Before we proceed, I was handed a press release earlier on which the Minister of State might like to comment. It refers to an announcement that every home will receive a booklet on the EU constitution. I am aware the Minister of State spoke on it a couple of weeks ago but if he wishes he might let the committee know his plans. I leave it up to the Minister of State. The format is still the same. We start with general affairs and take questions. Then we will move on to external relations.
General Affairs and External Relations Council: Ministerial Presentation.
I can respond on the EU constitution. We are working assiduously to progress the delivery of information as rapidly as we can. We are working very hard on the wording of the legislation. When that is concluded we will proceed with discussions with the leaders of the various parties. We will then, it is hoped, get agreement on the wording and have the legislation passed in the Dáil. It is intended to deliver a booklet to every household in the country. We will appoint a referendum commission. We will make sufficient resources available to it to deliver maximum information to every house in the country. How it does this will be a matter for it but it will not be left short of resources. We expect a major campaign on the EU constitution across the country by all the political parties, professional and business organisations and voluntary bodies. We hope to have a very strong wide-ranging debate focusing on the importance of the EU constitution, reflecting on the evolution of the European Union and on its contribution to our country. Over the next year the Government will take a decision on when the referendum will be held. We hope everybody will be well informed, that there will be a conclusive debate and a resounding result.
I am concerned by the Minister of State's use of the phrase "over the next year". Is that an indication that the referendum may not be held until next year?
It implies that I do not have the power as Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs to read the minds of people greater than I whose responsibility it is to take this decision. Over the next year — we have until November 2006 — we will work very hard to get all the information out as quickly as we can. However, it is not my call to decide when the referendum will be held.
Surely the Minister of State, coming to a meeting of this committee, should have consulted those greater people to get their opinion on when this referendum will be held. His statement that information will be disseminated over the next year indicates we have a year to prepare. The matter is far more urgent than that. The European barometer and the comments of Professor Sinnott today show that we are not even in the second division in regard to knowledge in Europe. We are lumped together with the UK and other countries that are at the bottom of the league. It is time to get our heads out of the sand and throw off the mantle of complacency on this issue. I hope when the Minister of State is next here he will have consulted those greater than himself and will have some information for us.
Today's poll suggests that people are not informed, and they will not be informed until the Government is ready to ensure the wording has been agreed by all those who are in favour of ensuring the EU Constitution is adopted by this country. It is a very important issue. It must be teased out on a cross-party basis and people must have the maximum amount of time to inform themselves so that when they vote it is quite clear what they are voting for. It is, therefore, important that the Minister should not indicate when the referendum might be held until all the information is available to every household in the country.
Everyone here has indicated at many meetings how important this is to the country and how important it is for us as members of this committee to ensure the information is disseminated properly and at the right time. The Minister of State should not be pushed to give a date until cross-party consensus as to the wording to be used has been arrived at.
At our last meeting, at which Deputy Allen may not have been present, we had a fairly detailed discussion during which the Minister of State outlined comprehensively exactly where we are going. It is important to put on record today that we have started the process and that everybody around the table complimented the Minister of State.
I was present last week and I asked the same question.
Accepting what the Deputy has said, we understand the issues at hand. That is why we started this process within the committee a couple of weeks ago. To be fair to the Minister of State, he has taken some steps in the meantime. We have discussed this issue and the problem is that we do not know what the French are going to do. We do not know when our referendum will be held. It may ultimately depend on forces outside our territory. It is difficult to know what will happen during the next six months with regard to other EU states. All we can do is move forward and do what we can.
Professor Sinnott will be here in two weeks' time. The reason we asked him to come before the joint committee is that we hope he will give us a good analysis of what we should be doing if we are not doing it already. We need to have that kind of sounding board and reaction to whatever the Department of Foreign Affairs is or is not doing in his opinion and what our committee should do. We are getting there. There may be some disagreement on the time line but as far as moving the process forward is concerned within the House and with the Department of Foreign Affairs it has finally started and we have to acknowledge that.
Senator Ormonde has left the meeting. She took issue with a booklet. I probably feel the same way as she does. This is a complex document. For 99% of the public it is unwieldy as far as digesting its contents is concerned. We have to look at other methods as opposed to just dropping a booklet in doors. People have to be fully informed and I accept that but there will have to be other methods of getting across the ins and outs of the constitution. The last time this happened people were unaware of even the basics and it was one of the reasons the referendum on the Nice treaty was voted down initially. We have to make a better effort as far as that is concerned. There are issues here that have not been publicised. Once they are publicised they will be greeted with some curiosity by the public. We need to be aware of that and we need to be ready. That is the reason we are interacting.
I would not disagree with the Chairman's proposition that the document is complicated but relative to what went before it is much less complicated. Previously we were asked in the Maastricht treaty to refer back to the Treaty of Rome or the Treaty of Amsterdam and to the relevant article. One would have needed to look at all the treaties together to understand it. That is not to take from the Chairman's point that it has to be simplified. I agree with that.
The Senator will accept that sometimes it is difficult to get people to digest a two-sided leaflet, especially in urban areas when they are getting flyers ranging from the local Chinese restaurant to someone selling their car. They just toss it in the bin. We have got to make a bigger effort here so far as the basics of the constitutional treaty are concerned but I accept the Senator's point.
For us to explain it properly we have to be familiar with all of it.
Yes, that is what we are trying to achieve.
Timing is important. In order for us to prepare our work programme we must have some idea of the Government's sense of timing. The reason I asked the question was to enable us to organise our work programme, plus the fact that timing is important. We need to hold the referendum prior to the British referendum because once the British tabloid press takes off, and much of it is read here, the electorate will be influenced by it. I would hate if we were influenced by external forces. We should be the people who make up our minds based on facts rather than on bias and bigotry.
I am not a member of the committee but I have an interest in these matters. We should try to avoid being panicked into thinking there is a great deal of either optimism or scepticism on the basis of a one-year barometer poll. Professor Sinnott’s interview this morning was nuanced and when he comes before the joint committee he will analyse his reading of what Irish attitudes are vis-à-vis our nearest neighbours and other members of the Community. As one who had a little involvement in the Convention process I disagree that great curiosity will be aroused when the document becomes available to the wider public. This committee has played a key role in making people who want to be aware very aware of what the issues are. There has been a useful debate in the newspapers. The National Forum on Europe has done a good job and there are other voluntary organisations working to ensure that such curiosity will be rebutted very firmly.
I am in favour of a comprehensive information campaign. Like others I recognise it will not be bedtime reading for everybody. I heard the Minister say recently that 114 copies of the Nice treaty were purchased last time around, 14 of which were purchased by members of the public. There will be more interest in this referendum because a constitutional treaty is more digestible and more interesting to more people than a rather turgid legal document such as the Nice treaty.
I shall respond to that as best I can and try to give an example. One of the reasons I asked the joint committee to agree to put the battle groups issue on the agenda was the wider implications as far as the constitution is concerned. Specifically, the constitution requests member states to make civilian and military capabilities available to the Union for the implementation of the Common Security and Defence Policy. What does that mean? I am not quite sure yet. My fear is that if one does not deal with these issues here and in the media now, what happened with the Nice treaty will happen again and those who want to scaremonger people into believing this is something it is not will gain ground and a platform to discredit the constitution without any proper debate taking place.
I appreciate what everybody has said and their concern that we all have ownership of this important project for our country and for Europe. I do not want either to prejudge or pre-empt the rights of others who have a huge input to make and who will ultimately make final decisions.
The Government is committed to continuing in a positive leadership role on this entire issue. We will conclude the wording and discuss it with the leaders of the opposition parties. Once we get agreement we will make our decisions and roll this forward on a scheduled, managed, organised phased basis to give everyone ample opportunity at political and citizen level to ensure that together we can participate in an important debate for the future of our country and the future of Europe. We will leave no stone unturned and when we reach the right moment we will proceed.
I express my horror and condemnation of Monday's bomb attack in Beirut, in which the former Lebanese Prime Minister, Rafik Hariri, and a number of others were murdered. I express my condolences to the families of those who were killed and my hopes for a speedy recovery for those who have been injured. In this time of grief, I urge all Lebanese political leaders to unite in their determination to ensure that violence does not return to, and has no place in, Lebanese politics.
Next Monday's meeting of the Council in Brussels will be the third under the Luxembourg Presidency. My colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, and I will represent Ireland at the Council. On the same day I will attend a meeting of Ministers for European Affairs which the Presidency has arranged in Brussels.
I propose to address first the general affairs side of the agenda and then the external relations side. The General Affairs and External Relations Council, acting on a Presidency proposal, draws up an annotated European Council agenda at least four weeks before each meeting of the European Council. In the draft annotated agenda for the spring European Council on 22 and 23 March the Presidency has indicated that it intends to confine the agenda to the following items: the Stability and Growth Pact, the Lisbon Agenda, sustainable development and the international situation.
At our meeting on Monday next the Presidency will present this draft agenda but does not envisage a substantial discussion on it. Work will continue on the draft agenda 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 following meeting of the General Affairs and External Relations Council on 16 March. The main focus of the spring European Council will be the Lisbon Agenda. The Government believes the council offers an important opportunity to reform the Lisbon Agenda in order that it can achieve its key objectives.
The Commission issued its Synthesis report on 2 February outlining its proposals for the mid-term review of the Lisbon Agenda. The report recommends that the Lisbon Agenda should be focused more closely on the themes of growth and employment. The discussion at the spring European Council will also be informed by the independent report, commissioned under the Irish Presidency, by a group chaired by former Dutch Prime Minister, Mr. Wim Kok, which recommended a radical and ambitious approach with a focus also on growth and employment.
The Government considers the Commission has correctly identified growth and employment as the key challenges for the Union. These were the themes that were prioritised during Ireland's EU Presidency. This does not mean that we are less committed to the social and environmental pillars of the agenda. It is the clear conclusion of the Kok group report and of the Commission's Synthesis report that the priorities for immediate attention at this stage are in the area of growth and employment. A specific focus on growth and employment will strengthen our capacity to promote social cohesion and environmental sustainability. The report also recommends action to complete the internal market, prioritise innovation and research and development and make progress on better regulation. These are all areas that Ireland has prioritised.
The report recognises the need to improve implementation of Lisbon objectives at national level and has, in this regard, proposed that each member state should draw up a national action programme to achieve more co-ordinated delivery of Lisbon reforms. The Government is open to that proposal. It favours a flexible format in order that member states can shape these programmes to suit their national needs.
Ministers will continue their consideration of the future financial perspectives, discussing on this occasion the proposed expenditure on competitiveness for growth and employment. The European Commission has proposed that more funding should be made available for the purpose of boosting growth rates and employment prospects within the EU economy. If the Commission's proposals were agreed, funding would be allocated under this heading to five objectives. These are promoting competitiveness in a fully integrated single market; research and technological development; connecting Europe through EU networks; education and training and the social policy agenda.
The Government's general approach is to examine each area of proposed expenditure to ensure that it provides value for money to the EU taxpayer. It should also have a value-added dimension that goes beyond action possible at national level. The Government shares the view of other member states that funding must be used to equip the Union with the technological capacity to compete in an ever more challenging global marketplace.
The Government is particularly interested in the proposed funding for research and development which should help to transform the EU into a leading-edge economy. Funding of education and training is also of importance. As this committee is aware, negotiations on the financial perspectives are set to run for some time.
I will now deal with the external relations agenda. At the Council, Ministers will address a wide range of topics under the external relations agenda, including the Middle East peace process, Ukraine and Sudan. I would be surprised if the situation in Lebanon were not also discussed, following the atrocity to which I referred at the commencement of the meeting. Perhaps the most important issue to be discussed by Ministers on Monday will be preparation for the EU-US meeting the following day. The visit by President Bush to Brussels next Tuesday provides an opportunity to demonstrate the resilience of the transatlantic relationship. I think it is significant that President Bush has chosen to make Europe his first foreign visit since his inauguration last month. In recent comments, the President has signalled his desire to work closely with the EU, building on the broad base of existing co-operation. This is a message which the Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, brought during her visit to Europe last week.
During his visit, President Bush will meet members of the European Council. He will also hold separate meetings with the European Commission and with the Troika. The President will also visit NATO during his time in Brussels. Heads of State and Government will discuss a broad range of topics with the President, including the Middle East peace process, Iraq, Russia, Ukraine, the millennium development goals and Iran. President Bush will be accompanied on this visit by Secretary of State Rice who will have a separate meeting with EU Foreign Ministers.
For Ireland and our EU partners, the Middle East peace process will be a key issue for discussion. Recent positive developments in the region create a real opportunity to move the peace process forward. Continuing and sustained US engagement will be crucial to achieving this. Equally, we expect that the US side will wish to discuss the way ahead in Iraq following the elections held on 30 January. There will also be an exchange of views on many of the other issues of concern to the EU and the US.
I am confident that the meetings will give a clear signal of close co-operation as the basis for the EU-US relationship in the period ahead. It is in both our interests that the EU and the US should work together in support of the many shared values which unite us. The meetings should result in further close and practical co-operation between the EU and the US on these and other issues.
Moving on from the preparation of the EU-US meeting, Ministers will discuss the Middle East peace process. It is intended that the Council will adopt brief conclusions on the Middle East which will focus on the outcome of the recent summit at Sharm El Sheikh. In addition to welcoming that historic meeting and its positive outcomes, the conclusions will express the EU's support for the continuing efforts by both sides to maintain the ceasefire and to give effect to the other commitments undertaken by the parties. This is a very welcome beginning to the political negotiations which have been long called for by the EU and the wider international community. Such negotiations are indispensable to progress towards a just and lasting peace.
Prospects for this progress will depend on all parties demonstrating a renewed vigour and determination to achieve results. In this regard, Ireland welcomes the efforts now under way on both sides to maintain the ceasefire and carry through on commitments to confidence-building measures. As I have already mentioned, the Middle East peace process will be one of the key topics of the EU-US meeting, and Ministers will be looking forward to a useful exchange of views on how the international community can play a strong and constructive role in the efforts to bring about a just and lasting settlement of the conflict. It had been hoped that newly elected President Abbas of Palestine would be able to take up the Council's invitation to attend this month's meeting, but he has regretted that the pressure of his responsibilities will not permit him to travel.
The Council will also consider the situation in Iraq. Discussion will focus on the outcome of the 30 January election and the prospects for political progress. The results have been broadly as expected, but we will have to allow perhaps a few weeks for the process of appointing a Prime Minister and forming a new transitional government. While a higher number of Iraqis than expected bravely took part in the elections, it is clear that participation by Sunnis was much lower than hoped for and their community will therefore be under-represented in the new assembly. It will be a crucial task of the majority Shia leadership to reach out and engage Sunni leaders, as well as Kurds, in the government and the process of drafting a constitution. There are encouraging signs that they are well aware of this need.
Violence in Iraq shows no sign of abating, and the new government will have to command as much support as possible among all communities if it is to achieve stability and peace. The EU has been fully committed to supporting the political process and reconstruction in Iraq. The next stages now are the business of the Iraqis themselves. The EU will continue to give them every assistance it can.
The Council's regular discussion on the western Balkans will focus this month on the situation in Kosovo, with the participation of the UN Secretary General's Special Representative, Mr. Søren Jessen-Petersen. The year 2005 will be crucial for Kosovo. The new government is working well with the United Nations on the implementation of reforms. A review of progress will be carried out in the middle of this year. If the results are positive, a process will open in the second half of the year to negotiate the constitutional status of Kosovo. These negotiations will be facilitated by the international community. They will be sensitive and complex and will have implications for the stability of the wider region. The EU will work closely with the communities in Kosovo and with the UN, the United States and the wider international community to ensure the creation of a truly multi-ethnic Kosovo. The long-term future of Kosovo, whatever its agreed constitutional status, lies in its integration into European structures, along with its neighbours in the western Balkans.
I expect that the Council will also agree conclusions reminding Croatia of the importance of resolving the only outstanding issue in its relations with the war crimes tribunal in The Hague. This would ensure that Croatia's accession negotiations will open as planned on 17 March. I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the appointment of Croatia's new Foreign Minister this week. Ms Kolinda GrabarKitarovic will combine the important posts of Foreign and European Integration Ministers.
She has visited Ireland twice in the past year and spoke eloquently before this committee in November last. I am sure all members of the committee will join me in sending her our warmest wishes as she assumes her new role at a pivotal moment in the history of Croatia.
Ministers will also discuss Ukraine in advance of an EU-Ukraine co-operation council later that day. This will be the first co-operation council with Ukraine since the inauguration of the new Ukrainian Government. The Council will be invited to approve concrete measures to strengthen co-operation between the European Union and Ukraine, making full use of the action plan under the European neighbourhood policy.
The concrete measures will help underwrite the efforts of the Government of Ukraine to implement further political and economic reform. They are expected to focus on enhanced economic integration and political co-operation with the European Union. Ministers will also have an opportunity at the Council to discuss recent political changes in Ukraine, including the appointment of a new government. The EU-Ukraine co-operation council will approve the action plan and provide an opportunity to meet senior members of the Ukrainian Government. Approval of the action plan and the concrete measures should send a strong political signal of our willingness to make good on our promise to strengthen our relationship with Ukraine in the coming years.
There will also be a co-operation council with Moldova on Tuesday. The Council will be asked to approve the EU position and the implementation of the action plan for Moldova under the European neighbourhood policy, which is expected to be formally approved at the co-operation council. It is generally agreed that greater attention must be given to Moldova, which will directly border the European Union after Romanian accession, due in 2007. The action plan is an important step in this regard. The Presidency expects that this will become an ‘A' point at the Council.
The Council will also address the revision of the Cotonou agreement, a partnership agreement between the European Union and 77 African, Caribbean and Pacific, ACP, states. It was signed on 23 June 2000 and ratified by the European Union member states in 2003. Under the agreement it is envisaged that a review can take place every five years.
Since April 2004 preparations have been made to renegotiate parts of the agreement. At ACP-EU ministerial negotiations on 3 December 2004, agreed revision texts were adopted on a range of issues covering the political dimension, development strategies and the investment facility administered by the European Investment Bank. These points of agreement have now been presented in the form of a consolidated text. The texts which form the basis for discussion on the outstanding points of divergence concern the International Criminal Court, non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the implementation of management procedures where negotiations are continuing. Further EU discussion is also required with regard to the position to be taken on the further financial protocol to the Cotonou agreement regarding funding subsequent to the ninth European Development Fund from 1 January 2008.
COREPER is considering all outstanding matters today. On Monday next, 21 February 2005, EU Ministers are to take final decisions on all remaining issues for the ACP-EU ministerial meeting which is to take place on 23 February 2005, when it is intended that all matters in connection with the revision of the Cotonou agreement will be resolved.
Ministers will also again turn their attention to Sudan where the situation in Darfur remains a cause for grave concern. Discussion is expected to focus on the report of the UN commission of inquiry which was recently published and is now the subject of consultations in the UN Security Council. The Council is also expected to have preliminary discussions on the question of sanctions. Ireland strongly welcomes the report of the commission of inquiry, which recommends the referral of the very serious crimes alleged to the International Criminal Court. Ireland strongly supports this position as the ICC has been established precisely for the purpose of dealing with alleged crimes such as those identified by the commission of inquiry. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, discussed this matter when he met the UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, in New York last week. Both sides agreed that referral to the ICC for prosecution would be the most effective way of helping to end impunity in Darfur.
On the general situation in Darfur, we again agree with the Secretary General, Kofi Annan, that pressure needs to be intensified on all parties in Darfur to honour their commitments and end violence. Sanctions clearly can exercise influence in this regard and we, therefore, welcome the renewed consideration, both within the Security Council and the European Union, of what further measures might be taken. We see a case for extending the UN arms embargo to all of Sudan and improving its implementation through establishment of a sanctions committee. Targeted measures, such as a travel ban, could also be considered in the EU context.
A number of points arise under "Any Other Business" this month. The Belgian Foreign Minister will brief colleagues on his visit to the Democratic Republic of Congo which he begins today. The Democratic Republic of Congo remains volatile, although progress is being made towards completing the transition process and holding the first proper national elections in the country's history next June. Provision is made under the 2002 Sun City peace accords for these elections to be deferred for up to one year. While any long-term deferment would not be desirable, a short postponement to the autumn may ultimately prove necessary, given the major logistical challenges involved in organising these elections. There also remains a need for greater progress in disarming groups continuing to operate in the east of the Democratic Republic of Congo, a task in which the United Nations and the UN mission should continue to play the chief co-ordinating role.
Lithuania will raise the subject of Belarus to brief partners on a recent NGO workshop which it hosted in Vilnius. The event, at which the Chernobyl Children's Project was represented, was jointly organised by the Bertelsmann Foundation of Germany and the Lithuanian Foreign Ministry. It is one of three events arranged in line with the commitment in the Council conclusions of 22 November last to intensify efforts aimed at supporting the needs of the population of Belarus and democratisation and democratic forces in Belarus.
Lithuania is concerned that the EU should provide fast, flexible and targeted support to the forces working for democratic change in Belarus. Finally, the Slovak Foreign Minister will brief partners on arrangements for the meeting between President Bush and President Putin, which will take place in Bratislava on 24 February, following President Bush's meetings in Brussels and subsequent visit to Berlin.
As I have already stated, the Council will be followed by a co-operation council with Ukraine on Monday evening. A co-operation council with Moldova will be held the following day. I am happy to listen to the views of members of the joint committee and take any questions they wish to raise.
I thank the Minister of State for a wide-ranging presentation which addressed many issues. I will focus on one internal and one external issue. Was the Government consulted before the Spanish Government legitimised the status of many thousands of refugees and asylum seekers by giving them Spanish nationality? As the Minister of State will be aware, this decision has major implications for all the European Union member states because those who have been recognised will have the right to travel to all other member states.
Ireland is struggling to come to terms with all the issues related to the arrival of people from elsewhere, many of which are being dealt with in a responsible manner by all sections of the community. I understand the decision of the Spanish Government was taken before any consultation took place. The lesson from the decision is that we and our partners in the European Union should respect the position of other countries. This issue will arise in any debate on the proposed European Constitution. This unilateral decision by Spain should be addressed at a future meeting of the Council.
A number of members had the good fortune to travel to the Middle East recently as part of a delegation from the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs. It was a good experience. I regret the Palestinian President, Mr. Abbas, will not be able to attend the forthcoming meeting for widely known and understandable reasons.
In any discussions that take place with both the Palestinian and Israeli authorities, the message must be given that the peace process is fragile and can be easily derailed by one serious atrocity. We know this from our own experience of the effects of such incidents as the Omagh atrocity on the Northern Ireland peace process. The message must be underlined to all participants in the Middle East that an atrocity intended to derail the process must not provoke a response from either side that would unravel the progress made to date.
The Israeli Government must be told that President Mahmoud Abbas must be afforded credibility among his own people. The commitments made in regard to disengagement must be followed through totally. In addition, the promised release of prisoners must be implemented in a meaningful way. Consideration must also be given to the ongoing negative impact of the security wall — or security fence, as the Israelis call it — on the quality of life of Palestinians. Those of us who have seen that wall are aware that its construction involves an element of land grabbing. The use of checkpoints which impact significantly on the freedom of movement of Palestinians must also be reviewed.
In his speech, the Minister of State correctly raised the matter of the assassination of the former Lebanese Prime Minister, Mr. Rafik Hariri. The role of Syria in that assassination is being questioned but there is no proof of culpability. However, this killing must not have a negative impact on the fledgling Middle East peace process. The message should be communicated that all parties must show restraint. Lebanon must not explode into violence that will provoke responses from the United States and Syria, plunging the country into the same level of instability that exists in Iraq.
Such an outcome would be disastrous for the Middle East peace process. It must be stressed that Palestinians should not be pawns once more in the power struggle that is taking place there. The peace efforts between Israel and the Palestinians should be no part of that power-play. We all have theories as to the purpose of the assassination but nothing has been proved in this regard. Now is a time for level-headedness at leadership level. The most important issue is the peace process and the positive steps that have taken place recently must not be undermined or allowed to collapse because of the atrocity that has taken place in Lebanon. Such an outcome may indeed have been the objective of that atrocity.
I hope the Government will play a positive role in communicating these message to all involved in the Middle East peace process.
I thank Deputy Allen for his wide-ranging contribution, with which I am largely in agreement. His points are well made in regard to the Spanish situation. This was a unilateral decision by the Spanish Government and it is an internal matter for that Government. I understand there was no discussion with any of our EU partners and there is concern in some member states about the decision that was taken. I expect the matter will be discussed at future meetings of the Justice and Home Affairs Council. We will be keeping a close eye on this situation.
I agree entirely with what Deputy Allen has said regarding the Middle East peace process. For years, Ireland has been imploring both the Israelis and the Palestinians not to pursue the politics of the last atrocity. The Government's views on the security wall are well publicised. Whether in Europe, Ireland or anywhere else, walls have caused trouble over the years. Our position is clear in that we do not believe the wall should be constructed in the Palestinian territory.
Both the Taoiseach and Minister for Foreign Affairs expressed their shock at the murder of former Prime Minister Hariri of Lebanon and condemned the appalling attack which took his life and those of so many others. Many of us recall his visit to Ireland in 1996 during which he impressed us as a man deserving of tremendous respect and regard. We should all recognise the importance of Mr. Hariri's efforts while in office to reconstruct the Lebanese economy in the aftermath of that country's protracted civil war.
Although it is too early to say who is responsible for the attack, it clearly has the potential to be a destabilising influence in Lebanese politics. I call on all Lebanese political leaders to unite in their determination to ensure that violence has no place in the political life of their country. We share the concern expressed by the international community, as expressed in UN Security Council resolution 1559, in regard to Syria's involvement in Lebanon. I assure Deputy Allen that I will take his comments on board and that we will be assiduous in addressing all these issues both at Monday's meeting and at future meetings.
Can the Minister of State verify that Ireland has not raised the immigration issue with the Spanish authorities to date but that it will be raised at the Justice and Home Affairs Council?
We have not been consulted about the decision, nor, we understand, has any other member state. We are keeping a close eye on the situation through our own diplomatic channels and we expect it to be raised on Monday and at future meetings of the Justice and Home Affairs Council.
I agree with what Deputy Allen has said on this matter but I am anxious not to put words in his mouth. Is he asking that the issue be raised at Council?
Yes. It has far-reaching implications for us and I am surprised the issue has not been raised at least with the Spanish ambassador or at Government level.
It sets a precedent.
It sets a serious precedent which suggests that member states can follow their own interests without any consultation. Since the Government says it is aware of the issue, it is surprising and inappropriate that no approaches have been made.
Nationality is an important issue and has been the preserve of the various member states over the years. We must recognise that our generous nationality law has implications for other countries in the EU. To date, member states have retained the freedom to determine who is a citizen of their country. It would be a major step to depart from this approach of recognising the right of sovereign states to decide on issues of nationality within their jurisdictions. We must tread carefully and sensitively in this area, while being mindful of our own particular situation vis-à-vis the conferral of Irish nationality.
I cannot argue with the right of any country to make a decision but I am concerned by those instances in which decisions impact on all other member states.
It is a question of EU citizenship.
Yes, we are not dealing merely with Spanish citizenship. It gives them right of access to all member countries. I am not saying the decision was wrong in itself. However, it has implications for a Europe without borders and should have been the subject of consultation before it was made. I am amazed the Government has not responded on the matter. At a COSAC meeting in Luxembourg last week strong views were expressed on the issue by other countries.
Owing to the implications for the European treaty, the issue of immigration needs to be approached in a sensitive and humane way and the ground rules should be firmly in place. I am not judging the rights or wrongs of granting citizenship. However, this relates to European citizenship. As the Chairman said, we should have been consulted and the Government should have made approaches by now. I am asking that this be done on Monday, even though it is many weeks after the event.
I thank Deputy Andrews for chairing the meeting last week. I heard it went very well, which is hard to believe considering I was not present.
More members were present than today.
I find that strange considering the chairmanship was mediocre.
I thank the Chairman for his ringing endorsement.
I wish to ask the Minister of State about the Cotonou agreement. He may be aware of the debate about economic partnership agreements between ACP states and the European Union. Certain development organisations and the countries in question are concerned about them for several reasons. Effectively, they require the countries in question to open their markets to European Union companies. Strong rules of origin act as trade barriers against ACP states. They are also outside the World Trade Organisation which the European Union has consistently maintained to be the proper vehicle for trade negotiations.
Such agreements are between regions. For example, the European Union is negotiating with the west African states. Many countries complain that they find themselves coerced into signing them. This is a significant departure from what the Cotonou agreement was supposed to do — to give access to European markets without reciprocity whereby correspondingly the European Union would have access to African markets.
In January, with the Ceann Comhairle, I was part of a delegation to Ghana. We saw a number of examples of industries and the parts of the agriculture sector that had been badly damaged by trade relations with the European Union and the rules in place. I would like the Minister of State to give us a full briefing on the matter at some stage. He should certainly raise some of these concerns at the meeting in Brussels.
The Cotonou agreement is part of the European partnership agreement. Ireland believes ACP countries will integrate in the developing WTO world economy. The purpose is to prepare them for merger with WTO rules. The engagement of ACP countries with the European Union through the Cotonou agreement is positive in terms of economic stability. It brings them into the greater global marketplace and ensures they will be prepared to perform in meeting WTO requirements. While there are complexities and difficulties, ultimately progress should be made, leading to integration in the greater WTO environment.
The argument is that the European Union is in a race with Asian countries and the United States to gain access to these markets. The economic partnership agreements, EPAs, give the European Union a foot in the door. While this race continues, indigenous industries in the countries concerned are being badly affected. I hope that when we next have an opportunity we will have a good discussion on the matter. Ireland's overseas development aid is of the first order and untied. However, there is no point uttering pious words about overseas development aid on one hand, while, on the other, obviously affecting the way their economies are developing in the manner I have described.
A number of other issues impinge on this matter, including that of arms. The European Union's priority it to ensure aid is used to stimulate economic growth. There needs to be a clear impact. The European Union should ensure the countries concerned can manage their economies. The WTO regime is much harder for ACP countries than the preferential regime provided for under the Cotonou agreement. The fact that the European Union is an economic entity that has evolved with such success during the years is an incentive to stimulate economic activity in ACP countries and ultimately should ensure they gradually progress to meet WTO requirements.
Item 9 on the agenda next Monday relates to Darfur. A report we received stated the international commission of inquiry had concluded that while the Sudanese Government had not pursued a policy of genocide, certain individuals, including Sudanese Government officials, might have committed acts with such an intent. While the international commission identified a list of likely perpetrators, their names have been withheld from the public domain. As regards accountability, the international commission strongly recommended that the Security Council refer the matter to the International Criminal Court.
At our last meeting in the presence of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, I said what was happening in Darfur needed to be kept on the agenda. I am delighted that this is the case. With so many other issues on the agenda — it is ninth on the list for next week — it would be so easy for it to come off the agenda. We must not allow what is happening there to continue. The international commission has identified the perpetrators. As we speak, people are being killed. This is unacceptable. We must keep talking. I strongly urge the Minister of State and the Minister for Foreign Affairs to ensure that, in addition to being placed on the agenda, the matter is discussed on Monday and that whatever action needs to be taken receives the full support of EU member states in dealing with the tragic situation in Sudan.
I agree with the Deputy. What is happening in Darfur is a source of serious concern to Ireland and the rest of the world. Ireland, both politically and publicly, has consistently raised the issue which is on the agenda and will be discussed. I expect it to remain on the agenda. Consideration will need to be given to the possibility of introducing sanctions. The Government wants the names of the accused people to be referred to the International Criminal Court where action should be taken subsequently.
We must respect the rule of law. We cannot allow people to avoid legal sanction. The International Criminal Court has been established to deal with matters of this nature. If we are to have global stability and the principles of human rights and sustainability are to be accepted, it is critically important to keep Darfur on the agenda. We need to make progress in every possible way to ensure not only that the rule of law is upheld, but also that it is seen to be implemented.
I am pleased to see there are just four items on the agenda for next week's meeting of the General Affairs and External Relations Council. I wish to discuss one of the items — the Lisbon Agenda — and I am sure other speakers will deal with some of the other matters. It seems to me that there is a link between the acceptance of the proposed EU constitution by all 25 member states next year and the success of the European economy. It is easy for us to forget, because Ireland is doing so well, that the European economy is not growing at present.
A criticism that is often heard during discussions of the competitiveness of Europe is that the EU has become so overcome by regulation that it has made itself uncompetitive. Mr. Günter Verheugen, who is in charge of competitiveness as the EU Commissioner for Enterprise and Industry, has clearly identified the phenomenon I have mentioned. He is struggling to get his way, although he has the support of the President of the European Commission, Mr. José Manuel Durão Barroso. Creating the ability to deregulate needs to be placed high on the agenda. Mr. Verheugen has argued strongly that every draft regulation should be subject to a vigorous assessment of its costs and its impact on competitiveness.
I would like to discuss the EU regulations on the registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemicals, known as the REACH regulations, about which I read recently. It is estimated that the regulations cost European business approximately €40 billion each year, although there are various other estimates. Regulations of that nature mean that the European economy cannot be competitive, achieve growth or enjoy success. There is a strong link between areas such as jobs and economic growth and the acceptance of the European constitution in the next two years.
If possible, Ireland should use the Lisbon Agenda to argue for a less regulated EU. When the Union is making regulations, it should ensure that it assesses their impact on costs and the development of the European economy. If Ireland makes such an argument, it will receive the support of a number of powerful countries. The message does not seem to be getting through, however, because there are so many other items on the agenda.
Senator Quinn is correct. We have to be mindful of the legislation and regulations we introduce in this country, especially because it can be argued that the European Union mirrors Ireland. We are affected by domestic and European legislation. The circumstances in the EU, which is evolving and expanding in a strong way, are somewhat similar. The EU has recently admitted ten new member states. The impact of the various EU regulations will vary in each member state until we achieve uniformity in the Union's structures, systems and regulations. There will be variations in the impact of regulations on certain sectors of the economy and on certain commodities. I agree with Senator Quinn that placing a major emphasis on competitiveness and the growth and sustainability of employment is critically important for the development of the EU and global economies.
There is a need for better, simpler, more transparent and cheaper regulation. The REACH proposal, to which the Senator referred, is being reviewed to ensure that its cost to industry is decreased. I am mindful of the Senator's comments, which I will discuss with the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern. During next week's Council meeting, the Minister and I will keep our eye on the various issues which have been raised today, including this one.
The Minister of State talked about reducing the cost to industry. The proposal made by the German Commissioner goes much further than that, however. He has proposed that every regulation should be the subject of an impact assessment.
Yes. He has said that the impact on competitiveness of every regulation should be assessed. I do not think he is getting a full hearing, however.
It is not——
He is not getting the full support of his colleagues. I argue strongly that we should support him in this regard.
I think the Irish Commissioner, Mr. McCreevy, would support that. We will support it. It is very important that we should do so.
I would like the Minister of State to clarify a matter that is not on the agenda for next week's meeting of the General Affairs and External Relations Council. I did not raise the issue before now because I wanted to allow other members of the committee to discuss the various agenda items with the Minister of State. All members of the joint committee are aware of recent revelations of misappropriation, or at least maladministration, regarding the Oil For Food Programme by the UN. It is difficult to comment on the matter because the investigation into it is ongoing. Do Ireland and the EU have a position on this problem? If not, do we intend to comment on it or to get involved in it? The matter is relevant under the broad heading of external affairs.
Ireland and the EU are concerned about this problem. The Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, discussed the matter with the UN Secretary General, Mr. Kofi Annan, this week. We are concerned that due process should apply speedily in this instance. Many people will concentrate on the investigation over the next few months. We will keep a close eye on the matter.
Perhaps the committee could be briefed on the ongoing investigation at a later stage.
I would be delighted to report to the committee on the matter, or to brief members on it. Perhaps a briefing document on the problem can be circulated to the members of the committee next month, when the situation becomes more clear.
I thank the Minister of State.
I thank the Minister of State for attending this meeting.
Sitting suspended at 3.47 p.m. and resumed at 3.49 p.m.