I understand that the Minister of State is taking Priority Question No. 4. With the agreement of the House, we can proceed directly to that question, and will resume on the preceding questions when the Minister arrives. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Priority Questions
Irish Aid Budget
John Deasy
Question:4 Deputy John Deasy asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the discussions he has had with his US counterparts and officials regarding the coordination of the Irish Aid Budget with US aid programmes on the issue of food security; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21128/10]
Eradicating global hunger is a foreign policy priority for both the Irish and US governments. It is appropriate that we collaborate and bring our combined expertise to bear in working towards our shared objective. In Ireland, arising from the hunger task force report, we have made the eradication of hunger a cornerstone of our aid programme. We recognise that feeding a global population, expected to surpass 9 billion by 2050, in a world where climate change is having a dramatic impact on our capacity to produce food, will be one of the biggest global challenges of this century. For the first time ever, more than 1 billion people, which is one sixth of all humanity, are now hungry. This is unacceptable and Ireland and the US agree that concerted action is essential to eliminate global hunger. The Minister, Deputy Micheál Martin, and I have had many discussions with our US counterparts on how we can co-operate optimally to ensure that food, the most basic of all human needs, is available and easily accessed by all. Most recently, last month in Washington, I met with Secretary of State Clinton's chief of staff to discuss the issue.
Next September, Ireland and the United States will co-host a major event on hunger and under-nutrition at the UN Summit on the Millennium Development Goals. This event will bring together world leaders to highlight the importance of agriculture in reducing hunger, and improving nutrition in the households of the world's poorest and most vulnerable. Our objective is to focus political attention and galvanize action around realising MDG 1, which is to halve the numbers living in hunger and poverty by 2015.
We are co-operating with the United States across the food security agenda. We recently signed a three-year partnership with the United States to co-operate on combating hunger in Malawi, prioritising support to small-holder farmers, efforts to increase soil fertility and measures to adapt to climate change. Malawi is an excellent example of a country where enlightened national policies have dramatically reduced hunger levels.
In addition, Ireland and the United States have indicated a readiness to collaborate in other sub-Saharan states on practical country-owned and country-led hunger reduction programmes. Both countries agree that without a more effective agriculture sector and stronger governance mechanisms, many developing countries will struggle to increase agricultural production to feed their rapidly growing populations.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
Intensifying small-holder agricultural production in order to improve nutritional status is key to improving the livelihoods of the hungry and poor in marginalised areas, and is an important component of sustainable and equitable economic development.
Ireland and the US will co-operate further in addressing food insecurity and promoting agricultural development under the new EU-US road-map for co-operation. Joint action has been agreed on country-led food security plans, in the implementation of regional agricultural programmes and, at global level, in regard to the implementation of the reforms of the Committee on World Food Security and of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research.
Both countries have prioritised the strengthening of country-led initiatives to address food insecurity and we are active supporters of the comprehensive Africa agriculture development programme, an African-owned and African-led initiative working to achieve better economic growth through agricultural-led development. These practical examples of excellent co-ordination and co-operation between Ireland and the US in tackling global hunger and food insecurity demonstrate an effective working relationship between our two countries.
Together, Ireland and the US are strong advocates on food security and a powerful voice for the poor. Both governments are working together in the food and nutrition security areas, and are undertaking strong and co-ordinated leadership action to shape and influence the international response to the scandal of world hunger.
I tabled this question because last Thursday I, along with Deputies Higgins and Timmins, met with the US ambassador and his officials. At that meeting we discussed food security, the co-ordination between Ireland and the US, and the work of the Department of Foreign Affairs in this regard. We had a lengthy discussion on the benefits of possibly co-ordinating our efforts. The Minister of State has answered the question, specifically on the three-year partnership in Malawi. As he said, there is a readiness to collaborate on other issues in sub-Saharan Africa. Can the Minister of State indicate the benefits that would arise from such collaboration? I presume that we will take on any productive collaboration with the US if it means getting better value for Irish Aid's expenditure. Will the Minister of State tell us specifically about the kind of co-ordination and collaboration he is talking about?
I am excited about the developing relationship on this issue between the United States and Ireland, which involves the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. Both countries are very complementary in this area. The United States is a major donor, while Ireland is a relatively small one, although we have a history of hunger lack of food security through the Great Famine. This is a great opportunity to link a relatively small programme with a huge programme to achieve real results on the ground. We have two winning partners with real synergies involved. It complements the hunger task force's recommendation to advocate internationally and bring on board global donors, thus bringing their efforts to bear on the food security and hunger initiatives. By collaborating with the US and bringing it on board with the hunger agenda, it means that those who need and deserve that help, in sub-Saharan Africa especially, will get it from a major donor.
In Malawi, we will be battling climate change in so far as it affects agricultural production, with a special focus on water irrigation projects. Those matters are very important for small-holder farmers in Malawi. The US already has a great partnership with Malawi. In combining our efforts in such projects, we are giving action to tackle hunger the absolute priority it deserves. In addition, we are demonstrating to the international community that because big donors and global leaders such as the US, with all the influence they can bring to bear on the world stage, are taking hunger and food security seriously, others should do so as well.
USAID's mission statement is similar to that of the hunger task force, as are recent comments by President Obama and the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. Apart from the three-year partnership for Malawi, it is a significant step for the Irish Aid programme and our overall overseas aid budget that we are seeking to co-ordinate our efforts with USAID on food security issues. As I understand it, the US aid body is the largest food donor in the world, contributing almost half the global figure in dollars. Is it the case that Ireland is now beginning to co-ordinate with USAID in our programme countries throughout Africa?
That is correct. USAID now has a real focus on food security and hunger. By holding this political event on the margins of the Millennium Development Review conference in September, and inviting all the major players — including countries, multilateral organisations the largest NGOs — we will be telling the UN that hunger and food security must be at the top of the conference agenda. It will allow a small country such as ours, with a real focus and interest in this area, to use or international reputation to ensure that other countries come on board also. That is where the collaboration and synergies will really bear fruit for people on the ground.
False Passports
Billy Timmins
Question:1 Deputy Billy Timmins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will report on the progress of the investigation into the illegal use of false Irish passports in Dubai; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20887/10]
Michael D. Higgins
Question:2 Deputy Michael D. Higgins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the current position in relation to the theft of EU citizens’ identities by those involved in the extrajudicial killing of a person (details supplied) in Dubai [21100/10]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.
On 15 February 2010, the Dubai chief of police confirmed that several suspects, believed to have been involved with the killing of Hamas chief, Mahmoud al Mabhouh, in January, had entered Dubai on the passports of a number of foreign countries. Twenty-six suspects were named, of whom three had travelled on Australian passports, four on French passports, 12 using British passports, one on a German passport and six on Irish passports. Following further discussions between our ambassador in Abu Dhabi and the Dubai police during which additional information was provided, the passport service was able to confirm that the Irish passports used were counterfeit. Subsequent investigations by the Dubai police exposed more fraudulent passports, two of which were Irish, bringing the total number of Irish passports used to eight.
Unlike the position for many of the countries whose passports were used, the fake Irish passports did not involve the stolen identities of actual Irish citizens. Instead, passport numbers were used in respect of six of these passports while the remaining two passports were never issued by the Irish passport service. Officials of my Department contacted the six Irish citizens and, in the case of two minors, their families, whose passport numbers were stolen. Replacement passports have issued to each citizen concerned.
When I became aware of the suggestion that Irish passports may have been used by persons involved in the Dubai killing, I initiated an investigation by the passport service. The Garda Síochána is also undertaking its own investigation. Since the investigations commenced, officials of my Department have been in regular and ongoing contact with the Dubai authorities through the Irish Embassy in Abu Dhabi. The Dubai police have provided further information as it has emerged locally over the past three months. This information has been used by the passport service and passed on to the Garda.
I have just received the report of the passport service and am considering its findings. I intend to share those findings with my Government colleagues. Officials of the passport service continue to provide assistance to the Garda Síochána in the completion of its investigation. On that basis, I expect to be in a position to make a statement on the matter within the next couple of weeks.
I emphasise once again the seriousness with which the Government regards any attempt to forge Irish passports, even more so to use such documents as cover for criminal activity. The Irish passport is widely regarded and respected throughout the world as being of the highest quality. Ireland has invested heavily in additional security features in order that its citizens can travel in safety. Actions which endanger Ireland's well-earned reputation in this area have the potential to affect the security of all citizens travelling overseas. The Government is determined to maintain the good name of Irish passports.
I thank the Minister for his reply. Can he confirm that he has received a final Garda report on the matter?
No. I have just received the report of the Irish Passport Office.
Very well. Will the Minister consider sharing that report's contents with Members? Ultimately, the people wish to know who abused and used Irish passports. In addition, is the aforementioned report conclusive? Does the passport service report identify clearly who used Irish passports? The Minister should indicate the current status of the Garda investigation, whether a member of the Garda Síochána travelled to Dubai to carry out part of the investigation and, if not, the reason. If Ireland is serious about this investigation, a member of the Garda would have travelled there. The Minister should also enlighten the House as to the current status of investigations by other countries and whether he has had dealings or bilateral talks with representatives of such countries in respect of information they may have obtained. If individuals or countries are identified as having been behind this action, what steps does the Government propose to take? This is a very serious matter. Much outrage was expressed at that time and I hope it will not be diluted by the passage of time.
I agree with the Deputy that this is a serious matter. I undertake to share the report with the spokespersons present. While there are aspects to the report that I may not be able to publish as so doing in essence would compromise the security of the passport system itself, aside from that I wish to publish as much of the material as possible. It depends on one's definition of "conclusive". There are conclusions. Moreover, there have been conclusions to the British Serious Organised Crime Agency, SOCA, investigation. While its conclusions ultimately may not be definitive, I will cite the former British Foreign Secretary, Mr. David Miliband, who stated:
Given that this was a very sophisticated operation in which high quality forgeries were made, the [British] Government judges it highly likely that the forgeries were made by a State intelligence service. Taking this together with other inquiries and the link to Israel established by SOCA, we have concluded that there are compelling reasons to believe that Israel was responsible for the misuse of the British passports.
That was the British conclusion and was the level of conclusion to which they could arrive. I have been apprised of their report and have seen its essence. While our report makes conclusions, the Garda conclusion is not complete. Obviously, I will talk to the Deputies again in this regard. I hope to make a statement on this matter within the next couple of weeks. Before I make that statement, I will share its content with the Deputies.
I wish to pursue a further aspect of this matter that may be worthy of further answers from the Minister. It is the case that the former Foreign Secretary, Mr. David Miliband, has made a clear statement in respect of his estimation of the evidence that was available to the British Government at that time. There have been significant changes in that a British citizen has been identified by the British Government as a further suspect, that is, as the 19th suspect. This individual has been identified and has been referred to in recent reports, for example, in The Independent of London, as someone who had a valid British passport. This suspect is known to the British authorities and is suspected to be in hiding in western Europe. In the atmosphere in which Britain is pursuing this matter, it requested an official at the Israeli Embassy in London to leave. That particular official was a liaison officer with MI6. My point, which is important, is the degree to which the operation of so-called intelligence services undermines the diplomatic relations between countries and undermines foreign policy principles. The point I put to the Minister is that our position differs from that of the British but at the same time, if in fact the Minister reaches a conclusion, such a conclusion could be frustrated by the simple assertion that the actions of an intelligence service operating in the grey areas beyond diplomacy cannot be confirmed or denied. Is it not the case that the Minister has been told by the Israeli ambassador that he cannot prove anything and that, effectively, as far as the ambassador is concerned, he simply is going to stonewall on the basis that he knows nothing and will not say anything until things are proved.
The presentation by the Deputy is a fair one in some respects. There is a difference between the British position and that of Ireland along the lines outlined by the Deputy. That said, in assessing both the information we have received from other countries that have been involved by the fraudulent use of or forgeries of their passports and our own assessment, there comes a time when one must make a call. Consequently, we will do so.
May I intervene again briefly?
While I will allow both Deputies back in, I will allow Deputy Higgins to go first unless Deputy Timmins minds.
I will be brief. The Minister will note that my question referred to Irish passports and to EU citizens' identities. My point pertains to the evolution of the diplomatic personality of the European Union with particular reference to the evolution of Baroness Ashton's new diplomatic service. It is of absolutely crucial significance that intelligence agencies not be allowed to cross over in such a way as to endanger the development of relations between the European Union and the rest of the world. That was part of my distinction between the Irish position and that of the British.
I agree wholeheartedly with the Deputy; if that was to happen, it would be an issue of the gravest concern. We must be vigilant to make sure the European Union External Action Service is in no way undermined by the activities of intelligence agencies or the crisscrossing or duplication. The Deputy is right to draw attention to that.
Can the Minister confirm when he received the passport service report? Does he expect to receive the Garda report on the issue or will that go the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform? Are the conclusions of the report similar to those in the British report? Has the report established how Irish passports were copied and if a link existed with the genuine passport holders? Is there any information about how the passports might have been copied?
I received the report late on Tuesday evening. I want to bring it to Government and would prefer to share its contents when I am in a position to make a statement on it.
When can we expect that?
Within two weeks.
Passport Applications
Billy Timmins
Question:3 Deputy Billy Timmins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the number of persons working in the passport offices in Dublin and Cork; the current number of applications that are backlogged; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20888/10]
There are currently 248 staff working in the passport offices in Dublin and Balbriggan and a further 72 in Cork. At 17 May 2010, there were 62,008 applications in the system.
The Department has obtained the necessary sanction to recruit 50 temporary staff and arrangements have been made for staff to commence work at short notice. If necessary, we are prepared to recruit additional staff.
These arrears are a direct result of the ongoing industrial action by the Civil Public and Services Union. It is currently taking up to 25 working days to process individual applications submitted through the passport express service, the Northern Ireland passport express service and at the counters in the Passport Office. Applications submitted through ordinary post are taking up to eight weeks to process. Applications, other than those that are prioritised on the basis of demonstrable urgent humanitarian need, are being processed on a first come, first served basis.
The dispute is having a severe impact on the travelling public. There are many Irish citizens whose trips abroad have had to be cancelled and holiday and work plans severely disrupted.
Every effort is being made to reduce the waiting time for applications, pending the resolution of the industrial action. Staff have been working overtime for some weeks and this has kept the level of increase in the backlog to a minimum and in recent days seen a marginal reduction in the backlog.
However, the backlog in passport applications can and will be overcome when the CPSU calls off its industrial action and co-operates with the recruitment of temporary staff normally engaged at this time of year. I would once again call on the CPSU to withdraw this restriction and to allow a significant number of currently unemployed workers to take on paid employment and assist in reducing the sizeable backlog of passport applications.
It is important that we acknowledge that the staff at the Passport Office were one of the great examples of good public service in recent years and that it has been brought into disrepute by this go-slow. I join the Minister in requesting that the CPSU permits the temporary workers who are currently unemployed to be taken on. It would assist greatly in dealing with the backlog. A great inconvenience is being caused to many people because they cannot get their passports.
Will the Minister clarify how many machines are in operation? Where are they?
I answered this question the last time. There are three machines.
Is there one here, one in Balbriggan and one in Cork?
There is no machine in Cork. I have ordered one.
Is it not possible to get a passport on the same day in Cork?
There are a number of machines and equipment.
Can a person get a passport on the same day in Cork?
If it is an emergency, yes.
A person can get an emergency passport, not a passport.
It depends on the flexibility and how people work in given situations.
Is there a passport machine in Cork?
There is no production facility.
What about one for Limerick?
There is a point to make, apart from the industrial action, in terms of contingencies, such as the building being flooded. There is a case for the north west to have a machine, and the south. Those are the two priority areas.
It is important there would be a facility somewhere along the western seaboard between Limerick and Donegal, perhaps in Castlebar.
The north west is an idea because there have been so many applications from the North.
That is a fair point and we want to establish a passport office in that area.
I have previously raised the idea of establishing an information office at the airport for people who run into difficulties with their passports. Perhaps one of the airlines would take this up as an extra duty. There is hardly a day goes by but someone runs into difficulty at the airport. If it could fall within the remit of the airport authority as part of its information service to link up with the Department of Foreign Affairs to advise people on what they can do if they discover a problem with their passport at the airport.
That is an interesting proposition and I will look into its feasibility.
EU Enlargement
Lucinda Creighton
Question:5 Deputy Lucinda Creighton asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the position regarding Turkey’s accession to the European Union; his views on Turkey’s accession; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21235/10]
The European Union has a long and close relationship with Turkey. Accession negotiations were opened in 2005 and Ireland makes a constructive input to those negotiations.
As a beneficiary of a past enlargement, and on the experience of more recent accessions, Ireland is generally supportive of enlargement. The prospect of enlargement bolsters economic and political reform processes and helps to promote stability, security and prosperity in Europe. The process includes rigorous conditionality and takes into account the capacity of the EU to integrate new members. Enlargement has to be negotiated and, as in any negotiation, the eventual outcome and timeframe cannot be predicted.
These factors shape Ireland's supportive approach to Turkey's candidacy. There are, in addition, potential gains to the Single Market and to trade through the accession of a country of Turkey's size. The Union's reach and influence in the Middle East and Central Asia could be enhanced through Turkish accession.
Turkey still has substantial work ahead in meeting the established criteria and conditions for membership. Progress in the negotiations was reviewed by EU Ministers in the Council last December. At a meeting with the Turkish Minister for EU Affairs last week in Brussels, the Spanish Presidency and the Commission highlighted a number of areas where measures were still required.
At bilateral level, I met with Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu in Dublin on 10 March 2010. In the course of that meeting, Minister Davutoglu outlined the progress Turkey has made on reforms in a number of areas as it has sought to bring Turkey more in line with the EU acquis. He explained how the accession negotiations provide a strong incentive for Turkey to pursue reforms, strengthen democracy and human rights and further modernise the country. While much has been achieved in Turkey in these areas, the challenge is now for Turkey to maintain and accelerate the progress on reforms.
I reiterated to Minister Davutoglu Ireland's support for the Turkish candidacy. At the same time, I noted the Council's deep regret at Turkey's continued non-compliance with its obligations under the Ankara Protocol and I highlighted the need for Turkey to make progress towards normalisation of its relations with the Republic of Cyprus.
A number of resolutions were issued by the European Parliament, one as recently as March 2009, that noted the concern of "the continuous slow down of the reform process and called on Turkey to prove its political will to continue the reform process". It particularly stressed the need to reach a solution regarding Cyprus.
There is a legitimate concern about the fact that Turkey as an accession country does not technically recognise the Republic of Cyprus, which is a member state of the European Union. Repeatedly, the European Council, the European Commission and in particular the European Parliament have expressed serious concern about this. There appears to be a deadlock and a significant lack of progress on this issue. Will the Minister provide the House with a more comprehensive view of the Government's position on Cyprus?
We have continually articulated the need to resolve the issue with regard to the Republic of Cyprus. The background is that at the Helsinki European council in 1999, Turkey became a candidate and negotiations opened in 2005. I am aware that in a motion at its Ard-Fheis in 2004, Fine Gael endorsed and supported the candidacy of Turkey for the European Union and I understand that remains the position of the main political parties in this House, in government and opposition.
There are many challenges in the negotiating process, some of the key ones being the Cyprus question and non-compliance with the Ankara protocols. There have been reforms in matters pertaining to the judiciary, human rights and other issues and generally speaking it is fair to state there has been progress on those issues. However, there has not been progress on the obligations Turkey has under the Ankara process; it continues to refuse to open its ports and airports to vessels and aircraft from the Republic of Cyprus. In 2006, the European Council decided that eight chapters of the accession framework could not be opened and that there would be no further chapters until Turkey fulfils it commitment in this regard, and those measures remain in place. There is a deadlock.
The position of the French and German Governments have in some ways changed and it is fair to state that the political and economical climates have dramatically altered in the past two years. The French Minister of State for European affairs recently stated that alternatives should be considered with regard to Turkish accession, and the CSU, which is part of the governing coalition in Germany, stated it would rather see a privileged partnership than full membership of the European Union. What is the Minister's view on this? Does it alter the playing pitch in any significant way? The French Minister of State also made the point that if Turkey meets the criteria, the question of absorption into the European Union of its 72 million population would be a consideration, which is a new standard for accession.
From time to time since the Helsinki Council, various politicians throughout Europe have articulated different positions on this. It has been a lengthy process. We have to be careful and sensitive in how we approach this challenging issue. As a small open economy, we depend very much on liberalisation of world trade. We need to export our goods and services to create jobs here. The European Union began with six member states and now has 27 member states with a population of 500 million people. We export to many of those countries and our exports grow. Our combined trade on goods with Turkey is at €800 million and in services it is at €466 million. The Turkish economy is growing at approximately 10% per annum, notwithstanding the current global crisis, and it has a population of 72 million. I accept its GDP is way below that of Europe——
It is 35%.
——but not necessarily as low as that of Bulgaria or Rumania, relative to Ireland.
We need to be flexible in how we approach these issues. The issue of absorption is one that must be resolved and a study must be undertaken by the European Union on its capacity to absorb. This must be done prior to any accession. Politically, it is acceptable for people to make the odd statement to grab headlines but we cannot be seen as a country that is closing doors all over the place.
We also have to critically assess.
We have to be realistic and look at things. There have been derogations. We chose not to accept derogations from the ten candidate countries in 2004 but we put derogations in place with regard to Bulgaria and Romania. We need to consider issues such as these in terms of new accessions.