Vol. 640 No. 1
82 Deputy Billy Timmins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the discussions he has had with a view to extending Ireland’s underwater territory under the new UN Law of the Sea Convention; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25423/07]
Under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea a coastal state is entitled to a continental shelf of 200 nautical miles, approximately 370 km in breadth, regardless of whether its continental shelf physically extends that far subject only to the similar rights of its coastal neighbours. It may also claim a broader shelf where it can show the natural prolongation of its land territory under water extends beyond this limit. A claim to extended shelf must be supported by scientific and technical data and be established to the satisfaction of the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, which was created by the convention for this purpose.
Ireland's shelf naturally extends beyond 200 nautical miles to the west and south of the country. For the purposes of our claims we divided our shelf into three sectors. The first sector is to the south west of the country on the edge of an area known as the Porcupine Abyssal Plain. This sector, which is approximately half the size of the State's land territory, is not disputed by any other state and, therefore, was the subject of Ireland's first submission in May 2005.
In April this year, the commission issued its recommendations concerning the limits of this claimed area. The Government accepted these recommendations and work is in hand to designate in domestic law the additional seabed enclosed by these limits as continental shelf belonging to the State. Ireland is then likely to become the first country in the world to establish sovereign rights to exploit mineral resources on continental shelf lying more than 200 nautical miles from its shore. No hydrocarbon prospecting or exploration can be licensed there until this is done.
The second sector of claimed extended continental shelf is in the Celtic Sea and the Bay of Biscay. This was the subject of a joint submission made with the UK, France and Spain in May 2006. It covers an area of approximately 80,000 square kilometres, which is slightly larger than the State's land territory. This submission remains under consideration by the sub-commission established to examine the evidence submitted in support of it. The four states will have further discussions with the sub-commission when it resumes its work in New York in January. The sub-commission is expected to formulate its recommendations during 2008. These recommendations must, in turn, be approved by the commission. The question of division of this area between the four states concerned will be considered after the recommendations are made.
Ireland also claims continental shelf in the part of the north-east Atlantic Ocean known as the Hatton-Rockall area which extends up to 500 nautical miles from the coast. Ireland and the UK agreed a maritime boundary on the continental shelf here in 1988 but this is not accepted by Iceland or Denmark on behalf of the Faroe Islands which also make extensive overlapping claims. The four countries have met regularly since 2002 in an effort to resolve the issues arising from overlapping claims, most recently at the end of September in Reykjavik. A further meeting will take place in Denmark next month.
The Minister stated the first sector is agreed and Ireland will have jurisdiction over it. Will the Minister confirm it is an area of 270,000 square kilometres? Does the Department of Foreign Affairs or the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources lead on this issue? As this concerns a vast area, has the Minister considered the implications for the country with respect to the necessary expansion of the Naval Service or a Department? Is the Minister aware of indications of mineral resources in this area and how does he envisage the area will be policed or operated? Does the Government intend to establish a specific group to implement policy in this area? The public does not know about this issue. The Minister mentioned Rockall Island in his reply. It is an old chestnut but I would like to know what is the situation with regard to the claim on Rockall.
With regard to responsibility, the Department of Foreign Affairs has primary responsibility for the State's international boundaries and this includes the seabed. The Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources has responsibility for supervising and licensing many activities. Ireland will be the first state in the world to make a successful claim in this regard. The commission's recommendation will allow Ireland establish an outer limit approximately 150 km beyond the current 200 nautical mile limit. The question of supervision, obviously, would arise in regard to the issue of fisheries. This has no effect on the fisheries as our territorial waters extend to the level of 200 nautical miles. This relates to outside that limit, so the reality is that this has no impact on fisheries.
It does have an impact on the issue of possible exploration. To a large extent, supervision of it would not arise because the only issue is in regard to hydrocarbon exploration. This has no effect on the position of Rockall. The situation at Rockall was agreed 27 years ago in 1980 under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which provides that rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life on their own shall have no exclusive economic zone. From that point of view, the British accepted the point made by us in these negotiations. The UK withdrew its claim to a 200 nautical mile exclusive fisheries zone measured from Rockall when it acceded to the convention in 1997. As I said earlier in regard to the joint claim by Ireland and the UK, discussions are ongoing with Iceland and Denmark who are making the case on behalf of the Faroe Islands.
The time has concluded. I will take a very brief supplementary.
Can the Minister indicate when he expects the discussions on sector two and sector three to be completed?
No, because the discussions are ongoing for the past five years. The next meeting is due to take place next week in Denmark.
83 Deputy Michael D. Higgins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on the fact that so many countries are on course to fail reaching the UN millennium goals and that a recent report, the Global Hunger Index 2007, shows that in countries following the neoliberal model, even where there are high growth rates, the number of those in hunger is increasing, with India, for example, in 94th place of 118 countries in the index; his views on whether the fruits of growth are accruing to a minority and excluding many; and if in terms of Ireland’s development policy he will make a statement on the matter. [24973/07]
I share the Deputy's concerns about the rate of progress towards the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals, MDGs, in many countries. The Millennium Development Goals report, launched this July, gave us a snapshot of the progress achieved at the midpoint of the 2015 MDG target date. It is indeed a mixed picture. On the positive side, it shows that the proportion of people living in extreme poverty fell from nearly a third to less than one fifth between 1990 and 2004. If this trend continues, then the MDG poverty reduction target will be met for the world as a whole.
However, this is not the case for sub-Saharan Africa. Although the poverty rate there has declined by 6% since 2000, the progress is far too slow. The report gives many other examples of this geographical disparity in progress. It also acknowledges that poverty reduction has been accompanied by rising inequalities in some regions, most notably in Eastern Asia and the Commonwealth of Independent States, CIS.
These disparities are also reflected in this year's edition of the global hunger index. However, despite this, United Nations Secretary General Ban notes in the foreword to the MDG report that the goals are "still achievable if we act now". I believe this to be true.
I share the Deputy's concern that, in some countries, relatively strong overall economic growth is not being accompanied by a corresponding reduction in rates of poverty and hunger. The White Paper committed the Government to establishing a hunger task force to examine the particular contribution Ireland can make to tackling the root causes of food insecurity, particularly in Africa. The role of the hunger task force is "to identify the additional, appropriate and effective contributions that Ireland can make to international efforts to reduce hunger and thus achieve the first Millennium Development Goal of halving poverty and hunger by 2015". The hunger task force will make focused recommendations on how Ireland can give practical leadership internationally on the attainment of the Millennium Development Goal on hunger.
Additionally, in its bilateral programme countries, Irish Aid is actively engaged with governments and other donors in national policy and budget allocation discussions, which are aimed at ensuring that funding of basic services and poverty reduction programmes are protected and increased. In this way, we try to guarantee that a significant proportion of the wealth generated by economic growth is used to directly benefit the poor.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
Of course, the best way to ensure that economic growth benefits the poor is for the poor to participate directly in generating that growth. This means that growth should occur in those sectors of the economy where poor people are economically active and make their livelihoods. The development assistance committee of the OECD has recently published guidelines for donor countries on policies, which are likely to ensure that growth benefits the poor in developing countries. We are supporting this approach by jointly funding training programmes for donor and developing country officials.
I therefore assure the Deputy that Irish Aid has the issue of pro-poor growth at the centre of its development programmes.
In regard to the second part of my question, is the Minister of State concerned that in those countries where the neoliberal model of economic transition is being imposed through the IMF and through some conditions attached to the World Bank, some of the most significant and disturbing failures in regard to achieving the world millennium development goals have arisen? For example, 40% of the world's underweight children are in India which reports a high economic growth rate. There is a contradiction between reported high growth and reported increase in the problem regarding any one of the three indicators of child mortality, underweight children and children who are generally deprived.
Is the Minister of State concerned that in Africa, for example, 38 out of 42 countries are on track to miss the millennium development goals on child malnutrition; 27 are off track to reduce the proportion of people who are calorie deficient. Maybe in the course of transmission from my office there is a misprint in my question where India is described as being in 94th place of 118 countries. The correct figure is 24th place. However, it gives one an idea that out of 118 countries in 2004 ranked in terms of crucial indicators all the evidence is that the millennium development goals will be missed. The point on which I wish to press the Minister of State is as follows. Given the contradiction that the single model being proposed — the neoliberal model of a just economy — is yielding a failure to achieve the millennium development goals, will a section in the Department study alternative economic models that might be more inclusive and go farther towards achieving the millennium development goals or will the Irish Aid programme have no research of this kind? There is not much evidence of it yet.
Regarding the so-called neoliberal model mentioned by the Deputy, economic policies based on each country's specific situation are required. I hope this will emerge from inclusive and country-level debate within the democratic process in the country in question. Ireland supports a country specific approach. I agree with the Deputy and cannot see why a neoliberal policy or any externally prescribed policy package should be appropriate to a developing country.
The point the Deputy made about India being 24th out of 118 countries would be a cause for concern. There is reason to examine the causes of what has happened. Obviously there are several gender issues, including access to education and the means of productive livelihood, especially for women. Those issues are likely to come to the fore in any debate about India. The research showed that the low status of women in south Asian countries and their lack of nutritional knowledge are important determinants of high prevalence of underweight children to which the Deputy referred. Poor outcomes in the area of child nutrition will lead to a poor showing in the global hunger index to which he referred in his question. I agree with the Deputy regarding the neoliberal policies. Ireland supports a country specific approach and I would like that to continue.
While there has been an improvement in Bangladesh and Mali when using the same index with the same indicators, we find that progress in India towards the relief of child malnutrition and infant mortality has stopped. Does the Minister of State favour the Department and in particular the development section evaluating the impact of some alternative economic models? Particularly in the case of India, the implications of a human rights approach towards development should include excluded castes as well as children and could consider the gender issue. Would the Minister of State agree that such studies would be a crucial contribution towards Ireland's overseas aid policy?
There are some good examples where progress is being made and the Deputy has given some. Progress has also been made in Zambia, Tanzania and Uganda. The Deputy mentioned countries with difficulties. Alternative ways should be provided to deliver aid through the UN and our NGOs and missionaries if, for example, economic instability or other difficulties arise in a country and we cannot provide aid on the basis of giving it to the country.
84 Deputy Billy Timmins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the steps he has taken to ensure peaceful protests are permitted to take place in Burma; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25424/07]
Brutal repression, mass arrests and intimidation cannot hide the fact that over the past two months, the people of Burma have made clear their unequivocal demand for democracy, national reconciliation and an end to military dictatorship. The Government and people stand firmly behind them. As the crisis escalated, the Government was active in support of the Burmese people. As well as the series of statements I made as the crisis in Burma unfolded, I wrote to the Foreign Ministers of China and India, calling on them to use their influence to stop the violence in Burma and facilitate positive change. In my address to the UN General Assembly in New York on 2 October, and in bilateral meetings with the UN Secretary General and international Foreign Ministers, including the Foreign Minister of Indonesia, I highlighted our concerns. I also held detailed discussions on the issue with US Secretary of State Rice and British Foreign Secretary Miliband. Equally, Irish diplomats in Asia, as well as at the UN in New York and Geneva, have been active in conveying these messages to all relevant parties, including Security Council members and Burma's neighbours.
Ireland has also been to the fore in seeking a strong EU response to events in Burma. Last week, the EU agreed a series of additional targeted sanctions, which should increase pressure on the regime, and it made clear its willingness to impose further sanctions. At the same time, Ministers also made clear to the regime the benefits that might accrue from genuine, substantive change. The priority is the implementation of a sustainable and meaningful political process in Burma leading to democratisation and national reconciliation. This must include the military, the democratic opposition and ethnic groups. The main track to achieving this is the process initiated by the UN Secretary General and his Special Representative, Dr. Ibrahim Gambari. I greatly welcome the fact that Dr. Gambari is again in the region. The Government believes the opportunity provided by this good office's mission must be seized by all sides.
The role of Burma's neighbours is essential. Chinese and ASEAN involvement has helped gain the agreement of the Burmese regime to accept a visit by Dr. Gambari, and to allow real access to him. Ireland, together with its EU partners, will continue to use every avenue to encourage continued active engagement by Burma's neighbours, and all who have influence on the regime, for positive change.
What response did the Minister receive to his letters to China and India? Is it correct that the Minister's predecessor established diplomatic relations with Burma during the Irish Presidency of the EU in 2004 on the basis the Burmese regime would promote democratisation and national reconciliation? Where stands the seven-step road map for democratisation that was set out? Does the Government have contact with the regime in Burma? Has the Minister been in contact with the EU in recent days because I am given to understand a UN expert on human rights will be allowed into Burma? Will he use his good offices to ensure such an expert can establish what happened to the monks who we believe were imprisoned and the several thousand political prisoners in the country and he or she will have the opportunity to speak to the leader of the Burmese opposition who is under house arrest?
We do not have diplomatic relations with Burma and no steps have been taken in this regard. It would be totally unimaginable in the circumstances that we would move in that respect. Because of that, we have no contact with the Burmese authorities and any contacts are made with our partners.
With regard to the response from the Chinese and the Indians, they listened to our views on this. The international community was very glad of the strong statement issued by the ASEAN countries at the height of the troubles. It was felt they might not have been able to issue the statement but the influence of the Chinese and the Indians is critical and they were parties to that substantial statement.
On the question of the number of Irish citizens in Burma, two have come to our attention and it is understood both are safe. There was a suggestion that an Irish-born nun was missing, but we have established that she is safe.
The UN special rapporteur on human rights in Burma, Paulo Sergio Pinheiro, is permitted to enter the country in the near future, and Dr. Gambari will go there some time in November. At the EU meeting last week, Ireland strongly supported a proposal by the Swedish Foreign Minister for an EU special envoy to work with Dr. Gambari. We are also in favour of the Swedish proposal for a contact group made up of neighbouring countries in the international community to deal with the Burma issue. Likewise, we strongly supported suggestions that further sanctions be imposed on the Burmese authorities. I will travel to Japan at the end of next month and will use that opportunity to raise this issue with the Japanese Foreign Minister, who has expressed a keen interest in it.
Have any Irish companies invested in Burma? Were the responses of the Indian and Chinese Governments made in writing? If so, is it possible to make those responses available in the Oireachtas Library?
To the best of my knowledge, the responses did not come in writing. Normal contact is maintained with the relevant embassies. I wrote to the Foreign Ministers but I understand there has been no response. If any is given, I will relate that to the Deputy.
There is no trade between Ireland and Burma.
85 Deputy Billy Timmins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the amount of funding allocated by his Department to cross-Border bodies since the signing of the Good Friday Agreement; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25425/07]
Arising from the Good Friday Agreement, six North-South Implementation Bodies and Tourism Ireland were established. These bodies play a significant role in taking forward North-South co-operation on the island. The North-South Implementation Bodies are jointly funded by the Government and the Northern Ireland Executive. Funding from each jurisdiction is provided on an agreed proportionate basis having regard to the benefits accruing to each jurisdiction and specific factors related to each sector.
The funding of the individual bodies is a matter for the responsible Department in each case. Total funding for the bodies from both jurisdictions from 2001 until 2006 amounted to €842.3 million. In 2006, Government funding for the bodies was €116.5 million, which was 69.45% of total funding provided that year.
Having operated in a somewhat difficult climate during suspension, restoration of the Northern Ireland Executive and the resumption of full operations of the North-South Ministerial Council means there is now scope for the Implementation Bodies to achieve their full potential. Since the re-establishment of the Northern Ireland Executive, Ministers have had a range of extremely useful and productive meetings with their Northern counterparts, both in the North-South Ministerial Council and in other contacts. I attended the plenary meeting of the North-South Ministerial Council in Armagh in July — the first in five years. The meeting was positive, with open and constructive discussion on the potential for economic co-operation to bring real benefits to the people of this island, North and South.
The plenary meeting resulted in several important decisions. We agreed a major roads infrastructure programme to include the upgrade of the road serving the North-west gateway of Derry-Letterkenny, supported by Government investment of €580 million. We also agreed on the restoration of the Ulster Canal from Clones to Lough Erne. This project will be a major boost to the Border counties of Cavan, Monaghan and Fermanagh. We also discussed various other projects, including the Government's support for a bridge at Narrow Water linking Counties Louth and Down to the benefit of tourism in the region.
A further plenary meeting, to be co-chaired by the Taoiseach and the First and Deputy First Ministers and attended by other Ministers, is planned for Dundalk before Christmas. I will host an institutional meeting of the North-South Ministerial Council in Dundalk on 30 October. In addition, a programme of 11 sectoral ministerial meetings is already under way and will be completed before the end of the year.
My colleagues and I welcome the allocation of funding to the Implementation Bodies. The Good Friday Agreement had the overwhelming support of the people of this island, including the support of all political parties in this House. Does the Minister agree there is a responsibility on both Governments to oversee the implementation of the Agreement and that the functioning of the Assembly is at a delicate stage? Does the Minister feel comfortable with the decision of his own party to look at extending its base into the Six Counties, particularly as the Minister has been appointed head of the party committee investigating such a possibility? Does he, as Minister for Foreign Affairs, feel there is a conflict with his role as a Fianna Fáil emissary in overseeing such an agreement?
On the contrary, my position as Minister for Foreign Affairs with responsibility for Northern Ireland affairs and cross-Border co-operation would be enhanced by my party's consideration of a move across the Border. When my party was founded, de Valera on many occasions stated it should never be a 26-county party. As I recently stated publicly, a northern Unionist mentioned to the Taoiseach that it would not be logical for a party like Fianna Fáil to continue to be a 26-county party if we espouse a united Ireland, which we do.
From that perspective, such a move is quite logical given that the political landscape has changed very dramatically since 8 May. Substantial numbers of people wish to join my political party across the Border and at a recent university freshers' week, we were inundated with applications from people from both communities within Northern Ireland to join my political party.
I suggest that the Minister be answerable to the House for those issues for which he has a constitutional responsibility.
The Minister was looking to the Leas-Cheann Comhairle before he even intervened. I thank the Minister for his reply but I would urge caution. He quoted a Unionist figure who stated it would be logical for Fianna Fáil to extend into the Six Counties. Has the Minister, in his official capacity, had any representations from groups who have expressed concern at such a possible development?
The question should relate to the Minister's responsibilities to the House under the Constitution or the law.
It is a bit of a grey area.
Having said that, the Minister may wish to reply.
There seemed to be fairly universal support for the concept. As I have stated publicly, it is not a step we will take in the near future, but we will consider it strategically and carefully. As a significant party in Government, any moves clearly would have to be carried out with one eye on political stability and equilibrium built into the Good Friday Agreement. We would never put that in jeopardy.
To come to the constitutional issue regarding the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement, a new Oireachtas committee will be put in place to oversee the issues flowing from that and we should all welcome that move.
86 Deputy Denis Naughten asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the steps he is taking to address the problems forcing persons to seek asylum within the EU; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25448/07]
The problems forcing people to seek asylum within the EU and elsewhere are many and all too common. They must be addressed by the international community with all the instruments and resources at its disposal. All human rights violations must be condemned wherever they occur and those responsible for persecution cannot be allowed to operate with impunity.
Persecution and conflict flourish in situations of extreme poverty and where climate change has had a disastrous impact on living conditions. These closely-related factors present a complex challenge requiring a range of policy responses. Given that the great majority of the world's asylum seekers come from developing countries, it is vital the EU and other countries consider ways to support third countries in finding solutions to their problems.
Ireland, bilaterally and in co-operation with its EU and UN partners, consistently follows a multi-faceted approach to the causes which have forced people to flee. This begins with our advocacy of the protection of human rights and continues through efforts to ensure conflict resolution, and the encouragement of policies aimed at poverty reduction, sustainable development and economic growth. The Irish Aid programme in particular is firmly focused on these objectives.
At EU level, the European Commission last June published a Green Paper on the future of the common European asylum system. The paper, which Ireland welcomes, recognises many of the key challenges faced by member states in the operation of their asylum policies and procedures, as well as the need for increased co-operation on approaches at EU level to prevent so-called asylum shopping. It also ensures that those individuals genuinely in need of protection receive it as soon as possible.
The majority of people have no wish to uproot themselves from their communities, frequently leaving their families behind, to undertake often dangerous journeys to unknown and uncertain destinations. If people are provided with a minimum level of economic opportunity and the security provided by a functioning accountable Government and basic public services, they will choose to stay in their own countries, towns and villages.
It is critically important that those who are in genuine need of protection be supported. In the past 15 years, 75,000 asylum applications have been made here. The success rate relating to these stands at 11%. The majority of those who failed to obtain asylum were economic immigrants. What steps has the Government proposed at EU level to deal with this flow of migrants into the Union in general and into Ireland in particular? Does the Minister agree that some of the steps taken by the EU in negotiations at, for example, the WTO have discouraged the development of economic ties between it and Third World countries, which are the poorest in the world? What can the Union do to change its views in respect of this matter? What is the Government's position on the proposal that has emerged in respect of the establishment of transit and processing centres for irregular migrants and asylum seekers, either within the EU or outside its borders?
As already stated, the EU has brought forward a Green Paper. The latter does not relate to a common asylum system because discovering a resolution to this problem does not rest on any one issue. The EU is leading the world in the context of the delivery of aid to Africa in particular. Despite some reservations we might have regarding the attendance of President Mugabe at the proposed EU-Africa summit, that is one of the reasons we are in favour of engaging with Africa. As far as I am concerned, it is better to hold a meeting at which we can discuss the entire range of issues — including those relating to economics and climate change — which affect people in sub-Saharan Africa in particular.
The type of overseas development aid we deliver to Africa will be useless unless we can in some way embed good governance systems in countries that are open to them. If, as already stated, we provide the opportunities and a level of security, people will remain in their own countries. A range of responses is required to stem the flow of people from Africa into the EU.
I am not aware of any specific measures relating to holding centres. It might be better if the Deputy raised this matter with the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform who has primary responsibility in that area.
I accept there are various problems and issues that arise in respect of people seeking asylum. On one hand, the European Union, through its Foreign Ministers, is engaging with Africa and trying to develop good governance, while, on the other, a Commissioner representing it at the WTO talks removed from African countries preferential access to the Union in respect of goods and commodities. Is there not a contradiction in terms here and should there not be a more all-encompassing approach at EU level in respect of trade and governance to the effect that they should go hand in hand?
As much as possible, that is what we try to do. However, in the context of the WTO negotiations, particular member states have their own strategic national interests. The European market is probably the largest recipient of African trade — a matter about which people do not often sing from the rooftops — and is probably the most open to such trade. As already stated, myriad responses are required and not least among them are those which relate to overseas development aid. The EU has led the way in that it has indicated that the entire Union will reach the 0.7% target by 2015. Ireland has led the charge at that level in that we are going to achieve the target of 0.7% by 2012.
