the difficulties that such a force would have.
This is a key issue and must be handled sensitively at international level. I met the head of the African Union in Addis Ababa on the same trip. He had just returned from a meeting of the African Union where many of his colleagues had put pressure on the Sudanese president to accept UN involvement in Darfur.
My proposal for an Irish preparatory conference might be constructed on the basis of addressing regional issues. This affects not only Sudan, but also Chad, the Central African Republic and Uganda. The preparatory conference could focus on the regional issues and provide an opening for the heads of state meeting that is at the heart of the British proposal.
Mr. Abulgasem Ahmed Abulgasem has been arrested and moved to Sudan. He was a participant in the Abuja talks where he represented the Sudan Liberation Movement, hence the sensitivity of his position.
Those of us interested in such issues are tested by something which is not being driven forward at UN level, namely, the difference between humanitarian intervention and humanitarian protection. Does the Minister agree that using sovereignty as a shield while massive loss of life and dislocation is taking place is an abuse of the concept of sovereignty? It is irrelevant at this stage whether we describe this as genocide. The international community must have the right to intervene where a state is not protecting a significant part of its population. We must all come to terms with this.
I agree entirely with what the Deputy has said. My EU colleagues and I discussed protecting the principle enshrined within the UN reform package. This is the first instance where the international community has a responsibility to protect vulnerable people. We are not at this stage yet.
We must be careful in how we deal with this. The greatest focus must be on the president, who hopes to become the head of the African Union in January 2007. I have told our EU colleagues that I believe we should use our influence, particularly in Africa, to let the Sudanese president know that if he wishes to accede to the chair of the African Union, he must do so in such a way that concurs with the views of most member nations that a joint African Union-United Nations mandated force should be allowed into Sudan.
As regards the conference, I am not saying that Ireland would not be involved in such a conference. However, I would question whether it would produce any result. Having visited Darfur and spent quite a lot of time with Sudanese Ministers, I believe the power rests with the president. The focus should be put on the president and not taken from him. That is why I welcome the British initiative. I will instruct my officials and, at the next meeting, I will personally raise the issue of the proposed conference, preferably at heads of state level.
77 Mr. F. McGrath asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been drawn to the fact that at least 11,000 child soldiers in the Democratic Republic of the Congo are either still with armed groups or unaccounted for more than two years after the country began demobilising its boy and girl fighters; and if he will raise this issue at the United Nations. [34711/06]
The recent Amnesty International report on child soldiers has highlighted one of the most disturbing elements of the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, DRC. As the report recommends, the new government which will shortly take office in the Democratic Republic of the Congo must prioritise the treatment of children who have been involved in the long-term conflict there.
Under international law, the recruitment and use of children under 15 in a conflict is considered a war crime. The International Criminal Court, which is carrying out an investigation at the request of the DRC Government, should fully investigate any reports of children being recruited and used in conflict. Ireland and its EU partners will also continue to highlight the issue of child soldiers in the DRC in relevant UN fora, including the ongoing General Assembly session.
It is important not to underestimate the scale of the overall challenge which confronts the DRC and its people, now that it is on the verge of securing its first democratically elected government in more than 40 years. Some 3 million people are still displaced in the DRC, while an estimated 1,200 people die daily from preventable conflict-related causes. Basic services are either severely degraded or non-existent — there is only 500 km of paved road in a country the size of western Europe.
If there is to be any chance of confronting the many challenges the country faces, the international community will have to stay actively engaged in the DRC. Ireland and its EU partners are taking the lead in this regard. The EU and its member states have provided the bulk of the financing for the current electoral process which is due to conclude on 29 October. The EU is also actively engaged in supporting vital security sector reform in the DRC and has deployed the EUFOR mission to support the UN peacekeeping mission during the current electoral period.
The international community is also providing substantial support to assist with the demobilisation and reintegration of former combatants in the DRC. This forms part of a wider regional programme, the multi-country demobilisation and reintegration programme, which is led by the World Bank. In response to a request from the World Bank, the Government and Irish Aid has decided that Ireland should provide financial support for this programme, the largest of its kind in the world, which aims at demobilising 350,000 former combatants in seven countries of the Great Lakes region. By providing support for this programme, amounting to €500,000 in 2006, Ireland will be in a better position to join the other donors in urging the new DRC Government to ensure it gives greater priority to the needs of former child soldiers.
Does the Minister agree that this type of exploitation of children is unacceptable and what will he do about it at United Nations level? Does the Minister accept that these young boys and girls should be in school receiving education, playing games and living a normal childhood rather than finding themselves conscripted as child soldiers? What specific targets should the UN have? Can 50% of these 11,000 children be placed in education and proper care by 2007? What investment is being spent on these children by the EU, the UN and others? What role do drugs play? Many of these children are souped up on drugs which causes a level of violence rarely seen anywhere in the world.
I welcome the Minister pointing out that anyone who involves children under 15 years of age in such activities is committing a war crime. It is unacceptable that in 2006, 11,000 children are being exploited in such a manner. I welcome the €500,000 donation from Ireland to combat this problem, but to help these children who are seriously at risk, the EU and United Nations must put proper investment in place.
The international fund I referred to has a target of €300 million to assist with the demobilisation and reintegration process. Ireland is playing its part — since 2003 we have contributed €12 million to the conflict areas in emergency and recovery funding. We provided €6 million this year and, on top of that, we are providing €1.3 million for the electoral process. The hope is that by the second round of elections due at the end of this month, the situation will have stabilised. A total of 19,000 have already been demobilised under this and other programmes run by the Congolese Government. It is a scandal that 11,000 children are still in this position but we will work on that and Ireland is in a position to hold the Congolese Government to account over these children who have not been reintegrated into the community.
Ireland does not shy away from this. We think it is a scandal that children are used as soldiers. It is a terrible problem across Africa. We saw similar situations in Sierra Leone, Liberia and Darfur, where young people are running around with Kalashnikov rifles having been enticed by money, drugs and, in the poor settings of these countries, the desire to escape their existing misery by participating in these armies. It is a complicated issue to address because people are recruited as children for the money and the good life offered by an escape from the extreme poverty of their homes in countries experiencing conflict. Often it is more enjoyable for youngsters to take off with these warlords than to stay at home. We are focused on the issue.
78 Mr. Allen asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the steps being taken by his Department to convey Ireland’s condemnation of recent nuclear testing to the North Korean regime; the further steps being taken to press for reform of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34715/06]
Following a statement of intent issued on 3 October, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea announced that it had carried out an underground nuclear test on 9 October. I immediately strongly condemned this provocative action by the DPRK. It is a serious threat to the security and stability of the region, as well as a direct contravention of the international objectives of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. It ignored the will of the international community and ran counter to the patient efforts of the DPRK's neighbours to work constructively to find a diplomatic solution through the six party talks process.
My statement of condemnation was communicated to the DPRK authorities through its embassy in London. Finland, acting as Presidency, also issued a statement on behalf of the EU. At the current session of the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Ireland, together with our partners in the New Agenda Coalition, tabled a resolution condemning the DRPK's test of a nuclear device and emphasising the central role of the NPT in achieving nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.
However, it is clear in the case of DPRK that words of condemnation must also be backed by concrete action. On 14 October, the United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1718 empowering the international community to enforce specific sanctions, including an arms embargo, as well as a ban on any items which could contribute to the DPRK's nuclear, ballistic missile or WMD programmes. At the meeting of the General Affairs and External Relations Council last week, the EU committed itself to the full implementation of Security Council Resolution 1718, as well as Resolution 1695, adopted in July in response to the DPRK's earlier controversial ballistic missile tests. We are currently taking the necessary steps to ensure Ireland's full compliance with these two resolutions.
As regards the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the testing of a nuclear explosive device by DPRK is a matter of grave concern. Since the DPRK's announced withdrawal from the NPT in 2003 and subsequent declaration that it possesses nuclear weapons, the international community has consistently urged the DPRK to abandon its policy, completely dismantle its nuclear weapons programme and comply fully with its obligations under the NPT.
Review conferences of the NPT take place every five years and afford an opportunity to review the implementation of the treaty and all its provisions. The next scheduled NPT review conference will take place in 2010 and will be preceded by a series of preparatory meetings beginning in 2007. Regrettably, the last review conference, in May 2005, ended without agreement on substantive conclusions and recommendations on how to strengthen the non-proliferation regime.
I have constantly made clear that the effective implementation of all aspects of the NPT, including the nuclear weapons states' commitment to disarmament, would serve to strengthen the global non-proliferation context. The entry into force of the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty would also be a positive step. This is in no way to suggest that the course adopted by the DPRK's dangerous and totalitarian regime has any shred of justification.
Almost 60 countries now have nuclear reactors for research or power generation and 40 have the industrial and scientific infrastructure to build a nuclear weapon at short notice. The US has entered an agreement to pass on nuclear technology to India, which is not a signatory to the NPT, and Iran, Israel and Pakistan have nuclear weapons. Does the Minister agree that we are reaching a point of no return where the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons treaty is becoming defunct?
In view of the Minister's admission that the talks about a review of the treaty ended in failure at the United Nations in 2006, there is now urgent need to reconvene the talks on the treaty, not to wait until 2010, which may be too late. As a country that was an architect of the treaty, we should act as a global leader to get people around the table to deal with this deadly issue before it is too late.
It is not my view or that of the Government that the NPT is defunct. It is accepted, however, that it faces major challenges and the review conference in 2005 was a grave disappointment. In September 2005, when the UN reform package was finalised, I echoed the words of Kofi Annan on the NPT. The fact that there are challenges should not deflect us from encouraging all states to participate in the NPT.
Under the treaty, it is accepted that countries can have nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. They have that right and it is not fair to say that countries with that capability can quickly proceed to a military mode. It is the case that the treaty is under pressure and Ireland, with other countries in the New Agenda Coalition, strongly promotes the review of the NPT constantly. The proposed agreement between the US and India is one of a series of issues that are not yet finalised and they put pressure on the treaty but we should not remove our focus from the twin approach in the NPT, of which Ireland was an architect many years ago, in less complicated but more dangerous times. In those days there were only two powers but there is now a multiplicity of powers. That is why the NPT is based on multilateralism. It is much better to have countries adopt principles to which we can all adhere, even though we may not agree with them on nuclear energy.
Ireland is ready, willing and able to provide assistance and we informed the United Nations Secretary General a year ago that we would participate in any effort to try to ensure that the non-proliferation treaty, the twin track policy of non-proliferation and disarmament, should be the hallmark of the approach to the nuclear-military issue.
Does the Minister agree that there has been an erosion of the main tenets of the non-proliferation treaty which could lead to a cascade of proliferation? These are not my words but those of a United Nations report published in 2004. Double standards and sickening hypocrisy are evident with regard to the non-proliferation treaty. Different standards are applied to Iran as are applied to India, Israel and Pakistan. Surely it is time for uniformity in global standards on non-proliferation because without it nuclear weapons will inevitably get into the hands of terrorists who will hold democratically elected governments to ransom. This is not a comic book scenario but a realistic proposition in the event that we do not get our act together. Waiting until 2010 to hold another round-table conference with no guarantees of success will mean we are too late. Ireland has a moral right to exert pressure on this matter because, as the Minister agrees, we were the architects of the non-proliferation treaty.
No one is waiting until 2010. The non-proliferation treaty is in place and only a handful of nations are not part of it. The vast majority of the international community participates in and adheres to the treaty, although a number of countries, including Iran and North Korea, have deviated from it.
India is not a signatory.
One cannot equate recent events in Iran with those in North Korea. The international community, at the Security Council, proposed relatively draconian sanctions against North Korea on the basis of that country's declared intent and follow-up action. The purpose of the Security Council decision was to forcefully suggest to North Korea that it cannot succeed.
That is where the double standards and hypocrisy are evident.
I understand the Democratic Republic of North Korea has given an undertaking to China that it will not proceed with further action.
It is simplistic to state that Ireland should lead the way. Ireland is one of a number of countries to the fore as regards adherence to the non-proliferation treaty and trying to persuade the international community as a whole to continue on the track of non-proliferation and disarmament. This can only be achieved in conjunction with other like-minded countries. I accept that certain countries want to have it both ways. In my statements to the review conference and the United Nations, I did not put a tooth in my statement that some of the countries that wish to ensure there is non-proliferation are, at the same time, not prepared to disarm.
The Minister's comment that it is simplistic to argue that Ireland should lead the way is disingenuous. Ireland has a role to play. The United States deals with India, which has not signed the non-proliferation treaty.
79 Mr. M. Higgins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if it is the Government’s view that a referendum may be necessary on the St. Andrews agreement and, if so, his views on the circumstances of such a public consultation. [34713/06]
The proposed agreement published by the Governments at St. Andrews comprehensively addressed the core issues standing in the way of the restoration of the power-sharing institutions of the Good Friday Agreement. It sets out a clear way forward for all parties to commit to the full operation of stable power-sharing government and the North-South and east-west arrangements and to full support for policing and the criminal justice institutions, including the policing board. It also sets out in some detail the practical changes proposed to the operation of the institutions, the arrangements for a financial package and the timetable for implementation of the agreement.
We have asked the parties to confirm acceptance of the agreement by 10 November so that the timetable we have laid out for the nomination of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in November and the restoration of the executive in March can be met. The timetable provides that, following endorsement of the St. Andrews agreement by the parties, legislation will be passed at Westminster in the week beginning 20 November to address a number of practical changes to the operation of the institutions of the Good Friday Agreement. These changes arise from the 2004 review of the Agreement and more recent detailed engagement between the parties, including in the preparation for government committee. This engagement is ongoing and as the parties continue their discussions in the coming weeks, we will closely monitor further developments.
The timetable for implementation of the St. Andrews agreement also foresees an electoral endorsement in March next year. As the Taoiseach stated in this House last week, it is clear from our discussions at St. Andrews that some form of electoral endorsement of the agreement as a whole will be required before the formation of an executive. The form such an endorsement would take in Northern Ireland is not yet decided, nor is the question of whether a referendum might be required here.
Before coming to a conclusion on this matter, the Government will want to know that parties are prepared to continue working within the framework we outlined at St. Andrews and to consider the outcome of the discussions between the parties on institutional issues. These discussions are continuing at Stormont in the framework of the preparation for government committee, which is likely to continue its work at least until the end of this month. The Government does not intend to rush to judgment in advance of clarity on these points. Any further developments will then be taken into account by the Attorney General, whose advice will guide our further considerations at Government.
Half of my question was disallowed by the Office of the Ceann Comhairle. In a communication, the Ceann Comhairle stated:
I regret that I have had to disallow the underlined part of the following question tabled by you:
To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairsthe matters in relation to the St. Andrews agreement upon which he sought or is seeking the opinion of the Attorney General; the substance of the opinion as has been received in relation to such matters; if it is the Government’s view that a referendum may be necessary; and if so, his views on the circumstances of such a public consultation.
The Minister has no official responsibility to Dáil Éireann for advice that is sought or received from the Attorney General.
Although this matter can be pursued elsewhere, I do not agree with the Ceann Comhairle. Perhaps the Attorney General can be asked a question through the Taoiseach.
Turning to the practicalities of this issue, I hope the ongoing talks are a success. My question simply asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if it is the Government's view that a referendum may be necessary. There are some fundamental issues beyond the finalised text, upon which the Government may have received an opinion. The British-Irish Agreement is lodged in Article 29.7.2° of the Constitution, while the agreement produced by the multi-party talks is attached to the British-Irish Agreement by way of an annexe. I do not have time, nor would it be appropriate at Question Time, to discuss whether the two documents form an integral piece. Is it not possible, on a reading of the Crotty case, to give a straightforward opinion as to whether Article 28, which deals with decision making institutions of this State, is affected in principle by any delegation of executive powers outside the borders of the State? That is a matter upon which one can have a forward opinion, irrespective of the detail of the final outcome of the talks.
It is extraordinary that the Attorney General's opinion, whether it exists, cannot be a matter of accountability. Far more serious, however, is the issue of whether it is possible to have devolved arrangements for decision making which may or may not be affected by Article 28, as understood in the review of the Crotty case, on foot of the fact that the British-Irish Agreement and its annexe, form part of Article 29.7.2° of the Constitution. On that substantial matter, it is surely important to have an opinion to provide a basic orientation on the issue. I hope substantial agreement will be reached on a text.
The practice of the Minister for Foreign Affairs or any Minister being answerable to the Dáil on the basis of the Attorney General's advice has not changed since Deputy Michael Higgins was a Minister.
I always took the Attorney General's advice very seriously.
The Deputy might say that was then and this is now, but it is a fact that the Attorney General is not answerable to this House and Ministers are not answerable for the Attorney General's advice. The Attorney General is the legal adviser to the Government.
What was agreed at St. Andrew's was a political document. The document was whittled out after two and a half days of intensive discussions. Of course, the Attorney General was aware of the contents as they were evolving. I and the Taoiseach, on separate occasions and together, as well as the Tánaiste, were in contact with the Attorney General's office and the Attorney General personally regarding the ongoing discussions. It is only a political document.
Only when the Attorney General sees the colour of the legislation that is proposed by the British and flows from this agreement can he make a determination as to whether a referendum is required on an amendment to an international agreement. Parties on the other side of the House would be the first to complain if the Government proceeded to make fundamental changes to the Good Friday Agreement. We will not do this off the tops of our heads or, as some people snidely remarked, for partisan reasons. We will do it based on the advice of the Attorney General and nothing else. If the Attorney General advises that a referendum should be held in the South, we will hold one irrespective——
The start of the election campaign.
Who is afraid of the electorate?
If that is his attitude, God help Ireland if the Deputy ever gets into Government. If the Deputy thinks decisions are made on a partisan basis——
The Minister would never do that.
——they are not. In the unlikely event that the Deputy arrives on this side of the House, he will learn that it is very easy to be on that side of the House——
Fianna Fáil would never act out of party political interest.
One has a responsibility when one is on this side of the House——
It is way above all that.
——and I will take none of that nonsense from the likes of the Deputy.
Remember the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
The St. Andrew's agreement is nothing more than a political agreement between the two Governments. The parties have yet to commit to it. With regard to whether there is an election or a referendum in the North, the Taoiseach covered that in his replies to questions in the House this morning.
They could be held on the same day.
I appreciate the Minister's reply and I am not attributing any ulterior motive.
The Deputy protests too much.
It is not the colour of the agreement that will decide whether the Government needs an opinion from the Attorney General on a constitutional referendum. The reason I made specific reference to the Crotty case is that there are circumstances where one could invoke that case and there are other circumstances in which it would not be appropriate to invoke it. On the basis of the framework opinion relating to, for example, that which is protected constitutionally within Article 28, it is possible to arrive at an opinion that there will be some or any change.
My case is not solely based on the fact the British-Irish Agreement and annexe are there together or are, in fact, an integral document or that they are simply mentioned in Article 29.7.2 but that any movement would so affect Article 28 that it would make a constitutional referendum necessary. It may well be the Government decision is to wait to see that upon which it will seek a consultation, but on the general principle as to whether there is, as it were, a disturbance of Article 28's protection of institutional decision-making within the territory that is the State and so forth, one might be able to anticipate that a constitutional referendum will be necessary.
Much of what the Deputy said was a comment, not a question. The tenor of the discussion with the Attorney General was in the context of the implications of the Crotty decision and whether the Government can, unilaterally and without reference to the people, make any amendment to the Good Friday Agreement or any international agreement. We are awaiting the Attorney General's view but his view cannot be given until he sees the legislation relating to the institutional arrangements, particularly those in Strand 1 and Strand 2.
