The first item is a discussion with the Minister of State with special responsibility for European affairs, Deputy Treacy, and the Minister of State with special responsibility for overseas development and human rights, Deputy Conor Lenihan, on the forthcoming meeting of the General Affairs and External Relations Council. On behalf of the joint committee, I welcome the Ministers of State and ask the Minister of State, Deputy Treacy, to commence proceedings. He will be followed by Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan, and thereafter proceedings will be opened up to members.
General Affairs and External Relations Council: Ministerial Presentation.
I am pleased to have this opportunity to meet the joint committee to review the agenda for the meeting next Monday and Tuesday of the General Affairs and External Relations Council, GAERC, in Luxembourg. This will be the fifth such meeting under the Finnish Presidency and includes a full session devoted to development and trade issues.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern; the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Michael Ahern, and I will represent Ireland. As members will be aware, the Minister for Foreign Affairs is attending the Northern Ireland talks in St. Andrews and I am sure all of our good wishes are with those, including the Taoiseach, who are participating at the talks. My colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan, from whom members will hear shortly, is unable to attend the GAERC next week. Accordingly, I will take part in the session on development issues.
With the Chairman's permission, I will deal first with the items on the general affairs side of the agenda and thereafter with those relating to external relations. The Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan, will then speak on development issues.
Enlargement is the only substantive item on the general affairs agenda. As members will be aware, following the green light given by the European Commission in its monitoring report published last month, the Council of Ministers will formally note that Bulgaria and Romania will accede to the European Union on 1 January 2007. This will complete the historic fifth wave enlargement made possible by the ending of the Cold War. Ireland warmly welcomes the accession of Bulgaria and Romania and looks forward to working with both countries in a Union of 27 member states.
Foreign Ministers and Development Ministers will receive a joint briefing from High Representative Solana and Development Commissioner Michel on progress in the implementation of the EU strategy for Africa since its adoption by the European Council last December. Under the terms of the strategy, the European Council is due to review progress in implementation at its meeting in December and, subsequently, every two years thereafter.
The briefing by High Representative Solana and Commissioner Michel will concentrate on describing the steps taken to give effect to the strategy in the past ten months and is intended to set the stage for a fuller discussion of the strategy at the European Council. Considerable progress is being made in taking forward the strategy, including the forging of closer working relations with the African Union, as demonstrated by the visit of Commission President Barroso and eight Commissioners to Addis Ababa to meet the African Union Commission on 2 October. An EU concept for strengthening African capabilities in the area of conflict prevention and resolution is also being considered within the Council, as are the details of two major initiatives signalled in the strategy, namely, the EU-Africa partnership for infrastructure and EU governance initiative. Discussions are also under way between the European Union and the African Union on developing the European Union's strategy into a joint EU-Africa strategy.
Ireland remains strongly supportive of the EU strategy for Africa as providing a comprehensive framework for the development of EU-Africa relations. We welcome the progress made to date in giving effect to its provisions. The emphasis in the strategy on African ownership and partnership and key challenges such as peace and security, governance and poverty reduction accord very much with our own priorities, as outlined in the recently launched White Paper on development.
The General Affairs and External Relations Council will also discuss the crisis in the Darfur region of Sudan and adopt conclusions. These will express deep concern about the appalling security, humanitarian and human rights situation in Darfur and call on all parties to halt the violence and ensure safe delivery of humanitarian assistance. Ministers will call on the non-signatories to join the Darfur peace agreement. The Council will reconfirm its support for UN Security Council Resolution 1706 and urge the Sudanese Government to consent to its implementation. In this context, it will also welcome continuing efforts by international partners, including the African Union, to convince the Sudanese of the need for a UN operation in Sudan. Ministers will welcome the African Union’s decision to extend the mandate of AMIS, its ceasefire monitoring mission in Darfur, until 31 December and confirm the extension of the European Union’s support to AMIS until the end of the year.
Ireland is using all avenues to urge concerted international action to resolve the continuing humanitarian and political crisis in Darfur. The Minister for Foreign Affairs met the Sudanese Foreign Minister in New York on 26 September and addressed the UN General Assembly on Darfur on the same day. On both occasions, he made clear our view that humanitarian aid must be delivered safely and without restrictions and that there must be a transition to a substantial UN peacekeeping force with a robust mandate in Darfur. He also stressed that long-term security in Darfur could only be guaranteed by the full implementation of the May 2006 Darfur peace agreement. We will continue to use every opportunity to press these points and persuade the Government of Sudan to accept a UN force in Darfur.
The Council is also due to discuss the position in Zimbabwe, an agenda item inscribed at the specific request of Malta which currently serves as the chair of the Commonwealth. The Minister for Foreign Affairs discussed the situation in Zimbabwe with the Maltese Foreign Minister, Dr. Michael Frendo, during his recent visit to Valletta. We share the widely held concerns about the continuing deterioration of the situation in Zimbabwe, which has seen increased repression, abuse of human rights and growing economic hardship for ordinary Zimbabweans. A discussion by the Council is timely, in order to consider in what further ways the EU might positively influence the prospects for democratic change in Zimbabwe. Ireland and the EU will continue to work with others in the international community, and particularly our African partners, to mobilise opinion and maintain pressure on the Zimbabwean Government to alter its failed policies. Ireland remains fully supportive of the current EU sanctions against Zimbabwe and does not see any basis for altering the EU’s Common Position on Zimbabwe, which falls due for review in February 2007.
The Council will review developments in the Middle East. Ministers will wish to build on the international consensus which was confirmed during the opening sessions of the UN General Assembly in New York on the need to revive a credible process for a comprehensive settlement in the region. The Quartet agreed at its meeting on 20 September in New York that there is an urgent need to intensify its efforts. These will be based very clearly on the strong position of the European Union that any comprehensive settlement must have at its core a negotiated two-State solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The EU has supported President Mahmoud Abbas in his efforts to form a Palestinian Government of national unity. The announcement on 11 September of initial agreement on a political platform gave grounds for hope that progress was possible on the formation of a government committed to the peace process, which could mandate the president to enter into negotiations with Israel. Unfortunately, progress has stalled since then, and the president's efforts have been further undermined by the serious violence which has broken out in recent weeks between different armed Palestinian groups. Ireland believes it is important that the EU continues to encourage the president in his efforts, and remains ready to respond to any positive development in a generous and creative manner.
The immediate priority must be to end the humanitarian and security crisis in Gaza, through the release of the captured Israeli soldier, and of the detained Palestinian legislators, the ending of violence from all sources and the re-opening of crossing points for people and for goods. The Council on Monday will approve the extension of the temporary international mechanism to channel assistance directly to the Palestinian people, through which the Community and the member states have increased their assistance to the Palestinians this year. The Council will call again on Israel to resume the transfer of tax and customs duties which it has withheld from the Palestinians since April. The suspension of these transfers — amounting to about €450 million so far — is the main component of the financial crisis facing the Palestinian Authority. The EU is examining urgently how the temporary mechanism might be used initially to facilitate their resumption.
The Council will also review progress in the implementation of Security Council Resolution 1701, which provided the basis for the ceasefire in Lebanon. The EU will continue to give strong support to the Lebanese Government and to work for the full implementation of the resolution. It provides a path to peace based on the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Lebanon. The EU is also providing the backbone for the strengthened UNIFIL mission, which has so far deployed 5,000 troops to southern Lebanon alongside units of the Lebanese Army, and enabled the complete withdrawal of Israeli troops by 1 October from all but one village in southern Lebanon. Full deployment of the UNIFIL force should be completed by early November.
The committee will be aware that the Government has decided that, in keeping with the peacekeeping role played by the Defence Forces in Lebanon through some of that country's most difficult periods, Ireland will contribute a contingent of the Permanent Defence Force to the strengthened UNIFIL mission. Under the triple lock, the despatch of the contingent is subject to approval by Dáil Éireann. The necessary motion is being introduced by the Minister for Defence today. It is planned to deploy a contingent of approximately 150 personnel as part of a joint Finnish-Irish unit. Deployment would take place on 30-31 October.
Discussions on the western Balkans will cover the situations in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo and possibly Serbia. Bosnia and Herzegovina, BiH, will be discussed in light of the result of the elections held on 1 October last, and a report from Secretary General-High Representative Solana and Enlargement Commissioner Rehn on a reinforced EU engagement in the country. We hope that the new leadership will introduce the reforms that are required in order that a stabilisation and association agreement, SAA, with BiH may be concluded. These include reform of policing and full co-operation with the international criminal tribunal for the former-Yugoslavia, ICTY.
With regard to Kosovo, it is anticipated that UN special envoy, Mr. Ahtisaari, will shortly present proposals on the future status of Kosovo to the Security Council of the UN. These are widely expected to recommend a form of conditional independence for Kosovo. It is expected that a strengthened international military and civilian presence will be required for Kosovo during the post-status period, with the EU taking the lead role. While no decision has been made yet as to Irish participation in the international and EU civilian presence, I would certainly hope that it will be possible for Ireland to contribute to this important mission. On the military side, Ireland will continue to supply Defence Forces personnel to KFOR. From August 2007 we will assume the framework nation role in the multinational task force centre which is deployed in central Kosovo. We will be increasing our existing contribution of just over 200 troops to nearly 300 to fulfil this additional role.
In addition to the above, the situation in Serbia is likely also to be considered. The Presidency will report on an EU Troika meeting with Serbia on 16 October. The main topic for discussion with Serbia will be its co-operation with the international criminal tribunal for the former-Yugoslavia, ICTY, especially as regards the arrest and transfer to ICTY custody of the former Bosnian Serb military commander, Ratko Mladic. Committee members will recall that Mladic has been indicted by ICTY in connection with the massacre of 8,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys in 1995.
At our last meeting of the Council, High Representative Solana updated members on his most recent contacts with Iranian officials on the Iran nuclear issue. These contacts, begun on 9 September in Vienna, were initially said to be progressing and had touched upon substantive issues, including the core issue of suspension of enrichment activities. Discussions continued in Berlin on 27-28 September, but failed to reach agreement on an acceptable formula by which substantive negotiations could commence on the package of incentives presented to Iran in June.
In light of this continued impasse, and the reportedly unco-operative behaviour on the part of Iran, further action at the Security Council, including some form of sanctions, will now be pursued. While this is regrettable, it is essential that the will of the international community and the authority of the Security Council be respected. In the meantime, the possibility of negotiations on the package of incentives will remain open should Iran choose to comply with its obligations and suspend its enrichment-related activities. We continue to fully support the efforts of the EU3, on behalf of the EU, to find a peaceful and diplomatic solution to the current stalemate. Discussions at the upcoming Council meeting next Monday will enable us to reaffirm our support for diplomatic efforts and discuss in detail the next stage in this ongoing process.
Ministers will discuss the recent sharp deterioration in relations between Georgia and Russia, following the arrest on 27 September of four Russian officers in Tbilisi for alleged spying, and their later release. The EU has already called for calm and a negotiated end to the current disputes between the two countries. The question of what further steps should be taken will be discussed by Council.
Following a statement of intent issued on 3 October, on the morning of 9 October North Korea announced that it had carried out an underground nuclear test. Seismic activity in the region confirms that a large explosion took place at a location in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, DPRK. However, it has not yet been finally confirmed if the seismic activity was the result of conventional explosives or a nuclear test. We continue to work closely with our EU partners and through Ireland’s missions in the relevant capitals and to the UN to establish the facts.
As the Minister for Foreign Affairs said in his statement issued on Monday condemning the announced test, this was a provocative decision in direct contravention of the international objectives of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation and is a serious threat to regional security and stability. Ireland fully supports Security Council Resolution 1695, adopted after the DPRK's missile tests in July, and calls on the DPRK to abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programmes and return to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the binding International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. While the Council is not scheduled to discuss the DPRK on this occasion, it is expected to approve conclusions setting out the EU's concerns and its condemnation of the DPRK's actions.
There is a diplomatic solution to this crisis and it is through the six-party talks process. I again urge the DPRK to return to the talks immediately and without precondition and to work towards implementation of the joint statement of September 2005 and the denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula.
At the request of Poland, the Council will discuss the forthcoming EU summit with Ukraine under "Any Other Business". The summit is due to take place in Helsinki on 27 October. This will be the ninth EU-Ukraine summit under the current partnership and co-operation agreement and occurs as the European Union begins discussions on a new enhanced agreement to include a deep and comprehensive free trade agreement, FTA, which will replace the current partnership and co-operation agreement. Poland has indicated that it does not envisage a lengthy debate on the matter but wants to draw attention to the importance it attaches to relations with Ukraine. Ireland looks forward to hearing Poland's views on the EU-Ukraine relationship.
That concludes the formal agenda for next week's meeting. En marge of the GAERC, the Minister for Foreign Affairs will meet the Finnish Minister for European Affairs, Ms Paula Lehtomaki, to discuss the EU constitutional treaty. Members of the committee will recall that the European Council agreed last June to extend the period of reflection on the future of Europe, noting that more time and further work were needed before firm decisions on the future of the constitution could be taken. The Presidency was tasked with preparing a report to the European Council which would assess the discussion and explore possible future developments. The Finnish Presidency is holding a series of bilateral consultations. This exercise will continue under the future German Presidency which will report to the European Council in June next year. Members will be aware of our strong commitment to the EU constitutional treaty as agreed by Heads of State and Government in 2004. The Minister for Foreign Affairs will, in the course of his discussions, impress on the Presidency our view that the constitution continues to provide the best available solution to the institutional issues facing the Union.
I will now pass over to the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Conor Lenihan, after whose contribution I will be happy to respond to any questions or comments members might have on items on the GAERC agenda.
I appreciate this opportunity to meet members and brief them on next week's meeting of the General Affairs and External Relations Council, GAERC. This will the first GAERC since the launch last month of the Government's White Paper on Irish aid. It is fair to describe the White Paper — the first of its kind in the history of the State — as a landmark document. I am proud, as I am sure we all are, of Ireland's contribution to development and the White Paper is unique in that it serves as a full expression of this country's development aid policy.
Next week's Council meeting will feature two joint sessions, the first involving Development and Trade Ministers and the second involving Development and Foreign Affairs Ministers. In this context, it is appropriate that I should begin with a subject which I believe to be of the greatest relevance to everything we do, namely, policy coherence for development. The OECD has defined the concept thus: "Policy Coherence for Development means working to ensure that the objectives and results of a government's development policies are not undermined by other policies of that same government which impact on developing countries, and that these other policies support development objectives where feasible". The Finnish Presidency has made this a key theme for its term in office and I most definitely share the view that it is a vital factor in ensuring our development efforts, both multilateral and bilateral, will prove successful. To advance on the issue of policy coherence for development, improvements need to be made both in working methods and interaction between policy sectors. At its meeting in April this year the Council agreed to review and improve the decision-making processes to ensure effective integration of development concerns in EU decisions.
It is important that next week should not just be an exercise in "reviewing the review". The Presidency is proposing to start the Council's deliberations with a discussion on coherence between development and trade and, towards the end of the meeting, to have a more general discussion that extends beyond trade-related issues.
The Presidency's objective is twofold. The first aspect is to have the Council adopt practical and, above all, operational conclusions on strengthening policy coherence in the Council and the second is to have a lively and constructive policy debate on the issue, based on questions that the Presidency will prepare. The Presidency wishes to underline that the package represents several mutually supportive actions and commitments, all aiming at strengthening the Union's external action. "Action" is the key word in this regard.
Development and trade are important aspects of external policy. The two are often handled in parallel and the Finnish Presidency has decided, for the first time, to invite Trade and Development Ministers to a joint session of the Council. The main theme of this session will be aid for trade, one of the European Union's priorities.
Many developing countries and all least-developed countries lack the capacity to take full advantage of the opportunities provided through international trade. The international community has recognised the existence of trade-related challenges for the developing world for some time but last year was decisive for the aid for trade initiative. This was launched at the WTO ministerial gathering in Hong Kong in December, in which I participated, with the Minister for Agriculture and Food and the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment. In Hong Kong the European Union's member states announced trade-related development assistance of €2 billion per year by 2010. This roughly translates into €1 billion from the Commission's sources and €1 from bilateral donors such as ourselves. The task now is to take further steps to translate this commitment into practice on an EU-wide basis. In the light of the suspension of the negotiations in July, the WTO aid for trade task force has emphasised that aid for trade is important in its own right and should be implemented as soon as possible, despite the current impasse in the overarching WTO negotiations.
For the European Union, an important dimension in the aid for trade debate is the question of measures related to economic partnership agreements. One will recall that in June 2002 the Council gave a mandate to the Commission to negotiate with African, Caribbean and Pacific states in order that these agreements could enter into force upon the expiry of the WTO waiver in December 2007. This date is drawing ever closer and at next week's Council there will be an update from the Commission on the state of play of the negotiations.
Based on the presentations by the Commission and a discussion paper from the Presidency, the Council will have a policy debate on aid for trade, the WTO-Doha development agenda and economic partnership agreements. In addition, Council conclusions on aid for trade are to be adopted. The development co-operation instrument is a very important component of the package of external action instruments. In July the Committee of Permanent Representatives, COREPER, reached a general agreement on the matter and in the interim the Presidency and the Commission have been working closely with the European Parliament to iron out any remaining difficulties. Following the latest round of contacts, COREPER last week approved a mandate to revise the Common Position agreed in July, allowing the text to be submitted for formal approval by Parliament. I am pleased to state we can now look forward to overall agreement on the development co-operation instrument in mid-November. While the matter will simply be an "A" point at Council next week, I nonetheless wanted to mention it today because it is an important milestone that required great effort on the part of all concerned.
For its part, Ireland is pleased that its efforts and those of other like-minded countries within the European Union to ensure there would be a single development instrument have borne fruit. It had originally been proposed that the instrument would combine economic and development co-operation, which we strongly opposed. In this context, I pay tribute to the tireless lobbying efforts of Irish NGOs, especially Concern, on this issue.
In the field of aid effectiveness, the Presidency has focused on achieving greater complementarity and division of labour between the European Union, its member states and other donors. This is a lengthy process and will also involve incoming Presidencies. For the moment the Presidency aims, as part of the orientation debate, to have the Council adopt conclusions on the guiding principles on complementarity and the division of labour, as well as having a policy debate on the issues, based on questions that will be tabled by the Presidency.
The Council will also receive a report from the Secretary General-High Representative and the Commission on the implementation of the Africa strategy in advance of the report to be issued to the European Council in December. Given that Africa is and will continue to be the primary focus of Ireland's development co-operation efforts, we are naturally determined to play our part in ensuring the strategy succeeds.
A number of other issues which are important in their own right are also linked closely to the Africa strategy. These include the infrastructure initiative, in respect of which the Presidency aims for the Council to adopt conclusions on the Commission's communication. Also included is the governance initiative. In this regard, the Presidency aims for the Council to adopt conclusions on the Commission's recent communication on governance. While this has global scope, it is particularly relevant in Africa in the light of the strategy for Africa and the fact that the majority of ACP states, with which the tenth European development fund is currently being programmed, are located on the African continent. Another issue of importance is the strategic partnership with South Africa. In this regard, the Presidency aims for the Council to adopt conclusions on the Commission's communication on this particular matter.
The Council will also consider migration and development, focusing, in particular, on the issues of remittances and the brain drain. To help frame the discussion, the Presidency has issued a background paper and questions for discussion.
I would like to avail of this opportunity to report briefly on the conclusion of the mentoring programme for the new EU member states which I initiated. In the past 12 months we have received delegations from ten new member states and given each an intensive series of briefings on all aspects of Irish Aid's operations. The new member states are required to take on challenging aid targets and have difficulty in developing bilateral aid programmes, in most cases having little knowledge or experience of best practice developed to date. I wanted to impart to them the lessons Irish Aid had built up over 30 years of operation. I also wanted us to learn about the different perspectives on development which our new partners were bringing with them within the European Union. We have encountered a strong desire on the part of the new member states to co-operate with us and Irish Aid on an ongoing basis. In this, as in so many other spheres, the importance of follow-up and continuing engagement cannot be overstated. We believe such co-operation will lead to greater coherence and aid effectiveness if bilateral donors are prepared to work together and share programmes.
I thank the Minister of State. The Minister of State, Deputy Treacy, mentioned Bulgaria and Romania and welcomed their accession. I have been listening to Ministers, specifically the Tánaiste and the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, in recent weeks as they made concise statements about the free movement of workers from these countries on accession. Are we going to restrict free movement from Bulgaria and Romania? Recent statements seem to make that position clear.
Ireland is delighted to welcome Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union on 1 January on foot of last month's positive monitoring report by the Commission. We are pleased that both countries have made sufficient progress in recent months to ensure their accession in 2007 and look forward to developing our already warm relationship in the years ahead.
Both Bulgaria and Romania benefit from our accession training programme and can continue to do so as new member states. There is already a programme in place which is dedicated to capacity building in the civil service in both countries. We are developing a programme to promote transparency in recruitment and promotion in the Bulgarian public sector. I hope these initiatives not only assist in improving our bilateral relations but also help Bulgaria and Romania maximise the benefits of EU accession.
From 1 January Bulgarians and Romanians, like other European Union citizens, will have the right to travel throughout Europe. There is a seven year transition period vis-à-vis working in member countries. Each member state will be required during the seven year period to justify the economic situation after three years if it has not opened its doors and again after five years if the doors remain closed. In 2004 Ireland gave the lead and was proud to do so, in solidarity with new member states. We want to ensure the Union can create opportunities for all citizens and all applicant countries that join. We will consult the social partners and other member states and decide when all relevant information is available before the end of the year.
Some members asked for figures and specific data before the decision is made. Have they been compiled?
The information is being compiled and will be made available to the committee as soon as it is ready.
When will that be?
I hope it will be available in the next month because we want to ensure the most accurate information is available before final consideration is given to the issue.
I welcome the Ministers of State and thank them for a detailed overview. Members of the committee visited Bulgaria and Romania recently and we were impressed by the preparations under way and expressed the view that there would be a positive outcome from the Commission at the end of September. I welcome that outcome but it is now down to the question of opening our borders to nationals from those countries.
There is nothing in the document to illustrate that Ireland is taking a stand on the failure of our partners in the European Union to live up to their obligations on the free movement of labour, with the exception of the British and Sweden. Some countries have eased restrictions but in others there is a closed door policy to the new accession states. This creates distortions in the Union that must be addressed. With our making a decision based on as much information as possible, there is a responsibility on us to tell our European colleagues that they must live up to their responsibilities on opening their borders. I see no sign of our saying to them at a forthcoming meeting that a decision is imminent on Bulgaria and Romania but in the absence of their making a decision, it creates a problem. I urge the Minister of State to raise this issue at the meeting and state there is an obligation to ensure free movement in the labour market.
I agree with the Deputy and assure the committee that at European Council meetings the Taoiseach and at General Affairs Council meetings the Minister for Foreign Affairs and I consistently raise this issue at every opportunity and point to the fact that other countries have not been even-handed. There is a responsibility on all of us to share the creation of opportunity for all citizens of the European Union. We will continue to do this.
It is unfair on the newer states that borders are closed and it is unfair on us that there is no level playing field, despite the fact that we have benefited enormously from opening our labour market. There are, however, serious distortions because of the lack of uniform access.
Will the Minister of State update us on the Schengen agreement and the implications for it arising from enlargement? This does not affect us directly but I would like to hear more.
The Minister of State said when speaking about Iran and North Korea that we had to find diplomatic solutions. There is no point in our condemning North Korea when the international community has failed dismally to do anything about the NPT. There have been double standards and hypocrisy, with the approach of the United States and other western countries to India in stark contrast to their approach to Iran, and a failure on the part of the nuclear powers to do anything to reform the NPT. That is the crux of the problem — the failure of the international community to update the NPT. What are we doing? As we are an architect of this treaty, it should be a priority for us. We can talk to each other about North Korea until we are blue in the face but it will not listen. We can threaten Iran, driving it to more extreme measures, but it is pointless unless there is reform.
I am unhappy with the EU three, the United Kingdom, Germany and France being our agents in negotiations with Iran. Each of those countries is a nuclear power and has a vested interest in Iran. Ireland should have a role in this process as a non-aligned country which has a proud record in the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. I am not happy to leave the complex negotiations with Iran to those three countries. I may return to a couple of other points later.
May I come in on the same topic? I agree with Deputy Allen who knows that I have raised this many times at meetings of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs. The Minister of State is aware that in a few weeks time a vote will be taken in the so-called "London club" on the US-India nuclear deal. Ireland has a vote in that club and has a strong traditional commitment to nuclear non-proliferation.
It is also a member of the new agenda coalition, which comprises approximately ten progressive countries determined to inject new life into the non-proliferation process. Unfortunately, when the moral authority of the West or the so-called civilised world is undermined by hypocrisy it is difficult to talk to countries such as North Korea and Iran with any authority. The United States and Britain are in the process of re-arming and creating new nuclear weapons in breach of their obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. They are supposed to be disarming.
I hope the Minister of State will return to this committee to talk in detail about this issue before any vote is taken at the United Nations on sanctions for Iran. We have friendly diplomatic relations with Iran. I am concerned that Iran is perhaps being singled out for reasons other than the nuclear one and that it will be the subject of harsh sanctions in circumstances where that should not happen. I am against Iran developing nuclear weapons, as is the Government, but I am also in favour of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. The argument has two sides, the nuclear powers are supposed to disarm and in return those countries which do not have nuclear weapons will not develop them. It is not possible to have one without the other. Trying to do so is not just hypocrisy but is probably in breach of the non-proliferation treaty and, therefore, illegal. The Minister of State might return to us with a legal opinion on whether the nuclear powers are breaching their legal obligations under the treaty and whether therefore they have a right to raise the issue at the UN Security Council.
Will the Minister of State deal with the Schengen Agreement?
I am not ignoring the Minister for State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Conor Lenihan, and the issues he raised. The Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs had a two hour discussion with him yesterday on development aid.
Is the Deputy saying he does not want to listen to Deputy Conor Lenihan again?
No, I will listen to him anytime but we sorted out any questions we had yesterday.
Ireland is not a full participant in all aspects of the Schengen Agreement but is part of the common travel area with the United Kingdom. Discussions are proceeding about the development and implementation of the agreement following the accession of new member states in January 2007. The structures and systems of Schengen are being discussed with the two respective states to ensure they can absorb the agreement. It is a matter for the member states concerned to pursue how the agreement develops.
I agree with what has been said here which reflects the views of the people on the position of North Korea and Iran. Ireland has always been the strongest supporter of the non-proliferation treaty. We were instrumental in achieving this in the 1960s under the great leadership of the late Frank Aiken. As a result of the respect that gained for us we were the first country to sign the treaty. We have made clear our full support for the negotiating strategy led by France, Germany and the United Kingdom with the support of High Representative Javier Solana on behalf of the European Union as one of the best avenues to pursue the diplomatic solution we all seek. There are regular briefings and discussions of developments at the monthly meetings of the GAERC from which I have benefited. Mr. Solana has always given us detailed briefings and has answered questions so that we are kept up to speed with progress.
On 16 June the European Council endorsed the incentive package Mr. Solana presented to Iran on 6 June. Most countries on the board of governors of the international atomic energy agency have endorsed the initiative of the EU three. Under these circumstances I do not see any scope for a specific Irish role that will bring added value. On the contrary, there is a risk that it could be divisive and counter-productive. The three countries concerned have expertise and knowledge in this field and are in a position to make a judgment based on the information made available to them or that they have discovered as a result of inspections in co-operation with the United Nations.
EU officials review the activities of the three countries on behalf of the European Union every week. EU Ministers also review and discuss them regularly, including at the monthly meetings of the GAERC. These meetings afford us the opportunity to engage with our European partners including France, Germany and the United Kingdom. We have made clear to them our position on their engagement with Iran and North Korea on behalf of the European Union. We support their attempts to achieve a peaceful solution to the current dispute surrounding Iran's nuclear programme and recognise the importance of their work to date, especially in building consensus among the five permanent members of the Security Council, P5, on the package of incentives.
We are entering a delicate phase in respect of Iran. The international community has made clear that it wishes to seek a peaceful diplomatic solution to the problem of Iran's nuclear programme. Ireland strongly supports such a solution as does the European Union. Should the Security Council, however, think that it is necessary to adopt a further resolution, imposing additional measures in the form of sanctions on the Iranian regime, Ireland will abide by this decision in conformity with its international obligations under the United Nations charter. It appears that the time for this action has now come but we wish to remind Iran that the possibility of negotiations on the package of incentives remains open, should Iran choose to comply with its obligations and suspend its enrichment-related activities as demanded in Resolution 1696.
The US Congress and the nuclear support group are considering their position on India, which we have previously discussed in this committee. Ireland has posed questions about the deal at the nuclear support group but no vote has been taken there as the US Congress continues to debate the matter and the final shape of the deal remains unclear. We await the outcome of the negotiations at the nuclear support group.
I welcome the Ministers of State, Deputies Treacy and Conor Lenihan. Any of the areas of conflict around the world could dominate the Council of Ministers meeting. I am concerned however about Darfur and the Sudan. What is happening there is a tragedy.
Last month the Minister for Foreign Affairs highlighted the situation but it appears not to be improving. The Sudan Government resists a UN force entering Darfur to protect the people. At the last committee meeting the figure for the number of displaced people was put at over 1 million. The aid agencies had to pull out of certain areas because of the danger of their workers being killed. While it has received much publicity in the past two months from many personalities, the situation does not seem to be improving. Will the Ministers of State ensure this item is kept on the agenda for the forthcoming General Affairs and External Relations Council meeting?
Aid for trade is a nice phrase but it has many implications for the countries involved. Ireland has been the leader in giving aid. We insist on it being monitored and used in the right way. Aid for trade, however, lays down conditions for many of the recipient countries and their industrial development. Concerns have been raised that these ties will have implications for progress in their economic development. If the European Union enters these markets, it could pose problems at a local economy level, with which the Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan, is very familiar. It is important that the views of the people on the ground are taken into consideration. It is nice to talk about aid for trade but the implications will be felt at local level. There cannot be a blanket decision affecting all recipient countries.
The Deputy is focused on these issues and I concur with his arguments. Ireland remains gravely concerned about the grave humanitarian crisis in Darfur and is using all avenues towards concerted international action to resolve them. We will continue to use every opportunity to press these points and persuade the Government of Sudan to accept a UN force in Darfur. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, and the Minister of State at that Department, Deputy Conor Lenihan, visited Darfur and saw the dreadful situation there at first hand. The Government calls on all parties in the strongest terms to halt the violence and uphold their obligations to protect civilians. On 26 September the Minister raised Ireland's concerns at meetings in New York with the Sudanese Foreign Minister and the UN Secretary General and in his address to the UN General Assembly. He used these occasions to underline that humanitarian aid must be delivered safely and without restrictions. There must be a transition to a substantial UN peacekeeping force with a robust mandate in Darfur where long-term security can only be guaranteed by full implementation of the May 2006 Darfur peace agreement.
Ireland and the European Union are asking influential African and other states such as China and Egypt to encourage Sudan to accept UNpeacekeepers in protecting its people. The Government of Sudan has a key responsibility to protect its citizens and if it fails to act, the international community will have to consider possible further measures. The European Union has implemented a comprehensive arms embargo on Sudan since 1994. Our efforts form part of a co-ordinated European push to address the crisis. The recent visit of the European Commission President from 30 September to 1 October when he met the Sudanese President, Mr. Bashir, and visited a refugee camp in Darfur was another important part of the strategy. While Mr. Bashir maintained his strong opposition to the deployment of a UN force, he appeared to accept the status quo was unsustainable and unacceptable to the European Union. At one point he appeared to be open to a greater UN presence if linked to the African Union. It is essential to maintain an international military presence in Darfur until the deployment of a UN force, as a reminder to the parties that the world is monitoring their activities.
The Government welcomes the decision taken on 20 September by the African Union to extend the mandate of the AMIS ceasefire observation mission at Darfur until 31 December. The size of the force is also to be increased to 8,500 troops. The United Nations will provide 130 army and police advisers and technical support personnel, as well as logistical assistance, while the Arab League will provide financial assistance. In recent days the Sudanese President, Mr. Bashir, has accepted this latest package of support for AMIS.
Ireland has provided €3 million, including €1.5 million pledged in July, to ensure AMIS has the necessary resources to fulfil its mandate through to the end of this year. Four personnel from the Permanent Defence Force have also served with AMIS. Ireland has also provided over €12 million in emergency aid for Darfur, including €7.6 million to date in 2006. We also support the full and rapid implementation of the May 2006 Darfur peace agreement which provides a constructive basis for peace and reconciliation. We urge the non-signatories to adhere to it as soon as possible and commit to its implementation. More needs to be done to widen the political basis of support for the agreement in Darfur, especially through early initiation of an inclusive Darfur dialogue. Blame for the current situation rests on all those who are reluctant to take the path of peace.
Since 2004 Ireland has provided €12 million in emergency aid for Darfur, including food and shelter assistance for displaced populations across the region. Funding is also channelled via the UN aid agencies and the NGOs under the leadership of the Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan. Ireland has also contributed €3 million for humanitarian, human rights and policing aspects of the AMIS mission. The security situation in Darfur has been precarious, preventing humanitarian organisations from reaching the most vulnerable people. I regret to say that in some cases the Government of Sudan has also impeded the movements of humanitarian organisations. Ireland has consistently emphasised that all parties to the Darfur conflict must adhere to their obligations to allow unhindered access for humanitarian assistance.
Much concern has been expressed by NGOs and other donors, including Ireland, at EU meetings on the structure and the manner in which economic partnership agreements, EPAs, are being conducted. There has been great concern expressed by our partner countries at how these have been negotiated. It is important to remember that this discussion will not conclude until 2008 and that EPAs are not market-opening or trade liberalisation instruments. They are primarily development instruments. The EU Commissioner, Peter Mandelson, the chief negotiator, has said he regards them as such. The views of local partner countries are vital in the ongoing discussions.
At the trade talks in Hong Kong both the European Commission and the bilateral EU donors agreed a €2 billion package by 2010. Collectively, between us we will be spending €1 billion from 2010 onwards. Ireland spends €2.9 million through the Irish Aid development programme on aid for trade measures. By 2010 the figure will be €20 million. Some will be spent at a multilateral level through established institutions and funds such as the Integrated Framework based in Geneva, a multi-agency trade facilitation fund established by UNCTAD, to which Ireland already commits €1 million. It is a €500 million fund involved in improving customs unions and the standard and operating procedures of customs officials and trade facilitation. That is one vehicle through which we shall channel our aid for trade assistance.
Some €1million has been given to the Investment Climate Facility, designed to improve the business investment climate for our partner countries. It is often forgotten that EPAs are involved in south-to-south trade. Too often the discussion centres on trade between north and south. The biggest challenge is to increase trade within Africa by creating strong regional markets. One purpose of the economic partnership agreements is to facilitate and assist African countries to trade with each other. Some 60% of the barriers levied by developing states are directed against each other. The overwhelming barriers to trade that operate for them are self-imposed rather than handed down by the northern hemisphere to the southern.
On the Minister of State's points on the EPA, I heard a radio piece recently about the greatest monsters of Irish history. People suggested Oliver Cromwell, Éamon de Valera — perhaps that was Deputy Deasy ringing in — and Charles Trevelyan. I mention the last-named person because it occurred to me that his solution to the Famine in Ireland was to impose the 19th-century English industrial model of free trade on it, although at the time it was more or less a medieval agricultural economy. Naturally, that did not work.
The Minister of State said that Commissioner Mandelson does not see the EPA as a way of opening up trade between the northern and southern hemispheres. The fundamental problem is that our notion of development is quite different from that current in Africa. To us, it is liberalisation, growth and jobs, but in Africa, it is much more basic. We are trying to impose on Africa a model of the western liberal economy within a very short time; I believe that the period in question is ten years. However, it took the European Union 50 years to come close to achieving a single market.
Many people present have experience of the economies of southern Africa. How on earth is one to achieve that in ten years? How does one replace the tariff revenue that funds southern African governments? The economic partnership agreements are all very well in theory, but they are a European solution to an African problem. We must have much more flexibility, and trying to impose a "one size fits all" solution will not succeed.
We have raised that on this committee many times, and it is clear that the Minister of State is very much on top of his brief. This is the first time that we have had Deputy Conor Lenihan here since publication of the excellent White Paper. Much in it is commendable, including the rapid response initiative and the extension of aid to Malawi.
This is a pet notion that I have entertained over the years, and I will raise it again now that the White Paper on aid is on the agenda. Irish towns and villages are twinned with such places as Barcelona and The Hague. If one had a twinning arrangement between Tullamore, for example, and a small town in Tanzania, one would have opportunities for schoolchildren, local business, GAA clubs and so on to form links with specific areas, giving a tangible and visible outlet to people's great desire to assist. Sometimes there is a feeling that the money we raise in such contexts disappears into the various NGOs without our really knowing their achievements. That idea might be included in the mix. I know that the White Paper is still at that level, and I am not sure if it is appropriate.
That is a good idea that I have not heard before.
I have raised it previously, but I did not get anywhere with it. However, it deserves consideration.
My last point — for the Minister of State, Deputy Treacy — is on the debate concerning the accession of Romania and Bulgaria to the EU. Politics today is very much about focus groups, something especially true when one approaches an election. One is isolated from the basic principles in which we all believe as politicians. We allow ourselves to be told by machine or backroom people that we should not say this or that.
The first principles of the EU are basic freedoms, the free movement of labour being perhaps most important. If one resiles therefrom in the case of Romania and Bulgaria, one must acknowledge the substantial burden of proof requisite to make such a decision with any authority. As Deputy Allen said, there is no evidence to suggest negative economic consequences for Ireland. There have been great benefits to Ireland as a result of the accession of the last ten states, although at the time we did not know what position the vast majority of other member states would take. Let us assume that we secure a portion of that benefit and some negative reaction, the two balancing each other out. There is therefore no case to prevent access to the Irish labour market on the part of the new accession states.
Regarding Romanian orphanages, in September a television programme on ITV dealt with the real problems that still exist there. I have considered various reports on Romania, and the country has made progress. However, perhaps the Minister might raise the issue.
On the topic of enlargement, Deputy Andrews has said much of what I wished to say about Bulgaria and Romania. A Gallup poll with approximately 45,000 Bulgarian respondents conducted in September showed that more than 80% wished to go to Italy, Spain or the United States. Only 550 expressed any interest in coming to Ireland, either to work or to study. We will not be overrun by an influx of Bulgarians, whatever else happens.
I do not have any figures on Romania, but as Deputy Andrews said, either these countries are in the EU as full members or not. I know that we have opened our borders more than most, but we should not close them to citizens of accession states. We learned a great deal from the Poles who came here, who are good workers and fitted in well, and I am sure the Romanians and Bulgarians will do the same. We have much to gain, and little to lose, from not closing our borders to people. I agree with everything that Deputy Andrews has said.
I welcome the Ministers of State. Two areas have not been mentioned, the first being North Korea and diplomatic relationships with the Community and individual member states. How strong is that diplomatic relationship, and how influential or otherwise, particularly in the context of the current nuclear-testing problem? The durability and strength of that relationship will be tested. While North Korea may be regarded as a pariah state for very good reasons, the potential of the EU diplomatic initiative is obvious. I am sure that with other power blocs in the world the potential for progress might not be as good.
Under the "any other business" heading, I see that the relationship between Ukraine and Poland, or between the former and the EU, is to be considered at the Council meeting. From a parochial Irish perspective, given the building of bridges and strengthening of trade and business relationships with Poland, what view should we take at the Council meeting? I am aware of quite a few Ukrainians in Ireland on work permits, and their capacity to harmonise with our economic system is significant. While I do not have any statistics and speak solely from local constituency experience, there seem to be quite a number here who have gelled quickly and effectively in our economy.
Since there have been so many questions, I will ask the Ministers of State to take them before inviting Senator McDowell to speak.
Deputy C. Lenihan I will begin with Deputy Andrews, who raised the spectre of Trevelyan and our own Famine experience in the context of the “one size fits all” suggestions of the EPA. We have consulted in great depth with our programme countries on this. We have actually shared that with the NGOs. Full and final conclusions of our research into the impact of the EPAs will hopefully become available by the end of this month, but we will certainly pass on the interim conclusions to the Deputy. Broadly speaking, the interim conclusions of our research into the effect or impact of the EPAs has been quite negative as regards how they would impact in financial terms in the programme countries in which we operate. Overall, that would underpin the argument made in the Deputy’s question.
I would stress, however, that we have until the end of 2007 to perfect and improve these particular instruments. The Commission, NGOs and bilateral donors such as Ireland are very much focused on ensuring that there is not a negative impact and that whatever interventions we make by way of agreement on the EPAs should also fit very well with the aid for trade agenda. This would ensure the negative impact can be minimised.
Some studies, not perfected or done by ourselves, suggest there is a 30% loss in terms of the net transfers or the impact of EPAs, as regards business and investment. Opinions can differ in that regard but we are very much concerned with ensuring that this is minimised from a development viewpoint. From the standpoint as I saw it in Hong Kong, there is a subtle difference between the recipient African countries in their attitudes to the EPAs and sometimes the more globalised NGOs. Sometimes the NGOs take a very negative viewpoint, indeed, whereas the actual partner countries are very keen on EPAs, as mechanisms for opening markets and facilitating global access. Clearly, they share the reservations the Deputy and I have as regards practical outcomes, as measured to date. I hope that is not confusing the matter further, but I will circulate the interim and final conclusions so that Deputies are abreast of the issues.
One of the more positive outcomes might result from finding some space and time to extend the actual deadline. It might not be helpful at this stage to have this absolute deadline at the end of 2007 because preferential treatment arrangements run out then, under WTO rules. If would be helpful if we could negotiate some extra time to perfect and look at these EPAs. That is something we will be pushing for, hopefully, around the European table, so that we can assess what their impact will be — and perhaps negative any adverse impact by dint of opening up markets, etc.
The concept of twinning has been talked about extensively over the years. Every time there is a natural disaster, whether a tsunami or an earthquake in Pakistan, it is accompanied by a rush of enthusiasm from individuals and people towards the idea of twinning. One of the consequences of which many members of the committee will be aware from their participation in local authorities, is that twinning arrangements can benefit as a result of such enthusiasm, but they tend to run out of steam and the sustainability of such initiatives can frequently be exhausted.
The most interesting one we have supported financially to date involved South Dublin County Council. The skill sets structured in a county council in employment terms range from engineers to road builders and planners — the skills of people who are familiar with rolling out water and sewerage schemes can usefully be brought to bear in a development context. In the case of South Dublin County Council's twinning initiatives, it is concentrating on two or three particular districts in Ethiopia and bringing practical skills to bear there. It is also mobilising the staff into a payroll funding scheme, which involves further direct engagement with the Ethiopian districts.
What is the input through the local authority?
The local authority funds the enterprise and brings in its own experts. We have given them €20,000 or €30,000 to make their initial journeys out there to determine on what basis the co-operation might occur. That is a very good model, and I intend to enter discussions in this regard with the Health Service Executive. The HSE employs some 7,000 people who have had direct development work experience. They have either worked as nurses or as other health professionals in the developing world. We are very keen to tap into the institutional skills in Ireland, which we can perhaps twin with the various institutions in our programme countries. The concept is good but sometimes it is a failure because of lack of enthusiasm and people not focusing crucially on the leveraging of real skills and sustainability. We have seen numerous twinning initiatives in the past which were very much determined by enthusiastic management at particular stages, but over the years other people would come to be pushed into such programmes whose skills were not of the highest calibre. The best people tend to be employed at the start but over the years projects tend to run out of steam and end up populated by people who are not as highly motivated as their predecessors. This is something one has to be careful about. However, hospitals and local authorities are among the best examples of how such twinning might be leveraged to achieve the type of ownership referred to by Deputy Andrews.
One can appreciate the type of assistance that might be available from local authorities or hospitals. Is this concept being expanded or is it just one model that is being looked at?
South Dublin County Council has done it over the past year or so. It is quite a good model. If any members are interested in involving their own local authorities in this regard, they might get in contact with South Dublin County Council. Details of its involvement appear on its website. This shows how the local authority's town planners became involved in planning appropriately the huge expanding district town in Ethiopia.
Just to be clear, does the Minister of State's Department assist as well?
We do assist and are very anxious to encourage local authorities to undertake such projects. Management in South Dublin County Council has informed me of the beneficial outcome of such experience among the local authority's own staff. They go out and become involved directly, while at home they organise staff payroll contributions for financial assistance towards other schemes that may be of value in the Ethiopian town or district they are involved in. They also try to mobilise different civic actors within the South Dublin County Council administrative region in the same operation. It has a top to bottom application which is very good.
Deputies Andrews and Kirk and Senator Lydon raised a number of issues to which I should like to respond.
The Government will take its decision on labour market access for Bulgarian and Romanian citizens before the end of the year after consulting the social partners in other member states and considering the needs of the labour market and other relevant issues. Recent reports prepared by two eminent think tanks, the National Economic and Social Council and the Economic and Social Research Institute, will also be relevant. Both reports highlight the economic benefits of the decision not to restrict labour market access to workers from the European Union ten in 2004. However, both reports also make clear that the rate of immigration Ireland has experienced in recent times is remarkably high by international and historic standards and that significant inflows are likely to continue based on the phenomenon of chain migration, stimulated by the large immigrant population already resident here. Given the speed at which immigrants have arrived in Ireland, it has not been possible for a volume of research to be conducted which allows us to understand fully the experiences and impact of immigration on Ireland.
Furthermore, the inflow to Ireland has occurred during a period of rapid economic growth in this country which means the impact observed to date might not hold true in a more difficult economic climate. Both reports urge caution vis-à-vis the future migration policy for the country, and will have to be taken into account.
All three speakers raised a number of other issues. Our decision to establish diplomatic relations with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea was taken in the context of Ireland's Presidency of the European Union in 2004. This was to facilitate the Irish Presidency to deal directly with the authorities of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Since the establishment of diplomatic relations we have had an opportunity for frank discussions in a bilateral context on issues such as human rights and nuclear disarmament with authorities in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
As I have said, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, has already condemned the bomb tests in a public statement which he issued on Monday last. The Finnish Presidency has issued a statement on behalf of the European Union, condemning the announcement by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and urging it to announce immediately that it will refrain from any further tests of a nuclear device. It further called on the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to publicly renounce nuclear weapons and return immediately, without preconditions, to the six-party talks, work towards implementation of the joint statement of September 2005 and, in particular, abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programmes. We have been informed that this statement has already been reported within the domestic media of the DPRK. Throughout the history of the confrontation over North Korea's nuclear ambitions, the European Union has been highly vocal in calling for North Korea to comply with the relevant obligations and co-operate fully with the international community. While not directly involved in the six-party talks, the European Union has availed of every opportunity to confirm its willingness to contribute to international efforts to move matters forward. The EU has also indicated its readiness to consider enhanced co-operation with the DPRK if the present situation can be resolved in a satisfactory manner. The British ambassador to Pyongyang, acting on behalf of the European Union, has held a meeting of EU heads of mission in the country to discuss what action can be taken locally to show its condemnation of the tests.
Deputy Kirk also raised an issue about Ukraine. At the request of Poland, the Council will discuss the forthcoming EU summit with Ukraine, which is due to take place in Helsinki on 27 October. The EU will be represented by the Finnish Prime Minister on behalf of the EU Presidency, the EU High Representative Javier Solana and the Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso. The Ukrainian delegation will be led by President Yushchenko, with whom I met last spring in Shannon. This will be the ninth EU-Ukraine summit under the current partnership and co-operation agreement and it occurs as the EU begins discussions on a new enhanced agreement, including a comprehensive free trade agreement, which will replace the current PCA. The summit will be the first such meeting since Ukraine's parliamentary elections in March and the formation of the new Government in August. It takes place at a crucial time for the democratic consolidation of the Ukraine.
At the summit, the EU intends to stress the crucial importance of political and economic reforms and the importance of early Ukrainian WTO accession to the future development of EU-Ukraine relationship. There will be a focus on evaluating concrete co-operation in a number of areas, including energy, nuclear safety, justice, freedom and security and foreign policy matters. There will be an initialling of agreements on visa facilitation and readmission if agreement is reached on texts in time.
In the foreign policy area, the EU will seek further positive co-operation on Transdniestra and Belarus. Co-operation on energy will also be highlighted, with a progress report issued on the implementation of a memorandum of understanding on energy. The general framework of a new, enhanced agreement will be discussed at the summit. An integral part will be a substantial foreign trade agreement which will be dependent on the Ukraine joining the WTO. Other major elements of the new agreement will include energy, GHA issues and enhanced co-operation on foreign and security policy. The Council will soon begin discussing a draft negotiating mandate for the new enhanced agreement, with a view to agreeing a mandate for negotiation by the end of the year.
In advance of the GAERC, Poland has circulated a food for thought paper to partners in which it advocates deeper engagement by the EU with Ukraine. The paper suggests that the new enhanced agreement between the EU and the Ukraine should take the form of an association agreement to take account of the Ukraine's European aspirations and to encourage its reform process. Poland has set out a number of key elements that it would like to see included in the enhanced agreement. In its paper, Poland also advocates launching an eastern dimension of the European neighbourhood policy to reinforce co-operation with eastern European countries, including initiating interregional co-operation. Moldova, Georgia and Ukraine have been deeply critical of the existing policy, as they feel it does not allow enough differentiation between different countries and situations. Poland and Lithuania have been key advocates of greater engagement by the European Union with its eastern neighbours. The incoming German Presidency has indicated that an enhanced eastern dimension of the European neighbourhood policy would be one of its priorities.
Ireland looks forward to hearing Poland's views on the EU-Ukraine relationship. As this item is being raised to share Poland's position with its partners, there is no need for the Minister to intervene. Ireland supports development of the relationship with Ukraine through the European Union and bilaterally. The EU focus is on finalising a deep free trade agreement with Ukraine. It is important to recognise that the new Ukrainian Government is very anxious to develop better ties with Europe and to strengthen relationships with Russia. On that basis, it is critically important the EU strengthen its relationship with Ukraine.
It seems that we are entering a very difficult period in Kosovo. I see from the statement made by the Minister of State that Mr. Athisari's report is expected soon and will presumably recommend some form of independence for Kosovo. The most disappointing thing since the western intervention in Kosovo is that the situation seems to have stagnated there. It is understandable that the Serbian Government and the Serbian people in Kosovo view the independence of Kosovo with less than enthusiasm, but it is more disappointing that the Albanian population in Kosovo seems to want the Serbians out and is reluctant to accommodate the small minority of Serbs still in Kosovo. The statement made by the Minister of State anticipates some increased commitment from Ireland to police the more difficult situations likely to arise after we reach the final status decision. What engagement does the Minister of State anticipate? How does he see things developing in Kosovo in the short term?
There seems to be a marked reluctance on the part of the European Union to engage with the Zimbabwean issue, which is deteriorating week by week. What is the current status of our aid to Zimbabwe? I believe we provide some humanitarian assistance and assistance to civil society in Zimbabwe. I urge that we should support those groups that operate independently of ZANU-PF in Zimbabwe, such as the trade union movements, to ensure that what little democratic structure left in that country is sustained and that it survives the Mugabe period. I also urge the Government to use the influence it has with the South African Government to bring to bear its considerable influence on the Mugabe regime to move peacefully to a post-Mugabe democracy.
I agree with what the Senator has said. No decision has been made yet on Irish participation in the international and EU civilian presence in Kosovo, although we certainly hope that it will be possible for Ireland to contribute to this important mission. We will continue to supply Defence Forces personnel to KFOR. From August 2007, we will assume the framework nation role in the multinational task force centre, which is deployed in central Kosovo. We will increase our existing contribution of just over 200 troops to nearly 300 to fulfil this additional role. The situation in Kosovo is serious and is constantly on the European agenda. It will be discussed again on Monday and Tuesday, and Ireland always makes its position clear. We will co-operate with all the initiatives in every way possible to bring progress to that region.
The EU is already actively engaged in discussing the situation in Zimbabwe with all those in the international community, especially our African partners, who may be in a position to exercise influence on Zimbabwe. The issue is regularly raised in dialogue with the African Union and other sub-regional organisations such as the Southern African Development Community, as well as with neighbouring countries such as South Africa. The Government is also active in raising Zimbabwe as an issue of concern. The Minister for Foreign Affairs discussed the situation at a recent meeting with the South African Foreign Minister at the margins of the UN General Assembly. EU ambassadors accredited to Zimbabwe, including Ireland's ambassador resident in South Africa, are also maintaining contact with all those in Zimbabwean society who may be in a position to influence positive change. It is a serious challenge and the international community certainly must take the necessary action on it.
How many Irish citizens are in Zimbabwe?
I am not clear on that. A number of Irish citizens are working with NGOs, but very few of them operate there now. The operating environment is very dangerous and highly politicised and this has led to problems with funding operations of the kind to which Senator McDowell refers. Most of our money is for very basic assistance such as food aid.
Since 2004, we have advanced approximately €13 million of assistance to Zimbabwe and this year the sum will be approximately €3.7 million. The bulk of the €3.7 million will be channelled through the World Food Programme to provide very basic food assistance to those having extreme difficulty accessing food supplies. We supply and assist some NGOs and civil society organisations on the ground, but this has proved difficult due to the highly politicised nature of the conflict within the country and the tension that derives from it.
To reiterate the comments of the Minister of State, Deputy Treacy, I have raised the issue of Zimbabwe at almost every available opportunity at an international level or when travelling, visiting and working in the region. Most recently, in June I was involved in very interesting discussions when I accompanied the President on a three-country visit of Africa. We raised the issue of Zimbabwe in every country we visited. In particular, good briefing information was given to us by former President Chissano of Mozambique and former President Nelson Mandela of South Africa in our discussions, at which the President, Mrs. McAleese, was present. However, one would not take much hope from the conversations with Mr. Mandela and Mr. Chissano. Former Tanzanian President Mkapa has also been deeply involved on behalf of African countries in tictacking with and talking to Robert Mugabe.
I would love to suggest there is a straw of hope from all of these conversations and the contacts that are continuing between African leaders and Robert Mugabe but nobody in any of those conversations gave us hope that something positive will happen. In fact, the predominant sentiment or view expressed by all three interlocutors was the idea that perhaps when Mr. Mugabe decides he will not contest another term, there will be a transition within the leadership of Zimbabwe that will hopefully be more benign than the current situation. However, they do not hope for any action in the interim by Robert Mugabe that would rectify or improve the situation. That was the tone of the conversations I had with the three named individuals.
Is the Minister of State suggesting the situation is hopeless?
That is the view expressed by Mr. Mandela, Mr. Chissano and Mr. Mkapa, who are established and respected figures in the African political landscape. They are acceptable mediators and interlocutors who talk to individuals within the Zimbabwean regime and visit and have reasonably regular direct contact and discussions with Robert Mugabe with regard to the situation there. I do not think any of the three gave myself or President McAleese any idea that we should be over-effusive or positive about potential developments in the near future.
I am grateful for the briefing. With regard to next week's meeting of the General Affairs and External Relations Council and the launch of a White Paper, there are several issues I wish to raise with the Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan. He referred to the concept of twinning cities and towns, which he would encourage. I would go a step further and ask him to accept the view that rather than twinning too many towns around the world, we should concentrate our aid on one country. We are trying a scatter-gun approach to the parts of the world that are in need and I am not sure if it is possible to follow up to the proper extent on all the funding that is provided.
An issue of concern to me is the huge administration cost involved in providing aid. There is a general perception that every euro given in aid becomes just ten cent before it hits the target. We must question whether our approach is correct and whether we should continue with this method of funding Third World countries. It would be preferable if every European country adopted a country and targeted the bulk of its aid to that country. At least one could then examine long-term strategies for education, health, infrastructure and the provision of food aid.
In any given year there will also be major world disasters, such as the tsunami, to which we must be in a position to readily respond. We should have a reserve fund for this type of aid. I feel strongly that we are not getting value for money for the aid we give and that we do not follow up on this aid as we should. It is as if we give a certain amount of GDP to Third World aid to cleanse our consciences. We should follow the progress in the country we adopt and make suggestions for areas such as education, water, infrastructure and so on. I would like that type of thinking to be taken on board.
Another concern is demonstrated by the example of Romania, where we give ourselves collective claps on the back with regard to what we are doing for disability services there. I accept we are providing institutions there but we should not forget that we know the legacy of what institutions have done to this country — we hear of this legacy every day and must live with it. For example, why do we not have a policy for institutions or for de-institutionalising people in this country? The whole point is to get people out of institutions and support them in their own homes, which is known to be more cost-effective and better value for the individual. Why do we have one policy at home while supporting another policy for Romanian orphanages?
Niall Mellon and others are doing excellent work abroad and I do not want to knock them. However, the Government should not adopt a policy and tell others it is good for them when we know it is not the way forward.
The Deputy raised a number of difficult and challenging questions to which I would like to respond. With regard to twinning, we do not focus on one country only, although it is an idea that is flung around from time to time. Our main focus is sub-Saharan Africa and our main focus within Africa is on the least developed countries. Some 50% of what we spend on the bilateral aid programme goes to the least developed countries. Our focus is on the poorest of the poor within the African paradigm.
There are eight programme countries, six in Africa and two in Asia, which, for want of a better term, we have adopted and for which we have programmed intervention. We are expanding the programme to a maximum of ten countries, eight in Africa, of which Malawi is the latest to be added.
The benefit from our perspective of operating in a number of different countries is the learning experience and the ability to learn from one country to another. Africa is a diverse continent and far more diverse culturally, ethnically and linguistically than Europe. There are 53 African countries. In one of our programme countries, Zambia, there are 40 different languages and eight main language groups. This is complex territory and our argument is that the programme should include a geographic spread of countries within Africa because one often finds in the development sector that some countries in Africa are getting things right on governance or food production while others are not. The idea of having a spread of countries, geographically and otherwise, within Africa is a good one because we can learn from the experiences of one country and hopefully enhance and improve the delivery of overall aid throughout the different countries.
The issues of the monitoring and follow-up on funding, as well as value for money, are significant ones which touch on the whole concept of aid effectiveness. Ireland has been highly praised and credited internationally by the OECD, which monitors the aid given by the 22 richest countries in the world to the poorest countries. The Irish assistance programme has been highly rated by the OECD and others because it is perceived to be very effective aid. It is entirely untied and is focused on the least developed countries in Africa, the poorest of the poor, which most deserve and need the financial assistance we provide.
It is not always popular to say this but Ireland has been particularly praised as a donor for the mixture of modalities we employ among and within the countries to which we deliver our aid. In general, I do not like to use jargon words such as "modalities" but they refers, in this context, to the different methods we employ for delivering and disbursing our aid. In some cases, our intervention takes the form of government-to-government support, providing direct headline budget support to those countries we believe are doing well in terms of governance. Tanzania is a spectacular example of this. Of the €27 million we spent there, €14 million goes straight into the Exchequer because it is our assessment that the country is doing well in development terms and that its Government has the systems in place to handle direct budget support.
We take a different view on direct government support, however, in the case of other programme countries, such as Ethiopia and Uganda, where we are not so confident or satisfied about the robustness of the governance systems in operation. We do not employ headline budget support there but instead provide sectoral or departmental support. In other words, we channel the funding through the relevant agencies overseeing education, health and so on. We also, under different modalities, involve ourselves with regional governments, down to the lowest district level.
The benefit of being involved in providing aid to a programme country at regional and district levels and in terms of sectoral support in the areas of health, education and so on, is that we learn far more about the operating environment in that country than we would if our involvement was confined to the auspices of the UN or co-operation with the individual government via headline budget support. This mixture of modalities for delivering aid allows us to be far more engaged in policy and other issues and helps us to ensure funding is well spent and effectively monitored.
In terms of assessing the effectiveness of aid, it is important to point out that it is not merely a case of self-assessment; external auditors are employed to evaluate and audit what we do. We are also subject to scrutiny by other donors. It is not simply the case that officials in the Irish Embassy in Lesotho, for instance, decide a particular project looks good and proceed from there. In general, we put our money alongside that of other donors. This is the accepted international practice because it leads to much greater efficiency and concentration in how funding is spent.
We are trying to make our response to disasters much more effective. In the two years I have been Minister of State, the budget has increased from €20 million to €60 million. This reflects the financial increments we have received from the Department of Finance as we move towards the target of 0.7% of GNP. This allows us do more to enhance our response to emergencies. Ireland is highly regarded in terms of how we deploy our funding in this regard. Some developed countries immediately, for showy reasons, pledge enormous sums of money in such circumstances. Unfortunately, however, it may subsequently be discovered that the promised funds were not deployed or disbursed.
These countries may get a great reaction from their own populations and others by pledging to commit funding but they may not keep their promises. Ireland, on the other hand, has built up a fantastic reputation over many years not just for making a declaration or pledge of support but delivering on same relatively quickly. Moreover, the White Paper provides for the development of a rapid response initiative by which we will pre-position supplies in different locations, including Brindisi in Italy and the Curragh in County Kildare.
We are also working to engage the services of people with expertise on the programme, both on the emergency and non-emergency side. We are compiling a roster of suitably qualified persons, such as road building engineers, whose skills may be deployed in the context of an emergency. There are people with desirable skill sets resident in our local authorities who could be mobilised and deployed elsewhere. When I visited Pakistan in the aftermath of last year's earthquake, staff from UN Logistics cited the specific problem of trying to rebuild affected areas in the aftermath of a disaster when there is a dire shortage of suitably qualified engineers with road building skills. Such professionals must be deployed quickly because the faster roads are restored to some level of usability, the easier it is to deliver aid. It is a question of saving lives. This is something to which we hope to commit in the years ahead.
Will the Minister of State let us know exactly what the Department would be willing to provide if a local authority were interested in partaking in such an initiative?
Yes, my first advice is to get in touch with the local authority in question. I will circulate information to all members on this.
Deputy Connolly asked why we are supporting orphanages in Romania while encouraging a model of community care in Ireland. I have personal experience of the situation in Romania when, prior to my political career, I helped build an orphanage there as part of a charity initiative of the company for which I was working. It is important to remember that the children being cared for in Romanian orphanages and other orphanage projects we support in countries east of Romania do not enjoy the benefits of a welfare support system to cater for their needs. It is a vastly different situation from that which obtains in Ireland where we have developed a positive social welfare support system which allows us to make the transition to community care.
In Romania and other countries to the east, however, there is absolutely no support for children in such situations. We provide support to Irish based NGOs and local NGOs involved in orphanage building projects. What is being communicated to us from governments and local and district authorities in these countries is that they cannot cope and do not have the resources to provide the necessary services. Those NGOs to which we provide funding generally come with strong letters of recommendation and support from the Romanian Government or the municipal or district authorities. They want the NGOs to provide these services because they, in their current state of economic growth, are not in a position to do so. I do not see a contradiction in this regard between our domestic policy and our external policy of assistance.
The Minister of State said that the notion of adopting a country has been touted from time to time. I would like to see further discussion of this issue. It might be better than the current scattergun approach. The Minister of State spoke about a large geographic spread and how useful that was, but there is a cost effect.
I am not arguing against what Deputy Connolly is saying, but it is effectively the case that we have chosen to adopt eight countries rather than just one. The idea of adopting only one is attractive at one level. From a policy and developmental perspective, however, particularly in terms of our ability to operate in the challenging landscape, political and otherwise, that Africa presents, it is better not to confine ourselves to one country. We learn more by working in several countries and experiencing different environments.
I accept that, however, it is not a question of learning, but of ensuring effective aid and value for money.
Yes, but learning in different operating environments is part and parcel of being effective in this setting. For example, the projects we fund in Uganda in terms of AIDS prevention are entirely different from those we would support in Lesotho. For reasons of culture and otherwise, different nationalities may have different attitudes to such matters. What works in Uganda does not necessarily work in Ethiopia. For this reason, we must work in different countries and learn what element of best practice can be transferred from one to another.
Were we to operate in one country only, we would be obliged to try to learn what works for other donors in the countries in which they operate and what could be imported into the programme. Overall, I argue for a concentration in a small number of countries. This is why the White Paper does not recommend an expansion of the Irish Aid programme beyond its existing geographical remit of ten countries. In other words, we do not envisage a future increase beyond ten countries.
Deputy Connolly's point is relevant. In their zeal to reach the 0.7% figure, the Dutch expanded the number of countries in which they operated to approximately 25. I work closely with the current Dutch Minister for Development Co-operation, who has suggested to me that they were obliged to cut back and that it was not a great policy. I understand they have cut back their operations to 15 or 16 programme countries, which is what they can handle.
The Deputy is correct regarding administrative overheads. The greater the number of countries in which one operates, the greater the administrative overhead. In response to the Deputy's specific question on the Irish Aid programme, its administrative overhead is less than 5%. When compared to domestic Ministries, this figure is extraordinary as I understand the payroll costs alone in domestic Ministries are in the order of 50%. Irish Aid's administrative costs take 5% from what is committed to the field, which is in line with acceptable international practice. While we can stand over the administrative overheads, we are anxious not to add to them by creating a myriad of different programme countries.
I thank the Ministers of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputies Treacy and Conor Lenihan, and their officials for their attendance.
Sitting suspended at 3.52 p.m. and resumed at 3.53 p.m.
The joint committee went into private session at 3.53 p.m. and adjourned at 3.58 p.m. until 12 noon on Wednesday, 18 October 2006.