The first item on the agenda is a discussion with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, in advance of the forthcoming General Affairs and External Relations Council. I welcome the Minister and his officials and congratulate him on his appointment to the very important foreign affairs portfolio. He will appreciate that in the past two years we worked very closely with his predecessor to bring about greater public awareness of EU matters generally and to scrutinise legislation from the European Union. We look forward to continuing this strong sense of co-operation and consultation with him. His presentation will be followed by two sessions of questions and answers, the first on external relations followed by general affairs.
General Affairs and External Relations Council: Ministerial Presentation.
I thank the Chairman for his kind remarks. I also thank committee members for allowing me the opportunity to address them. I welcome the observers in the Visitors Gallery. I am accompanied by Mr. Bobby McDonagh who will be known to members, Mr. David Cooney and Mr. Frank Smith from the Department.
I am very conscious of the excellent and important work carried out by the committee which provides an important forum for Members of the Oireachtas to convey their views on issues on the EU agenda. I very much welcome the opportunity provided by this meeting in advance of the General Affairs and External Relations Council to listen to the committee's views and outline the Government's approach to the items on the Council's agenda. These meetings reflect in a direct way the importance we all attach, both in Government and Parliament, to heightening awareness of EU affairs. I look forward to working closely with the committee, particularly in advance of future General Affairs and External Relations Councils.
Next Monday's meeting of the Council in Luxembourg will be the fourth under the Dutch Presidency. The agenda is still evolving but a number of important items will be discussed on both the general affairs and external relations sides. I propose to deal first with issues relating to general affairs.
The General Affairs and External Relations Council, acting on a Presidency proposal, draws up an annotated agenda at least four weeks before each meeting of the European Council. The Presidency has proposed a draft annotated agenda for the European Council on 4 and 5 November. The draft agenda comprises the following agenda items: the Lisbon agenda; the area of freedom, security and justice; Communicating Europe; enlargement; external relations; Common Foreign and Security Policy and European Security and Defence Policy. At our meeting next Monday the Presidency will present this draft agenda but does not envisage a substantial discussion on it. Work will continue on it and the Presidency will submit a further version closer to the time of the European Council. This revised version will be considered by Ministers at the next meeting of the General Affairs and External Relations Council on 2 and 3 November.
Under the item on terrorism, Mr. Javier Solana will give a short state-of-play presentation on developments in this important area. The declaration on combating terrorism, adopted under the Irish Presidency last March, specifies that we have to conduct regular reviews of the European Union's work in this area. Much of this involves the implementation of existing measures. The Dutch Presidency has been working closely with the counter-terrorism co-ordinator, Dr. De Vries, on the follow-up to the declaration and associated plan of action. This will feed into a broader review of the Union's counter-terrorism activity in December.
On enlargement, the meeting will hear an overall presentation by Commissioner Verheugen on the various reports issued yesterday. They are the annual regular reports on progress towards the accession of Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey; the strategy paper on progress in the enlargement progress which includes recommendations on Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia and Turkey and, as part of the regular report on Turkey, a paper which looks at the issues raised by that country's possible membership of the European Union. The Presidency has indicated that this item is only intended as an information point and that no discussion is expected to take place after the Commissioner's intervention. The Commission's report on Turkey, however, is likely to be the subject of particular political and media attention and interventions by member states cannot be excluded.
I welcome the very important report and recommendation on Turkey presented by the Commission yesterday. Successive European Councils, including the meeting in June under Ireland's Presidency, have given a commitment that if this December's European Council decides on the basis of the Commission report and recommendation that Turkey fulfils the political criteria for membership, the European Union will open accession negotiations without delay. We have strongly encouraged the Government of Turkey to maintain the impressive performance of recent years in legislating for reform and to ensure the full implementation of these reforms.
The Commission report and recommendation, and its initial impact study of the consequences of Turkish accession, are very comprehensive. They deserve close study as we prepare for the important decision to be taken by the European Council in December. The Commission concluded that in view of the overall progress of reforms, and provided that Turkey brings into force certain key outstanding legislation, it considered Turkey sufficiently fulfilled the political criteria and recommended that accession negotiations be opened. It elaborated on a detailed strategy for the pursuit of negotiations and made it clear that it would be part of an open-ended process the outcome of which could not be guaranteed beforehand. The Government will study the Commission's report fully. I am sure the Government of Turkey will do likewise and will redouble its efforts in the weeks and months ahead to ensure the conditions are in place for a positive decision by the European Council in December, leading to the opening of accession negotiations.
In its reports on Bulgaria and Romania and in the strategy paper the Commission made clear that both countries have made good progress this year. For the first time Romania has been granted the status of a functioning market economy, an important mark of progress. Both countries remain on track to formally complete their negotiations this year, to sign an accession treaty as early as possible next year and to accede in January 2007.
With regard to the future financial perspectives for the enlarged Union from 2007 to 2013, the committee will recall that the Commission has brought forward two communications thus far, in February and July this year, together with detailed legislative proposals in a number of areas. The June European Council mandated the Dutch Presidency to take forward work in this area on the basis of the issues identified in the analytical report prepared by the Irish Presidency during its term in office. Council is now conducting a detailed examination of the issues and the Presidency is working towards agreement on principles and guidelines at the December European Council.
On Monday the General Affairs and External Relations Council will have before it a report by the Presidency on progress on the dossier thus far during its term in office. The Presidency has, with the agreement of partners, adopted what is called a building block approach according to which different policy options are identified and addressed under each area.
Member states are looking in detail at the Commission's proposals covering expenditure under a number of budgetary headings proposed by the Commission, including those regarding competitiveness and growth, cohesion, agriculture and rural development and fisheries. Clearly, several of the issues concerned are of strong interest to Ireland. Member states continue to have a range of positions on the level of expenditure to be directed at each of these areas and the focus of such expenditure.
We consider it a priority to secure adequate funding for agriculture and rural development. As reflected clearly in the Commission's proposals, the agreement reached at the European Council in October 2002 on agricultural expenditure up to 2013 must be respected.
Under cohesion policy, it will be important that the development needs of the new member states are taken fully into account. I am conscious, in this context also, of the continuing infrastructural deficit experienced by the BMW region. Ireland recognises the need at this stage to support the European Union's transition to a knowledge-based economy and broadly welcomes the Commission's proposals for increased emphasis on research and development, education and training, and competitiveness.
The negotiations on the future financial perspectives will continue for a considerable time and are set to run until at least June 2005. The discussion at the General Affairs and External Relations Council on Monday is likely to consist of a general, short, state-of-play discussion, although it is possible that the Presidency will circulate a questionnaire for Ministers before Monday.
This month the External Relations Council will consider a broad range of issues, including the conflict in Darfur, the European Union's relations with Iran and Libya and the Council's ongoing consideration of the China arms embargo. Despite considerable international attention, insecurity continues to be a key constraint in Darfur and the overall humanitarian situation remains critical. It is estimated that 1.5 million people have been displaced within Darfur and roughly 200,000 have fled to neighbouring Chad. Discussion at the Council is likely to focus on current issues such as UN special representative Pronk's latest 30 day report on the conflict in the region which was discussed at the UN Security Council this week and EU support for a possible expanded AU mission in Darfur. Ministers may also consider the outcome of the recent visit to Sudan by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, and the UN Secretary General's special adviser on the prevention of genocide, Juan Mendez.
Overall, the conflict continues to raise serious concern. Progress has failed to meet expectations, there continues to be a lack of security and a need for a stronger international presence in Darfur. I hope this need will be met by a stronger African Union operation. We also need to see positive movement in the talks between the government and the rebels when they resume. I should mention that our ambassador to Sudan, Dick O'Brien, also visited Darfur last month.
The Council will also review developments in the Great Lakes region in Africa, specifically the political situation in Burundi and the ongoing efforts to reinforce the United Nations mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo, MONUC. I welcome the decision of the UN Security Council last Friday to increase the UN mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo by an additional 6,000 personnel. MONUC is performing a vital role and it will be necessary to keep its operation under close review in view of the ongoing insecurity in the east of the country and Secretary General Annan's belief that a further 6,000 troops beyond those now sanctioned remain necessary if MONUC is to properly discharge its mandate. The Security Council will review its operation next March. In the meantime, the European Union will continue to do all it can to help reinforce MONUC in its difficult assignment. I expect the Council to approve a number of practical measures in this regard, including increased intelligence sharing.
On Burundi, the Council will review recent developments, including the adoption of a draft constitution on 18 September. While the transition process continues to make progress, more remains to be done in terms of strengthening human rights and the rule of law, and promoting genuine national reconciliation in the country. It is not clear that the goal of national elections, provided for in the Arusha peace accords, can be realised by the due date of 1 November next. As such, the Council will no doubt wish to consider how the European Union can best continue to support the peace process in Burundi in the event that a deferment of the elections proves necessary.
Ministers will have a further exchange of views on the issue of the China arms embargo on Monday. The Council discussed this issue on two occasions during the Irish Presidency, in January and April, on the basis of a mandate from the European Council in December 2003. Following initial discussion at working group level and by the EU Political and Security Committee, the Council decided in April that further consideration was required, in particular regarding the human rights situation in China and questions relating to the EU code of conduct on arms exports. The preparatory Council bodies were invited to take this discussion forward and the process is ongoing. At Monday's Council Ministers are expected to take stock of the current state of play on this dossier and consider how to take the issue forward. I hope the European Union can make progress on reinforcement of the code of conduct in the near future as stricter criteria would apply to all arms exports, not just exports to China, if the embargo was lifted.
The Council is also expected to adopt conclusions on the ongoing EU-China human rights dialogue. The conclusions are based on the evaluation report of the EU-China human rights dialogue prepared recently by the Dutch Presidency in consultation with member states and representatives of civil society. The aim of the evaluation was to establish to what extent the dialogue sessions fulfilled the overall objectives of the European Union. In the conclusions my EU colleagues and I acknowledge that the dialogue, while imperfect in some respects, has led to some improvements in the human rights situation in China. I urge the Chinese authorities to continue with their stated intention of strengthening respect for human rights.
The situation in the western Balkans is considered at most meetings of the Council, underlining the central role played by the European Union in working with the countries of the region and our shared commitment to their gradual integration into European structures. Discussions this month will concentrate on how we can make progress towards opening negotiations for a stabilisation and association agreement with the state union of Serbia and Montenegro. Commissioner Patten and Javier Solana will report on their discussions this week in Belgrade. The Council will also consider the preparations for the important assembly elections in Kosovo on 23 October.
Ministers will also discuss the work of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. The Presidency has invited the chief prosecutor of the tribunal, Ms Carla Del Ponte, to brief Ministers on developments regarding co-operation by the countries of the western Balkans with the work of the tribunal. The Council is expected to adopt general conclusions emphasising the importance of such co-operation.
On Iran, the Council will consider conclusions on the EU-Iran human rights dialogue. It is also expected that there will be a broader discussion of EU-Iran relations, in which the nuclear issue will be prominent. It remains to be seen whether all partners can agree to the inclusion in the conclusions of a commitment to co-sponsor theCanadian resolution on the human rights situation in Iran at the current session of the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly. Ireland would support co-sponsorship of the resolution. The draft conclusions will also reflect the agreement between member states regarding measures that need to be taken to improve the effectiveness of the dialogue. Following the disappointing outcome of the last round of dialogue in June this year, the conclusions highlight the need to attain a renewed commitment from the Iranian authorities that they will translate the dialogue into concrete results on the ground. Consultations are under way with the Iranian authorities to arrange an EU Troika mission to Iran later this year to discuss ways in which the dialogue can be developed.
Ireland shares the widespread concerns regarding Iran's nuclear programme. We hope all questions that arise can be addressed satisfactorily at the November session of the International Atomic Energy Agency. We encourage Iran to co-operate fully to bring about this result.
Ministers will also discuss recent developments in Libya and the European Union's future relations with the country. The recent improvement in relations between Libya and the international community in general and with the European Union, in particular, is welcome. Libya wishes to develop its relationship with the Union and has sought to join the EuroMed, or theBarcelona process. The Council will adopt conclusions which will welcome Libya's desire for better relations and set out an incremental approach to achieving this. The Council will lift the remaining EU sanctions and arms embargo. This follows the lifting of UN sanctions on Libya last year. A technical mission will be sent to Libya to assess arrangements for combating illegal migration and a humanitarian action plan for HIV-infected children will be fast-tracked. However, the Union will also look to Libya to meet its concerns on various issues including, in particular, the plight of the Bulgarian and Palestinian medics who currently face the death penalty in Libya following their conviction by a Libyan court.
Ministers will also have an exchange of views on recent developments in Indonesia. Discussions will focus on the successful conduct of parliamentary elections in April this year and presidential elections which took place in July with the final run-off in September. The presidential elections were historic in that they were the first ever direct elections to the office of the president. The Council is expected to adopt conclusions welcoming the successful conduct of these elections and calling for closer co-operation with Indonesia, a key partner for the EU in south east Asia.
In regard to the European neighbourhood policy, Commissioner Verheugen will update the Council on recent developments, in particular preparation of action plans for Moldova, Ukraine, Israel, Jordan, Morocco, the Palestinian Authority and Tunisia. The committee will recall that these action plans are due to be agreed by the Commission by 20 October in preparation for adoption by the Council in November. Action plans are at an advanced stage of preparation for each of these countries, with the exception of Israel, with which negotiations are still continuing.
The European neighbourhood policy is designed to strengthen relations between the European Union and those countries that do not currently have the prospect of EU membership. It offers these countries the prospect of economic integration and closer political co-operation with the Union in return for concrete progress in the implementation of political, economic and institutional reforms that reflect shared values. The prospects for mutual benefit to all parties are obvious and it is to be hoped that the remaining issues can be resolved in the near future and that the action plans can be adopted in accordance with the timetable which the Commission has set.
At the request of a number of partners, the Presidency added the Middle East peace process to the agenda yesterday afternoon. Discussions are underway about the way in which this item will be dealt with and it is not yet clear whether there will be conclusions from the Council. Although the precise focus of the discussion is not yet clear, it is obvious that the current situation in Gaza will receive careful attention.
I set out the Government's position on this crisis very clearly in an Adjournment debate which took place last night and in a statement which I issued on Monday. I will be putting that position to our partners at the EU and I expect that there will be strong agreement. It is the Government's long-standing position that the ongoing cycle of violence will not lead to a resolution of the conflict.
Instead, it will only postpone the day when an Israeli state and a Palestinian state can live side by side in peace and security. There is no substitute for political negotiations, as we know well in Ireland, between the parties to the conflict leading to a lasting political settlement. I have called on both parties to work for an immediate cease-fire as a prelude to renewed political contacts.
Ukraine is a late addition to the GAERC agenda, in the context of presidential elections, scheduled for 31 October 2004. The Council is expected to adopt conclusions which, while reiterating the value the EU places on Ukraine as a key neighbour and strategic partner, will repeat its call on the Ukrainian leadership to ensure all necessary conditions for holding free and fair elections are in place. The key importance of the independence of the media and-freedom of expression for a balanced and transparent campaign will also be underlined. Ireland will send three short-term observers to Ukraine as part of the OSCE election monitoring mission.
In the margins of this month's Council, an association council will be held with Jordan. In addition, the partnership and co-operation agreement between the EU and Tajikistan will be signed by all member states. I am happy to take questions from members of the committee on the agenda items due for discussion at the forthcoming Council and thank them for their forbearance in listening to a long presentation. It was necessary to put on record at this juncture all that has been discussed before the Council.
I also welcome Minister of State, Deputy Treacy and congratulate him on his appointment. We will look forward to working closely with him in the next few years.
To avoid confusion, I stated that we would take questions on external relations first. I presume the list of speakers I have wish to address external relations, after which we will take contributions on general affairs.
As it turns out, my first group of questions were meant to be on general affairs for which I apologise. In regard to Darfur, is the EU likely to emphasise the support which the African Union could give to bringing some semblance of stability to the region? Is it likely that this Council meeting might examine the impact the instability in Sudan-Darfur could have on neighbouring Uganda and, specifically on the activities of the Lord's Resistance Army there?
The committee has from time to time expressed concern about aspects of human rights administration in China, particularly the issue of the Falun Gong cult and how it is being dealt with. Will the Minister tell his colleagues of our concern for the lack of transparency in the administration of human rights in China? I will raise the issue of the western Balkans in the context of enlargement later.
I too welcome the Minister and Minister of State and look forward to meeting them again. It is time-consuming for them to come before the committee but it is of great benefit when they are able to do so, particularly ahead of these meetings.
I am glad the Middle East is on the agenda. As the Minister stated, this is at the request of a few member states. It is disappointing that the issue was not initially on the agenda. In that context, does the Minister think this reflects some fatigue with the road map? If one mentioned the road map to any of the people suffering in certain parts of the Middle East, they might laugh. It seems the committee has been discussing the road map for years and the lack of progress is extremely disappointing. There seems to be a complete lack of international activity in respect of it. I am not saying it is the fault of the EU, but nothing seems to be happening. A year ago President Bush held a summit in Taba and it seemed there was some impetus into the road map but it seems to have disappeared off the agenda altogether. People are suffering and the fact that the issue was not on the agenda in the first place speaks for itself.
It is little known that Ireland had a founding role in the formation of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty in the 1950s or 1960s. Two countries remain outside its remit, namely, Israel and, if it develops nuclear weapons, Iran. Is the EU doing anything to encourage Israel and Iran to sign up to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and will it be discussed at the External Council?
I thank Deputies for their questions. The European Union set huge store by the influence of the African Union in Darfur and Ireland and the European Union provided personnel to supplement the mission. It is bringing forward plans that will be agreed in the coming weeks and the European Union will try to implement them alongside the United Nations. EU funding has also been requested by the African Union for further financial support for peace facilities. In the visit by our ambassador recently he stated that while matters had improved somewhat, the level of security had not; that the situation was not as good as it should be and all efforts should be made, particularly with the African Union observer mission, to put more pressure on the Sudanese Government to stop the insurgents.
Deputy Carey asked about the Falun Gong, an issue always raised at meetings with China when dealing with human rights. These issues will be discussed on Monday during the debate on the arms embargo. It is accepted that, despite some shortcomings on human rights in China, progress has been made and that the authorities are more co-operative about dialogue with the European Union.
Deputy Mulcahy asked the valid question why the Middle East was not on the agenda. All of us, apart from some of those involved in the region, are very frustrated with the lack of progress on the road map. My predecessor, at an informal meeting during the EU Presidency, laid great emphasis on the road map and the five conditions laid down therein. Asking why the Middle East was not on the agenda, it was felt that it was already too long but there was an understanding that the issue would be placed on it informally.
Iran is already a signatory of the NPT. We are discussing with Israel a non-proliferation clause in the NPT action plan. These discussions are somewhat more difficult than with the other countries involved.
The situation in Uganda is not on the agenda also. There are connections between the instability caused by the LRA and the situation in Sudan. We are conscious of this.
I congratulate the Minister and the Minister of State on their appointments.
The security situation and the relief efforts in Sudan are the primary areas of concern but Ruud Lubbers suggested there might be a measure of autonomy for the Darfur region. Will this be discussed at the meeting?
What circumstances would allow for the lifting of the embargo on China? China has a long way to go to convince people that its human rights record is acceptable. The death penalty is used more often than in the rest of the world combined.
Last year the Council concluded that the dialogue with Iran was only acceptable if sufficient progress was achieved and that this was reflected on the ground. In our briefing today the Council conclusions express the regret of the European Union that the situation in many respects has not improved. The scene is gloomier now than a year ago. There were farcical elections where only people from the governing parties were nominated.
I also congratulate the Minister and the Minister of State on their appointments.
Iran is an interesting case where the approach of the European Union has diverged from that of the United States which is taking a hardline approach. There have been indications in recent weeks that if and when the Americans get out of the morass in Iraq, the Bush Administration, if it is still in place, might turn its attention to Iran. All the indications are that the more constructive, dialogue based approach of the European Union is getting us nowhere. It is difficult to point to any real progress in the last year. What would be the approach of the Government or the European Union in the context of a more bullish American approach? We must tell the Iranians that we need to see more progress or George W. Bush and the lads will be breathing down their necks. We need to take a more aggressive approach to Iran, particuarly on the nuclear issue but also in the human rights area.
Deputy Carey and I were in Ethiopia a few months ago where we dealt with the chargé d'affaires, Ms Conway, who is now back in Dublin. There is the curious situation that we are represented in most African countries by chargés d'affaires, not by full ambassadors. We are present in many of the countries concerned because of our development aid commitment and the embassies are dealing with budgets that are far greater than those of most of our European embassies. It an anomaly. I cannot see why they are not at ambassador level.
I congratulate the Minister and the Minister of State and thank them for coming.
The crisis in Darfur is a life and death issue. The Minister referred to progress failing to meet expectations. There will be discussions and reports will be studied by various bodies in the United Nations and the African Union. Has a time limit been put in place for action that might arise from these reports? These meetings are all taking place while people are dying. I watched famines on television when I was not in a position to do anything and now find myself asking if there is anything I can do to make governments move on these issues, particularly the United Nations which does not respond in the way the general public would like. While I welcome the reports and discussion, I want to see a timeframe for action. I hope this will meet a stronger African Union operation but hope is not enough. We need action. Is there any way in which our small nation could name a time scale for those actions?
I too congratulate Deputies Dermot Ahern and Treacy on their appointments. The European and international responses to the situation in Sudan are scandalously inadequate. This is the greatest international crisis of the day and it is not receiving the political attention it deserves. The problem is growing before our eyes. The scale of debt and displacement is enormous. The most important thing that could emerge from next week's meeting is a hands-on approach by the EU to ensure that intervention, whether by the African Union or the United Nations, or a combination, occurs soon.
The Minister noted the continuing lack of security. We should not repeat these comments a month from now. An immediate strengthening of the international presence is essential. There is no political leadership evident in resolving this problem. Are we closing our eyes because it is Africa? Is that why the international community is not responding as it should? This a major humanitarian problem and we must take a much louder and more active part in bringing some redress and hope to the Sudan.
Following Senator McDowell's point, can the Minister confirm that it would cost nothing to elevate chargés d'affaires to the level of ambassadors?
In the past week I considered this issue in regard to countries where we are involved in development aid because so much taxpayers' money is going into these countries. It is important to look at the possibility of upgrading our presence in Ethiopia and other countries, given the attention and the increased level of aid we have given them over many years.
The general view is that the Chinese position has improved considerably and the authorities are taking a more co-operative approach to the EU. During our Presidency we, and our European partners, held the first EU-China seminar on the ratification of the international covenant on civil and political rights in Beijing on 30 June and 1 July last. The Chinese authorities, however, can do much more to allay public concern in Europe and the rest of the world on the promotion of human rights. That will be a significant issue when it comes to lifting the arms embargo.
Much work has been done to put pressure on the Sudanese Government. Apart from the work of the EU and the UN, our ambassador was there recently and met all the relevant officials, the EU ambassadors, and the country directors of Concern and GOAL. He felt that while the humanitarian situation in Darfur had improved there was little evidence that the internally displaced persons were prepared to return, which is the litmus test of how matters have developed there. We will continue to push this on Monday in terms of what further actions the European Union can take.
Ireland supports the co-sponsorship of the Canadian resolution on human rights in Iran. That should be taken on board sooner rather than later. The international board of the Atomic Energy Agency will meet in November to discuss Iran agreeing to meet international concerns about the nuclear issue.
We now move on to the General Affairs part of our discussion. I have a motion on the agenda, under Any Other Business. The motion states:
That the case for and against Turkish membership of the EU be clearly put to the joint committee and that the EU Commission report on this matter be made available to the members.
We have the report of the European Commission on Turkish accession, which we will distribute shortly. While the Minister is here we should expand somewhat on what he said about Turkish membership. The committee needs to examine this issue in advance of the European Council meeting to be held in December and to consult widely on the implications for Ireland and for the European Union as a whole. Concerns have been expressed about all aspects of Turkey's membership, human rights, the position of the Kurds, the possible €28 billion cost, the possible mass emigration to the West and so forth.
The Minister said that we have always supported Turkey's accession, provided that it adhered to the Copenhagen criteria. Is he satisfied that the human rights issues are being addressed sufficiently and the Turkish Government is doing everything possible to address that situation? We will return to that under Any Other Business but if other speakers want to contribute they may do so now.
I endorse and support the Chairman's motion that we should agree in principle that the item is tabled on the agenda and that we receive the necessary documentation in advance. It requires comprehensive discussion and analysis and I propose that we invite the Turkish ambassador to participate in the process.
Under the General Affairs rubric I congratulate Deputy Dermot Ahern on his appointment. He will find this ministerial responsibility quite different from the others he has held. He needs to ensure that the domestic base, familial and political, is well consolidated because he will see very little of it for the next couple of years. Hopefully, he will see none of the General Affairs Councils after the next general election and a change of Government. He will have a short lease so may he enjoy it and survive. I wish him and his colleague Deputy Treacy well. It is a very demanding responsibility and I know something of the toll it takes.
While the Minister is still in the honeymoon period with his colleague, the new Minister for Finance, will he make a raid on the coffers to consolidate and complete the embassy configuration in all the existing and tentative member states of the European Union? Some progress has been made but not enough. We are the worst represented of all the member states in numbers of embassies abroad. There is no example. I suspect that on an operating basis the current cost of an embassy with two and a half or three persons is approximately €500,000. On the basis of the calculations of the former Ministers, Deputies Walsh and McCreevy, that would give one 25 ponies in Kildare. I suggest a calculation. However, I am serious about our need to do it. There is a window in which to do it and some progress has been made.
My second point concerns the European constitution. I would like the Minister to consider, with the agreement of the Chair, coming back to us after the legal documentation has been deposited in Rome, which I believe will happen at the end of this month. We would like some kind of discussion with him and some indication of when the referendum is likely to take place. I know that there are constraints in that regard. However, all of us — in the absence of Deputy Ó Snodaigh — who favour the ratification of the constitution realise that it will be a very difficult task. In those areas where we agree, we must work closely together. To maximise the output of that work, we need as much up-front information as the Minister can give us as soon as possible.
My third point relates to the overall question of enlargement rather than the specific question of the accession of Turkey. There are also Bulgaria, Romania and Croatia to be followed down the road by the rest of the Balkans. It will take place in the context of the debate on the constitution. What is the European Union's final destination? When can we tell our citizens that this is it and that we have reached its southern and eastern frontiers? The Treaty of Rome started a journey towards ever closer union, but to complete the task of selling the project, we must be able to say what the final destination is. It would be useful if the Minister could share his thoughts on this. If we cannot answer that question, I respectfully suggest to him, in the context of a campaign on the referendum, that we may very well be unsuccessful in having the constitution ratified. If it is not ratified, the operational difficulties with which we must all deal in a union of more than 25 member states will be extreme.
My last point concerns the accession of Turkey, but since the Chair has already addressed this, I will concur with him and say that, when we are able to deal with it, we will welcome the Minister's input.
I also congratulate the Minister and Minister of State on their appointments and wish them well. As spokesperson on European affairs in the Seanad, I look forward to working with them both in the next session.
I would like to comment on the Chairman's view that we will have a long discussion on the accession of Turkey, which is to be welcomed. Perhaps the Minister will give us his own comments. Having read all the documentation to date, I see that there is great concern about its accession and readiness. The international media have proven that the areas of human rights, honour killings, discrimination, education and equality of opportunity in employment are fraught with unrest. I would like to hear the Minister's own views. One line suggests that there is a strategy for the pursuit of negotiations. It makes it clear that, by their nature, they will be part of an open-ended process, the outcome of which cannot be guaranteed in advance. I have very strong reservations. That is why I welcome the Chairman's views. We will welcome the Minister back when we have had our own discussions. We would like his own comments having taken on his new brief.
I omitted to congratulate the Minister and the Minister of State on their recent appointments. I am delighted to see them both and wish them the very best in their mission.
My comments are not unlike those of Deputy Quinn. I concur with him on the issue of the embassies. It is a shame. Apart from the European Union, I would like to use this opportunity to discuss our missions in Africa and, in particular, priority countries. I cannot for the life of me understand, having visited one or two of them recently, why we cannot upgrade the chargés d'affaires to ambassador level and do something more permanent about premises and so on.
The issue of Communicating Europe is on the annotated agenda. I am becoming increasingly pessimistic about the ability of the European Union to sing from remotely the same hymn sheet. We have seen this with the ten new countries acceding. There is a need for a bedding-down process. Bulgaria, Romania and Croatia are coming down the line. When Ireland held the Presidency, there was a good deal of emphasis on Communicating Europe. However, it now seems to have run out of steam. We have heard in recent months very mixed messages from very senior people, including some outgoing Commissioners and senior politicians in the older member states. I am past the stage of expecting anything else from our colleagues in Britain, but a worrying level of scepticism is being allowed to creep in. The current President of the Council, if not already minded to do so, should be encouraged to adopt a proactive approach towards Communicating Europe, including the broader European Union of the present and future.
In that respect, it is impossible not to mention the accession of Turkey. I concur with other speakers on how to handle the issue. The Minister has heard me say before that we must address what happens down the road, particularly the stability of the western Balkans and how that area of the Continent can be integrated in a stable and peaceful Europe. I am one of those who welcome the fact that we are now able to open discussions with Turkey. They will not be easy on either side, but it is wise to do so. Perhaps the Minister will give his view on how the selling of the constitution might be undertaken with renewed vigour, in Ireland primarily, but also among our colleagues throughout the rest of the European Union. I am a great enthusiast for its ratification, but, having listened over the summer to many of the comments, I am rather pessimistic about its chances. Rolling up our sleeves and pulling up our socks — whatever the metaphors we need to use — are necessary.
I thank all members for their comments and kind remarks. I am not sure where I will be in a few years' time after the next general election, but I hope it is in a Government led by my party.
The Minister will get a well earned rest.
I fully agree on the issue of embassies. Having been a Member of the Dáil for nearly 18 years and on some trips to our various outposts, I can see exactly what the Deputy is saying regarding the excellent value for money the taxpayer receives from the diplomatic service, the members of which are more than diplomats and sell Ireland from many points of view, including social and economic. The Taoiseach has already gone on record regarding the continuation of coverage the Deputy referred to.
Signature of the constitutional treaty would take place in Rome. I would be more than delighted to return and share the issues with members of the committee. I regard it as one of the important ways in which we can communicate with the general public. The National Forum on Europe is another very significant one. I agree that it will not be easy in any country, but everyone will put their mind to the task, particularly all the political parties and the voices in this country which are in favour. I understand our near neighbours have produced some very good and easily understood documentation. This relates to Deputy Carey's point about Communicating Europe. My ministerial colleague, Deputy Treacy, was at a meeting in the past two days on this very subject, which was very fruitful. Our near neighbours have issued some documentation asking very simple questions on what the EU has done for them. It is a bit like those people who criticise the US on certain foreign policy matters who should look around the country and see what the US has done for them. This is similar to moving ahead with the constitution. We have to remind ourselves how much we have benefited; not just from a financial perspective, but from a social point of view. Everything has been affected by our continued membership of the EU. That is one of the main planks on how we should move forward.
Everyone will accept that the bigger the EU is, the more difficult it will become. Back in the early 1970s when we joined, the countries that were already in might have asked if they should allow it. Yet we have gone on very successfully to expand the EU to 25 members with commitments to quite a number of other countries. As someone who chaired meetings with only 15 and then with 25, I assure the committee that the practical issues on running meetings were not as difficult as perhaps we would have anticipated. As people appreciated that it would be difficult to run these meetings, they were conducted by the participants so that the meetings ended much more quickly than in previous times. That is something I welcomed. I accept that the further we go on, the more difficult it will be.
Deputy Quinn raised a question on where does the EU begin and end. We know where it begins, but where does it end? It has been accepted by the EU over the years in many of its forms that any European country, like Turkey, that met the political and economic criteria which are part and parcel of being members of the EU, would be entitled to membership. The EU accepted this when Turkey applied for membership as far back as 1999. Obviously, the issue of accession of countries like Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia leaves enough on the plate of the EU for now. The neighbourhood policy was an effort to draw the line somewhere. We could have good relationships but not necessarily membership with countries on the outer perimeter of the EU.
The general feeling is that remarkable progress has been made with Turkey in recent years. Turkey now recognises the primacy of international and EU law in the field of human rights and has aligned itself to most of the international conventions and rulings. It has abolished the death penalty. It has begun to recognise cultural rights for the Kurdish and other minorities. We have dramatically improved the scope of fundamental freedoms and freedom of association and expression. The Commission made it quite clear that there has to be a zero tolerance of torture and that there must be freedom of expression, freedom of religion, women's rights, trade union rights and minority rights. The Commission concluded that the irreversibility of the reform process and its implementation will have to be confirmed over a longer period.
We are on a road that is even longer than I thought. Turkey has been a candidate state for membership since 1999. In the intervening period, European Councils have all moved on the road to allowing Turkey to fulfil the Copenhagen political criteria for membership. The Commission has laid out a map for the accession of Turkey. It will be reasonably lengthy, but provided that Turkey meets the criteria over the period set out by the Commission, it will become a member. I look forward to the excellent work that Bulgaria and Romania have been doing, which is way ahead of the expectations of many of us on this side of Europe.
I thank the Minister. This committee will deal with the issue of Turkish membership in advance of the decision of the European Council in December. I presume the Minister would welcome our views in due course on that issue. We wish him and the Minister of State every success in their term of office.
I formally acknowledge the presence of my Minister of State and wish him well in his position.
We have some correspondence that we have to deal with.
I note that Commissioner Verheugen will have a number of reports. Can we have those three reports for our own discussion, as well as the regular report which looks at the issues raised by the countries' possible membership? It is on page three of the Minister's general affairs presentation.
I am sure we can organise that. Is it in regard to enlargement generally?
No, it is in regard to Commissioner Verheugen, who will hear an overall presentation at the meeting, as well as the annual regular reports on the accession of Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey, plus the strategy paper and a regular report on Turkey.
We had one of those reports today and we will get the rest of them. The first item of our correspondence is an invitation to the Wilton Park conference on the EU's constitutional treaty, 27 October 2004. The proposal is that we send two members to be nominated by the committee's convenors. Is that agreed? Agreed.
The next letter is a letter from Mr. Josep Borrell Fontelles, President of the European Parliament. We received this correspondence during the summer recess. The meeting of the EU parliament committee to which it refers has already taken place. It is therefore proposed to note this correspondence. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I draw the committee's attention to my proposal, to which we have more or less agreed. As a matter of procedure, that motion will be taken at the next meeting. With the agreement of the committee and assuming the availability of the Turkish Ambassador, he will be our first speaker.
The committee has been discussing a study visit to Turkey for more than a year. We have also discussed a visit to Cyprus for more than a year. I am sorry to say it but I am dissatisfied with the lack of progress on both counts. The Turkish issue is very important. I have visited Turkey several times and feel committee members would benefit from meeting people locus in quo. It is time for action. If the secretariat cannot organise it, others can. However, we must make this visit. Likewise, we should have visited Cyprus before the referendum took place in May last. This is the Committee on European Affairs. We must pull the finger out in regard to these trips.
I wish these were our only problems. Most of us have been to Turkey. With all due respect, one does not have to be on the mainland of Turkey to know what difficulties exist.
Other than the Turkish Ambassador, who else will we invite to make representations at the committee?
We will go into the detail of that next week. However, we will get agreement on the first speaker at any rate. Committee members might think about this and come back with suggestions.
I support Deputy Mulcahy's view. I have also visited Turkey. However, when one goes on a sponsored trip, one can ask for access to particular places one might not get access to while on holiday. As stated, we are probably too late to visit Cyprus but it is important that we make the trip to Turkey and, while there, see particular places or proof of various matters.
The proposed visit to the Iceland conference was supposed to be on the agenda as it came up some months ago. Every time I mentioned it, I was told it will be discussed at the next meeting. This is the next meeting.
It will come up under any other business in a few moments.
I agree with Deputy Mulcahy that a formal visit by the committee to Turkey would be worthwhile. Last year I attended a conference in Turkey at which there was significant discussion of accession negotiations and the fulfilment of the accession criteria. I understood there would be a follow-up on this issue by the committee but nothing happened. In regard to the Cyprus visit, since becoming a member of the committee I have understood that the committee would involve itself in obtaining first hand knowledge of particular locations. I am not looking for a holiday. I can visit such places myself any month of the year so that is not the point. We are discussing important issues related to accession, yet, for whatever reason, the secretariat decided it was not worthwhile to visit. I ask for the guidance of the Chair.
There was certainly a commitment and an invitation to visit Cyprus. However, due to various political events in Cyprus — for example, the Cyprus Parliament was dissolved at one time — this did not take place. The Ambassador is still anxious we would pursue the visit and it is again being actively pursued. However, there has been some delay in this regard over the summer. I will come to the issue of the Turkish visit shortly.
I refer to the Turkish visit. I support Deputy Mulcahy's comments. The work of the committee is difficult to profile. While it is difficult to interest people in the expansion of the European Union, strangely, there is a degree of recognition among the public of the possibility of Turkey joining the Union. It is one of the few potential accession countries which generates some degree of public interest. As a committee, we will take a pro-active role in that debate and we should be publicly pro-active. If it requires the committee to be seen to be in Turkey meeting various interest groups and examining the situation at first hand, we should not shy away from this. It is part of our remit.
It was noted that most members have visited Turkey and have a feel for the country. However, given the broader questions we as a committee would have to ask on this issue and the work on other reports, it would be helpful to be on the ground for a few days to talk to the players involved. It is a trip of which we should not be ashamed. As politicians we often shy away from visits because we somehow feel there is a degree of public odium for that type of activity. Nonetheless, at a time when the committee is attempting to debate and make recommendations on Turkish accession, it would be only reasonable and expected of us that we would pay an official visit there to meet the players and listen first hand to the arguments.
There should be no argument about whether we go. As a matter of course, we should go to inform ourselves. I was a member of the Committee on European Affairs from 1997 to 2002. We visited all the accession countries at that time, which proved very beneficial. It is not important whether this visit is before of after Christmas — it should be taken as a given that we would go. I suggested — half in earnest, half in jest — to Deputy Mulcahy that we could arrange productive hearings in Turkey as well as having them here, and that these ought to form part of the record that would inform our report. I have never been afraid of public knowledge that I travel abroad. It is a learning and information gathering exercise. Many of the groups, particularly minority and marginalised groups we would want to meet in regard to human rights, would not be able to afford to travel or, more likely, would not be allowed to travel out of Turkey. Visiting these countries is a way of getting to people on their own ground.
While there is broad consensus on this issue, I will make some cautionary observations. We should not mix a visit to Cyprus with a visit to Turkey, if only because of the logistical problem of which part of Cyprus one would leave from to get to Turkey. We should go to Turkey. The secretariat is not responsible for us not going. My experience as a member of this committee is of turning down offers to travel. There was a time when there was a queue to go on any Oireachtas trip but there is now a queue not to go. That is not an issue. If we go, we should be well prepared, which was the thrust of Deputy Carey's contribution. We should ask the Commission offices in Ankara and Istanbul, and our Embassy, to set up meetings with relevant groups when we have identified with whom and with which groups we would like to talk. Subsequently, we should publish a report and have it circulated.
As Senator Bradford rightly stated, of all accession candidate countries Turkey is the one that has generated a degree of angst. We need to be able to address this and to be able to inform our immediate colleagues in both Houses and the wider public. I would consider making the trip in mid to late spring of next year and not sooner. Apart from anything else, to have a productive trip we need to be well informed. To organise meetings with relevant groups would be logistically difficult before Christmas.
I commend the Chairman for the initiative he has taken. From the way he spoke, I take it the ratification and agreement of his motion is a foregone conclusion. On that basis, the Chairman should invite the secretary to begin making preparations for a couple of meetings on the Turkish issue. Perhaps the Turkish ambassador might attend one of these meetings and make the case for Turkey's accession to the EU. The ambassador recently took part in a radio programme in which I also participated and he is well able to articulate his case. It would also be useful to invite a delegate from the Commission to explain the history of Turkey's accession endeavours. Although no name comes to mind, a person who will argue why Turkey should not be an EU member should also be invited. The committee should take this didactic approach and proceed from there.
I agree with most of what has been said. Deputy Carey mentioned that a delegation from the committee travelled to the accession countries prior to 2002. Romania and Bulgaria are closer to accession than Turkey. I visited Bulgaria for seven days where I met members of an integration committee, a delegation from which will attend a meeting of this committee next week. If an invitation is received from the Bulgarian committee, it should be pencilled in. As a father of three children, I find it difficult to accommodate travel requirements. Any travel the committee undertakes should focus on those countries which are likely to join the EU in the short to medium term, including Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey. Considering the media headlines regarding immigration, a visit to Romania could be very useful and informative.
During my visit to Bulgaria I encountered a significant level of interest in Ireland, including the Celtic tiger, the Courts Service and the Garda Síochána. Any such visits should constitute a two-way exchange whereby we can help these countries in their preparation for accession.
Turkey is in a unique position. Nobody disputes that Romania and Bulgaria should and will be part of the EU in time but there is a debate as to whether Turkey should ever be allowed to join. I have articulated my view before that it should not be permitted to do so. The case against full membership for Turkey does not rest entirely on what is happening in that country. The most powerful argument against its accession is the effect this would have on other member states. Deputy Quinn mentioned the project of ever closer union and it is questionable if this project is possible in the context of a country that is so different, far away and un-European. It would be useful to have somebody articulate this point of view in the debate the Chairman is proposing. It is not merely a matter of whether Turkey can satisfy the accession criteria. The important question is whether it is a European country and what will be the effect of its accession on other member states.
I am loath to disagree with Deputy Quinn regarding timing but I am conscious that a decision will be taken at the Council meeting in December. Once this country has committed its view on the matter, it is unlikely it will be reversed. If the committee is to have any useful influence on the Government's view in this matter, it must put forward its case before then. The language in the Minister's speech is notably more positive on the issue of Turkey than that of his predecessor. There is a perception that Ireland has taken issue with Turkish accession in the past. Following a conversation which took place only six months ago between the Taoiseach and the Turkish Prime Minister, Mr. Recep Tayyip Erdogan, there seems to be less scepticism. The committee should exert its influence on this issue sooner rather than later.
I agree with Senator McDowell. I have doubts as to whether a predominantly Muslim country can become part of the democracy that is the EU. There is agreement that a delegation from the committee will travel to Turkey. Does Deputy Quinn agree that this visit should take place before the EU Council meeting?
I accept that and withdraw my previous suggestion.
The question of Turkey's accession is as much about culture and identity as about meeting criteria. Perhaps Mr. Fintan O'Toole or some other knowledgeable person could give a cultural or ideological exposition to the committee as to whether Turkey should be a member of the EU. There are two items to discuss, namely, the format of the debate, which we will not discuss today, and the matter of the trip to Turkey. The Turkish ambassador wrote a letter to the committee's secretariat months ago to invite the committee to visit. We have known all year that this decision will be made in December.
As Senator Bradford observed, if the committee is to be relevant, it must act now. The time to visit Cyprus was before the referendum, the time to visit Turkey is before the Council decision, notwithstanding Deputy Quinn's point that more preparation would be better. I ask the committee to recommend that the secretariat be mandated as a matter of urgency to set up a study visit to Turkey before the end of November. It is a short timeframe but it can be done and would be welcomed by the Turkish authorities. The committee can conduct its debate after the visit and issue its report. If there is a difficulty with such a course of action, I ask the committee members to explain it.
The visit will be arranged and the committee will initiate immediate discussions with the Turkish ambassador to this end. Have members views on how many should travel?
It should be as large a delegation as possible to attain the greatest benefit.
I am interested in participating.
The delegation should include five to seven committee members.
I agree. The clerk is anxious that names are offered so the committee can move quickly on this matter.
There will be no difficulty in supplying four names from members of the Government parties.
The delegation should consist of seven members in that case.
I am also interested in participating while acknowledging that two committee members are of the Labour party.
Is it agreed that the visit will take place in mid November or no later than the end of November?
Yes. There will be a report at the next meeting, following initial discussions with the Turkish ambassador. It seems appropriate to send a delegation of seven members although this can be discussed further. Convenors should establish interest among their groups in this regard. I ask members to consider who should be invited to the committee's discussion regarding Turkish accession.
There should be two speakers in favour of Turkish accession and two speakers against.
There should be no difficulty in deciding the speakers in favour of accession but we must give some thought to deciding who should speak against. This will be formalised at the next meeting.
The next item for discussion is a letter regarding the resignation of the Chairman, Deputy Gay Mitchell, which can be discussed at the next meeting, which he will attend. He retains the position of Chairman until the new Chairman is appointed.
Will Deputy Gay Mitchell retain membership of the committee?
MEPs have right of attendance at the committee.
A similar letter has been received from Deputy Harkin regarding her resignation from the Sub-Committee on European Scrutiny. Have new members of the committee been appointed?
Deputy Harkin has resigned from the Sub-Commmitee on European Scrutiny but not from this committee. It is a matter for Fine Gael to decide who should be nominated in place of Deputy Gay Mitchell.
Perhaps a lunch can be organised on the day of the next meeting to mark the departure of Deputy Gay Mitchell as Chairman and thank him for his work.
A lunch with members of the Bulgarian delegation has been arranged for the day of the next meeting.
I support Deputy Quinn's suggestion but advise that a gold Cartier watch should not be purchased for Deputy Gay Mitchell.
We will make discreet inquiries of the chairman to see what can be organised. I will defer consideration of the minutes of the meeting of 23 September until the clerk returns.
At the meeting of the joint committee on 8 July it was agreed to return to the invitation for a member to attend a conference in Reykjavik, Iceland, on the European Council area and the European trade agreement in the new Europe. This conference will take place on 21 October. Senator Lydon has indicated his willingness to represent the committee. Is that agreed? Agreed.
We agree on the condition that he does not come back.
We would not like to lose him. Our next meeting will be held on Wednesday, 13 October when a delegation from the Bulgarian national assembly will attend. We will also discuss the other issues referred to. The meeting will commence at 2 p.m.
The joint committee adjourned at 4 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Wednesday, 13 October 2004.