The first item on our agenda is the forthcoming General Affairs and External Relations Council meeting. I welcome the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Micheál Martin, and his officials.
General Affairs and External Relations Council: Discussion with Minister for Foreign Affairs.
I welcome this opportunity to meet the committee to review the agendas for next week's General Affairs Council and Foreign Affairs Council. The splitting of the General Affairs and External Relations Council into these two Council formations is a provision of the Lisbon treaty, which entered into force on Tuesday. This is just one example of the many changes which the Lisbon treaty is bringing to the workings of the European Union. Another relevant example is the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. The new High Representative, Catherine Ashton, will be participating in the Council and I look forward to meeting her over dinner with colleagues on Monday. She will chair meetings of the Foreign Affairs Council from 1 January onwards. The Lisbon treaty also contains important provisions regarding the role of national parliaments which will affect the Oireachtas and this committee.
I propose to provide a brief "read-out" of the key items discussed at the November General Affairs and External Relations meeting, before turning to the items on the agenda for this month. The last meeting was a so-called "jumbo GAERC", which Ministers for defence and development also attended. At the General Affairs Council, Ministers had a short orientation debate on the implementation of the EU's sustainable development strategy. Ministers discussed outlines of a new EU strategy for growth and jobs. The Presidency presented the draft annotated agenda for the December European Council.
Foreign Ministers discussed the situation in Afghanistan over dinner, and also at a meeting with the NATO Secretary General and at a joint meeting of foreign and development Ministers. High Representative Solana briefed Ministers on the Middle East peace process. There was a broad discussion of developments in Russia and the relationship between the EU and Russia, and on Ukraine. The joint meeting of foreign and defence Ministers focused on Bosnia and Herzegovina. The joint foreign and development Ministers meeting discussed democracy support and Afghanistan.
I now turn to next week's Council meetings. I will attend the General Affairs Council where Ministers will discuss preparations for the upcoming European Council on 10 and 11 December, including the draft European Council conclusions. The main items on the agenda for the European Council are institutional issues, the current economic and financial situation, the UN climate change conference in Copenhagen, which commences on 7 December, and the Stockholm programme. Heads of State and Government will note work done so far on implementation of the Lisbon treaty, including the appointment of the President of the European Council and the high representative. They will call on the high representative to present a proposal on the organisation of the external action service, and welcome the launch by the Commission of a public consultation on the citizens' initiative.
Heads of State and Government are expected to focus on four key areas: fiscal exit strategies, establishing a new EU financial supervisory framework, the post-2010 Lisbon strategy and the European sustainable development strategy. On exit strategies, the December Council will examine a progress report submitted by ECOFIN. In the area of financial supervision, Members will know that the June European Council decided to establish a European systemic risk board and a European system of financial supervisors. ECOFIN has now finalised some of the details regarding these new bodies. We warmly welcome the creation of the new framework and congratulated ECOFIN on a job well done yesterday.
Following an orientation debate on a successor to the Lisbon strategy at the November GAERC, next week's GAERC will have before it a short set of draft conclusions which will be considered by the December European Council, as well as a review of the Lisbon strategy, prepared by the Presidency. Following a consultation process, the new Commission is expected to bring forward formal proposals for a successor to the Lisbon strategy in the new year. While the December European Council will lay the ground for the future of the Lisbon strategy, the main work will be conducted under the Spanish Presidency. Following a short discussion on the EU sustainable development strategy at the November GAERC, the Presidency intends to have conclusions concerning progress on the implementation of the strategy adopted by the December European Council.
As Members will know, the UN climate change conference will open in Copenhagen on 7 December and is scheduled to run until 18 December. It is now generally accepted that it will not, unfortunately, be possible to conclude a legally binding agreement to tackle climate change at Copenhagen. Instead, it is hoped that leaders will agree an ambitious political statement that includes the essential building blocks of the new treaty and a deadline for completing it. The changed outlook for the Copenhagen conference does not in any way undermine the European Union's robust and progressive position as agreed at the October European Council. The European Union will still maintain a leadership role and will actively seek a positive outcome at Copenhagen. The December European Council will consider the progress of negotiations in Copenhagen and, as necessary, will provide further guidance to our delegations at the conference.
Following its finalisation by the JHA Council on 1 December, the European Council will adopt the Stockholm programme, a new five year EU programme of work in the area of freedom, security and justice. The new programme will allow the European Union to meet the challenges ahead, to build on our achievements and to progress the Union's goals in the field of freedom, security and justice in a focused, co-ordinated and coherent manner.
The General Affairs Council will also consider enlargement, particularly with regard to Croatia, Turkey and Macedonia. The breakthrough in September in the bilateral maritime border dispute with Slovenia has helped to accelerate progress on Croatia's accession. Work remains to be done in areas such as judicial reform and the pace of progress on these issues will determine when negotiations can be concluded. Turkey has made some progress on reforms over the past year, but the pace needs to be accelerated. I share the concerns of the Commission as set out in its annual progress report that "there has been no progress towards normalisation of bilateral relations with the Republic of Cyprus" and that Turkey has not fully implemented the Ankara protocol. Council will consider whether to open formal accession talks with Macedonia. The name issue with Greece remains unresolved and the Presidency has delayed issuing draft conclusions in the hope of securing progress on this matter behind the scenes. The Commission is expected to issue an opinion on Iceland's application early next year and substantive discussion is not expected next week.
The incoming Spanish Presidency will make a presentation on the programme of the incoming troika Presidency. The troika Presidency has, up to now, been an ad hoc arrangement, whereby successive Presidencies worked together on an agreed programme to advance goals that go beyond the term of a six-month Presidency. The Treaty of Lisbon formalises this arrangement. The incoming trio will be Spain, Belgium and Hungary.
An informal meeting of Ministers for European affairs will take place after the General Affairs Council, to discuss disaster management. On Tuesday, the Minister of State, Deputy Dick Roche, will attend the Foreign Affairs Council.
The December Council will consider the launching of a non-executive capacity-building and training operation. Owing to concerns about the risk of rising ethnic tension next year in advance of the elections scheduled for October 2010, this training mission would be stood up in parallel to the existing executive Operation Althea, which would continue until November 2010. Ireland supports the transition to a military mission to train the Bosnian armed forces as the appropriate next step in the European Union's continuing comprehensive support of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Following the rather brief consideration of the issue at the November GAERC, the Council is due to have a substantive discussion on the current state of the Middle East peace process and the prospects for the resumption of Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations. Conclusions will be adopted on which discussions are continuing in Brussels. The Presidency has prepared a very positive text focusing on what the European Union can do to encourage an early resumption of negotiations and how, in particular, we can encourage confidence on the Palestinian side.
Since the November meeting of the Council, the Israeli Government has responded to US and international pressure for a settlement freeze by announcing a settlement pause of ten months which will only apply to the West Bank but not east Jerusalem. While I acknowledge this step by the Israeli Government, I remain doubtful that it will be sufficient to encourage President Abbas and the Palestinian Authority to resume substantive negotiations.
Israel remains obliged under the 2003 roadmap to halt all settlement activity, which is illegal under international law, and dismantle all illegal outposts established since March 2001. The announcement made on 25 November by the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr. Netanyahu, falls very far short of this, not least in excluding east Jerusalem and providing for 3,000 new units already approved to be built in the West Bank. This is equivalent to 18 months' construction at existing rates in the West Bank. In addition, we have also had the recent announcement that Israel intends constructing 900 new units in the Gilo district of east Jerusalem.
I urge the Israeli Government to provide further clear evidence that it is genuine and serious about engaging in peace negotiations at the current time and not, instead, more preoccupied with simply managing what I fear could well escalate into a situation of incipient conflict. There must be a meaningful halt to settlement construction, including in east Jerusalem, and an end to the policy of forced evictions and demolition of ordinary Palestinian homes in the city. While some barriers may have been removed in the West Bank in recent months, almost 600 such restrictions and checks are still in operation.
Above all, I would like to see real progress in opening up Gaza and ending the unjustified blockade of its population. The dire humanitarian situation there, almost one year after the launch of Operation Cast Lead, remains completely unacceptable. As I have said many times before, the continuation of the blockade is only providing succour to the extremists and raising, rather than reducing the risk of further conflict in the region. Any deal on a prisoner exchange, involving the captured Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, in exchange for Palestinian prisoners, on which some progress has been reported in recent weeks, would be a positive development which might allow for an easing of restrictions on the border crossings.
President Abbas, who has still not withdrawn his decision to stand down when elections are held next year, and the Palestinians need to have their confidence restored that Israel and the international community are serious about legitimate Palestinian aspirations being realised. I hope the Council discussions next week will provide a clear demonstration of the European Union's support for strengthened relations with the Palestinian Authority and intent to contribute actively, alongside the US and the other members of the Quartet, to creating that more positive atmosphere which will allow for peace negotiations to get back on track. We remain fully supportive of US efforts in this regard and continue to work closely with the Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton, and the special envoy, Senator Mitchell.
If progress is not quickly realised and the situation remains at an impasse, then the international community as a whole may need to reconsider what further pressure it can bring in favour of achieving a negotiated, two-state settlement. There may well be a role for the UN Security Council in this regard, perhaps through setting down some kind of indicative timetable and parameters for negotiations in a follow-up resolution to Resolution 1850 adopted last December.
The Council will also discuss developments in Iran, both on the nuclear issue and the continuing concerns over the human rights situation. No substantive discussion on Iran took place at the November Council although the UK briefly raised at the foreign ministers' dinner the position of its local embassy staff in Tehran. It is discouraging and a cause for serious concern that the prospects for reaching any kind of understanding with Iran on its nuclear programme appear once again to be receding. While the Iranian announcement on 29 November that it intends to build ten new uranium enrichment plants may well have been a response to the critical resolution adopted by the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, last week, no clear positive response has yet been received from Iran to the various offers of engagement made by the international community, including the proposed deal on low enriched uranium reached in Vienna in October.
Time is fast running out for the Iranian Government to respond positively. Unless such a signal is received within the next few weeks, inevitably attention must move to new restrictive measures to be imposed against Iran. The decision of both Russia and China to vote for the recent IAEA resolution is of note and demonstrates how the patience of the international community is fast running out. Engagement is still possible and is still our wish. Iran very much has it within its own hands to prevent further UN and, if necessary, European Union sanctions being imposed against it.
Ministers will also discuss the continuing deterioration in the human rights situation in Iran. I remain seriously concerned at the continuing reports of ill-treatment and lack of due judicial process for many of those detained following the presidential elections last June. We have raised a number of specific situations with the Iranian authorities, including the treatment of UK and French embassy local staff in Tehran and the continuing detention of French and US nationals in Iran.
One positive development is the release yesterday of Mr. David Bloomer, a dual Irish and UK national, and four British crew members who were detained by the Iranian authorities on 25 November when their yacht inadvertently strayed into Iranian territorial waters. Mr. Bloomer and his colleagues have now returned safely to Dubai. My Department has been closely involved, both here in Dublin and through our embassies in Tehran and Abu Dhabi, in working to secure Mr. Bloomer's release and providing consular assistance to his family. There was also close liaison with the British Government in securing a speedy resolution of this matter.
Ministers at the GAERC will discuss EU policies and strategies on Burma, perhaps en marge because it has come off the main agenda. Any such discussions will deal with the new US strategy of engagement with the regime; the leadership’s recent agreement to Aung San Suu Kyi’s meeting three western heads of mission in Rangoon, including the acting EU Presidency there, and the US Assistant Secretary of State, Kurt Campbell; as well as Aung San Suu Kyi’s own recent efforts to engage the regime in meaningful dialogue “for the benefit of the nation”, as she put it. These events, together with the pressing need to do all possible to encourage free, fair, inclusive and transparent elections next year, have prompted the EU to undertake a review of its own policies and strategies on Burma. That will obviously provide a context for further future discussions in that area.
While it would be premature for the EU to rush into any significant change of direction in our policy towards Burma — certainly there is no case for an easing of sanctions at this stage — nevertheless we feel it appropriate for the EU to reiterate its willingness to respond constructively to any positive moves on the part of regime. Among other measures, we will be discussing the possibility of sending a Troika mission at official level to Burma to meet as wide a range as possible of Burmese interlocutors as part of the Presidency's attempt to investigate different avenues to promote democracy in Burma. The Swedish Presidency may also avail of the opportunity presented by Burmese attendance at the Copenhagen climate change summit in the coming days to meet its representatives bilaterally to discuss current EU thinking.
A ministerial level meeting with the Eastern Partnership countries of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine will be held en marge of the December Foreign Affairs Council. Sweden has made strengthening relations with countries on the EU’s eastern border, through the Eastern Partnership, a priority of its Presidency. The meeting will assess the state of play and implementation of the Eastern Partnership and discuss its outlook and priorities for 2010.
That concludes my comments on the agenda for the General Affairs Council and the Foreign Affairs Council meetings next week. I am grateful to have had this opportunity to set them out to the committee. I will be very pleased to hear the comments of committee members as I finalise our preparations for the Councils in the coming days and I will be very happy to clarify any questions members may have.
Yesterday's OSCE meeting under the Presidency of Greece confirmed that Ireland will assume the chairmanship of the OSCE in 2012, which will be our first time in that role. It will involve significant extra work and activity on my behalf and on behalf of the Department of Foreign Affairs and others. However, it is a welcome honour for the country in terms of our international engagement.
I congratulate the Minister on the forthcoming Irish chairmanship of the OSCE. The agenda is considerable and there is a lot of information in which members have expressed their interest.
I wish to be associated with the congratulations regarding the Irish presidency of the OSCE. I hope there will be a Fine Gael presidency of the organisation in 2012; that is another issue.
The Deputy should be careful what he wishes for. The Deputy has confidence in the longevity of the current Government.
It is all about being positive.
The Minister will have a very full agenda at the meeting on 7 December. Now that the Lisbon treaty debate is over, there are a number of important issues on the agenda, particularly regarding enlargement. The focus since the strategy report was published is on Croatia and Turkey. Given that Croatia and its neighbour Slovenia have had a breakthrough on the border issue, will the Minister give us some idea as to when Croatia will become a member of the Union?
I am disappointed to note Turkey has made no progress on the normalisation of bilateral relations with the Republic of Cyprus. If Turkey is eventually to become a member of the Union, it will have to improve its bilateral relations with a view to securing some resolution with regard to the divided territory of Cyprus. Will the Minister elaborate on that?
The Minister referred to the new agencies that will be established as a result of the ratification of the Lisbon treaty, the General Affairs Council and the External Relations Council. Bearing in mind that GAERC has been split, how will the two Councils work and what will their agendas be? What will be the roles of the new High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Ms Catherine Ashton, and the outgoing high representative, Mr. Javier Solana, under the new protocol?
We are all very disappointed that the Government does not expect a legally binding agreement at the climate change conference this month in Copenhagen. Are we fudging the climate change issue and sending out the wrong signals regarding our obligations?
Much of the agenda is taken up by circumstances in the Middle East. The Minister did not mention the Swedish proposal that was put to the Israeli Foreign Minister, that is, to have two capitals, the Palestinian one being in east Jerusalem. Palestine would have Gaza and the West Bank as part of the two-state solution. The Israeli Foreign Ministry seems to have rejected this proposal. Will the Spanish Presidency emphasise the Middle East in the new year? The Swedish proposal is interesting and should be considered seriously.
The sailor with both Irish and British citizenship who was in captivity in Iran was released yesterday. The Department of Foreign Affairs has had many months of success with regard to the release of captured Irish citizens. The Minister referred to further sanctions and to the human rights record in Iran. Will he comment on these?
I hope the Minister will have some success at the meeting this month and that the Lisbon treaty protocol will be successful.
I welcome the Minister and his staff and congratulate him on Ireland's forthcoming assumption of the chairmanship of the OSCE. It is a signal honour. The summit next week will be busy.
With regard to the Lisbon treaty, I will be interested to see what structures are put in place regarding the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the President of the European Council and also regarding the breaking up of the foreign affairs and general affairs functions. Will the Minister elaborate on the Citizens' Initiative and the discussions he will have on the role of Parliament? Can the element dealing with information coming from the Commission be put into place immediately? There should be no delay in this regard. The issue of subsidiarity is more complicated but there are certainly some provisions of the protocol that could be introduced easily without further delay. It is good and welcome that the Lisbon treaty can become operable in December without having to wait for the new year.
There are a number of measures regarding which I am somewhat disappointed and which I believed would be strengthened by the Lisbon treaty. It is extremely disappointing that it has been accepted before the summit in Copenhagen that there is only to be a "political statement", as the Minister said, rather than a legally binding agreement. There will be discussions from 7 December to 18 December, yet before they even begin, it is accepted there will be nothing further than a political statement. All the claims about a legally binding agreement have fallen by the wayside before the discussions begin. We are entering the discussions with an extraordinarily weak hand. The pass was sold entirely at the meeting last month in the Far East between the Danish Prime Minister and the President of the Untied States. They more or less agreed between them there would be no progress made at the Copenhagen talks.
Bearing in mind that we are talking about building blocks, the approach to the Copenhagen talks is far too tentative. Climate change has been identified as one of the great challenges of our era, yet we cannot go beyond a political statement at this point. That does not auger very well for the European Union's assumption of a leadership role in respect of the global challenges we face. I am extremely disappointed that the Union has more or less resigned itself to the expected outcome before the talks begin.
I am glad the new Lisbon strategy is being emphasised. It is a question of employment, social development and the formulation of a social model to make progress with regard to the European Union. I always felt there should be a summit on employment and related matters, particularly regarding the Lisbon strategy. The sooner we have one, the better. We are talking about fiscal exit strategies — that presumes they have worked — but we did not have a fiscal strategy of a kind that would allow us even to talk about planning an exit strategy. In that regard, it is pretty irrelevant to us. The fiscal exit strategy is a large financial commitment by other member states to pump-prime their economies, providing significant injections of capital to get industry and employment going again. In Ireland we cannot even get our banks to lend to business. Will the Minister elaborate more on this?
It was raised in the Dáil this morning that Ireland did not sign up to the directive on flooding measures, the deadline for which expired last month. Ireland has not even decided which Minister will take charge of the directive. We would want to set our own house in order, considering the extent of flooding disasters that have taken place in the past few weeks. Transposing this directive might be worth expediting.
The Middle East peace process is a great disappointment. It is amazing to see it deteriorating when we are meant to be in the middle of consensus building and a peace initiative with US envoy George Mitchell and Tony Blair. However, there seems to be a unilateral statement from Israel that it will continue to expand its settlements, divide Jerusalem and build new settlements in east Jerusalem. It seems Israel has a limited commitment to a two-state solution. I welcome the fact that it is suggested that it may be necessary to look at other means of dealing with the matter if progress is not quickly realised.
Is the EU always passing on its responsibilities in this area? Why can the EU not take a central role? We have given it extra institutional strength with a high representative for foreign affairs and operating more as a coherent entity. That was the argument concerning climate change; surely it is also the argument relating to the Middle East. What action will be taken by the EU, not suggesting some other body might be the appropriate one to take the action whether it is the UN or US? There should be a discussion about the Euro-Med preferential agreement with one body and based on human rights. As the Minister said, there has been no progress on the Gaza issue.
I am delighted by the good work done by the Department of Foreign Affairs in dealing with cases where Irish citizens have been kidnapped abroad, most recently in the case of Mr. David Bloomer.
I thank the Minister for a full description of what he sees are opportunities at the forthcoming Council meeting. I must also congratulate him on the success of the recent release of Mr. David Bloomer and the British yachtsmen.
There has been severe criticism of the appointment of Catherine Ashton as EU High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, as being a fudge because she does not have the experience required. Will the Minister give his views on that?
There has also been criticism of the appointment of Herman Van Rompuy as President of the European Council, as someone who will not rock the boat. He has strong views on Turkey's accession to the EU and is opposed to it. Does the Minister believe Mr. Van Rompuy will influence this?
Last week when I was in Spain, I heard the EU trade Commissioner describe the forthcoming Spanish EU Presidency term and the financial and economic challenges facing Europe. When will the Presidency's programme be published?
On Monday.
Subsidiarity was one factor that convinced Ireland to join and become active in Europe. The principle of decisions being made closer to the citizens is very apt considering the threats to the financial well-being of many European countries. Today's Financial Times had an interesting article about Greece and its failure to reach EU standards on debt and GDP compared with Ireland, for which it has far more hope. Does the big stick held by the European Central Bank to make sure we behave ourselves affect the principle of subsidiarity? It is about being able to run our own economy and reach the levels set by the EU. Greece’s future in the eurozone is threatened by its failure to reach the same targets. The steps it may have to take will be imposed on it. Quite rightly, that same thing will be imposed on us if we do not manage to reach our targets. What are the Minister’s views on that?
There is much criticism of the Israeli settlements. I do not, however, find a balance when it comes to the Palestinian's views on the right of Israel to exist. Until the two-state solution is accepted to a much higher degree, it is hard for us to criticise Israel. I am glad it is on the Council agenda but disappointed we are not getting anywhere on this. The US seems to have a far greater influence in this area.
The Minister is very welcome. Since his last visit to this committee, Ireland has been allocated the new research and innovation portfolio in the European Commission. I wonder what the Minister's view is of the importance of this portfolio to Ireland and to the post-Lisbon strategy. To what extent does he believe the post-2010 Lisbon strategy will prioritise the whole area of research and innovation? Other speakers have mentioned the issue of the newly-appointed high representative. Have there been any substantive discussions as yet among member states at Council level on the issue of the European External Action Service, and how that might be put together and what the views of the Irish Government and the Minister's Department would be, as regards how that new service will evolve?
The Minister and others have mentioned the Middle East peace process. I share the same frustration as others. We seem to be saying the same things about the Middle East peace process and the situation in Gaza in meeting after meeting. Does the Minister believe the conclusions to be adopted by the Council at this meeting will change in any way or will there be any shift in the position of the EU? There appears to be virtual paralysis at the moment and unless the EU injects a new dynamic into the diplomatic process, it looks as if we shall see this continue. To what extent does he believe that there is a willingness on the part of the EU to separate itself somewhat from the position of the US and inject a new dynamic into the Middle East peace process? Does the Minister agree that the lifting of the blockade on Gaza should be the priority, particularly given that this is absolutely necessary if there is to be any type of social and economic reconstruction following the attack by Israel on Gaza last December?
I have raised the issue with the Minister before about the free trade agreement that is being negotiated by the EU with Colombia. I am very concerned that the free trade negotiations appear to be continuing. I recommend that the Minister should scrutinise the document produced recently by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, Trading Away Human Rights, as regards why the EU-Colombia free trade agreement is a step in the wrong direction. A very important point made by this document is the fact that the free trade agreements that were being negotiated by the US, Canada and Norway with Colombia have effectively been suspended because of human rights concerns. The EU seems to be the only block that is pursuing this free trade agreement and destroying what appears to be an international consensus on the issue of the importance of Colombia demonstrating that it is living up to its human rights and trade union obligations.
This committee will be discussing the new scrutiny role of national parliaments under the responsibilities and powers we have assumed under the Lisbon treaty. What are the Minister's views in this regard and has his Department any ideas as regards how we might strengthen the European dimension of the business of both Houses of the Oireachtas? We are at an important point. This committee is looking at how it can play its part, as is the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny, in strengthening the European dimension, but this is about much more than the role of the two European committees and I hope the Minister will elaborate on his ideas in this regard.
I thank the Minister for the presentation and apologise for being delayed at the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service.
I ask the Minister to take on board the views associated with the European Systemic Risk Board and the European System of Financial Supervisors on the need in future to change the bonus system in the finance area, in particular, given the greed that took place in America, especially among those who were miss-selling sub-prime mortgages. The head of Lehman Brothers got a bonus of €500 million in one year. That man must have known that the people to whom they were selling sub-prime mortgages were not in a position to pay and had defaulted on previous loans. He knew quite well that to charge them a higher rate when they could not meet their previous obligations at a lower rate, meant that calamity was certain to come down the tracks. It is not as if we have not been around the track before in this regard. The 1929 situation, where corporate greed in extending enormous amounts of credit, gave rise to a situation which affected the whole world and led to extremist politics because of the reaction to the great depression.
We have avoided a very serious situation, but the greed among people with get-rich-quick ideas is unsustainable in the short term and the long term. Now is the time to put it on a statutory footing, with a rule book from Europe stating that bonuses should only be paid on the basis of long-term outlook, and positive features within such projections for jobs and green agenda enhancement. The new paradigm would mean that profit alone, and the immediate profit motive is no longer acceptable for the future. Financial memory is short and people forget. If we do not take action we will have the same difficulties all over again within a few years. Now is the time to deal with the problem when it is fresh in our minds and when there is a will to do something about it.
I am mindful of the way some financiers traded against currencies, causing them to collapse, and bringing untold misery to people. Vast profits were made by taking positions against currencies, causing national parliaments to expend billions, unsuccessfully, trying to shore up their exchange rates, and bringing down economies. We now have an opportunity to take strong action and we should do so.
The question of Turkey's accession to the EU has arisen. I do not know what will happen ultimately, but European countries should have priority as regards further enlargement or consolidation of the Union. I wish the Minister well in his efforts as regards trying to achieve some type of solution in the nuclear stand-off with Iran. It appears that the current Prime Minister is intransigent and apparently seeking head-on confrontation with the IAEA. That could happen and, if so, it would have an enormous knock-on effect in terms of its consequences, and what the Prime Minister said he would do in the event of a stand-off. It is a very difficult situation and I wish the Minister well.
The Minister has been given an interesting flavour of members' thinking. I want to add my congratulations and that of all members of the committee, on the appointments that have been made. I refer to the Irish appointment in the case of Ms Máire Geoghegan-Quinn and the high representative post to be filled by Baroness Catherine Ashton. I am sorry there is criticism in the early stages of anybody's appointment. This is a crucial time. The media and the member states should be tolerant and encouraging because this is a new era and people have to take up their respective posts.
I remind members that this is a formative period for the European Union. This is a new Union and it is important that each new Commissioner remembers that he or she is a Commissioner for the entire Union and has a responsibility for each member state. The notion which has developed in recent times that each country should own the Commissioner and that he or she should, in some way, respond to a member state's bidding is not what the European Commission is about and would be enormously damaging to the future development of the European project, if that were to happen. I do not expect it will happen, but it should not.
I want to draw particular attention to the points made by Senator Hanafin on European financial structures. He makes an interesting point in the sense that the causes of financial collapse in the past have led to large-scale social unrest, ending in calamity. There are many who say that cannot happen again but it can because history has shown that people make the same mistakes as their predecessors. For some unknown reason nobody ever seems to learn the lessons of history. While it may be a big issue that people are paid well for very responsible jobs, the way in which some of the jobs were performed in the past in the financial services sectors across the globe leave much to be desired. If they were so good at their jobs and so expert in their professional roles, why did so many things happen in the way they happened with such disastrous consequences for the wider community? That is the point being made by Senator Hanafin and it is a valid one. There are several other points I could make but I do not wish to delay the meeting. The meeting next week is very important. It is a formative meeting and one that will have lasting implications for the European Union, for each member state and for the applicant countries.
In regard to the situation in Iran, I congratulate everybody involved in the efforts to free the British yachtsmen. A problem we have discussed before is that of the academics who were imprisoned with little cause or regard for their civil and human rights and little application of international criteria in regard to the way they are treated. I compliment the Minister on the ongoing pressure being exerted on the Iranian authorities to ensure that is done.
In regard to Gaza there is a need for the use of the present window of opportunity to progress the peace process. While opposing sides there will always claim there is nothing analogous in any other situation throughout the world and that their situation is unique, all protagonists everywhere believe their own situation is unique and that they invented it. They did not. There are parallels that can be drawn with other situations, such as the one in Northern Ireland. All I would say is that during the committee's recent visit to Gaza, the lack of continuity was identified by the members as a critical issue. In other words, there was a permanent secretariat in Northern Ireland that kept the peace process at the top of the agenda. A civil service mechanism was in place and working all the time. There is a lack of that kind of impetus, as pointed out to us by the members of the committee and the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs when we visited the Gaza recently. I ask the Minister to use his good offices to highlight that issue in the course of the discussions he is likely to have. There is a lot more I could say.
I will respond to the issues raised by the individual members of the committee. Deputy Pat Breen raised the issue of Croatia. We are making good progress in terms of the accession process. It is entering what we call the final straight. Depending on progress, such areas as judicial reform and co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, ICTY, it may be possible to conclude negotiations next year. As I said in my opening remarks, the breakthrough in the bilateral maritime border dispute with Slovenia has facilitated good progress on individual negotiation chapters. Croatia has made good progress on reforms during the past year. The ones I have mentioned are the areas that require further progress. The co-operation with the ICTY relates to missing artillery diaries. We cannot give an exact date for the conclusion of negotiations, especially when some chapters have not yet been opened. Ireland is supportive of this application from Croatia. It is important for the EU and the region generally that the EU perspective of states in the region will give an impetus and follow through.
In terms of Turkey, there are ongoing difficulties and many chapters are not yet opened. Some are frozen. My Cypriot colleague is concerned about the absence of full compliance with the Ankara Protocol. That may surface at the meeting next week. He has indicated he will raise it verbally. He has been working with the Presidency to try to develop a reasoned position at the GAERC meeting and potential conclusions but we will see how that unfolds. That is a fundamental issue along with many other issues. Continued engagement with Turkey is important in terms of the broader geopolitical situation. The EU will continue with that engagement.
The Deputy asked about the various roles of the new Foreign Affairs Council and the General Affairs Council. The Foreign Affairs Council, chaired by Ms Catherine Ashton, will deal with the foreign policy agenda, in essence the external relations agenda. Our main priority will be the external action service which she has been mandated to establish. April has been given as a deadline for its establishment. I will meet Ms Catherine Ashton on Monday night and will seek full transparency on how the external action service is appointed. Also we will look for the secondment of some Irish diplomats to the service. That is important and will happen.
It is worth pointing out that there are 113 European Commission delegations already throughout the world and these have become European Union delegations. In due course they will all be headed up by officers of the external action service. We do not envisage the external action service replacing the work of the Irish missions in such areas of national importance but there would be close relations between embassies and EU delegations. Of course, in areas where we do not have resident embassies, in time and over time the service can be of benefit to us. That came to pass in the Philippines in the Fr. Michael Sinnott case where the EU delegation was very useful and helpful to our ambassador, Mr. Dick O'Brien, in the context of the overall process. That is a good illustration of this added value to our external representation overseas.
Mr. Javier Solana has retired. He gave a valedictory interview to the Financial Times yesterday in which he sets the scene for Ms Catherine Ashton. I wish to record our deep appreciation of the extraordinary contribution he has made in many roles to international relations during recent decades and his contribution to peace and stability. He has always been a very helpful and courteous person with whom we worked well. In recent years he was a great admirer of the Irish troops’ peacekeeping missions, especially in Chad, and never failed to point out the great skill deployed by our troops and particularly the leadership of Mr. Pat Nash on that mission in terms of our neutrality objective and our capacity to play it down the middle.
The General Affairs Council will be chaired by the Presidency and will co-ordinate business across the agenda and will have a particular responsibility in preparing the agenda and the conclusions of the European Council itself.
Deputy Costello asked if we were fudging on the issue of climate change. When he says "we" I do not know whether he means the world. In fairness to Europe, the Danes and the Swedish Presidency, one could not come across more robust advocates for policies in regard to the climate change agenda. I would not be as pessimistic as some of the members here who have expressed their views. One has to be realistic as well. I think we are in a much better space now than a number of years ago. The Kyoto Protocol was fine but we did not have the big players on board. That is fundamental. That the United States is participating in this process is significant. We may want the United States to have a higher ambition. There is much better engagement, even from China which is developing its own initiatives in this regard. There has been engagement with President Obama. In Australia this is the very stuff of that country's politics. There may be an election on the issue because of the withdrawal of bipartisan support on climate change. My view is that societies in general are not yet seized by the importance of climate change. Even now, taking the example of carbon tax in Ireland, I say wait and see the reaction. We ask in this committee room, "Are we fudging it?", meaning by "we" the globe but let us see how this country responds when decisions are taken domestically.
Already I am beginning to see the fight back from vested interests in the United States and elsewhere against the notion of climate change. Suddenly we read that such and such an expert or scientist says that climate change is not a reality, is not even a phenomenon and that it is all about vested interests and green technology and people who have shares in this, that and the other. There has been a steady campaign to undermine Al Gore. People point to all the investments he has in green technology. Have I provoked something?
This is happening and the debate will heat up, if members will excuse the pun. I am told one cannot make the link with the flooding in Ireland in recent weeks. One fundamental thing happened in recent weeks — we had unprecedented rainfall. We can talk about all the investigations and analyses but the bottom line is that much more rain fell than ever before in a similar timeframe since records began. People from Irish Aid who analyse material in Africa and do a lot of work there say that desertification is on the increase and natural disasters have increased by more than 160% in a ten to 15-year period.
I am very supportive of this, as I believe Ireland is. We will develop a climate strategy framework in advance of Copenhagen. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, is pushing ahead on a legislative framework on the climate change issue. I hope that Copenhagen will be a significant success and that it may have binding political commitments which will then be translated into a treaty that is a successor to Kyoto. This was never going to be easy but it is extremely important.
There is no question that in actions and policies, Europe is leading the charge. Although there are internal issues in Europe with regard to how we finance the contributions of developing nations to the agenda, it is fair to say the European endeavour has been up-front and one of leadership. The issue now is how to persuade others to get on board to sign up to what are very ambitious targets. If we do not succeed, that will represent a failure by this generation towards the world we will leave to future generations. It is as fundamental as that. I was about to say we might escape the worse ravages of climate change but given the rapidity of the changes I am not so sure. Do we want to bequeath to our children a world in an horrific state because of our failure to act? That is the challenge that faces us.
A number of members raised the issue of the Middle East. We are broadly supportive of the Swedish Presidency's measures. The conclusions are in draft form although there was a leak of a particular draft which will be changed as to content before next week. Broadly speaking, all member states in Europe have been consistent in the two-state solution approach. There has been no resiling from that. The final status of Jerusalem has always been a contentious issue, whatever agreement may ultimately arise from negotiations and discussions. Again, we support the broad thrust of the Swedish conclusions regarding Jerusalem, and east Jerusalem as a capital of the Palestinian state.
I understand the frustration members have with this. Senator Quinn raised what he senses may be a one-sided approach. Believe me, it is not. My criticism is that I passionately believe the blockade of Gaza does not help peace. One can go to the West Bank and see how the work of Fayyad and Abbas has been frustrated and undermined. I do not understand this from a strategic point of view. I believe the strategic approach would be to create a zone in the West Bank, for example, that would facilitate trade, economy and activity and support the Government of the Palestinian Authority which, under Fayyad, has made very good progress in terms of its financial systems and even with regard to Palestinian security. If one meets Mr. Fayyad and others they say that despite their best efforts, they are failing. It is the moderates who are being undermined. I do not get that. Abbas has had to say he will resign. He has literally been robbed of any credibility among his own people by the consistent provocative action concerning settlements and so forth.
Concerning Gaza, for example, we have been very clear in our condemnation of the Hamas rocket attacks on civilian populations. The Goldstone report does not pull too many punches. People may have issues with other aspects of that report but it puts the blame on both sides and asks, as a minimum, for both sides to conduct independent investigations. The two-state solution is accepted among moderate Palestinians. Hamas has not yet officially recognised the State of Israel although it has made comments with regard to the 1967 borders and so on. We do not have dialogue with Hamas but have made it clear repeatedly to the Palestinian community in our statements that recognition of Israel and its right to exist are fundamental. There is no fudge around that.
Ongoing conflict and tension are delaying any progress with regard to the Mediterranean union which was stepped up under the French Presidency. There was a meeting in Marseille more than 18 months ago at which it was challenging enough to get positions filled and so on. However, I could see potential in that everybody was around the table in a different context, a broader international context. Over time that could be an instrument and a facility.
I did not refer to the union at all. I referred to the Euro-Med treaty that was negotiated between the European Union and Israel.
That is now called the Mediterranean union.
No, it is not.
The Deputy was referring to the trade agreement. Again, there has been no upgrading of that and there will not be until certain policy priorities of the EU are worked through. There has been a significant shift in the EU's position with regard to any upgrade of the treaty because of what has happened since the conflict in Gaza.
I have sought to go to Gaza, as have some of my colleagues on the European Council but I regret this has not been facilitated. We put it to the Israeli authorities that the Irish Foreign Minister would like to visit Gaza. That was turned down recently without any substantive reasons. Others have sought a visit to Gaza. It is important that international representatives should see Gaza at first hand.
Which other countries have been refused a visit to Gaza?
I cannot speak for other countries but some have, including France, to the best of my knowledge. I have spoken with some colleagues in Europe. We will consult with the Spanish Presidency but I would like to talk to my colleagues about whether a delegation of EU Foreign Ministers should go to Gaza. The feedback we are getting at UN level and from non-governmental organisations is that the situation is appalling in terms of deprivation and very basic human rights. It constitutes a blockade of an entire population. I am very concerned about it and have said repeatedly at European meetings that we can talk all we like about peace processes and so on but we must not lose sight of what is a fundamental and unacceptable undermining of the human rights of Gazans who are not getting access to very basic materials. That situation is not justifiable.
That has been turned down by the Israeli authorities. What about the Egyptian authorities? I understood they have border access to Gaza.
They have but there are complications.
What were the official grounds given for the refusal?
We have received no substantial official grounds, to my knowledge. I can clarify that later.
Is it true that the €4.5 billion which was collected at Sharm el-Sheikh is still available for the reconstruction of Gaza and that the Israelis will not allow that to take place?
A number of issues arise. Food and various items are getting in but reconstruction materials are not. The situation changes. There is a farcical situation whereby lists are exchanged on what is allowed in this week and what cannot be allowed in next week. Things have improved a little on the humanitarian side but the situation is unacceptable. It is bound up with the prisoner exchange issue. Without question, one can have issues with the enormity of the impact of the blockade on the population as Israel has with Hamas, which is its enemy, but one does not punish every civilian.
We know from our experience in Northern Ireland, where ham-fisted policies delayed any emerging peace processes, that such policies do not work. We all know how disastrous internment was in 1972, in terms of the Nationalist population in the North. We know all the major mistakes which can be made in conflict situations. I am not saying we know everything and the issue is the same; it is not. There are significant differences between the two situations. It is an issue we have highlighted and which I wished to share with the committee.
Was it a question of visiting the area as part of a European delegation or an independent Irish delegation?
No, an independent Irish delegation. I wanted to go and see Gaza.
We commend the Minister on trying to make that visit.
In terms of Iran, we are very concerned about the human rights aspect. We raised the issue of Dr. Kian Tajbakhsh who is currently potentially facing the death penalty. He is an Iranian-American national who was arrested in July and was recently sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment on allegations of involvement in the post-election disturbances in Tehran. They were strenuously denied by the United States Government which has called for his release. The European Union has issued a statement following his sentencing and Ireland has supported the United Kingdom's call for another urgent European Union statement following recent reports that his charge may by amended to one of espionage, which attracts the death penalty in Iran.
We raised the case directly with the Iranian ambassador to Ireland earlier this week and our concerns will be conveyed to the authorities. His case is being pursued actively on the ground by the Swiss Embassy in Tehran which represents the interests of the United States in Iran. Many people in Maynooth have contacted us and the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Batt O'Keeffe, has also been involved in the case, in terms of my meeting some representatives and supporters of Dr. Tajbakhsh. The Chairman asked a question on the issue.
Broadly speaking, it seems that time is running out on the nuclear question. President Obama and others reached out to Iran. The recent statement is provocative. A read has to be taken on how substantive and serious is it in terms of ten nuclear reactors. The Vienna solution was imaginative and deserves an imaginative response. One has to be careful and skilful in how one deals with the issue. The overriding concern is that this issue does not develop into a more serious situation, which could happen if there is not common sense from all involved.
The human rights situation is not unrelated and we must keep a focus on this area. I have met some Iranians in Ireland who are receiving a lot of material on the unacceptable crackdown on opposition leaders and dissent in Iran. Before the post-election crisis we wrote, in the strongest possible terms, to the Iranian Foreign Minister about a series of human rights abuses, from our perspective. The post-election situation is now far worse.
Deputy Costello referred to the fiscal exit strategy. Every country has a different economic context, to put it mildly. In many respects our capital programme is a significant part of our fiscal policy and would be above the European Union average in terms of capital expenditure as a percentage of GNP.
Flooding was mentioned, an issue on which a lot of progress has been made in Ireland over the past four or five years. Much more needs to be done. We are pursuing the issue of funding from the European Union fund, but we should be under no illusions that the majority of the funding will have to come from Ireland in terms of any clean-up, remedial work and so on. The scheme under the European Union solidarity fund is limited in terms of what one can receive. For every €1 billion worth of damage, €26 million or €27 million might be allocated. We will pursue the issue, as I know MEPs are currently doing.
On the Lisbon strategy and the employment summit, the spring Council meeting will focus on unemployment and economic issues and we hope the successor to the Lisbon strategy will form the centrepiece of that summit. I share many of the views on the importance of the summit on employment, but they need to be informed by substance and concrete proposals as opposed to rhetoric. One does not want to build up expectations. There must be some substance.
One problem with the original Lisbon strategy is that while we were strong and enthusiastic supporters of it, not everybody in Europe was. That point brings me to Senator de Búrca's question on the research and innovation portfolio. I am delighted Ms Máire Geoghegan-Quinn received it. It is one of the most important portfolios. I am amused when people describe it as a middle ranking portfolio. If that is how people perceive the future of Europe, we are all finished because the only way Europe can advance is by getting its act together on research.
A former Finnish Prime Minister addressed us when I was Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment on the decline of the pharmaceutical industry in Europe compared with America, which was as a result of a lack of investment in research. The only game in town for an economy in the future is research and innovation. Europe has a great opportunity to develop that. Ms Máire Geoghegan-Quinn's predecessor, Commissioner Janez Potocnik, was excellent and did a great job in elevating the research portfolio from a policy perspective, whereby he developed some significant European Union research structures, and a funding perspective, whereby he received some €50 billion during his tenure. He sought much more than €50 billion but it was a much larger amount than any previous allocation.
I worked very well with Mr. Potocnik when I was Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment because I was very interested in and committed to research spending in Ireland. We developed an SSTI strategy here three years ago, which received strong and enthusiastic endorsements from Commissioner Potocnik. It is an exciting portfolio to have for the future. We will be watching the financial perspectives to ensure it receives an enhanced allocation in terms of funding. It is to be hoped that we as a country can tie in more to research infrastructure across Europe. It is all about collaboration. The 21st century is not about anyone going it alone in research, rather it is about collaboration between centres of research and companies, including SMEs and multinationals. Most pharmaceutical companies will no longer do blockbuster research on their own.
It is an exciting opportunity for the new Commissioner, Ms Geoghegan-Quinn. I wish her well and congratulate her on her appointment. I know from experience she is a woman of considerable political expertise, acumen and ability, and has left her mark on the various portfolios she has held in Ireland. I have no doubt she will do the same in Europe.
On Ms Catherine Ashton, I agree with the Chairman's comments. He was somewhat critical of the early criticism of her, a view which I share. Ms Ashton also has formidable expertise. I was reminded that she guided the Lisbon treaty through the House of Lords. Anyone who knows British opinion on Europe and Lisbon treaty and, more specifically, that of the House of Lords, knows that to guide the Lisbon treaty through it is no mean achievement. She deserves to be commended. She was also a very effective Commissioner for Trade and knows her way around the Union. I was impressed by her opening presentation to MEPs in which she committed to involving the Parliament in its work. She made no apologies for a lack of detailed answers in respect of many questions and stated that for now she is working with a blank sheet of paper. She was well received by MEPs.
Ms Ashton's reference to a blank sheet of paper was good because what one does not want is some kind of expert who thinks he or she knows it all, who dictates how matters are going to unfold for the 27 member states in respect of foreign policy, and who attempts to push through a particular agenda. It must always be remembered that this is an individual who is representing 27 member states and the opinions and perspectives thereof. It is the skill of the person involved in the context of pulling together the various strands which is the key ingredient. The individual must also be a good listener and must know when to intervene in order to pull the 27 member states together and take the lead in respect of the consensus that emanates therefrom. In light of her experience as a Commissioner, I am of the view that Ms Ashton will make a fine high representative. I look forward to meeting and working with her.
Senator Hanafin and the Chairman referred to financial regulation. The Senator referred to 1929 and the Chairman asked if we ever learn the lessons of history. Diarmuid Ferriter wrote a series of articles on the "what if" scenario. These were quite interesting but were more relevant in the context of learning from what did not happen in the past.
Yes, but the crash of 1929 did occur.
I have also been reading about the 1929 crash. I am of the view that J. K. Galbraith should be required reading for everyone.
Correct.
There is a chapter in Mr. Galbraith's book entitled "In Goldman Sachs We Trust". This is not a reference to the Goldman Sachs of today but the chapter contains a number of wonderful pieces with regard to how society quickly became in awe of financial and economic experts. The first thing we need to do is demystify the financial world and the products sold within it.
The Minister should send a copy of the book to the Minister for Finance.
Now that I am free of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, I can say all this. New products continue to emerge and one is better than the next. There is a notion that lay people do not have a clue about such products and should trust some expert to enlighten them. Every bank and investment house has economists who will trot out arguments about this, that and the other. We need to return to basics in respect of this matter. I support the regulation being brought forward. However, I would issue a warning in this regard. We have had regulation before. Regulation was introduced in the 1920s but people did not act because they did not want to burst the bubble. There is never a willing volunteer in that regard, particularly in view of the consequences.
The fundamental question we must ask relates to who will guard the guards. The political system, in its wisdom, has indicated that politicians cannot be responsible for regulation. We establish independent bodies to oversee regulation and ensure that they remain at arm's length from the political system. However, the political system will take the hit if these bodies do not perform. That is not just the case in respect of financial regulation, it also applies in respect of competition law and across the board. The view is that if politicians are involved, they can corrupt or undermine the process. I accept that "corrupt" might be too strong a word, but people might not, for political reasons, allow the entities to which I refer do what they should do in an objective manner. If those entities are established by the Parliament on an independent basis and then do not behave or perform, this can give rise to problems.
I welcome what is happening at European level but people are already stating that we are overregulating. I do not believe that the enormity of what has happened in the banking sector has sunk in yet. The scale of the collapse in this sector is the reason politicians are receiving so many representations to the effect that the banks are not lending. The Minister for Finance established NAMA and put in place a number of other substantive policy initiatives which are encouraging the return of confidence, slowly but surely. The budgetary performance during the past 12 to 13 months shows that the ship is being steadied and stabilised. People should be under no illusions in that regard.
As Senator Quinn stated, we are in a much better position and the international perception is that Ireland has demonstrated a capacity to deal with its difficulties. The European Commission and others have indicated that this is the case. In the context of the banking sector and the public finances, we must demonstrate that we have the political capacity to make the decisions that are required.
Some people have criticised the slowness of the response to the crisis. The one lesson that has been learned from history is that there is far more collective action now than was ever previously the case. There is also closer engagement among countries — in the context of the European Union — and regional powers such as the G20, the G8 and so forth. These are all instruments that were not in place in the past.
Some of them were in place.
The jury is out in the context of what will be the impact of this collective global response to the current crisis. There is a general view that the type of collective engagement to which I refer has helped to avert an even worse catastrophe. The regulation that will be introduced on foot of the decision taken by ECOFIN yesterday represents progress and I support it.
We sent a note to Senator de Búrca on the previous occasion on which she raised the issue of free trade agreements with Colombia. The Senator has continually raised this matter and we are anxious to explore it further with her. Perhaps my officials could meet her in order to discuss the position in detail.
I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply. On behalf of the committee, I thank him for making himself available and for putting in place the structures that will apply post-Lisbon before they were statutorily required. He may be interested to know that the committee, in conjunction with the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny, has recommended that an arrangement to accommodate the post-Lisbon position be put in place. Under this recommendation, which has been referred to the Ceann Comhairle and the Cathaoirleach, both committees would, subject to the approval of the Houses, be in a position to deal with the various issues as they arise. This means that the members of the committees must make themselves available to deal with all relevant business. That is part of the job and we accept it.
I thank the Chairman.
That is an interim arrangement which will expire in six months.
I stand ready to be guided by the committee.
I thank the Minister. The committee will now go into private session.
The joint committee went into private session at 1.20 p.m. and adjourned at 1.50 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 8 December 2009.