Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 20 May 2010

Vol. 709 No. 4

Other Questions

Northern Ireland Issues

Jim O'Keeffe

Question:

6 Deputy Jim O’Keeffe asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will provide an update on the progress made to establish the North-South Consultative Forum; his views on the outcome of the First North-South Conference of 15 October 2009; and when discussions on the Forum will conclude [20885/10]

The establishment of the North-South consultative forum, provided for in the Good Friday Agreement, has been discussed with the Northern Ireland Executive at all the plenary meetings of the North-South Ministerial Council since the re-establishment of the Executive in May 2007. At those meetings, the Government delegation is led by the Taoiseach, while the Northern Ireland Executive delegation is led by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister.

The plenary meeting in July 2007 noted the intention of the Northern Ireland Executive first to complete its review of the Northern Ireland civic forum, a body provided for in the Good Friday Agreement for consulting civic society in Northern Ireland. That review is still outstanding.

During 2008, the Government consulted with the social partners and various cross-Border and North-South groups on the establishment of the consultative forum. Following on from this we formally communicated our proposals to the Northern Ireland Executive on the role, format, membership and operation of the forum.

On 15 October 2009, as a contribution to the process leading to the establishment of the forum, the Government facilitated a consultative conference in Farmleigh involving the social partners and other civil society groups from across the island. The conference was opened by the Taoiseach. Participants from across the island came from all traditions, including representatives from business, the trade union movement, agriculture and the community and voluntary sector. There was a wide-ranging discussion on the role of civil society and its capacity to contribute meaningfully to cross-Border co-operation. There was strong support for further such engagement to explore specific areas for co-operation, North and South, at the level of civil society.

A further North-South consultative conference will take place in Dublin on 26 May. As on the occasion in October last, representatives from civil society from both parts of Ireland will participate. The key themes of the conference will relate to sport and young people and innovation, examining in particular the important role that innovation can play in economic recovery, North and South.

The establishment of the formal North-South consultative forum will be further discussed at the next plenary meeting of the North-South Ministerial Council, scheduled for 5 July 2010. We will press strongly to have the matter brought to an early conclusion.

I am concerned that whereas the main items in the St. Andrews Agreement have been implemented, with the restoration of the Assembly, the establishment of the Executive and the transfer of policing functions, the agreement dates from 2006 and with regard to the question of the establishment of the forum and the related issue of the establishment of the North-South interparliamentary body, referred to in Parliamentary Question No. 18, the discussions seem to go on and on. I am very much in favour of both bodies because we have shared problems and I have no doubt there can be shared solutions. I see great potential for economic co-operation, cross-Border trade and shared responses to social issues and joint efforts to promote tolerance and understanding.

A question please.

Is there any way of getting greater impetus for the establishment of these bodies? Let us have these outstanding aspects of the St. Andrews Agreement implemented.

I share the Deputy's views. He is correct to state that these are aspects of the St. Andrews Agreement and the Good Friday Agreement that have not yet been brought to full realisation. We take the establishment of both fora very seriously. Since the institutions were restored in 2007, we have urged and will continue to urge the early establishment of the consultative forum following the completion by the Northern Ireland Executive of its review of the Northern Ireland Civic Forum. The fact that has not been completed has delayed things somewhat. To cut to the chase, we hope that there may be a new impetus post the Hillsborough agreement and a new dynamic is emerging within the Executive. There have been moves in terms of the parliamentary forum. A conference is taking place, which is an important first step in terms of dialogue between both Parliaments.

On the forum, we had a very useful meeting at Farmleigh and will have a further meeting next week on 26 May. It will be co-chaired by representatives of civil society, including Mary Davis of Special Olympics Ireland and David Humphreys, the retired rugby player from Northern Ireland.

Trevor Ringland.

I will revert to the Deputy on that. As the Deputy will appreciate, we cannot unilaterally establish this. It is not an option which is open to us. We are in a better space now, post-Hillsborough than prior to it.

Can the Minister give a ballpark indication of when he expects to see both of these bodies established? Will he commit himself to ensure that, as far as possible on this part of the island, a renewed impetus will be put into getting these two bodies under way, comh tapaigh agus is féidir linn?

There has been plenty of impetus on this side. Let us be fair. The Farmleigh conference is evidence of a genuine desire to explore the issues. The conference next week is similar. One thing one does not do in Northern Ireland is set dates, as I know from the past 18 months. What tends to happen if one sets a date is that the determination is any time beyond that date. I have no intention of setting a date. The momentum is in the right area. In this jurisdiction we have significant experience of such fora in operation and have fewer issues or concerns about them. In Northern Ireland, I sometimes pick up that people have different perspectives on that.

I was in north Belfast last week and visited the Tiger's Bay and New Lodge area, which had considerable challenges throughout the Troubles and latterly. It is interesting to see how many civic society and community groups are now working together very effectively in the local area and genuinely moving things forward, in terms of community integration. I am very committed to this and the Deputy should take it that we will work closely with him.

EU Targets

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Question:

7 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs further to Parliamentary Question No. 130 of 30 March 2010, in which he stated that in the case of the education and social inclusion targets, further work is needed to be done to reach numerical rates and appropriate indicators respectively and the European Council will return to these at its June meeting, if he will make a statement detailing his relevant objectives going into the June meeting including whether he will push for the adoption of a 25% poverty reduction target for each Member State [20981/10]

As the Deputy is aware, the March 2010 European Council meeting agreed on the main elements of the new European strategy for jobs and growth, Europe 2020, including the key targets which will guide its implementation and arrangements for its improved monitoring. There were five European Union headline targets agreed by the European Council and they cover employment; research and development, including innovation; climate change and energy; education; and social inclusion, in particular poverty. This choice of targets is consistent with the desire to keep the strategy focused on key areas. It also brings out the potential for interlinkage, where progress under one target can contribute to reaching another. We believe that the strategy will provide an essential framework for action by the European Union and its member states to achieve higher levels of sustainable jobs and growth as economic recovery is secured.

The spring European Council provided for further work in a number of areas. This includes the development of national targets by each member state in dialogue with the Commission; the identification of bottlenecks constraining growth at national and European Union level; and the development by the Commission of its proposals for action at European Union level, notably through the flagship initiatives. This work is under way, as is the elaboration of numerical rates and appropriate indicators in the case of the education and social inclusion targets, respectively.

The Commission and Spanish Presidency have been meeting all member states and Ireland had an initial encounter on 29 April in Brussels. The purpose of that first, useful meeting was to begin the process of dialogue with the Commission concerning Ireland's national targets, as envisaged under the new strategy and as agreed at the spring European Council. It was also an opportunity to make an input on the matter of a social inclusion indicator where the Commission has acknowledged that its thinking is now evolving from its original suggestion. We favour the formulation of an appropriate target based on a poverty indicator which reflects the multidimensional nature of poverty, including material deprivation. Once agreed, the overall European Union poverty reduction target will be translated into national targets to take account of the differing starting points of member states.

Since 1997, the Government has adopted poverty targets as part of its national policy against poverty and for social inclusion. The Irish target is based on a composite poverty measure called consistent poverty. The measure identifies the percentage of the population which is both below 60% of median income, known as at risk of poverty, and experiencing material deprivation, that is, the enforced lack of two or more basic necessities. The Government target in the national action plan for social inclusion 2000 to 2016 is to further reduce consistent poverty to between 2% to 4% by 2012 and to eliminate it by 2016. Significant progress is being achieved in reaching these national targets.

Other European Union fora with expertise and a track record are now contributing to the work on the development of appropriate indicators for an European Union poverty target. These include the social protection committee where senior Irish officials from the relevant Government Departments are actively participating in the deliberations. The Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council, EPSCO, will consider this issue at its meeting on 7 and 8 June. The outcome from that discussion is expected to feed into the June European Council meeting.

Does the Minister agree that poverty is a complex issue which employment by itself will not resolve for everyone? The assumption that poverty can be addressed ignores the reality of the working poor, those who have disabilities and dependancies and the like. Does the Minister agree that a specific target is necessary if real progress on poverty reduction is to be made? Does he agree that under the Lisbon strategy the European Union made a commitment to make a decisive impact on poverty by 2010 and failed to do so? In 2000, some 16% of the population of the European Union were at risk of poverty and by 2008, some 17% were at risk. Given the current climate, does the Minister agree that is an underestimation of those who are at risk of poverty?

I agree that we need targets and I support the Europe 2020 strategy, in so far as it is endeavouring to fix targets along the five core areas. This strategy is better shaped and formulated because it has shortened the number of targets and areas. It has a much sharper focus that the previous Lisbon strategy. We welcome the education targets and the idea of targets for social inclusion. There are issues across member states as to the definition of "poverty", from consistent poverty to relative poverty and so forth. We have had these debates domestically.

I take the Deputy's point; it is complex and poverty is not just the absence of a job, although employment is one of the key weapons against poverty, about that there is no question. It was a factor in the last decade, in terms of Ireland reducing its rate of consistent poverty. Education and opportunity is very much linked to poverty. We support a target which sees the rate of early school leavers falling to under 10% by 2020 and at least 40% of the younger generation having a tertiary degree. Our national target is already in place under the national skills strategy. We are well placed to meet European Union headline targets in education.

In regard to the share of early school leavers, Ireland currently stands at 11.3% which represents a strong performance relative to the European Union average of 14.9%. We will go below that in order to reach the European Union target of not less than 10%.

Now that we have the new Department of Social Protection, it is appropriate to make the comparison between the total spend of GDP. I understand the average in the European Union is approximately 23.5% of GDP; in Ireland it is approximately 18%. We are well below the average. During our best times——

Well below which?

I can put it another way. At a time when we had the highest per capita income, during the highest rates of growth, we were second from bottom in regard to social protection. However one measures it, our budget expenditure on social protection is significantly less than the European average.

Taking the European Union anti-poverty network and the text of the treaty, my understanding was that there would be poverty-proofing of other policies, including the five new headlines the Minister mentioned. Can I take it there will be poverty-proofing across these five new indicators and that a significant attempt will be made to achieve the European average in social protection?

I refer to the education figures the Minister mentioned. I am afraid we would not allow them to cloud the fact that we have significant obstacles in our own back to education scheme for the unemployed.

In terms of poverty reduction, during the past ten years there has been a very significant reduction in consistent poverty in Ireland and we have used our resources quite effectively to achieve that. The latest results from the EU survey on income and living conditions released in November 2009, which applied to 2008, indicated at that stage that the reductions in poverty were on track to achieve the 2012 and 2016 targets. It showed that the rate of consistent poverty in the population in 2008 was 4.2%, down from 5.1% in 2007. I accept that since 2008, we have experienced the fuller impact of the economic crash which would affect those figures but we made significant progress.

In terms of education, sometimes we do not acknowledge some of our achievements. In regard to tertiary education attainment for 30 to 34 year old people, Ireland compares very favourably to other EU member states at 46.1%. Ireland already exceeds the proposed target of 40%. The current EU average is 31%.

We have very highly educated unemployed people.

I would not be that dismissive. We all know from research that education during the lifespan of an individual is the key to his or her progression in terms of employment attainment. Education is the one guarantee of exit from poverty and of a decent quality of life. It advances a society collectively.

When I was Minister for Education and Science in 1999, we worked out what percentage of the population we wanted to reach tertiary level. That was ten years ago. We set about dramatically increasing the number of places, equipment and teachers at third level. We must continue to do that to be competitive. I accept that poverty-proofing is something which will feed into the debate and so on.

Election Monitoring

Sean Sherlock

Question:

8 Deputy Seán Sherlock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will indicate whether Irish observers will be present at the forthcoming Ethiopian elections [20930/10]

The elections in Ethiopia on 23 May represent an important step in the country's democratic development. Opposition parties are contesting the elections throughout the country and 30 million Ethiopians have registered to vote. However, the violent aftermath of the last elections in 2005 left a disappointing and difficult legacy. We are following developments closely and Irish observers are participating in the European Union elections observation mission.

In February, the European Commission sought nominations from member states for experienced election observers to participate in the European Union election observation mission in Ethiopia. It is Government policy to consider such requests positively. Since 2004, more than 500 Irish election observers have participated in more than 80 election observation missions.

In response to the Commission's request, we nominated six long-term observers and seven short-term observers for the current mission in Ethiopia. Of these nominations, the European Commission selected six observers, three of whom are long-term observers and are based in Ethiopia from 23 April to 3 June. Three are short-term observers based in the country from 14 to 29 May. All of the Irish observers are highly experienced.

The EU observation mission consists of 90 long-term observers and 60 short-term observers drawn from all the member states. I am confident the Irish observers will play an important role in the mission and will make a positive contribution to the development of democratic accountability in Ethiopia.

Despite some notable achievements in poverty reduction, Ethiopia remains one of the poorest countries in the world. It has a large and growing population dependent on subsistence farming. Many people remain unable to provide enough food for themselves. Vulnerability to food supply shocks is acute and last year 6 million people required emergency food assistance. This is the context in which Ethiopia will hold its fourth parliamentary and regional elections.

I thank the Minister of State for his reply. I know the value of having observers as I was one with the EU group in Cambodia some years ago and it was very important. The Minister of State mentioned the enormous scale of the elections, which I accept. All Irish aid to Ethiopia, whether for the public works scheme or the scheme aimed at reducing malnutrition, is very valuable but with 47% of the population living under the poverty line, it is a huge task.

When I was in Cambodia with the EU delegation, we met the EU ambassadors at an early stage so they could give us assistance in reading the situation in the different regions. I went to Kampong Chhnang. I understand severe restrictions have been placed on a number of European Union embassies in regard to travel in Ethiopia. That is a severe disability not only for the embassies, but for the observer missions from the different European Union countries. I understand one of the leaders of the opposition, I believe the leader of Unity for Democracy and Justice, has been recommitted to prison, which is very difficult.

There is a gap of approximately three weeks between the polling day and the announcement of the results. What will happen during that period? Will the African innovation which has happened in recent times of posting the turnout outside the polling station take place in Ethiopia? Will it be available to the observers?

The travel restrictions imposed by the authorities are naturally of great concern to us. We have always had free access to all parts of the country. The system involves applying for permits to leave Addis Ababa to travel north and south, although all permits applied for have been granted. Nevertheless, it is of concern that a foreign country, which has a partnership arrangement with the Ethiopian Government, must apply for permission to leave the capital, especially during election time.

The leader of the opposition to whom Deputy Higgins referred, Ms Birtukan Mideksa, is still in prison. She was released as part of a 2007 pardon arrangement but she was imprisoned again because statements she made about the 2007 process were regarded as having violated the terms of her pardon. This is also of concern to us. I raised the concerns of the Irish authorities when I visited Ethiopia last year. Together with our EU partners, our embassy in Addis Ababa continues to monitor her situation very closely and regularly raises our interest in her case directly with the Ethiopian authorities.

In terms of the election count, it takes what appears to be an unnaturally long time — three to four weeks — but that is for the final result. Results are published as they are counted in the individual areas, although the time appears to be quite long. However, one must accept this is a rapidly growing population covering a huge area.

In regard to the restrictions on EU embassies, is there co-ordination between the EU embassies and is there a role for facilitation by the high representative? Has there been some intervention at that level?

I am very disturbed by the implications of the Minister of State's reply.

After the 2005 elections, the announcement from Addis Ababa by the EU observer mission on the basis of a partial count had consequences that could only be described as disastrous. It is now accepted within the European Union that the mission represented a singular failure in election observation. The problem about the disparity in party support between the capital and rural areas was such that the announcement of partial results was interpreted as national.

This is a very sensitive issue. As the Carter Institute has not sent election observers to Ethiopia even though it has a fine record in this area, it is important that partial statements are not made.

The Deputies make valid points. The 2005 elections were very unsatisfactory and the subsequent violence was disturbing. This year's parliamentary election is the fourth since the Derg was overthrown in 1991 and one hopes by now that democratic principles will be observed. For this reason, the EU is investing considerable effort in its observation mission and a number of highly trained observers are already on the ground. Only the best and most experienced observers are being deployed on this occasion and they have all attended three-day courses to make them aware of issues specific to Ethiopia.

On Deputy Creighton's question, I am not aware whether the high representative has taken an interest in the issue but, given the effort that the EU has invested in the mission, I imagine she will be kept fully apprised of developments. We will await the outcome of the election process and the results with great interest.

Tax Policy

Eamon Gilmore

Question:

9 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he supports the Nairobi Declaration on Taxation and Development of 8 April 2010 which dealt with the issues of abusive transfer flows by multinational corporations in Africa [20926/10]

The Nairobi declaration on taxation and development is an important statement of concern by civil society actors in Africa on the interrelated issues of domestic taxation, revenues from natural resource extraction and international taxation. These issues have been prominent on the international agenda recently as a result of efforts at United Nations, OECD and European Union levels, with the full participation and support of the Government.

Domestic revenue raises around ten times more financing for Africa than development assistance. For developing countries in Africa, the mobilisation of domestic resources through efficient and fair tax systems is crucial for sustainable growth, poverty reduction and the provision of services so that the millennium development goals can be achieved. Efficient and fair tax systems are also essential for promoting democracy and state legitimacy because taxpayers are more likely to hold their governments to account.

Capital flight, including tax evasion and avoidance, and illicit financial flows are a major obstacle to domestic resource mobilisation. A report recently commissioned by the Norwegian Government found that illegal money flows from developing countries are at least seven times higher than official development assistance. This is facilitated by tax systems vulnerable to harmful tax practices and unco-operative jurisdictions, and it requires joint efforts between developed and developing countries.

I welcome the recent European Commission communication on tax and development which charts the way forward for the EU in addressing these issues. Enhanced efforts will be made to strengthen support to domestic resource mobilisation in developing countries . The OECD, through collaboration between the committee on fiscal affairs and the development assistance committee, has an important role to play in ensuring developing countries get a fair share of taxes in a more transparent international tax environment. The Government is participating fully in these OECD efforts through the Department of Finance and Irish Aid, which are collaborating on the issues of concern.

Irish Aid is of great assistance in these matters. I refer specifically to Tanzania where a new gold mine has been opened every year since 1998. A study funded by Christian Aid indicates that, between 2000 and 2008, €265.5 million in taxes were lost because of gross abuse by extractive industries. Putting this figure in context, Tanzania receives €470 million in aid in a full year.

Tanzania is the largest gold producer after South Africa, yet life expectancy is 55 years and per capita expenditure on children’s education is less than $48. It is being robbed right, left and centre by extractive mining companies. The Nairobi declaration would address this sort of scandal by requiring companies to publish results in the countries in which they operate, allowing African countries to survey the extent of their minerals before they sign mining agreements and ensuring bodies such as the EU do not facilitate the declaration of bogus losses. Each of the companies involved in Tanzania declares losses of approximately €500 million per year to avoid paying taxes.

I share the Deputy's concerns and assure him that Irish Aid is very active on this issue. I am glad the Christian Aid report acknowledges that the Government is aware of the importance of a coherent and effective development aid response.

In regard to mineral rich countries such as Tanzania, which the Deputy cites, Uganda and Zambia, the extractive industry transparency initiative, which is part of the EU-Africa governance partnership, has been instrumental in supporting improved governance and accountability through the verification and full publication of company payments and government revenues from oil, gas and mining. Further progress on this initiative is being encouraged by Irish Aid.

The Deputy's basic point is that multinational companies use their huge capacity and the professional advice available to them to engage in abhorrent practices, including transfer pricing and false invoicing. While Irish Aid's programmes are not directly affected by these illicit practices, they have the capacity to undermine all development actors in the countries with which we work. For this reason, we need a global approach which would involve the G20, the EU and the OECD.

Does the Minister of State agree it is a pity that the Irish Aid strategy paper for Tanzania did not refer specifically to abuses by mining companies?

Our activities in regard to multinational exploration companies are focused through the OECD and the EU on information sharing initiatives. It is not an issue on which we must work on a bilateral basis with the countries concerned.

Perhaps we should do so.

While I take the Deputy's point, real progress can be made on the global and multilateral levels.

Membership of International Organisations

Aengus Ó Snodaigh

Question:

10 Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if, in his view, Israel does not fulfill the condition for OECD membership laid down by the OECD Council in 2007 requiring a commitment to pluralist democracy based on the rule of law and the respect of human rights; and if he will therefore use the Irish vote to block Israeli membership [20980/10]

Joan Burton

Question:

22 Deputy Joan Burton asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent admission of Israel to the OECD; and the position taken by him thereon [20928/10]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 10 and 22 together.

Israel, along with Estonia and Slovenia, was formally invited to join the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development at a meeting of the OECD Council on 10 May 2010. On the basis of formal opinions and all relevant technical information gathered by the appropriate OECD bodies during the accession process which stretched back to 2007, the Secretary General of the OECD recommended to the council that Israel be invited to accede. The 31 member countries of the council, including Ireland, accepted that recommendation at the meeting of 10 May.

An invitation to accede to the OECD is based on the applicant country's compliance with the organisation's rules and practice built up over the past 50 years and does not relate to or imply approval for other actions or policies of the state concerned.

In its statement on the successful conclusion of the accession negotiations with Israel on 10 May, the European Union recalled commitments made by Israel during the accession period, including in regard to the geographical scope of the statistics provided for the OECD, and also restated its position that, in line with international law, the European Union would not recognise any changes to the pre-1967 borders, including in respect of Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties.

Ireland, in common with a significant number of OECD members, continues to be deeply concerned about several aspects of Israeli policy towards its Palestinian neighbours, including its settlement policy and the blockade of Gaza. I have consistently called on Israel to bring to an end these policies, as have successive Governments in the past. I repeat that call today. On acceding to the OECD, Israel, as well as all other new members, will be subject to vigorous and objective peer review processes across a range of areas, including potentially sensitive ones such as labour standards and issues relating to income inequality and discrimination. We intend to work with partners in ensuring Israel fully complies with all the obligations arising from OECD membership.

I have welcomed the Minister's stance on Israel in the past, but on this occasion I express my disappointment which will undoubtedly be shared by other supporters of Palestine. Given his statement to The New York Times on 5 March that the “medieval siege conditions” being imposed on Gaza are unacceptable, how could he agree or assent to Israel’s membership of an organisation which is supposed to be committed to fundamental values, including a pluralist society based on the rule of law and respect for human rights? How does his acceptance of Israel’s membership of the OECD square with the view he expressed in the Dáil that the effective isolation of Gaza constituted “collective punishment” and was illegal under international humanitarian law? It beggars belief that a country that has been censored internationally to such a degree and consistently ignored that censorship should become part of the OECD. Why should less stringent criteria apply in respect of membership of that organisation than is the case in regard to Israel’s membership of or trade agreements with other international organisations?

My position remains that the Gaza blockade is unacceptable and represents a fundamental breach of international human rights and norms. I have always been clear in that regard. Ireland has always maintained a significant interest in and commitment to Middle East issues, particularly efforts to effect a resolution of the conflict there. There are several routes one could take to highlight and focus on these issues. Some NGO campaigners have argued for a complete boycott and divestment policy and so on. However, such a policy would reduce one's influence over the various interlocutors in the Middle East conflict and could undermine one's credibility in addressing the issues involved with all the stakeholders. There is a balance to be struck in one's approach to the matter. I would like to say more, but the Leas-Cheann Comhairle has indicated that my time is up. It is difficult to address the points raised within a short timeframe.

I have no difficulty in accepting the sincerity of the Minister's position on Gaza. However, reports in the Israeli press suggest Ireland, with Switzerland and Norway, initially had reservations about voting for the acceptance of Israel into the OECD but that in the end, like what happened in respect of the United States-India nuclear non-proliferation agreement, they caved in. The Secretary General of the OECD has said all of this is justified and will contribute to a more pluralist and open OECD. I take him to mean that when it comes to moral issues or issues of occupation such as how one handles the question of what is produced in the settlement of the Occupied Territories on the West Bank, the OECD will always look the other way and take the short-term economic argument as opposed to the politically moral one.

The invitation to Israel, Slovenia and Estonia was given back in 2007, at which stage Ireland did not oppose it. This is entirely incomparable to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty agreement with India.

It is my understanding a reservation was entered early on.

I have outlined my position. Moreover, I have written to every Deputy setting out our position on boycotts. We have argued that there is a balance to be struck in these matters. In regard to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty mentioned by the Deputy, Ireland is cheering the Middle East resolution because of the acceptance by all concerned of our bona fides. These are issues we must weigh up in terms of influencing events.

Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.

Top
Share