I welcome the Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs, Deputy Treacy, and his officials to the committee. Members received the usual briefing on the forthcoming General Affairs and External Relations Council, GAERC, in advance of today's meeting. Following the usual pattern, I invite the Minister of State to give a summary of his views. I look forward to the presentation, following which I will open the discussion to the floor.
General Affairs and External Relations Council: Ministerial Presentation.
I am pleased to have this opportunity to have an exchange of views ahead of next Monday's meeting of the General Affairs and External Relations Council which will be the fourth such meeting under the UK Presidency. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, is currently in the United States. The forthcoming meeting is an important one with a number of major issues on the EU agenda.
The Presidency will provide a written report at the GAERC on the follow-up to the informal meeting of Heads of State and Government at Hampton Court on 27 October which was attended by the Taoiseach. This is expected to be a short item, most likely to be taken without discussion. The general theme of the informal meeting was the opportunities and challenges of globalisation, the security of our citizens and Europe's role in creating a safer world. As is usual at informal meetings, there were no written conclusions.
Ministers will hold their first detailed discussions since the June European Council failed to reach agreement on the future financial perspectives for the period 2007 to 2013. This discussion comes in the wake of a period of bilateral consultations between the UK Presidency and member states. It is expected to centre around two short papers which were circulated recently. The first is an issues paper from the Presidency which we have just received. The second is a paper containing five proposals made by the European Commission President Barroso on 20 October. From our point of view, these two papers can be seen as useful contributions to the detailed discussions now resuming. They cover a number of key issues such as own resources, the structure of the Union's budget and a possible review clause. There is also a specific proposal for a globalisation adjustment fund. I hope members will appreciate that, as we are at a sensitive stage in the negotiations, I would prefer not to comment individually on the Commission's and Presidency's various ideas. We are examining each of them in depth as part of our preparations for this vital stage of the negotiations which are of the utmost importance for Ireland and Europe as a whole.
That said, I assure members Ireland's approach next Monday and in the weeks ahead will be designed to secure Ireland's essential interests within the European Union. The deal must, therefore, be one which safeguards the October 2002 agreement on the funding of the Common Agricultural Policy, ensures adequate cohesion arrangements for our regions in transition, puts in place equitable financing arrangements for the Union and achieves increased funding for competitiveness, especially in the area of research and development. The package on the table at the June European Council which was acceptable to the great majority of member states was able to achieve this delicate balance. As members are aware, the Taoiseach was able to support the June compromise in a spirit of solidarity and give-and-take on everyone's part. The package from June remains, in our view, the basis for a deal in December. It is our clear belief, therefore, that the December European Council should reach agreement in order that the enlarged European Union is equipped with the necessary financial resources to enable it to meet the challenges of the years ahead. In saying this, we are conscious of the particular concerns of our friends in the new member states who have witnessed the need for an early agreement.
On avian flu, the Presidency aims to present a stocktaking note. No discussion is planned. We have copied committee members with a background note on the topic.
Turning to external relations, the issue of Belarus is on the agenda and the Presidency has signalled a substantive discussion will take place. It has tabled draft conclusions which have not yet been finalised but Ireland agrees with their thrust. The Council is expected to reiterate deep concern at the deteriorating situation as regards human rights and to call for the Belarusian Government to ensure free and fair presidential elections in 2006 in accordance with international standards. There is great disquiet and frustration at the situation in Belarus. This has been repeatedly expressed. Equally, it is by no means clear whether or how the European Union could act more effectively, with our international partners, to encourage change. There is likely to be a debate on how our policy might be developed further.
The Council will discuss developments in regard to Kosovo which is entering a particularly important phase. Consideration of its future status is expected to be the dominant issue in the Western Balkans region and perhaps in the CFSP generally in the coming months. The European Union already plays an important role, above all in the area of economic regeneration, and there is an expectation it will move to play a still more significant part in the months ahead, including in regard to supporting effective policing and the rule of law. I recall that more than 200 Irish troops are playing an important part in the KFOR peacekeeping force. This, too, is expected to continue.
We welcome the very thorough report which the UN Secretary General's special envoy, Ambassador Kai Eide, presented to the Security Council in New York on 24 October following his comprehensive review of the situation in Kosovo. Ambassador Eide concluded that, while the standards implementation process in Kosovo had been uneven, the time had come to move to the determination of Kosovo's future status. We look forward to discussing the issues further with colleagues on 7 November, we hope in the presence of former President Ahtisaari of Finland who was confirmed yesterday as the UN special envoy to lead the negotiations. Although the outcome of the status talks is not certain at this time, certain parameters are clear. There will be no reversion to the position before 1999, nor will the international community tolerate either a partition of Kosovo or its amalgamation with any other state or region. What happens in Kosovo is of clear importance to the stability of the region as a whole.
Four of the items on the external relations agenda relate to the situation in the Middle East. The Council will review developments in the Middle East process. The European Union is continuing to work with the parties to ensure they recognise and take advantage of the opportunity offered by Israeli disengagement from Gaza for a renewal of efforts to find a lasting resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In common with our partners in the European Union, the Government firmly believes the Quartet road map provides the best framework for a peaceful and lasting settlement. The successful movement of settlers and troops from Gaza required political courage on behalf of the Israeli Government and the Palestinian Authority. It is essential that the resulting political momentum not be lost. There is an onus on both parties to return to full implementation of their commitments under the road map.
The Palestinian Authority must strengthen its efforts to ensure security and an end to terrorist attacks. The urgency is underlined by the upsurge of violence in Gaza and the West Bank in the past week. The Government strongly condemned the suicide attack in Israel on 26 October which took the lives of five people and injured many more. It is essential that there is no return to the cycle of violence which has ruined so many Israeli and Palestinian lives and impeded political progress. The events of recent days highlight the importance of appropriate restraint by Israel in its response to terrorist attacks and ensuring all actions are in accordance with international law. It is also essential that Israel takes no further steps which would jeopardise the viability of a two-state solution. Continued settlement expansion and the construction of the separation barrier are contrary to international law and remain obstacles to a lasting peaceful solution.
The European Union strongly supports the work of the Quartet's special envoy for disengagement, Mr. James Wolfensohn. We hope agreement can be reached without further delay on the issues identified in his rapid action plan, in particular on arrangements for the movement of people and goods in and out of Gaza. It is in everyone's interests that the people of Gaza have a real prospect of stability and security and that the challenge of economic regeneration can be met in parallel with a process towards a permanent political settlement.
The European Union is ready to provide substantial assistance. The Council will examine a detailed communication from the European Commission proposing a comprehensive medium-term strategy, backed by substantially increased funding, for engagement with the Palestinian Authority. Ireland will play its part with increased bilateral funding in the years ahead. The Council will also announce an EU police mission in the Palestinian territories to build on the support already provided by the European Union for the Palestinian Authority in the establishment of sustainable and effective policing arrangements.
The Council has been scheduled for some time to review the European Union's overall approach to relations with Iran. All member states are united in their condemnation of the remarks made last week by President Ahmadinejad on the existence of the state of Israel. The committee will be aware that the Government has made it clear to the Iranian authorities that we regard such statements as entirely unacceptable. I expect the Council conclusions will reflect this strongly held unanimous view.
The European Union remains gravely concerned at Iran's resumption of activity at the uranium conversion facility in Isfahan and continues to support a diplomatic solution to international concerns over Iran's nuclear programme. The Council will also discuss the range of issues arising in the European Union's political relations with Iran, including the importance of sustainable political and economic reform, as well as our deep concern at continuing and serious violations of human rights. Progress in the development of the long-term relationship between the European Union and Iran will depend on developments on the nuclear issue, human rights and Iran's approach to its relations with its neighbours in the region. We expect the Council will agree to keep the issue of relations with Iran under close review in the period ahead.
The Council will consider developments in relation to Syria in the light of the disturbing report by the international independent commission established by the United Nations to investigate the assassination in February of the former Lebanese Prime Minister, Rafiq Hariri. The commission, headed by the German investigator, Detlev Mehlis, found that there were very strong suspicions that certain Syrian and Lebanese officials were involved in the killing. It also criticised the level of co-operation from Syria with the investigation.
The UN Secretary General has extended the mandate of the commission until 15 December. It is essential that Syria takes advantage of this extension to ensure full co-operation with the investigation. On Monday the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1636, the purpose of which is to ensure full Syrian co-operation. In common with our partners in the European Union, the Government strongly believes there is an obligation on all states to co-operate with the commission to ensure those responsible for the murder of Rafiq Hariri are brought to justice as soon as possible.
The Council will consider the situation in Iraq following the announcement last week of the results of the constitutional referendum held on 15 October. Despite the very serious concerns about the security situation in Iraq, it is important to note there has been real political progress in recent months. The approval of the constitution by 79% of Iraqi voters was an important step in the process of political reconstruction set out in UN Security Council Resolution 1546 of June 2004. It will be followed by the holding of democratic elections on 15 December for a fully sovereign assembly and government. The referendum results highlighted the political challenge facing the new democratic institutions and, in particular, the continuing opposition to the process by the majority of the Sunni population. The involvement of the Sunni community in the political process must remain a priority in the weeks and months ahead.
I am sure all members of the committee will join me in expressing our gratitude to our partners in the European Union, the transitional Government of lraq and all those involved in the intensive efforts which led to the release from kidnapping of the Irish journalist, Mr. RoryCarroll. In his reports from Baghdad, Rory was able to highlight the misery and hardship faced by countless Iraqi families as a result of bombings, shootings and kidnappings. The European Union will continue to work in support of the Iraqi people as they attempt to build a new secure and democratic society at peace with its neighbours, following decades of dictatorship and war.
The sixth World Trade Organisation ministerial meeting is scheduled to take place in Hong Kong next month, from 13 to 18 December. The hope of all parties to these ongoing negotiations is that the meeting in Hong Kong will result in significant steps forward that will facilitate agreement on the Doha round next year as scheduled. The Hong Kong meeting needs to give a clear signal to the effect that the negotiations can be brought to an early and successful conclusion. As members of the committee are aware, preparatory discussions for the Hong Kong meeting are now at a crucial stage. A special meeting of the General Affairs and External Relations Council was held in Luxembourg on 18 October. The meeting was arranged by the Presidency at the request of France. Ireland and a number of other member states supported the French request. The meeting allowed all member states to express their views on recent developments in the negotiations.
In particular, EU Foreign Ministers were able to focus on the latest EU offer to liberalise trade in agricultural produce. This had been made on behalf of the European Union by the Commission on 10 October in response to an offer made by the United States on the same day. At the meeting the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Agriculture and Food highlighted Ireland's insistence that the Commission must adhere to its mandate and that the 2003 CAP reform package must not be compromised. Our Ministers stressed that the negotiations cannot progress solely through concessions by the European Union on agriculture. There must be movement by other key parties to the negotiations and in other sectors such as manufactured products and services.
The Council will consider and review the outcome of the UN summitin New York in September. Ireland supported the inclusion of this item in the Council's agenda as we attach importance to the implementation of the outcome of the summit in the short and medium term. The hope is the Council will give further impetus to the efforts of EU delegations in New York to work with others on implementation of the summit's outcome. The conclusions will have as an annex the European Union's priorities paper on follow up actions to the UN world summit. The paper sets out the European Union's approach to summit follow-up actions in great detail, including reform of the main UN bodies and the creation of new bodies as provided for at the UN summit. While there is a wide range of issues requiring further work, I want to mention three priorities.
First, we want to see the peace-building commission established by the end of this year. It will help to ensure countries emerging from conflicts are given the necessary opportunity to rebuild their economies and political structures. The European Union will focus on how the commission will work in practice and will want to see it jointly established by the General Assembly and the Security Council.
We also place particular importance on the human rights council which we want to see provided with a strong mandate that will enable it to deal with human rights abuses wherever they occur. Ministers will welcome the commitment to establish the council at the summit but will express disappointment that the summit did not deal more with the detail. The Council will strongly support the efforts under way in New York, focusing on the changes needed to the current Commission on Human Rights but also on the retention of its best features, including the calling of individual countries to account and its relationship with NGOs.
A third priority for the European Union is to support the Secretary General in his efforts to reform the management of the UN secretariat.
Under Any Other Business, Foreign Minister Bot of the Netherlands wishes to inform partners about his visit to Colombia on 18 and 19 October and draw attention to the need for intensified support for the peace process there, in line with the conclusions adopted at the last meeting of the Council on 3 October. The key point in these conclusions, strongly supported by Ireland, was that, despite the very difficult situation in Colombia, the recently adopted Justice and Peace Law, if effectively implemented, represented the best achievable framework for peace negotiations in Colombia at this time.
A meeting of the EU-South Africa Co-operation Council will take place on the margins of the GAERC. The purpose is to review the operations of the agreement on trade, development and co-operation between the European Union, the member states and South Africa. The agreement was signed on 11 October 1999 and came into force on 1 May 2004.
On Monday I will also attend a luncheon meeting of the Ministers for European Affairs on the topic of Communicating Europe. This is a continuation of a process initiated by my predecessor, Deputy Roche, which is very useful, particularly at this time when EU countries are engaged in national periods of reflection on the EU constitution and the future of Europe. Commissioner Wallstrom will give a presentation on the Commission's recently published Plan D for Democracy, Dialogue and Debate. We will have an exchange of views on the Commission's Plan D and the conduct of our national debates on Europe as part of the period of reflection. In my intervention I will stress that we plan to avail of this opportunity to try to boost public awareness of the European Union and the impact it has on people's daily lives. I will also brief my EU counterparts on the vital work being done by the National Forum on Europe which is to play a leading role in carrying forward the national debate on Europe.
I look forward to hearing the views of the committee on the various topics included in next week's agenda and will be happy to take any questions members may have.
I thank the Minister of State. Many serious issues have been raised. We will take a number of questions together. We only have until 2.15 p.m. but if we are within the time allowed, we can expand a little further.
I thank the Minister of State and his officials for a comprehensive overview of what will happen at the meeting next week. I am surprised that there will be no debate, except a passing reference, on avian flu. I realise it will be dealt with by health Ministers at a subsequent meeting but, as the issue is so crucial and in view of the serious attitude being taken by the US authorities as announced yesterday, I thought there would be more than a passing reference to it.
On the situation in the Middle East and the ongoing worrying Palestinian problem, I was a member of the delegation from the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs that went to Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Ramallah in January last and came away from that visit with some hope. From speaking to both sides, I recognised that both sides felt vulnerable and defensive about their respective positions. I also recognised the political risk that was being taken by the Israeli Government in the case of the withdrawal.
A number of matters that are coming together will be discussed at this meeting next week. The positions on Syria and Iran will have an impact on the Palestinian issue. I note that France, the United States and the United Kingdom have a resolution before the United Nations which threatens Syria with sanctions if it does not fully co-operate with the investigation of Mr. Detlev Mehlis's into the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Hariri. What consultation has taken place with the European partners on this? What discussions took place with France and the United Kingdom before they decided to place this resolution before the United Nations? Once members of our Union go down that road, it involves all of us to a degree.
On the disgraceful statements made by the President of Iran last week, which threw petrol on an inflamed and deteriorating situation regarding the suicide bombings and the subsequent reprisals by Israel, I note again that the Minister of State mentioned that France, Germany and the United Kingdom are the countries representing the European Union in the talks on the production of nuclear products at Isfahan. Are these three nations the best parties to represent the European Union at such talks in view of the complicated history of some of the countries concerned? What level of consultation takes place before decisions are made by countries like the United Kingdom, France and Germany on issues like this?
The European Union should act as one and send a strong message of censure to the Iranian authorities, and I note that the Minister for Foreign Affairs has spoken to the Iranian ambassador here. At the same time, the resolution on Syria before the United Nations and the ongoing talks regarding the nuclear plant at Isfahan have a knock-on effect. On the one hand, certainly they make Israel feel isolated and under threat, particularly from Iran. On the other hand, Ireland should support in every way the view that Israel must not overreact — this is difficult for the Israelis — to the suicide bombings.
I congratulate the Minister for Foreign Affairs on the handling of the kidnapping in Baghdad. He kept Opposition parties fully informed of what was happening. The low level of political comment in this country helped but that was made possible in no small way by the Minister keeping everybody in the loop.
I, too, thank the Minister of State and his officials for coming here today. I thank the Minister of State for a comprehensive overview, particularly the overview on the Middle East, which is of interest to me. In general, the picture from the Middle East appears depressing, certainly more than it was approximately six months ago. Considering that Syria has been implicated in the assassination of the former Lebanese Prime Minister, the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and the subsequent suicide bombings, the recent comments emanating from Iran and all the violence in Iraq, the Middle East has become quite a cauldron. It is a little depressing, even when viewed only over the period of the past six months.
Are we in a serious situation with Iran? Are we getting all the information? The Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, of which I am a member, wrote to Dr. Mohammad al Baradei to invite him to Ireland to give a presentation on the IAEA's view of what is happening in Iran. We should always remember that Iran, unlike Israel, has signed up as a member of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, NPT. As the Minister of State will be aware, there was a disappointing five-year review conference of the NPT in September last. The nuclear issue is prominent on the agenda. It will pose a considerable challenge for the foreign policy of the European Union, if such a foreign policy can be co-ordinated.
I note that the recent resolution against Syria was passed at the Security Council and, as I understand it, has not yet come before the General Assembly of the United Nations. I stress that we need more information. At EU level we should be asserting our neutrality. The issue of information is a difficult one at present because Iran does not have an ambassador to Ireland; the last ambassador was recalled to Iran.
I hope we can avoid another situation like Iraq, another series of resolutions coming before the UN General Assembly where Ireland must make the kind of decisions which we would rather not have to make. I would ask the Minister of State to keep encouraging the three EU member states concerned in their efforts with Iran. It should be top of the Minister of State's agenda at that meeting. I would like the Minister of State to assert Ireland's military neutrality on this issue. Given that Iran does not have an ambassador to Ireland, what kind of dialogue can we have on the nuclear issue with Iran?
In general, I express my concern, my pessimism and a plea to the Minister of State to get more information to this committee and to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs on exactly what is happening on the nuclear issue in Iran.
Deputy Allen raised the avian flu issue. This matter falls primarily within the competence of the Ministers for Agriculture and Food and Health and Children and is being dealt with by them. Joint meetings were held in Brussels. At next week's meeting we expect the Presidency to summarise the outcome of recent work, including the recent informal meeting of health Ministers on 20 October; the recently established Friends of the Presidency group which has a co-ordination role; and the Council working group which is preparing a directive on avian flu. EU co-ordination is a vital asset to member states in countering this threat. It is an important public health issue. We are, therefore, monitoring the situation on an ongoing basis.
I thank the Deputy for his comments on the handling of the Rory Carroll incident by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The Minister wanted in so far as it was possible to keep everybody involved informed in order that the issue could be managed to secure his release as quickly as possible. We are delighted that this happened and wish his parents, Joe and Kathy, and all the Carroll family every success. We are delighted he is back.
Deputies Allen and Mulcahy raised a number of issues of common interest. With regard to Gaza, we share the concern that has been widely expressed about the continuing violence in the region. We unequivocally condemn the terrorist attacks by Palestinian militant groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Suicide bombings and terrorist attacks against civilian targets have been consistently condemned by the European Union which has also called on the Palestinian Authority to act to the full extent of its powers to bring about a total ceasefire and bring an end to such terrorist outrages. We stand ready to assist it in its efforts to meet its obligations. Equally, I urge the Israeli authorities to take every precaution to avoid civilian casualties and conduct operations in full conformity with the obligations of international humanitarian law, including the fourth Geneva Convention. We fully recognise Israel's right and duty to protect its own citizens but I am also very concerned at the prospect of civilian casualties on the Palestinian side. It is important that we work with both sides to ensure a return to implementation of the road map.
The Security Council has unanimously adopted a resolution requiring Syria to give full co-operation to the Mehlis inquiry and extended the investigation to 15 December. If co-operation is not forthcoming, the Security Council will consider what action it may need to take. The question of sanctions does not, therefore, arise at this time.
With regard to Iran, member states fully support the work of the EU Three. The European Union has repeatedly made clear that it would like to have a closer and more harmonious relationship with Iran. However, progress in achieving that better relationship depends on action by Iran to address our concerns in four key areas. These are aspects of its nuclear power programme, its attitude to the Middle East peace process, action in the fight against terrorism, and human rights issues. Ireland fully supports this approach. The European Union has suspended discussions with Iran on agreements governing political and economic relations as a result of its resumption of uranium conversion activities. It is hoped it will reinstate its suspension of these activities and, thus, recreate the conditions for the resumption of talks.
Ireland shares the concern expressed by the international community in respect of the Iranian nuclear programme and supported the recent resolution adopted by the International Atomic Energy Agency board of governors. We are concerned about Iran's past failures and breaches of its obligations to comply with the provisions of its safeguards agreement. We are particularly concerned at its decision in August to recommence uranium conversion activities at its Isfahan facility. Coupled with this, the latest report by the IAEA director, Mr. El Baradi, on Iran's failure to agree to the transparent and confidence-building measures for which the agency's board had earlier called necessitated this action. Ireland's position is that Iran must immediately suspend uranium conversion activities and re-enter negotiations with the EU Three to pursue greater co-operation with the IAEA.
Deputy Mulcahy referred to diplomatic representation and links with Iran. While Iran does not have an ambassador in Ireland, it has a fully staffed embassy. It is, therefore, represented here and we communicate with its staff. Ireland has an ambassador in Iran and we are using our diplomatic links. The communication is two-way and will continue.
I asked about the level of consultation with its EU partners on the part of France regarding the UN resolution on Syria. Are the EU Three the most appropriate states to attempt to negotiate with Iran, given the United Kingdom's involvement in Iraq, for example?
There was consultation within the European Union at UN level and the question of sanctions was not raised.
Has the resolution been tabled?
Not yet. It has been unanimously agreed.
The Minister of State's briefing document states, "The UN Security Council is currently considering a resolution". The resolution, therefore, must have been tabled.
It was unanimously agreed yesterday.
Between France, the United States and the United Kingdom.
It was unanimously agreed yesterday.
It is more important, therefore, to know what level of consultation took place with Ireland.
I am assured there was consultation within the European Union at UN level on this issue.
Are the three countries representing the European Union the most appropriate to do so?
The European Union has full confidence in the three countries represented. We were happy to be party to the EU decision on the composition of the group and have confidence in the group in its negotiations. We are happy the people concerned have the necessary expertise and knowledge. They are working on behalf of the Union and will respond in due course. The matter will be discussed next Monday. The resolution does not provide for sanctions against Syria and the investigation has been extended to 15 December.
I have raised this issue because the briefing document states a resolution drafted by France, the United States and the United Kingdom is being considered.
That was the position last week. The resolution was unanimously agreed yesterday
Mr. Prionsias De Rossa, MEP
I am pleased Rory Carroll was released unharmed by his kidnappers in Iraq.
Does the Minister of State agree we cannot consider the situation in Iran, Israel and Palestine without taking into account the situation in Iraq? Coming to terms with the situation in Iran implies that we should also come to terms with the situation the West has created in Iraq. The continued occupation of Iraq by the so-called coalition forces represents an aggravation of the situation rather than a solution. Does the Minister of State agree, therefore, that in finding a diplomatic solution in Iran which is necessary the hypocritical positions being taken by some states must be addressed? For example, the current holder of the Presidency is telling Iran that no country has a right to interfere in the affairs of Iraq nor has it the right to develop nuclear power, despite the fact that Britain is seeking to revive its nuclear programme and produce new nuclear weapons. I am not fully in tune with what Deputy Mulcahy said about declaring Ireland's neutrality at EU level, but at least we should put forward a view at EU level which highlights our concerns about these hypocrisies in the positions adopted by various member states.
With regard to Gaza, I welcome the fact that the Deputy was explicit in condemning the violence of terrorist gangs against Israel but he was cautious in his criticism of Israeli violence. Israeli violence in attacking and bombing Gaza is illegal. The erection of the wall is illegal and the occupation of the West Bank is illegal. Surely we should be more vocal if we are to encourage a peaceful resolution in the area and in telling the truth about the situation. Clearly, we are not doing so.
Israel continues to control Gaza. It controls all entry to and exit from it. It controls the air space and the ports. While it has withdrawn its troops, it still controls Gaza, and the Israeli Government refuses to allow President Abbas to acquire the arms necessary to control violence in the territory he has been democratically elected to govern. These are issues we are not addressing seriously. There is a lot of wishful thinking in regard to the Middle East. What we are seeing, in effect, is a new border being created by the Israeli wall. We will end up with not two states, but one and three quarter states if the situation that is currently evolving is allowed to continue. This will result in another generation of violence because the Israeli state, based on the wall as a border, is not viable. We are creating a situation for ongoing conflict between Palestinians and Israelis if we do not address seriously the issue.
My other point relates to the European Commission's proposal for debate, dialogue and democracy. What role will the Government and the Dáil play in the debate? I realise the forum has an important role to play in terms of the developing debate with the public, but will the Government, Dáil and Seanad play a strong role in the debate?
On the issue of financial perspectives for 2007-13 — I will not go into the CAP because there might be a disagreement in that regard — will Ireland support the 1% ceiling being argued for by the wealthy member states? Given that 1% will not ensure that significant resources will be available for the ten new member states to develop as they should, will the Minister of State give an assurance that he will not support this 1% ceiling?
Ms Avril Doyle, MEP
I concur with my colleagues who congratulated the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, on the Irish involvement in the safe return of Rory Carroll, which was a very happy outcome to what could have become a nasty situation.
I will try not to repeat what has been said. On the Middle East, all of us in this room would be in agreement in regard to the diplomatic resolution to the problems surrounding Iran, whether it is the nuclear issue or its stance on Israel. Will the Minister of State throw any light on whether Washington would be in line with Europe in terms of diplomacy being the way forward with Iran, or are we being alarmist if we read between the lines in terms of recent utterances from Washington? Can he give an reassurance from his contacts with other Foreign Ministers at Council meetings in Brussels that they are not sharpening the knives in Washington and that we will not have a repeat of what happened in Iraq? The United Kingdom has stated diplomacy is the way forward in regard to Iran, but what is the Minister's feeling on how Washington views resolving the Iranian question?
What is the situation on the special meeting held in Luxembourg on 18 October to consider the next WTO round in Hong Kong and the statement that Ireland is insisting the Commission must adhere to its mandate and that the 2003 CAP reforms must not be compromised? The Minister of State went on to say that our Minister stressed that these negotiations cannot progress solely through concessions by the European Union on agriculture. How far is the Government prepared to go on concessions on agriculture? I am aware it is not the Minister of State's baby, but it is included in his briefing note. Is he prepared to trade our sugar position to the point that Europe will have no viable sugar production industry in the future? I am not part of the camp that thinks there should be no sugar regime reform. We must reform the sugar regime, but the demand for sugar is currently growing exponentially in the world. In China, they cannot keep up with the demand for sugar. As countries like China and India modernise and their economies grow, for better or worse, their diets are changing and there is a huge demand for sugar.
The Chinese consume 10 kg of sugar per capita per annum. We in Europe consume 35 kg in all sorts of confectionery and so on. It is only a matter of time before the Chinese, which has a population of 1.3 billion people, or one quarter of the world’s population, consume the same amount of sugar as the rest of the developed world. What is the point in totally destroying sugar beet production and letting the world depend purely on sugar cane production? Given that point and that sugar cane needs so much water for irrigation, water which is in limited supply in so many parts of the world, we must reform that regime. We must look to the least developed countries, and our special relationship with the ACP countries, because in destroying our sugar production in Europe, particularly in Ireland, we are destroying it for small family farms in ACP countries.
We are ensuring the sugar barons of Brazil get wealthy, not the farmers who are working on the ground in the plantations. Because it is not popular to talk about protecting Europe's sugar industry, somehow one is made appear to be against the developing world. In fact, the opposite is true. The least developed countries are being hammered by the Commissioner's proposals. Where does Ireland stand in this regard and how far is it prepared to defend sugar beet production in Ireland and Europe given the exponential increase in demand for sugar worldwide and the least developed countries, particularly the ACP countries which currently have the benefit of the EU programme?
As one of my colleagues said, avian flu was given short shrift in two lines. I am not one of those who panic in these situations. I am not worried about whether the Government is ordering vaccines in advance or stockpiling the relevant antiviral medicines. The vaccines cannot be bought because they will not be produced until there is an outbreak. There is a third factor to be considered. If Ireland or Europe are to stay on the right side of an outbreak of human flu and the biosecurity measures being implemented at agriculture sector level work together with good contingency plans, we must do what can be done. This is not like foot and mouth disease. Someone commented Ireland did very well during the foot and mouth disease outbreak and that, therefore, we should do well in combating avian flu. However, cows do not fly nor do they need hospital beds. Those are the two differences.
From a public health point of view, if there is an outbreak of avian flu, there will be a lack of bed capacity in Europe. In the past decade beds have been closed all over Europe. This is a significant factor because bed capacity is as vital as vaccines and antiviral medicines. If Europe has a problem with bed capacity, then Ireland has a critical problem. Is this part of Europe's contingency plan? More specifically, is it part of Ireland's contingency plan before avian flu is dismissed in two lines? No amount of preplanning and contingency plans on vaccines and antiviral medicines will make up for a lack of hospital beds. If there is increased mortality, as happens in a severe pandemic, pressure will be exerted on hospital beds. Most of the population will be able to battle the illness at home with the help of antiviral medicines but those who are very ill will need a hospital bed.
In two or three weeks' time I will speak at a conference in Bahrain which will deal with the Christian-Muslim interface and the clash of civilisations. With the permission of the Minister of State, I wish to be briefed by departmental experts on the subject. I am sure he has an expert to whom I could be directed.
Our doors are always open.
I congratulate the Minister of State on his paper and contribution. I am impressed that he has stated he wishes to assure members that Ireland's approach next Monday and in the weeks ahead will be designed to secure its essential interests within the European Union. This corresponds with what he said about research and development and is very similar to what our ally in this regard, President Chirac, wrote in a very interesting article in The Financial Times this day last week on the same subject. He said the basic reason France voted against the European Union had nothing to do with an anti-Union movement but a lack of competitiveness.
Ireland seems to have taken its eye off the ball in recent times. The announcement last month impressed me very much. It stated Mr. Barroso had removed 68 proposals for European laws which were no longer needed in an effort to cut through red tape. Some of the proposals were inconsistent with the objectives of the Lisbon strategy or did not meet better regulatory standards. One of the targets which must be achieved in Europe is to ensure it is recognised that unless Europe remains competitive with the rest of the world, we will not overcome the difficulties posed by the fast moving, competitive environment elsewhere. We are being saddled with regulations. Unless this is taken into account, we will not be acting in the essential interests of Ireland in the European Union.
The Minister of State referred to a meeting of the EU-South Africa Co-Operation Council which will take place on the margins of GAERC. When I visited South Africa last month I was stunned at our inability as Europeans to explain our reasons for fighting and arguing for a Common Agricultural Policy that is in Ireland’s interests when it is clearly not in those of African and South American nations. I refer to the question asked by Ms Doyle on whether Ireland needs to compromise in the face of the World Trade Organisation. She stated the 2003 CAP reform package must not be compromised. Surely Ireland must do this if it wishes to hold its head up high. It must recognise the need to compromise and do something to avoid the timebomb that will erupt, particularly in southern Africa. Will Ireland be able to face this challenge? Can it wear both hats, by acting both in its interests and those of the European Union while recognising our responsibility to the Third World?
I add my concerns to those of other members on the issue of Iran. I ask the Minister of State to convey the scepticism of the committee about Europe's role. The committee has discussed the issue many times, including the Iranian elections held last year which, by any international standards, were unconvincing in terms of basic freedoms. It seems Ireland wishes to revive the EU-Iran human rights dialoguebut, on the other hand, we are stopping discussions about political and economic links. There seems to be inconsistency in our dealings with Iran and also a display of impatience which is inappropriate.
I refer to a letter from Henry Rogers about a case of discrimination against non-nationals being taken by the European Commission against the Italian Government.
The financial perspectives are beginning to take on an air of a crisis in the European Union. It has been brought to the attention of political leaders that the competition being faced by the European Union from non-member states is at a high level. The lack of agreement leaves the Union standing still. There is a serious level of unemployment within it combined with stagnant growth. Compared with its natural competitors, it is in a chronic position facing into the next five or ten years. This may not permeate its way into Ireland as seriously as into other countries but we need to acknowledge that we are facing a crisis. Whatever about the LisbonAgendaand talks with the WTO, the lack of agreement on the financial perspectives is setting alarm bells ringing in the context of other recent failures in the European Union. I ask the Minister of State to consider these points.
I thank committee members for their questions and comments. I welcome the two MEPs, Proinsias De Rossa and Ms Doyle, and thank them for their attendance which is appreciated.
In response to Proinsias De Rossa, Ireland's attitude to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has always been consistent. It abhors and condemns violence, as it has made clear in all fora and discussions, both bilateral and multilateral, at every opportunity. It wishes to ensure equity, human rights, equality of treatment and democracy prevail in the region. We are very firm in our attitude to Israel: disengagement must be the first step towards a solution. We call on it to cease settlement activity which, with the construction of the wall, are contrary to international law. The only credible answer is a two-state solution.
I will respond to each specific question raised. Following approval of the Iraqi constitution, new elections will be held on 15 December to elect a sovereign Iraqi assembly and government. This will represent the completion of the political reconstruction of Iraq as laid down in UN Security Resolution 1546 of June 2004. Other problems will remain, especially the restoration of peace and stability and physical and economic reconstruction. No one underestimates the challenge but it is important to recognise there has been political progress.
The multinational force is in Iraq under the authority of the United Nations under Security Council Resolution 1546 of June 2004, again at the request of the Iraqi Government. All of us look forward to the day when Iraqi security forces are able to provide security in their country without outside assistance. The Iraqi Government has stated this clearly. It has also made clear that day has not yet arrived. The security situation in Iraq is a matter of great concern to all of us who wish to see the Iraqis live in peace and freedom. The question is whether the removal of foreign troops now would help the situation or make it worse. This is essentially a matter for the judgment of the Iraqi Government in conjunction with those countries providing the forces.
We all agree that while the situation in Iraq is exceedingly complex, positive political progress is being made. The recent referendum was passed by 79%, with participation by the Sunni population. An election is scheduled for 15 December. Given the participation in the democratic process, despite the complexities and difficulties that exist we believe that Iraq is going in the right direction. It needs the support of other nations to assist it at this crucial time. I hope the new year will see it on the road to democracy with the elimination of violence and opportunity for its citizens.
Prionsias De Rossa, MEP, Ms Doyle, MEP, Senator Quinn and the Vice Chairman asked about Iran. Regardless of the reports, the United Nations and the United States are now pursuing a very strong diplomatic approach on Iran. The British Foreign Secretary, Mr. Straw, stated some time ago that an invasion of Iran was inconceivable. We all agree any invasion of Iran would be absolutely disastrous at this time. Considering the political climate across the world, we hope this is not being contemplated. We are optimistic that common sense will prevail and we will not need to deal with such an eventuality.
Although the nuclear issue has been most prominent in recent months our concerns about the protection of human rights in Iran have continued to grow. The European Union has had cause to make representations to Iran on many human rights issues, including the death penalty, the execution of minors, discrimination against women and religious minorities and other issues. In recent years we have attempted to encourage improvements in human rights in Iran through a formal EU-Iran human rights dialogue. The next round of the dialogue is due to be held soon. However, the results to date have been disappointing. For some months Iran has failed to agree a date for the next round, which adds to doubts about the effectiveness of proceeding in this fashion. We will continue to give serious thought to how best to assist in the protection of human rights in Iran.
Prionsias De Rossa, MEP, and Ms Doyle, MEP, asked about the 1% club. We were never part of that club and do not intend to be. We do not operate on that basis. We have never supported the 1% ceiling proposed by six net contributors and we have made our position clear at every meeting we have attended. The Ministers for Foreign Affairs, Finance, and Agriculture and Food, the Taoiseach and I, with officials who have attended meetings, have made our position very clear. Our approach has been to proceed from an identification of the needs of Union and its citizens and not from a pre-conceived budgetary ceiling. It is necessary to consider the requirements and capacity of the EU, the resources available and the priority given to those resources. We should then try to get consensual conclusions that satisfy the needs and a common interest. Those have always been the parameters to which we have worked.
The June package envisaged an expenditure ceiling of 1.06% of GDP in the budget. We believe 1% would be insufficient, as we have made clear. All the member states, particularly new member states, have special requirements. We cannot set it in stone that the total expenditure shall be limited to 1%. We need to ensure that each country's needs and the needs of its citizens and the common good of Europe as an entity are looked after and that resources are made available. We need flexibility to find common agreement. We hope that common sense and flexibility will continue as we proceed to the December conclusions.
We envisage an active political debate on the "Plan D" proposal. Debates will take place in both Houses of the Oireachtas later this month. We welcome the publication of the Commission's strategy which contains some valuable ideas for reaching out to the public in a more proactive manner by, for example, more visits by Commissioners to member states, including national parliaments. We will see initiatives to strengthen democracy such as funding for civil society initiatives.
The European Union has vast resources, in human resource terms, fixed asset terms and technological terms in each member state, which are not used sufficiently on a high profile basis to the benefit of the Union from a macro point of view and to the citizens from a micro point of view. Greater use could be made of those resources and Commissioners should use them more frequently on their visits to member states. I believe many share my opinion in this regard. We have raised this matter in European affairs meetings on many occasions. We look forward to working with the Commission and encouraging effective communication and meaningful debate on European issues. The clerk will have an opportunity to discuss this matter during lunch next week when we discuss the Communicating Europe initiative.
Ms Doyle, MEP, asked about the sugar regime and CAP. We are defending CAP at WTO. The sugar regime is the subject of ongoing negotiations within the European Agriculture and Fisheries Council. We want to defend the Irish sugar sector and the jobs it sustains here. Its contribution to agricultural production and to the productive use of land is key to our economy. We agree that reforms must benefit the poorest and not the big producers. However, we would not wish to see the elimination of sugar production in Europe. Having sustainability is critical and certain resources should be available, from which Ireland can benefit. We are fighting very hard in this area. The Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Coughlan, and her team are doing their utmost. Her statements have been very strong and I hope we will be able to reach a reasonable agreement.
Ms Doyle, MEP, asked about avian flu. Ireland fully complies with the EU ban on live birds and poultry products from affected countries. As early detection of avian flu is of critical importance, the Department of Agriculture and Food is liaising closely with farming organisations, industrial representatives and the veterinary profession. The national parks and wildlife service, BirdWatch Ireland and the Association of Regional Game Councils are involved in a process to observe and report on any changes in wild bird mortality rates. Meetings have been held with Customs and Excise, which is providing its full support at ports and airports and on the Border with Northern Ireland. Poultry flock owners have been provided with updated advice on bio-security and measures to reduce the risk of infection.
The Department of Health and Children has a contingency plan which is being updated with input from the flu pandemic expert group in the light of the WHO plan published in 2005. The updated contingency plan should be in place by the end of the year. The Department of Health and Children has ordered 1 million antivirals, 600,000 of which will be delivered before the end of 2005, with the remaining 400,000 to be delivered in 2006. The Department of Health and Children is endeavouring to procure as a matter of urgency 400,000 vaccinations against the H5N1 virus, which should be sufficient for 200,000 people. However, as of now such vaccinations are unlicensed and the earliest they could be delivered is in March or April 2006.
Ms Doyle, MEP, spoke about bed capacity. I do not believe public utterances about bed capacity in this country are fully justified. We have significant bed capacity but we are not making full use of it.
Ms Doyle, MEP
Should we put two patients in a bed? What is the Minister of State suggesting?
Considering the people who control the beds and their interests, a major cultural change is required in the utilisation of all hospital resources, including the control of beds. This is a challenge and measures to meet it must have universal support.
Ms Doyle, MEP
Is the Minister of State referring to bed blockers?
No.
Ms Doyle, MEP
Where will we put people with influenza?
I am surprised the Deputy is not picking up what I am saying.
Deputy Andrews and Senator Quinn raised a number of questions, particularly on competitiveness. The Lisbon Agenda is important and is the subject of an ongoing debate here. Competitiveness is a critical pillar of the negotiations on the financial perspectives, which include a major proposal to increase European Union funding for initiatives to improve competitiveness. Given the importance of this issue for Ireland and Europe, we hope agreement will be reached on the financial perspectives.
The Taoiseach participated in last week's summit at which useful discussions were held on how to maintain and strengthen social justice and competitiveness in the context of globalisation. The future financial perspectives were not specifically discussed at the meeting. Ireland shares the view of the Presidency that such a discussion would have been counter-productive in terms of efforts to secure agreement in December. We hope the positive and co-operative atmosphere developed at Hampton Court will contribute to eventual agreement later in the year.
Ireland also recognises the need to meet the challenges of globalisation at national and European Union level. This includes a critical requirement to ensure that European Union efforts enhance, rather than inhibit, competitiveness. We must have sufficient resources to ensure Europe remains competitive because, as a number of speakers noted, competition from Asia and elsewhere is aggressive. This fact must be borne in mind.
The Vice Chairman referred to a legal case being taken against the Italian Government. We have already met the groups in question and expressed sympathy with their case. We will be in contact with Mr. Rogers to ascertain if we can assist him further. We have also considered the option of having Irish representation at the court proceedings. Several Ministers of State, including the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Kitt, and I have met the groups in question in Ireland, Rome, Brussels and elsewhere when requested to do so and when an opportunity presented itself. We are informed on the matter and are doing our best to assist in any way possible.
Prionsias De Rossa, MEP
I propose to be brief and hope the Minister of State will also be brief in his response. Bearing in mind his comments about Iran, is the Government's position that a military attack by any state on Iran, whether by means of invasion or bombing raids, would be unacceptable?
There is no question that the Deputy is correct. We have never supported military attacks and do not believe one should be made against Iran.
Ms Doyle, MEP
I understood, from a previous comment, that it is the Minister of State's position that the hospital beds crisis and the number of people on trolleys in accident and emergency units is entirely due to bad management on the part of hospital bed managers.
I did not say that.
Ms Doyle, MEP
In that case, what is the Government's position on the matter?
I repeat my assertion that maximum utilisation of the total number of beds available in our hospitals is not being achieved due to the interests that control beds in certain sectors.
Ms Doyle, MEP
Every hospital has bed managers.
While that is correct, if one is not in charge of certain beds, one cannot manage them.
Ms Doyle, MEP
That is a fair comment.
I thank the Minister of State for his continuing co-operation with the joint committee.
The joint committee adjourned at 2.15 p.m. sine die.