Item No. 4 on our agenda is a discussion on the forthcoming General Affairs and External Relations Council with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, and the Minister of State at that Department, Deputy Conor Lenihan. They are both welcome.
General Affairs and External Relations Council: Ministerial Presentations.
As usual, I will read my presentation. I will move as quickly as I can, but it is important to read it to ensure I do not leave anything out.
The forthcoming meeting will be the fourth full meeting of the General Affairs and External Relations Council, GAERC, during the UK Presidency and the agenda is quite heavy. As committee members will be aware, the November Council traditionally deals with European Security and Defence Policy, ESDP, issues and is, as a consequence, attended by both Foreign and Defence Ministers. My colleague, the Minister for Defence, Deputy O'Dea, will join me in Brussels next Monday for the discussions. It is also the practice for development co-operation Ministers to attend one meeting of the Council per Presidency. This month the Council will consider a range of issues relating to the European Union's development co-operation policy and my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan, will represent Ireland during these discussions.
I propose to deal with general affairs, external relations and defence matters, while the Minister of State will address development issues.
Before beginning the Council proper, Ministers will convene in the format of a civilian capabilities improvement conference, the purpose of which is to review the commitment of personnel made by member states for civilian crisis management operations in the framework of the ESDP. Ireland attaches high importance to this dimension of the ESDP, progress on which was a Presidency priority. We have always emphasised the need for a holistic approach to security issues, including beyond the purely military. Moreover, several of the missions launched under the ESDP framework are civilian such as the EU police mission in Bosnia, headed by Assistant Commissioner Kevin Carty. In general, the reference is to an EU role in areas such as police and judicial reform or in emergency response to major natural or man-made disasters. The personnel concerned would include police officers, prison staff, judges, prosecutors, specialists in environmental clean up operations and so forth. The conference will build on one held last November, at which member states provided for initial commitments of personnel. Ireland's total commitment is to make available up to 95 personnel, of whom the large majority would be from the Garda Síochána.
The conference will also build on the adoption by the European Council in December 2004 of the civilian headline goal 2008 which describes the kind of tasks in the area of civilian crisis management which the European Union wishes to be able to undertake by 2008. The translation of the political ambition of the civilian headline goal into accurate information on the number of personnel required to carry out the tasks identified, the identification and, where necessary, training of these personnel is an ongoing process. Monday's meeting represents a useful opportunity to take stock of where matters stand and to see if there are any areas in which member states may need to adjust their commitments to deal with problems of oversupply or shortages.
The General Affairs Council will continue the discussions resumed on 7 November regarding the future financial perspectives for the period 2007 to 2013. Next week my colleagues and I will hear from the President of the Council, Mr. Jack Straw, on his intentions for the remaining weeks prior to the European Council meeting on 15 and 16 December. While plans for Monday's meeting will be finalised at tomorrow's meeting of EU ambassadors in Brussels, the Presidency has previously indicated it intends to concentrate on two key issues, namely, the structure of the budget and the proposed review clause. These issues formed part of the discussions at the 7 November meeting, at which I, again, underlined Ireland's main priorities for the negotiations. The priorities remain very much as outlined previously. Ireland's approach next Monday and in the weeks leading up to the December European Council meeting will be designed to secure the best possible deal for Ireland as part of an agreement that will provide the necessary financial framework for the European Union for the period 2007 to 2013.
An acceptable deal must safeguard the October 2002 agreement on the Common Agricultural Policy, CAP. It must put in place equitable financing arrangements for the European Union. We will want to ensure adequate cohesion arrangements for our regions in transition. In addition, any deal should allocate increased funding for policies aimed at boosting the Union's competitiveness, notably through support for an enhanced emphasis on research and development at EU level.
The package on the table at the June European Council meeting which was acceptable to the majority of member states was able to achieve the necessary delicate balance between the various interests involved. The Taoiseach was able to support the June package which remains the basis for a deal in December. It is our firm belief that the December European Council should do everything possible to secure a budgetary agreement in order that the enlarged Union will be equipped with the necessary financial resources to enable it to meet the many challenges we will face in the years ahead. In saying this I am particularly conscious of the concerns of our friends in the new member states which have stressed the need for an early agreement. Certainly, it will not be easy but all of us around the table must do our utmost to try to achieve it in the coming weeks.
The General Affairs and External Relations Council will consider briefly the draft annotated agenda for the European Council on 16 and 17 December which has been circulated by the Presidency. The key issues included in the draft agenda are the financial perspectives; jobs and growth; sustainable development; climate change; counter-terrorism; a global approach to migration and an EU strategy regarding Africa. A number of external relations items will also be selected for discussion depending on their urgency at the time of the December Council meeting. Work will continue on the draft annotated agenda in the coming weeks and it will be discussed in more detail at our meeting in December.
At the meeting of the GAERC on 3 October I suggested the Council review how the European Union had responded to the Asian tsunami in the context of the situation in Pakistan in October. Accordingly, the Presidency has put the important issue of post-tsunami follow-up on the agenda. Some useful analytical work has been done in the interim period and my colleague, the Minister of State, will brief the committee in detail.
Turning to Common Foreign and Security Policy, CFSP, issues, there was a detailed discussion at last week's meeting of the Council on the range of issues of current concern in the Middle East. The Middle East peace process will again feature on the agenda on 21 November when we expect to concentrate on developments in relation to the proposed EU mission to provide assistance with the operation of crossings at Gaza's borders. The primary objective of EU policy in recent months has been to encourage the parties to take advantage of the situation following Israeli disengagement to ensure a return to full implementation of the road map for a comprehensive settlement. The Quartet's envoy for disengagement, Mr. James Wolfensohn, has clearly identified the issues which need to be urgently resolved. Crucially, these include arrangements for the free movement of people and goods in and out of Gaza and effective links between Gaza and the West Bank.
The Government warmly welcomes the agreement reached yesterday between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, with the assistance of US Secretary of State, Ms Condoleeza Rice, and Javier Solana. The agreement provides for the opening later this month of crossing points between Gaza, Israel and Egypt. It will enable the export of all agricultural products from Gaza during the current harvest season. It establishes arrangements, starting in December, for convoys between Gaza and the West Bank and provides for the construction of a seaport and further discussion on rebuilding the airport in Gaza. We expect the Council will take a decision to launch an ESDP mission to monitor the operations of the Rafah border crossing on the Gaza-Egypt border and to deploy an initial team of monitors as a matter of urgency. The role of this mission will be a sensitive one. It is being undertaken at the request of the Israeli Government and the Palestinian Authority as an essential contribution by the European Union to the next phase following Israeli disengagement.
The EU third party role at Rafah will be an important element in a series of developments which should provide a sense of hope for the Palestinian people and enable all sides to move forward on the economic regeneration of Gaza. It should also create a real opportunity for progress towards a return to the road map which remains the only credible framework for a peaceful and lasting settlement. If there is to be political movement in the weeks and months ahead, all sides will need to take political risks. The European Union remains determined to play a central role in support of the process politically and economically and in support of the Palestinian efforts to secure stability and security.
The Council will review preparations for the EUROMED summit in Barcelona on 27 and 28 November to mark the tenth anniversary of the Barcelona Declaration and the Euro-Mediterranean partnership process. The Taoiseach will represent the Government at this meeting.
The Council is expected to have a short discussion on the situation in Iraq. Last week's meeting adopted detailed conclusions following the approval by referendum of the new constitution. The focus now will be on preparations for new democratic elections on 15 December for a constitutionally elected assembly and government. It is to be hoped that by the end of the year Iraq will have taken a further decisive step in the political transition set out in UN Security Council Resolution 1546.
The security situation in Iraq remains a source of grave concern to the European Union. Appalling attacks continue to take place against innocent civilians which are condemned by the international community. Against this difficult background, it is only right that we also take note of the political progress made in Iraq this year. Perhaps the most significant challenge in the period ahead will be to encourage participation by the Sunni community in the political process. The European Union will continue to strongly support the efforts of the Iraqis themselves to rebuild their society and ensure the country's abundant natural resources are used for the benefit of all its people.
The Council will discuss developments in regard to Bosnia-Herzegovina on the tenth anniversary of the Dayton peace agreement. At our most recent meeting on 7 November the Council welcomed the Commission's report on the state of preparations in Bosnia-Herzegovina for the negotiation of a stabilisation and association agreement with the European Union. We hope the Council will authorise the opening of negotiations under the agreement with Bosnia-Herzegovina on 21 November, ten years after the end of the war. The opening of such negotiations would mark an historic moment in the development of Bosnia-Herzegovina. It would represent an important first step towards the establishment of contractual relations with the European Union. It would also demonstrate the Union's continuing determination to implement the Thessaloníki agenda which reaffirms that the long-term future of the countries in the region lies with the Union after they have met the necessary requirements.
The Council will discuss the role of the EU special representative, as Lord Ashdown's mandate comes to an end. It will also discuss the future mandates of the EU police mission which began in 2004 and the EU military mission which has completed its first year of operation. As the members of the committee are aware, Ireland is playing a part in the European Union's efforts to consolidate peace, stability and the rule of law in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The EU police mission which has the task of monitoring, mentoring and advising the local police is led by Assistant Commissioner Kevin Carty of the Garda Síochána. Over 50 members of the Defence Forces are serving with the EU peacekeeping operation which is operating under a UN Security Council mandate. I pay tribute to the excellent work of the Defence Forces and the Garda in these missions.
There was a wide-ranging discussion on the EU-Iran relationship at last week's meeting of the Council. It is expected that next week's discussion on Iran will focus more narrowly on developments concerning the Iranian nuclear programme in preparation for the meeting of the board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna on 24 November. I expect the Council will be briefed by the three European states which have been holding talks with Iran about its nuclear programme on the latest developments in their attempts to resolve the issue. It is clear that Iran must fully and proactively co-operate with the agency to resolve all questions relating to its nuclear programme in a spirit of transparency. In particular, it must adequately address the concerns raised in the agency's previous reports and resolutions to help to restore international confidence in Iran's declared wish to have a nuclear programme for exclusively peaceful purposes.
The Council will take stock of preparations for the EU-Canada summit on 24 November. As the Canadian Prime Minister, Mr. Martin, will be unable to travel to London due to domestic political reasons, a one-hour video conference has been organised involving him, the UK Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, and the European Commission President, Mr. Barroso. The agenda includes a range of political issues of mutual interest. Trade issues such as the WTO negotiations will also feature in the summit.
The Council will briefly note the progress being made with the preparations for the EU-Ukraine summit to be held in Kiev on 1 December. One year on from the Orange Revolution, the summit presents a timely opportunity to take stock of EU-Ukraine relations and consider what has been achieved in respect of the implementation of the European neighbourhood policy action plan for Ukraine. It is intended that the progress that needs to be made if stronger and deeper EU-Ukraine relations are to develop will be described in a joint declaration to be made at the summit which is expected to consider the granting of market economy status to Ukraine, the opening of negotiations on visa facilitation for Ukrainians wishing to enter the European Union, improved political dialogue between the two sides and enhanced co-operation with the Union with respect to neighbouring countries, especially Moldova and Belarus.
We are just a few weeks away from the WTO ministerial meeting which begins in Hong Kong on 13 December. As members of the committee may have seen in press reports, the results of the preparatory work for the Hong Kong ministerial meeting do not indicate that the meeting is likely to achieve the major breakthrough for which we hope. Although it is fair to say ambitions for next month's meeting in Hong Kong have been scaled down, it is still essential that all parties to the negotiations continue to prepare for it in a constructive manner. Even if the results of the meeting are less than we would have liked, we should try to ensure it represents a step towards reaching the positive outcome to the negotiations on the Doha development agenda that we would like to see. It is still possible to achieve a successful outcome to the negotiations by the latest deadline of the end of 2006.
At its specially convened meeting on 18 October, the General Affairs and External Relations Council confirmed the importance of achieving a balanced outcome within and across all the main elements of the Doha development agenda, with a specific focus on the needs of developing countries. The Council insisted that all WTO partners needed to make contributions to the negotiations that were commensurate with their level of development. It underlined its support for the Commission's efforts to secure an outcome to the negotiations that was in line with the mandate given to it by the member states. When the negotiations on agriculture were discussed, the Council stressed that the Common Agricultural Policy reforms agreed in 2003 represented an important contribution to the current global trade round because they constituted the limits of the Commission's negotiating brief. This has been confirmed by the European Commissioner, Mr. Mandelson.
As members of the committee are aware, the Commission made a further negotiating offer on the liberalisation of agricultural trade on 28 October. In making the offer the Commission was acting in accordance with the mandate given to it by the Council. The Commission indicated clearly that the offer was conditional on the achievement of progress in other sectors of the negotiations which were of special interest to the European Union such as trade in services and non-agricultural market access. Ireland is committed to working towards a successful outcome to the negotiations on the current trade round. It wants to see a fair and balanced outcome which will serve to benefit our open, trade dependent economy. Such an outcome must take account of the vital interests of all parties, especially the poorest and least developed countries. Progress must be achieved across all strands of the negotiations — trade facilitation, trade in agricultural produce, trade in non-agricultural or industrial goods and trade in services, which is an increasingly important area for Ireland. We will continue to insist that agriculture should not be sacrificed as the price of an overall WTO agreement.
The Council is expected to adopt conclusions on migration and external relations. The conclusions will reiterate the importance to the European Union of increasing its efforts on migration internationally, working in partnership with third countries and enhancing the benefits of migration for third countries, EU states and migrants. They will ensure co-ordinated action is taken to combat illegal migration, trafficking in human beings and smuggling. They reiterate the value of joining the work being done in the field of migration and external relations with that being done in the fields of interior affairs, foreign affairs and development. Foreign Ministers will also discuss briefly the European Union's strategy for Africa which is under preparation. This matter will also be considered in depth by development Ministers during the part of the Council meeting that relates to their portfolio. The Minister of State will brief the joint committee on this subject.
As the Minister for Defence, Deputy O'Dea, is not present, I will say a few words about the issues which will be discussed by the Defence Ministers. The main items on their agenda are military capabilities, civil and military issues and the European Defence Agency. The meeting of Defence Ministers will be followed by a meeting of the agency's steering board. Work has been ongoing during the UK Presidency to develop a requirements catalogue that sets out the capabilities and capacity requirements necessary to undertake the full range of Petersberg tasks. Ministers will be asked to approve the 2005 requirements catalogue. Comprehensive planning is necessary if we are to establish a more coherent approach to crisis management and ensure different EU instruments and capabilities such as the police, the military, the rule of law, civil protection experts and development and humanitarian capabilities are fully used. This initiative which offers an excellent opportunity to streamline and optimise the EU's processes for crisis management, particularly rapid response, is a logical step forward in the development of an integrated EU response to crisis management.
The Council will agree on an EU concept for the EU Security and Defence Policy's support for security sector reform which will continue to be an important part of the broader EU support for institution-building in third countries, particularly those in post-conflict situations. Support for security sector reform is one of the areas of activity identified in the European security strategy adopted by the European Council in December 2003. A concrete manifestation of this support is the ongoing EU Security and Defence Policy mission in support of security sector reform in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Mr. Javier Solana will report to Defence Ministers on the activities of the European Defence Agency since its establishment. The 2005 budget and work programme of the agency which is in operation with a staff of 80 have been approved by the Defence Ministers of the participating member states. The agency has focused on identifying and resolving capability gaps, improving co-ordination and efficiency and eliminating fragmentation in the research and technology programmes of the European defence industry. While Ireland participates in the framework of the agency, this does not impose any specific obligations or commitments on it, other than to make a contribution to the agency's budget. Participation in individual projects of the agency is a matter for national decision on a case-by-case basis.
At the meeting of the agency's steering board, Defence Ministers will be asked, inter alia, to support a voluntary code of conduct that will promote competition in defence procurement, an area that is largely not open to competition. While Ireland is not a major consumer of defence equipment, developments which improve market efficiencies or which may yield economies of scale for equipment procurement by defence forces are to be welcomed. In addition, the opening up of the defence equipment market may present opportunities for sub-suppliers in Ireland, particularly in the area of software development, communications and-or networking technologies.
I am sorry for going on at such length but I have covered all the issues within my remit. The Minister of State wishes to say something in regard to development co-operation.
I also have a lengthy statement which I would like to read but, obviously, I will be guided by the Chairman.
It is up to the Minister of State.
There is both a perceived and well founded need to update the European Union's development policy, especially taking account of the millennium development goals. The previous statement of policy dates back to 2000. Clearly, the agenda has moved on since. In addition, whereas the 2000 statement concerned the development policies of the European Commission only, the forthcoming statement will also include the Council and the European Parliament. Thus, it will amount to an important milestone on development policy, embodying the European Union's principles and objectives in this increasingly high profile area.
In July this year the Commission issued a communication to the Council and Parliament concerning a proposed joint declaration by the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission on the European Union's development policy. The development policy statement is in two parts; Part I is a set of principles and objectives for the EU member states and the Commission, while Part II is a set of guidelines for the Commission in respect of its management of Community aid programmes. Ireland, together with other like-minded delegations in the Council, has succeeded in bringing about a better balance between the two parts than that proposed in the original Commission communication. In this context, we have succeeded in framing the discussion in terms of the need to follow best practice in development policy. I argued for changes along these lines at the meeting of EU development Ministers in Leeds last month.
Many developing countries and all least developed countries lack the capacity to take full advantage of the opportunities provided through international trade. The productive and commercial sectors of the least developed countries consist largely of small and medium-sized enterprises which are disproportionately burdened by a heavy regulatory framework. Since the start of the Doha development agenda, DDA, of trade negotiations, the focus on "aid for trade" has assumed a new importance. Under the DDA, assisting least developed countries, LDCs, to strengthen their trading capacity is a requirement for all developed countries. Experience of initiatives undertaken since clearly demonstrates the need for such initiatives to accord with certain broad principles. First, they must conform to aid effectiveness criteria. Second, they should be demand driven in response to the needs identified by developing countries themselves. Third, they should have direct linkage to those countries' poverty reduction strategies. Furthermore, it is now generally accepted that a long-term, continuous and integrated approach to aid for trade is important to ensure greater impact and greater sustainability.
Ireland recognises that the lack of human and institutional capacity to deal with the complexity of the multilateral trading system is a key issue for sustainable development. Trade related capacity building is an important practical element of Ireland's support for the integration of developing countries into the international trading system. In the past three to four years Ireland has provided support for the major international organisations involved in trade related capacity building, including the WTO for the Doha development trust fund and WTO training programmes.
In the lead-up to the WTO ministerial meeting in Hong Kong next month it is generally accepted that it will be vitally important to have a comprehensive "aid for trade" package ready for delivery, going well beyond technical assistance. This would include measures to mitigate and compensate for the negative effects of trade reforms. Following on from discussions at the Leeds informal meeting of EU development Ministers last month, Ireland, together with our EU partners, is working towards agreement at the GAERC on an EU "aid for trade" package in advance of the meeting in Hong Kong.
This will be the sixth annual orientation debate to discuss the effectiveness of EU external action. It was initiated during the French Presidency in 2001 and the debate has evolved during the years. It initially focused on the coherence of the European Union's external policies and assistance discussed by EU Foreign Ministers but in recent years debates have concentrated much more on development co-operation issues. The last two debates have been taken by development Ministers.
In 2004 the debate moved from the beginning of the year to one of the last autumn GAERC meetings as a way to provide political direction for the budgetary year to come. The aim of this year's debate is to address how the European Union, collectively, can improve the effectiveness of its aid and set out concrete milestones to be met in the coming year. This has been an important year for development. In a demonstration of political will and shared vision, the international donor community reconfirmed its ambition to reduce global poverty and promote country-led, sustainable development worldwide by 2015. The European Union has been at the forefront of this effort. Its role in the international system, already large, was further boosted by the increased aid volume commitments which it made this year. The European Union currently accounts for 55% of global official development assistance. It will account for some two thirds of all OECD donor aid in 2010 and will have provided more than 75% of the increase in aid by the same year.
With regard to the GAERC meeting next week, the main areas of attention are: the promotion of more effective delivery of EU aid and the more effective allocation of resources; the more effective management of Community aid and the strengthening of the European Union's role in middle income countries. Ireland has intervened in support of ensuring there will be a strong anti-poverty focus.
In June this year the European Council called for the drawing up of a long-term global strategy towards Africa to be agreed at the European Council in December. On 12 October the Commission issued a communication on an EU strategy for Africa. The high representative of the Council brought out a separate paper in late October on peace and security aspects. The Commission's communication was intended to lay the foundations for a comprehensive strategy to strengthen co-operation and co-ordination between member states and the Commission, and to facilitate coherence between development policy and other policy areas such as conflict prevention. It was also designed to be a strategy for the whole African continent.
The communication proposed the launching of a number of new initiatives, for example, on governance and infrastructural development. It received a broad welcome from member states, including Ireland. However, Ireland drew particular attention to the need to highlight the central importance of achieving the millennium development goals. We also emphasised the importance of the Paris Declaration on aid effectiveness which underlines the need for harmonisation between donors so as to reduce aid transaction costs for partner countries, as well as the need for donors to align themselves with partner country plans and programmes. The matter was considered by EU development Ministers at their informal meeting in Leeds in late October. Since then intensive negotiations on detailed draft conclusions for the GAERC on 21 and 22 November have been ongoing in Brussels. In addition, the Presidency is preparing a short document for the December European Council which will include benchmarks for action and also reflect the views of the African partners in development.
The unprecedented scale of the tsunami and the Pakistan earthquake tested the international community's ability to co-ordinate an effective relief response. The recent Pakistan earthquake reinforces the need for global resources to be mobilised, co-ordinated and deployed rapidly to bring humanitarian relief on a large scale to anywhere in the world, sometimes for prolonged periods. EU partners are agreed about the need to review EU capacity to respond to humanitarian disasters and the process arising from the adoption of the action plan following the GAERC meeting of 31 January and 1 February 2005 has demonstrated the European Union's willingness to meet this challenge.
Valuable work has been carried out by the Commission, the Council, the GAERC and in the working groups towards producing a number of proposals, including through a UK Presidency and Commission paper for next week's GAERC meeting. In looking at what the European Union and its members states, including Ireland, can do, care needs to be taken regarding where different competencies begin and end as between national, regional and international arenas.
The United Nations is the primary co-ordinator for the relief efforts of the international community. In this regard, the European Union has significant potential to enhance its support for UN humanitarian operations. National initiatives must complement the collective EU capacity and meet United Nations needs. Clear distinctions need to be maintained between humanitarian operations and operations or practices falling under CFSP-ESDP. It is certainly the case that certain capabilities developed for crisis management operations in the sphere of ESDP could be of use to augment the European Union's response to natural disasters. In particular, information gathering, information sharing and planning mechanisms could be drawn upon. However, it is important that duplication of effort be avoided as between Community and Council mechanisms.
The Community civil protection mechanism, in particular the Monitoring and Information Centre, MIC, represents a well established and reasonably successful tool for facilitating co-operation and co-ordination between member states for disasters inside or outside the European Union. The proposal for closer co-operation between relevant Council bodies and the Commission, especially the MIC, is to be supported. Other useful proposals in the Presidency document concern transport and training opportunities in civilian crisis management.
In terms of Ireland's national response, an audit of civil protection capacity was carried out earlier this year. On foot of this report, proposals are being actively examined regarding the pre-stocking of humanitarian supplies, the operation of a personnel roster for skilled individuals for deployment via established humanitarian systems and the undertaking of standby arrangements with a number of international organisations.
I thank the Chairman and committee members for their indulgence.
I will start with questions to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I know he is not the Minister for Defence but I wish to ask him about how the operation in Liberia is proceeding, in particular since the recent elections, and if there have been any problems.
The second matter is related to the first. The Minister mentioned the requirements catalogue being developed under the UK Presidency and the European Union's updating of processes for crisis management, in particular rapid response. Have we come closer to formulating an opinion on how we should integrate or involve ourselves in this process as it moves possibly towards battle groups? Have we made progress in this regard or are we just formulating a framework? What is the nature of our involvement in light of problems with the triple-lock mechanism and other matters?
With regard to Liberia, we have no particular reports on difficulties in that respect. The election has been regarded as fair although there has been a suggestion to the contrary, albeit unconfirmed. The issue raised by George Weah will have to be examined in the context of general acceptance that the election was fair.
The question of our being part of battle groups is still being discussed at governmental and official levels and the Attorney General has recently given advice thereon. I expect the Cabinet sub-committee on European Union affairs will discuss it further in light of this advice. As we stated previously, we are interested in principle in considering the possibility of participating in what we would term rapid response groups rather than battle groups, provided the triple lock is maintained. We are obliged to maintain this lock under our constitutional and legal provisions.
The Minister made some comments on Iraq, with which I agree. I agree strongly with the statement that it is only right that we should also take note of the political progress in Iraq this year as opposed to dwelling on the horrific bombings that are continuing. The Minister mentioned the Sunni community and the effort to involve it in the political process, and he also referred to the role of the European Union in this regard. This was a key point and obvious to some extent. How does he believe the European Union will help in the process?
Until recently, the EU has not been very involved in this issue. There has been more engagement recently, particularly since the referendum. As a result of our last meeting, I expect there will be more involvement. There is much work being done to assist the interim Iraqi Government regarding police training and judicial reform. The European Union can have, is having and will continue to have an input in such areas.
Exhortation of the Sunni community would be achieved at an international level but the European Union would regard itself, to a certain extent, as a bloc that could act as an honest broker in this area. We expect to have much more EU involvement in this area over the coming months.
On the financial perspectives, the concept that has arisen in recent briefings we have had is that what has been agreed before is now seen as the basis for agreement. This indicates the Minister is now prepared to move on to a different level of contribution and negotiate on what has already been agreed. Looking forward to 2013 and beyond, what is his general view on the expansion of the EU budget. How great will it need to be over 20 years as a result of the enlarged European Union and the migration of people into Ireland? How will we support the new members states such that they can gain an equal footing with the established member states, bearing in mind the way in which Ireland benefited heretofore?
My second question is for the Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan, and concerns the trade issues. There is a general inconsistency in the sense that we are, on the one hand, insisting that the WTO represent our farm interests while, on the other, I see no mention of EPAs, which the committee has raised previously. We are concerned about indirect trade barriers. In respect of EPAs, we required that all tariffs be removed, recognising that they represent a vital income for the countries concerned. On the one hand, the European Union is doing its best to protect farmers, for good or bad, and, on the other, it is putting up trade barriers against developing countries, which have little real choice in accepting the terms of the agreements.
On Iraq, all the lawyers defending Saddam Hussein in his trial have resigned for fear of their safety.
Or they have been shot.
A number of them have already been killed. I would have thought the trial was highly symbolic in terms of Sunni and Shiah relations in Iraq. It is a very important trial in terms of the United States encouraging Iraq to be responsible for its own security. Has there been any comment on this at GAERC level in respect of EU concerns in this regard?
My final point is also directed towards the Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan. In his document on the post-tsunami reaction, he states he is concerned about different competencies as between national, regional and international actors. He also refers to the need for different operations and expresses fears of duplication. This is clearly an issue about which he is concerned. Perhaps he will expand on it in his response.
With regard to financial perspectives, there is some discussion as to whether the EU budget for 2007 to 2013, which we are discussing, is sufficient, but it is only a tiny proportion of the entire gross domestic product of the member states. We are only discussing a figure amounting to 1.06%. It is a great deal of money but is small in relative terms. Some of the larger countries believe it is too much and others believe it is not enough but the sum represents the balance. Extremely intense discussions were held leading up to the end of the Luxembourg Presidency and, to be fair, the Presidency did considerable work in trying to get that balance right. Although we would not have been dancing in the aisles over all the proposals, we believed the Presidency's work represented a fair and reasonable effort at striking a balance, and that is why we were prepared to accept it. It was generally accepted, even in the immediate aftermath of the discussions. The British, and the French to an extent, spoke about long-term issues and the future direction of the European Union generally, not just in respect of the budget. Most other countries said that as this effort came so close to achieving the balance, it was inconceivable we should start afresh. At least 20 countries are of the view, to varying degrees, that the existing Luxembourg negotiating box should be the starting point for these discussions.
Little detail has been made available to member states on how we can square this before the end of the year. The ambassadors will discuss it at COREPER tomorrow. The Council will discuss it and we understand, as of this morning, that the Presidency has proposed a conclave on 7 December where all aspects of the financial perspectives, including own resources and the UK rebate, will be discussed. We have not received a comprehensive document on this.
The last GAERC meeting on this was effectively a round of member states' views. The Presidency and the Commission had proposed tinkering with some issues but in general the discussion skirted around what I called afterwards the elephant in the corner, namely, the UK rebate. This would always have been the case. Had it not been settled during the Luxembourg Presidency, given that we were moving into the UK Presidency, it was going to be difficult in this six months to square the circle of the financial perspectives.
It would be best for all concerned to keep as close as possible to the principles outlined in the Luxembourg Presidency. That is accepted generally, apart from some of the countries involved. There is a danger that the more one picks at that, the more it will unravel.
Our input in respect of Iraq is not significant in the context of the resurrection of the country. Much of it is in the hands of the Iraqis. While I agree with the comments about the ongoing violence, that should not take away from the incredible turn-out in recent elections. The key is to involve the Sunnis in the process more than they have been.
The European Union is not involved in the trial of Saddam Hussein but is keeping a watching brief on it to ensure that normal standards of human rights prevail. Like any democratic nation, we hope that it will be a fair trial where people have an opportunity to state their positions.
Many people here feel quite removed from the Iraqi situation. As the Minister said, our involvement has been limited. How seriously does he take the threat from people such as the man who intimated last week that Ireland is a legitimate target for bombing? Are our systems in place to deal with such threats?
I do not agree with those remarks. They were passed on to the Garda Síochána and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
I would like to answer Deputy Andrews' questions briefly. There has been significant disquiet among non-governmental organisations about the economic partnership agreements. These are, however, primarily a tool for development to encourage and incentivise on a one-to-one basis. In the context of the forthcoming World Trade Organisation discussions in Hong Kong, more than 70% of tariffs are levied by developing countries on other developing countries. There is a significant requirement, particularly in Africa, to create a regional market in Africa. That would be more beneficial to those African countries than liberalisation in the EU context.
I raised the matter among development ministers of the economic partnerships at European level and we have tasked the Commission, particularly Commissioner Mandelson, with keeping an eye on that because of the concerns of the NGOs and some African countries about the way those negotiations are proceeding. They are addressing them.
A total of 40% of exports from developing countries and two thirds of the exports of least developed countries come into the European Union. In that way Europe makes a significant contribution to African and developing countries.
People tend to be too despondent about the upcoming round of talks in Hong Kong. At a recent meeting of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs I identified four key deliverables that can come from Hong Kong, namely, an extension of the Europe-led everything but arms initiative, giving duty and quota free access to developing and particularly least developed countries. We would like to see the non-European G8 and other large industrialised countries adopt this policy.
It is possible to deliver something on special and differential treatment for developing countries in terms of this round. Developing countries should not be asked to involve themselves in a major opening up or liberalisation of their markets as part of this round. Pascal Lamy, director of the WTO, described that as a free round for the developing countries. We could also deliver a significant package on the aid for trade front which would provide the requisite compensation for the liberalisation that is occurring.
Deputy Andrews also mentioned the post-tsunami response and the danger of not being clear about the competencies. In line with the Minister's role as a UN special envoy, we strongly believe in and assert the primacy of the UN in co-ordinating the response to all natural disasters. One of the positive consequences of the tsunami was the effective assertion of that primacy in the response to the disaster. There is a risk of duplication and lack of consultation between the international, the EU regional civil response, and the local response.
These responses must be planned carefully. Some years ago Sweden tried to develop a serious search and rescue competency and civil capability. However, an audit showed that it cost €27 million per life saved. In other words, a large sum was spent on having a standing response capability but it was not often used. Development Cooperation Ireland is considering how to enhance an effective response that complements our regional and international obligations and the mechanisms available.
I welcome the Minister and the Minister of State. There appears to be a substantial agenda of business to be transacted next week. The British Presidency has been a holding rather than a developmental one. Regarding issues we have discussed here on regular occasions both when meeting the Minister and meeting as a committee, we see that the ongoing EU enlargement process, the EU constitution and the Lisbon Agenda all seem at best to be parked in neutral, with no progress made. That is disappointing as we are nearly into December of 2005.
Regarding the discussions on the trade round in which the Minister will engage, I note his view that agriculture should not be sacrificed as part of an overall agreement. All involved in agriculture and agri-industry will accept there must be changes and concessions. However, there is a great fear that Commissioner Mandelson is on a solo run. The Minister said the Commissioner is stating that his most recent offer on the opening of agriculture markets is fully within the terms of the Commission mandate. However, that view is not accepted by the leadership of Irish agriculture. It is only a little more than a week since we saw 5,000 or 6,000 farmers outside the gates of Leinster House, in Molesworth Street, voicing their grave concern at what Commissioner Mandelson appears to be doing.
Can the Minister confirm what concessions the Commissioner is offering? From a lay perspective it appears he is going beyond the initial negotiating position and that what he is putting on the table would dismantle the CAP, which was put in place only two years ago. The demand of rural Ireland and its representatives is that from an agricultural perspective, the series of cuts and cutbacks agreed in 2003 should not be the starting point of any new negotiations, but the finishing point.
On the financial side, the Minister said that while he felt the June package was still the best on offer, he hoped it might conclude in December. He might elaborate on that.
Regarding the hat the Minister wore in place of the Minister for Defence, Deputy O'Dea——
The helmet.
Indeed, the helmet. Regarding the rapid response issue, what will be the practical impact of the proposed changes in that regard? We have had relatively heated debates within the Oireachtas on occasion regarding Ireland's role in rapid response. Is there a new set of proposals on the table or is next week's discussion simply a general one?
With regard to the WTO talks, with the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Coughlan, and the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Michael Ahern, I attended a meeting convened at the request of the French, whom we supported in that respect. It followed on from fairly difficult discussions at the Council of Ministers for Agriculture regarding where it was felt the Commission was heading. That meeting cleared up some misunderstandings and misconceptions. As a result of that meeting, the Commission, through Commissioner Mandelson, made an extended offer which is generally accepted as being within the mandate.
The mandate is basically contained in conclusions starting from a meeting as far back as October 1999 and conclusions of various ministerial meetings including ones in Cancun and Doha. It is generally accepted, even by the member states which might be most against what Peter Mandelson is trying to do, that he is within the mandate, though on its extreme outer limits. The Commission maintained there would be no movement at all, and that it was possible the EU would be blamed for a breakdown in the discussions if there was no movement with regard to issues pertinent to the EU but also in the agricultural area.
We are happy that Commissioner Mandelson has not gone outside his mandate but we have said clearly that he can go no further. He has said this is the bottom line. The latest offer he made dealt with a number of areas in agriculture — export subsidies, domestic supports and market access — but also had regard to other issues on which we believe there should be movement. We maintained, and it is now Peter Mandelson's position, that we can go no further with regard to any offers in agriculture, that it is up to other groups of states to make concessions and that we have put our best foot forward in the effort to square this circle. I emphasise that this is the EU's bottom line but it is also strictly conditional on movement in other areas to open up trade, which ultimately will be of advantage to the EU as one of the world blocs most open to trade, in particular a country like Ireland. From that point of view we believe we have gone far enough. We are in a post-reform situation and have said that clearly. We have already carried out the reforms with the CAP agreed in 2002 and 2003 and we should not be expected to go any further. Other blocs have not carried out those reforms and are making promises and commitments which are not tied down. We are happy in the knowledge that we have given our best shot at what we can do in order to make these talks successful.
The UK Presidency came after a difficult period for the EU, what with not agreeing on the financial perspectives, having a very difficult June Council meeting in the Luxembourg Presidency, and after the rejection of the EU referendum by France and the Netherlands. The UK therefore came into the EU Presidency in a very difficult scenario.
The EU constitution is off the agenda of our meetings because it was agreed we would wait until the Austrian EU Presidency in order to return and review the situation. A great deal of work has gone on, particularly with regard to the difficult issue of Turkey and Croatia, which have been successful in starting what will be very difficult discussions in the context of Turkey. The UK Presidency is conscious that there is now a huge onus on it to wrap up the financial perspectives, not least because of its own particular issue, which I noted earlier and which might be described as the elephant in the corner.
There are ongoing discussions on rapid response at official levels. I expect they will come back to the Cabinet sub-committee on European Scrutiny with regard to how we proceed to follow on from agreement in principle to participation. From the practical point of view, these are issues which will have to be ironed out. Some countries are well ahead of us with regard to their participation and 22 member states are already committed, including some of the neutral states. As a result of the difficult issues we must tease out, we are behind others. However, we must do this because of the legal requirements incumbent on us. We are trying to resolve these matters and I know that the Minister for Defence and his officials are actively considering the Attorney General's advice as to whether a change in legislation or whatever is required in order to facilitate our participation.
I join others in thanking the Minister and the Minister of State for coming before the committee. I will not raise the first issue, the financial perspectives, which I wished to raise because the Minister has already satisfied my curiosity in that regard. My only comment is that, over time, the British rebate should go, perhaps not as quickly as we would all like, but at least on a phased basis over a number of years. We do not want to upset them too much, however, because they have been very good friends of ours in Europe. In equity terms, however, that rebate came about at a time when the UK was much poorer. It is much richer now and there are countries in Europe that could do with some of that loot, to put it crudely.
I have a few minor questions on the Iranian situation. As the Minister is aware, the Iranian ambassador to Ireland was recalled recently in circumstances about which I am not sure we are totally clear. There are still senior diplomats in the Iranian embassy in Dublin. However, I am concerned that we should obtain as much information as possible about the Iranian situation. Obviously, information is emanating from the EU three, namely, France, Germany and the UK. In addition, information is also being provided by Javier Solana. However, the EU three are all large nations rather; they are not small, neutral or non-aligned states. I hope that the smaller countries in the EU will have their own flow of information on this topic.
When the Minister came before the committee — or perhaps it was the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs — at the end of June after the non-proliferation treaty review conference, he stated that the nuclear powers were in breach of their obligations under the NPT. I hope he will be saying this during discussions at the European level. When they are looking at countries that are members of the NPT, some of them might remind themselves that they are in breach of their own obligations under the treaty. They should not be allowed to get away with that.
As the next International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, meeting is on 24 November and the meeting of the General Affairs and External Relations Council, GAERC, takes place a few days before, the Minister will not have the benefit of the report of Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei for this meeting. That brings me to my final question. Ireland is not a member of the board of the IAEA but does have observer status. Do we actually attend those meetings and, if so, who is our observer because this committee should have more information on these matters? I would like to know the Iranian and IAEA perspective on these matters, as opposed to simply being given the European worldview.
On Ireland's membership of the board, we have been a member of it until recently and that is something which rotates. Our ambassador in Vienna attends all the meetings and we are regularly briefed on it.
As to the obligations of large countries under the NPT, in the case of Iran we are talking about non-proliferation and not disarmament, as such. It is important to divorce the two issues, even though, from a treaty viewpoint, it is a balance. I made that point clear when I addressed the UN at the review conference. I was quite specific in asserting that while the wider international community through the IAEA is obliging countries to ensure that there is no proliferation of nuclear weapons, at the same time there are obligations on larger countries to disarm in line with the provisions of the NPT.
On briefing matters, I am very happy about the way we are briefed by the EU three. This issue is on every agenda and has been for as long as I have been attending GAERC meetings. As it has also been discussed intensively at officials' meetings in the run-up to all of these conferences, we are fully aware and briefed.
It is true that the ambassador has been recalled. I understand he went back to Iran and has not been replaced. We received word officially within the past week to the effect that he is not currently the ambassador. I have read some newspaper reports — as, I am sure, has the Deputy — on the matter and we await developments. However, there is a fully staffed Iranian embassy in Dublin. I met the Iranian ambassador to the UN during the NPT conference, who requested to meet me as a representative of an EU member state. It was clear that my comments — relating to Ireland's vehement objection to nuclear armaments and its opposition to the nuclear industry — were not what he wanted to hear. He maintained that all they want to do is enhance and build up their nuclear industry for civilian purposes. The Iranians are entitled to do so — if that is what they are doing — under the NPT. To a certain extent, we agreed to differ but I left him under no illusion as to where the Irish people stand in terms of the civilian and military aspects of the nuclear industry in general.
On the British rebate, Ireland's position is that there are times when member states must make net contributions and that there has to be some counterbalance in this regard. We have argued that there should not be a proliferation of rebates. While we can accept the principle of targeted rebates, any measures put in place in response to the UK situation should not cost the other member states any more than the existing UK rebate. Any rebates present in the system should not continue for ever and should be equally funded by all member states. The entire point of the initiative last June was that we are now dealing with ten extra member states. The idea behind the financial perspectives review of the next seven years is to take into account the fact that there must be a different distribution of the income into the EU.
All the member states, the larger, richer ones in particular, must bear some pain in that regard and take responsibility for it. Ireland, as an EU recipient over a long period, must recognise that it will be a net contributor and this is something we must acknowledge and for which we must be prepared. We were prepared to accept that during this period and also the fact that, not very far into it, we would become a net contributor. That is where we find ourselves but it is in the interest of the same type of solidarity we received when we joined the Union that we should endeavour to assist. There were those who might have sneered at what some of the new members said around the table on that occasion about being prepared to accept some more cuts in the budget in order to get an agreement. President Jacques Chirac summarised the situation well when he said that the new member states were prepared to take some pain, while some of the larger countries were not. He was correct.
It is incumbent on the larger countries, as well as the more prosperous states — including Ireland — to be magnanimous and share the burden. We obviously have our own national interest that must be protected. However, we took great reductions in proposals for the peace and reconciliation fund and we had to accept that. We are now one of the richest countries in the EU on a per capita basis.
How does the EUROMED summit, which is being held in Barcelona, relate to the new Mediterranean parliamentary assembly which was formed in Nafplion last year? Do the two bodies meet and agree on issues? One of them includes north African countries and countries such as Albania, Israel and the Arab nations.
How much will the military capabilities requirements catalogue for 2005 cost? How much do we contribute to the European defence agency budget on a yearly basis? Will the encouragement of Irish sub-supplies in the arms trade compromise our nuclear free policy and neutrality?
I am involved in the Barcelona assembly and there does not appear to be any contact between the parliamentary assembly side of it and the governmental side.
We will not compromise on our non-nuclear stance. Senator Mulcahy is a member of a committee on that parliamentary assembly. The assembly is a manifestation of the implementation the EUROMED process, which started ten years ago. The meeting in Barcelona takes place on the tenth anniversary and will take stock of where we stand. The Taoiseach will attend on behalf of Ireland.
I understand that there is no cost to Ireland from the military requirements catalogue. Our contribution to the EDA is approximately €200,000.
That is not too much.
The Minister has covered many of the supplementary questions that may have arisen from his two papers. I hope that at the EU-Ukraine summit, misleading promises or expectations will not be given to the Ukrainians on future membership of the EU. Support has been helpful in the past but it should not reach the point where an expectation, which becomes politically impossible to handle on either side, is created. We need to learn the lessons of that in respect of what happened with Turkey.
One of the commanding arguments for the European constitution, which arose of out the Nice treaty and the Laeken Declaration, is that a community of 25 member states would be inefficient in its decision-making. By extension, a Union that had 27 or even 30 member states would move towards decision-making paralysis. The Minister has only been attending the General Affairs Council for a year but he has much experience of European Council meetings. His officials have obtained an enormous amount of experience, including during a very successful Irish Presidency. What evidence is there since May 2004 that the decision-making body of 25 has drifted into paralysis or has slowed down significantly? Is there any indication that the increase from 15 members states to 25 has slowed down the decision-making process? It was an argument that I and many others made from our experience.
A point came up very strongly last week that relates to the period of reflection on the constitution being engaged in by the committee. A number of members made it clear that the expectations of many countries that are not part of the EU were being raised and that this is unwarranted at present. They made the point that the EU should take a collective deep breath before engaging in raising expectations of these other countries, be they observers, holders of neighbourhood status or whatever.
On my UN travels, I visited Ukraine and I spent more time there than I did in other countries. I stayed there 24 hours, whereas I only stayed for a matter of hours in other countries. I had many bilateral discussions with the Ukrainians and it came across to me that they needed the EU to reach out to them. If we do not assist the Ukrainians, we would perhaps rue the day and so would they. This must be done in order to sustain the democratic and popular movement among the people for a democratic society there. It is fair to say that the Ukrainians are realistic about their short and medium-term capabilities. There is no doubt but that there is a huge desire for them to participate in the EU. While we cannot ever tell them that they will not do so, we must methodically reach agreement through the neighbourhood policy that we have with them. The Ukraine, like a number of other countries on the periphery, is as European as Austria or Ireland.
There is expansion fatigue. As a Minister for more than eight years, I have witnessed the breathtaking speed at which the expansion of the EU has occurred. Given the crises that have happened recently, especially that regarding the constitution, there is a feeling that we should go more slowly than heretofore. This brings me to the point made by Deputy Quinn on potential paralysis. I chaired five different councils, more than any other Minister, during the Irish Presidency. At that stage, only 15 states had voting rights and the other ten were present as observers. I was there for the handover on 1 May and the meetings afterwards. I must say that the meetings have gone more quickly and better at ministerial level. There is recognition that work must be done before it reaches the ministerial table. People felt that some of the new Ministers might enter into long speeches about issues but that is not the case. The meetings are much more informal. However, when it comes to difficult issues, especially those involving money, matters are somewhat more problematic. The Luxembourg Presidency clearly showed, however, that with hard work and persistence——
Has the decision-making process been displaced? Has it slowed down in COREPER, for example, and is this the case across the spectrum?
No, I do not think so and I do not believe that is the view of our officials. One of my officials makes the point that it was a difficult period. However, I was pleasantly surprised by the businesslike manner in which meetings were conducted after accession by the different Presidencies.
The decision with regard to achieving a 2010 timeframe was made very quickly at the meeting in May by the 25 Ministers with responsibility for development. What tends to happen is that certain country representatives, including those of Ireland, tend to be spokespersons for a cluster of countries. Therefore, the length of debates is shortened. Key countries, among which I include Ireland, in a sense speak on behalf of others.
I welcome the Minister and Minister of State. The debate has been enlightening. The Seanad recently debated the Lisbon Agenda. Reference was made to the fact that the Union now contains 25 member states and that decision-making paralysis may result because the new states come from a different background that involved political instability and that they must become used to the concept of democracy. There is no doubt that Ministers will have to be alert to the problems.
The Minister referred to the fact that Ireland will be a net contributor with regard to the budget, which could be a problem for us, although we benefited greatly in the past. Globalisation was mentioned in the context of the review of the Lisbon Agenda. There are huge problems and they will not disappear. While the Minister was very clear, we must face up to these issues.
The Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan, stated "The UN is the primary co-ordinator for the relief efforts of the international community ... National initiatives must complement the collective EU capacity and meet UN needs." The word "must" concerns me. It suggests that in the past we were not as focused in our thinking on co-ordination of the efforts of the EU and United Nations. Will the Minister of State clarify this point?
I am not suggesting anything about past practice because it is beyond my range of experience. I have been in this job for only a year and I do not want to comment on whether it was done well in the past. However, I now know a great deal about emergencies because there have been four or five of them — ranging from the tsunami to the situation in Niger, and, of course, the recent events in Pakistan — this year. I want to share with members some good news about Pakistan. There were signs in recent weeks of a large increase in donations from countries for the Pakistani crisis.
There is great public clamour for clarity in terms of a response. Clearly, with regard to capability, the EU has a deficiency in terms of what is known as heavy lift capacity, which is much needed in Pakistan. We need to complement and enhance current capabilities. In the past, immediate action was demanded and this led to situations such as the sending of unneeded clothing to Banda Aceh, where it piled up on the ground and was of no use to anyone. There must be more co-ordination to deal with the disasters such as those of this year because there is sure to be a recurrence of such disasters in the years ahead. We need to learn the lessons from those disasters and to ensure that whatever we do complements existing efforts rather than duplicating what is done by others. Certain countries specialise in certain areas of disaster response. Ireland needs to specialise in a way that complements the work of other countries that are acting positively in different areas of crisis response.
To respond to Senator Ormonde's question, Ireland will be a net contributor but, at the same time, across the spectrum it has been a beneficiary in a huge way, whether with regard to the Single Market of 485 million people with which we can trade in an open way or the attractiveness that being part of the EU creates in the context of foreign direct investment. From that perspective, while being a net contributor will put an additional financial burden on Ireland, given the economic prosperity we enjoy and are forecast to experience, we are well capable of dealing with this issue.
While the Lisbon Agenda has not been as resounding a success throughout Europe as we would have liked, there is no doubt that Ireland has been reasonably successful in moving some of these issues forward. We recently submitted our new reform programme in this regard to the Commission. The Prime Ministers at the Hampton Court meeting referred to the need for a gearing-up of the Lisbon Agenda and the EU's response to the threats from globalisation. People are conscious of the need to do more in this area. I hope we would be in the vanguard in that respect.
I thank the Minister and Minister of State.
The joint committee went into private session at 4.05 p.m. and adjourned at 4.10 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Wednesday, 23 November 2005.