Joan Burton
Question:6 Deputy Joan Burton asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the position in Northern Ireland; when the Northern Executive will be in a position to fully resume its work; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34187/08]
Other Questions.
Northern Ireland Issues.
Seymour Crawford
Question:30 Deputy Seymour Crawford asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he has had recent meetings with the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly; if such a meeting discussed the ongoing impasse between the two major parties in Northern Ireland; his views on whether it is vital that the Assembly gets on with its job on behalf of all the people of Northern Ireland and through the cross-Border bodies, all the people of this island; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [33994/08]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 and 30 together.
The Government is committed to the full implementation of all aspects of the Good Friday Agreement and the St. Andrews Agreement, including the effective operation of all the Institutions — the Northern Ireland Executive, the North-South Ministerial Council and the British Irish Council. The Taoiseach and I have conveyed that message to the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and all the parties in recent meetings and conversations, including during my visit to Stormont on 18 September.
The Government is disappointed the Executive did not meet on Thursday, 2 October, and that this led to the postponement of the scheduled plenary meeting of the North-South Ministerial Council the following day. A number of challenging issues face the Northern Ireland Executive, including the central question of devolution of policing and justice powers. It is the shared view of the Irish and British Governments that the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly should take on this responsibility, as set out in the St. Andrews Agreement, and I look forward to an early agreement between the parties on this question. We believe it is time to complete the process of devolution.
The Government remains in close contact with the British Government and the parties in the Northern Ireland Executive and will continue to offer support and assistance to the parties as they work to find solutions to their current difficulties. I met Secretary of State, Shaun Woodward, yesterday evening to discuss the present situation, and our respective officials remain in close contact. It is vital, particularly in these challenging economic times, that the Executive gets down to business and works in a spirit of partnership and co-operation for the benefit of the people of Northern Ireland. This will also facilitate the continuation of the work of the North-South Ministerial Council, which is in the interests of the island as a whole. I am hopeful that, working together, the parties can resolve the outstanding issues before them, as indicated by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister during their joint appearance before a Stormont Assembly committee last week.
We all share the Minister's aspiration that the work of the Executive resumes and that the outstanding issues are resolved. Does he agree the failure of the Executive to meet over such a long period has the capacity to turn into a serious political problem? Does he further agree the different constructions put on the St. Andrews meeting have contributed to the problem? Will he indicate whether the Government, separately or jointly with the British Government, proposes to take an initiative to facilitate moving past this impasse?
I agree with the Deputy's proposition that this is a serious situation. The Executive has not met for three months, which, ultimately, has implications for people's confidence in the devolution process. Both Governments, therefore, are anxious that the Executive meets again and that devolution of policing and justice powers proceeds. I take the Deputy's point regarding the St. Andrews Agreement. People gained assurances from it but one can see that others did not sign up to the complete programme, including the justice dimension. There is a certain degree of ambiguity there but, on the other hand, the stated position of all parties is they favour devolution of policing and justice functions. The Democratic Unionist Party has stated it favours this. This revolves around timeframe and confidence issues. In other words, people are anxious that, prior to devolution of these functions, there should be confidence. The British and Irish Governments are clear these functions should be devolved and they support that. We would prefer if that happened sooner rather than later.
I met virtually all the parties on 18 September to assess their perspectives on this. The position of both Governments is the parties within the Executive should first and foremost endeavour to resolve this issue. Strand 1 is one of the three strands that affect our overall sets of relationships. The parties should have the flexibility and the capacity to resolve this and other issues attached to it, which have caused friction and disagreement within the Executive, and it is important that they do that.
The failure of the Executive to meet is giving room to splinter groups. If it were meeting and conducting normal business, it would send a clear message that the system was working and it would lead to mutual trust, which could allow for the justice and policing issue to be settled. This is a chicken and egg scenario and there is a significant need for the Minister, the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister to act quickly to make sure the Executive works and, through it, to resolve this issue as quickly as possible. Otherwise, young people will get involved in situations we will all rue in the future.
It is our desire that the Executive meets and both Governments have been in constant contact and have been in touch with the political parties, which are aware of our desire and our perspectives on this. The Taoiseach and Prime Minister Brown have been in constant contact on this. The Taoiseach has been involved with the parties and he has taken calls and had discussions with the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. We will continue to be of help and we are anxious to enable the parties to come to an agreement on this and other issues that have held up the Executive meeting. I take on board the bona fide positions articulated by Opposition Members and I assure them we will do everything we can to enable the institutions set up under the Good Friday Agreement to work effectively for the people.
Does the Minister share my frustration about the recent lack of movement and progress on policing and justice matters? People have been talking about this in recent weeks and they are frustrated by the lack of movement. Will the Minister and the Taoiseach use their influence to bang heads together to move the parties forward? I am concerned about complacency setting in. People should not become complacent just because there is an absence of violent conflict. Does the Minister agree that the majority on the island want the DUP to get on with the job instead of allowing dark forces to prevent progress?
We are all anxious that the Executive meet. The House must acknowledge that all parties in Northern Ireland, including Sinn Féin and the DUP, have made tremendous strides to get to this point. Many have moved on a range of issues. We should never lose sight of the significant steps taken by all parties to having a devolved administration up and running on a power-sharing basis, with cross-community participation and so forth. It is a unique form of government. They have put so much work into this and shown great courage that it would be a tragedy to undermine it in any way. People must continue to consider the big picture. The problems are not insurmountable. In principle, all parties are supportive of the policy dimensions of policing and justice. It is a question of standing back, not getting hung up on specifics and saying they have moved a long way in ten years. It should not be risked because a vacuum would not be desirable. Others have reason to undermine the institutions and cause mischief and havoc, which must be avoided at all costs.
Does the Minister agree that, were the Irish Government to use part of its influence with the British Government to remove the stonewalling in some intelligence matters, including the previous activities of intelligence forces in Northern Ireland, it would contribute significantly? Does he agree that co-operation by those on Sinn Féin's side with the Garda and the PSNI in the Paul Quinn and Robert McCartney murder inquiries would have assisted? The external moral suasion of both Governments would help in both respects. The attitude of the British Government in refusing to reopen intelligence issues of the deepest concern on an all-island basis is not helpful.
We have pursued many of these issues with the British Government, including inquiries into particular cases. On the broad political front, both Governments stand together regarding the impasse. From the beginning, our strong relationship has been a fundamental pillar of the peace process and the Good Friday Agreement.
Deputy Higgins referred to Sinn Féin. While we would have preferred to see better co-operation on some matters, particularly those identified by the Deputy, Sinn Féin delivered on its commitments to the PSNI, namely, participation in policing boards and anything asked of the party. To a certain extent, it moved its constituency with it in terms of the PSNI's acceptability and strength, which is important.
It had the courage to leave the few behind also.
Hear, hear.
European Council Meetings.
Joan Burton
Question:7 Deputy Joan Burton asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the discussions that have taken place recently between members of the Government and the Presidency of the European Union; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34186/08]
Since France took over the EU Presidency in July, I have accompanied the Taoiseach to two meetings with President Sarkozy and Foreign Minister Kouchner at which we had comprehensive and constructive discussions. Consequently, we have gained a good understanding of each other's position on key EU issues, which will serve us well as we prepare for the October and December European Councils at which matters of considerable significance for Ireland and the Union will be discussed.
On 21 July, the Government and the Presidency discussed the Lisbon treaty in Dublin during a visit by President Sarkozy. On that occasion, the Taoiseach stressed the need for the decision of the people to be respected and explained the Government's objective of developing a fuller understanding of the concerns that influenced the outcome of the referendum before deciding on the best way forward. The Taoiseach also stressed that the people remained committed to Ireland's full involvement in the European Union.
During the meeting we exchanged views on the situation in Sudan and Chad and the important contribution being made by the EUFOR Chad-CAR mission to which Ireland and France are the two largest troop contributors and which is under the command of Lieutenant General Pat Nash. There was also a discussion of the situation regarding Iran and its nuclear programme. During his visit to Dublin President Sarkozy also discussed the outcome of the referendum with representatives of the political parties and others who had been active on either side of the referendum campaign.
On 1 October I accompanied the Taoiseach to Paris for a further meeting with President Sarkozy and Foreign Minister Kouchner. This meeting provided a useful opportunity for preparatory work ahead of next week's European Council. It allowed the Taoiseach to bring the President up to date with the latest developments in Ireland, including the findings of the independent research commissioned by the Government and the establishment of the Oireachtas Sub-committee on Ireland's Future in the European Union. At this meeting the Taoiseach also outlined the measures that the Government had announced to safeguard the Irish financial system. The French Presidency has been giving priority to dealing with the financial crisis. It is expected the Union's response to the crisis will be the central topic at next week's European Council meeting. Ireland is open to a comprehensive European response and regards the European Council as an important opportunity for the Union to contribute to stabilising financial markets and managing the economic effects of the current upheavals.
I might begin at the end. Will the Minister address the apparent contradiction between the German and French positions on the future role of the European Central Bank in responding to rising unemployment in Europe?
One reason for tabling the question is the original Lisbon accord's legacy of neglect of competitiveness and cohesion. Given the long-standing French influence on competitive space, France's neglect of the cohesion aspect of the accord has emphasised the importance of mediating institutions. Highly unaccountable institutions involved in speculative rather than productive versions of the economy were enabled to run riot with a type of wild capitalism, while the mediating institutions of state regulation or partnership were neglected. When President Sarkozy stops lecturing us on where we should go, will the preparations for the forthcoming Council meeting include an employment strategy involving state initiatives?
In the immediate aftermath of the June Council, there was an interesting discussion on social Europe. The President of the Commission, José Manuel Durão Barroso, was clear on the necessity for the European Union to demonstrate its relevance to its citizens in terms of expanded social programmes and so forth. I am not sure that the Deputy's depiction of the Union and its institutions is entirely accurate. There has been a strong social and cohesion dimension to the European agenda. Take, for example, the new member states and the significant attempts to table proposals on workers' rights, social solidarity and so forth.
It is a neglected agenda.
Any country only holds the Presidency for six months. Given that only three months of the French Presidency have passed, we cannot blame France for all of the European Union's identifiable shortcomings. I am satisfied that the Commission is clear on the necessity to do more regarding the social agenda.
The Lisbon Agenda is important. Obviously, the European Union has not gone far enough, predominantly because it has not been allowed to by member states. We must consider this matter in the context of our position on the future of Europe. Does the Minister agree that, were we not in the Union and the euro zone, the economy could have gone the way of Iceland's in recent days? The safety net we have, by virtue of our membership, is absolutely crucial. In bilateral discussions with the Presidency, has there been concentration on the future response? There is a Council meeting next week but the EU cannot operate on the basis of a Council meeting every two months. I assume there is more constant and regular communication.
Regarding the fallout from Lisbon, in the Minister's discussions with the French President, is there frank discussion of the consequences of Ireland's "No" vote to Europe? The Taoiseach, the Minister and the Minister of State have stated that everything is rosy in the garden and that they were welcomed with open arms at Council meetings. I do not believe this and we know that there are consequences. I ask the Minister to outline these to the House.
I agree with Deputy Creighton's point that we are a euro zone country. The role of the ECB has been important in weathering the storm over the past 12 months in providing liquidity to our banking system.
It was crucial.
It is a story that needs to be told. Every banking system has had major challenges, to understate it slightly, in the past few weeks. Ireland would have had those challenges far earlier if it was not for the ECB. Now is the time to be at the heart of Europe, not on the margins. I would be worried about going down an isolationist road, which would not be good for the country and could imperil our future in terms of financial and economic stability and job creation.
Regarding the EU Presidency, there were frank discussions but we are all democrats. All democrats cannot get away from the reality when people vote. People voted in a certain direction and that is it. President Sarkozy understands that but is anxious to understand the underlying issues and to know if he can be of any help in respect of the issues the Irish people surfaced in the debate on the Lisbon treaty. The national consultation we are engaged in through the Oireachtas committee is a good starting point. The timeframe of two months is tight and I appreciate the co-operation of all in the Houses.
In fairness to the French Presidency, it has been an eventful three or four months. As President Sarkozy stated, he was hardly in office before he had the Lisbon treaty agenda on his desk because of the Irish vote, followed by a war in Georgia in August and the financial stability crisis in September. It cannot be described as uneventful and he is wondering what is coming in the next three months.
Does the Minister respect the 53.4% "No" vote in the referendum on the Lisbon treaty? At times, the opposite message is coming across. Does the Minister agree the treaty requires all EU member states to ratify it and that it cannot be implemented at the moment? Does the Minister agree that the fear of conscription was never used in literature brought out by mainstream "No" campaigners? Does the Minister agree that this point, peddled in some quarters, is absurd?
Is it not a bit rich that some European countries are lecturing Iran on nuclear powers when France and Britain are major nuclear powers? I ask the Minister to bring this message to Europe.
Is the Minister under pressure from his colleagues in Europe to have a second referendum? Have they articulated the view that they are under pressure to put him under pressure?
The Minister referred to isolation and how we should not be going down the road on our own. The perception was created that our European counterparts were not satisfied with the policy we adopted in the banking crisis. Was that view articulated to him? The British, French and Germans seemed to be dissatisfied with the route we took. Did the Minister receive that message, notwithstanding that matters have changed dramatically in the past few days in those countries?
I have made it clear that I respect the decision of the Irish people.
The Minister always says "but".
I do not.
"But" comes up a lot.
This refers to Deputy Creighton's point that other countries in Europe have a desire to move forward. We must reconcile the view in Ireland that we should be part of the EU with the dilemma faced by the EU from the decision not to proceed with the Lisbon treaty. We must make up our mind what to do and that will happen in due course. I prefer genuine engagement between parties in this House on that issue, in the context of the sub-committee, to see what the red line issues are for Ireland in terms of our continuing engagement with the EU. Are there areas where we can get satisfactory assurances on certain issues? It is a useful debate to have at this point.
Particularly between elected people rather than the self-selected people.
Yes. Regarding the fear of conscription, independent research showed that 40% of the Irish people believed that the Lisbon treaty meant conscription to a European army, although I am not saying they all voted based on this basis. I met one couple with two children at the polling station and they asked me if the children would be conscripted. I am not making that up, it happened.
Deputy McGrath's colleagues in Sinn Féin campaigned on that ground.
I am not saying it was included in literature on the treaty but the research showed that 40% of the Irish people believed that Lisbon meant conscription to a European army.
It was not in literature but by word of mouth.
We must go behind it and ask why people believe that. What leads people to have that sense?
Iran is not satisfying all of the transparency requirements of the International Atomic Energy Agency and Dr. ElBaradei. We have put this to the Iranians and there is ongoing engagement.
Iran should not be threatened with a pre-emptive strike.
The EU would love to have the Lisbon issue resolved and go ahead with it, but it cannot because of our decision. I was at the parliamentary constitutional committee last Monday and this message came across strongly. Socialists and Christian Democrats wanted Ireland to get it sorted but that is their perspective and we have our perspective as a democratic country.
What about the banking issue?
We are now seven minutes over time.
The banking issue is moving very fast.
Any telephone calls?
Overseas Development Aid.
Olwyn Enright
Question:8 Deputy Olwyn Enright asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his plans to implement the recommendations of the task force report on hunger; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34077/08]
John Deasy
Question:22 Deputy John Deasy asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the measures he plans to implement the reorientation of Ireland’s aid programme to focus on food insecurity, as recommended in the Hunger Task Force report; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34167/08]
Deirdre Clune
Question:50 Deputy Deirdre Clune asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his plans to appoint a special envoy for hunger, as recommended in the Hunger Task Force report; the duties, functions and powers which would be assigned to such an envoy; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34169/08]
Tom Hayes
Question:60 Deputy Tom Hayes asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the proportion of the aid budget committed to alleviating hunger; his plans to increase this commitment to 20% of the aid budget, as recommended in the Hunger Task Force report; the areas of the aid budget which will be reduced to achieve this target; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34168/08]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 8, 22, 50 and 60 together.
The report of the Hunger Task Force, which was commissioned by the Government last year, was submitted on 25 September at the recent UN Millennium Summit in New York. The Hunger Task Force was established before the current global food price crisis hit the headlines and was informed by our knowledge gained on the ground, through our overseas aid programme, Irish Aid.
I pay tribute to our former colleague Joe Walsh who did a magnificent job in chairing this group of national and international experts. I thank each member of the task force for their commitment and dedication in producing this report. The report has been circulated to all members of the Oireachtas and copies placed in the Library. The report is concise, focused and accessible, and provides a clear picture of what must be the greatest scandal of the world today, the fact that notwithstanding all the global technical development and innovation, in 2008 there are more than 862 million people who do not have enough to eat. That number is constantly rising, driven by the recent escalation in the global price of food.
The report of the task force is both timely and welcome and I have no difficulty in endorsing its overall findings that we focus our attention and efforts on three areas: to follow through on commitments made both nationally and internationally by all Governments, both donors and Governments of developing countries and to increase the priority given to hunger in the aid programme; to target smallholder agricultural productivity; and to promote effective actions to counter maternal and infant under-nutrition. To follow through on this, I am establishing a new section which, inter alia, will have a special dedicated focus on food security tasked with advancing our work on addressing hunger.
Hunger is a complex issue and the task force has made detailed recommendations. Our first task will be to carry out a careful analysis of the recommendations and the extent to which current aid programming is responding to the many facets of hunger. Once that exercise has been completed we will be in a position to plan how we can strengthen our efforts to address the root causes of hunger, with a view to making a real and lasting contribution to the abolition of hunger from our world.
Two recommendations of the task force have been raised. The first is that a target of 20% be set for aid spending on hunger by 2012. In response to this, I assure Deputies that different aspects of food security are funded across a range of programmes within Irish Aid. We must assess in full our current degree of engagement with hunger across the entire range of our programmes. When the results of our assessment are available, we will be in a better position to determine how best to move forward with regard to volume and quality.
The second is that a special envoy be appointed to ensure that the recommendations are implemented. This recommendation will be examined closely and I agree that donors and governments should be held to account on their commitments. However, we must reflect and assess whether the appointment of an envoy would be the most effective way to do this. We must be sure that such a step will bring added value in these challenging times.
I welcome this report. I have a question for the Minister of State concerning the figure of 860 million people. This was used at a conference in Rome in June 2008. Can we establish how accurate this figure is? It should be authenticated because it will be used again and again. How are these measurements drawn up?
I encourage the Minister of State to follow some of the recommendations, in particular that 20% of our overseas development aid should go towards alleviating hunger. I stated earlier to some of my colleagues that education is important but there is little point in educating somebody who will die from hunger. In the mid 1980s, 12.3% of overseas aid went to agriculture but in 2006 this figure was down to 3.1%, and the level of direct food aid given is back to where it was in the early 1960s. It is very important that we push the concept of developing local agriculture. We must re-emphasise this and must re-focus. I ask the Minister of State if he agrees with me on this point.
I agree with the Deputy. Regarding the 862 million, that figure came from international multilateral agencies such as the United Nations, the World Food Programme and from a collation of experts in the area. It is their estimate that 862 million people will go hungry to bed tonight.
With reference to the figure of 20%, it should be noted that a considerable proportion of Irish aid spending goes across a range of programmes, including bilateral aid, multilateral aid and through the United Nations and international agencies. It is difficult to calculate the precise proportion of the amount of aid spent on the alleviation of food hunger. I fully agree with Deputy Timmons that this amount is much less than it was in the 1980s, not just in this country but across all donor countries. If this report serves to do one thing it is to re-focus our attention and that of all donor countries to this fact. Food and food hunger should be at the centre of our international aid and development programmes.
I ask the Minister of State if Ireland Aid is interested in establishing a special study on the issue of land ownership, taking specific account of recipient countries of Irish aid in Africa. This is in the context of investment of outside countries such as Saudi Arabia, China and others, and also the recycling of what might be regarded by many people as dubious oil revenues into the purchase of land. Such purchase comes at the cost of the capacity of those who are occupying the land in order produce their own food, bring it to market and so on. This is a question of respect for tribal and ethnic common ownership of land. The other side of that is to address the issue of those in the slums who are without title to their shanty existence.
The point is very well made. Part of the problem regarding the declining capacity of many developing countries to produce their own food is the increasing fragmentation of small holdings. That is a major problem. Allied to that are problems with establishing proof of legal tenure, including that of women who comprise, surprisingly, 80% of all farmers in Africa. This figure is borne out in the report. Their rights to own land and to develop that land for productive agricultural purposes are diminishing because of fragmentation. That is a very real issue which we must address. It is an extremely complex issue and varies from country to country. In Mozambique, for example, all the land is owned by the state. In other countries nobody knows who owns the land and the system goes back perhaps to early stages of feudal ownership such as we had in Ireland.
The Deputy's point is well made. The key, however, as identified and recommended in the report, is that international foreign aid and development should be focused upon increasing the productive capacity in agriculture. We have lost focus on that, not only in Ireland but right across the world. The report takes a leadership role in the international community.
I conclude with one point. The report on food hunger, which was welcomed across the House, shows Ireland taking an outstanding leadership role in the world. This report was launched on the floor of the United Nations, in the presence of the UN Secretary General and to wide acclaim in the international community. Ireland is at the cutting edge, taking a leadership role on this issue and Irish people should be proud of that.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
On a point of order, this morning the House ordered the Whips to set aside time for the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy John Gormley, to come into the House and make a personal statement. The Whips duly met and agreed that a suitable time would be now, at this moment in proceedings. The Minister conveyed to the Government and Opposition Whips that he would do so. I understand now that he is not coming to the House. This is the kind of arrogance and disrespect for the House that I find intolerable. I ask the good office of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle to ensure that the House is not treated in this cavalier fashion by the Minister when an agreement was made with the House on all sides, including the Ceann Comhairle, that the Minister would be here to make a personal statement. He has now said that he will not come because the matter was to be on the Adjournment. The matter on the Adjournment is entirely separate. The Minister agreed to make a personal——
That is a long point of order. A personal explanation is a matter exclusively for the Deputy concerned. I have been informed that the Minister made no request to the Ceann Comhairle's office for time in which to make a personal statement.
To put the record straight, the Minister conveyed to the Office of the Chief Whip that he was prepared, and wanted to make a personal statement and that he wished to do so at this time.
I can only say that I have been informed that no request was made to the Ceann Comhairle's office for the making of such a personal statement. We will therefore proceed to the normal business of the House at this juncture, namely, the Adjournment Debate. I understand that one of the debates concerns the matter that the Deputies raised. Does Deputy Costello have a point of order?
It is a point of order. I was in the House at the time and it was by agreement with the Ceann Comhairle that the Whips would meet to arrange a time when a statement would be made. It was not as if it was a request from the person who was——
I will explain to the House——
It was a decision of the House that there would be a meeting of the Whips and that at a suitable time——
I shall explain to the House that it is not a matter for the Ceann Comhairle, or for the House, when a personal statement is involved but rather a matter exclusively for the Deputy concerned. It is my understanding that no request was made to the Ceann Comhairle's office for any Deputy to make a personal statement today.
The Deputy concerned conveyed to the Whips' office that he was to make a personal statement at this time——
I did not.
Misleading the House and treating it with disrespect is unacceptable.
There is nothing the Chair can do about that. We will move on.