Skip to main content
Normal View

Joint Committee on European Union Affairs debate -
Thursday, 20 Feb 2014

Review of Foreign Policy and External Relations: Discussion (Resumed)

The committee is in public session. We have received apologies from Senator Aideen Hayden. I remind everyone to turn off mobile telephones and iPads as they will interfere with the recording equipment. Putting them on silent is not good enough.

The first item on today's agenda is a discussion on the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade's review of foreign policy and external relations. On behalf of the joint committee, I welcome Ms Marie Cross, the former assistant secretary at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and Dr. Pat Ivory, the head of EU and international development at IBEC. Dr. Ivory is accompanied by Mr. Erik O'Donovan, Ms Paula O'Dwyer and Mr. Adrian Farrell. The joint committee has considered the Department's review of foreign policy and trade. We look forward to hearing our witnesses' views on this issue. Today we have the opportunity to hear two very distinct voices on these issues. D. Pat Ivory, the head of EU and international development at IBEC was previously the director of the Irish Dairy Industries Association and assistant director of Food and Drink Industry Ireland. Ms Marie Cross is a former assistant secretary at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and during her long career in that Department, she served as Ireland's ambassador to the Czech Republic and as ambassador and representative of Ireland to the Political and Security Committee of the European Union. Ms Cross is currently the chairperson of the Future of Europe Group at the Institute of International and European Affairs.

Before we begin, I remind members of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person or body outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way that he, she or it could be identifiable. By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the committee. If they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in respect of a particular matter and they continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are asked to respect the practice that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

As agreed, I now invite Ms Cross to address the committee.

Ms Marie Cross

I welcome the opportunity to engage with the committee on the review of foreign policy in the context of the exercise under way. I hope that I can be of use in providing some information of relevant to the committee. I will perhaps concentrate, in my remarks, on the implementation of foreign policy and the means of most effective engagement in my experience.

For a small country we have a very high profile on the international scene for reasons of history, heritage and culture. It is striking, as a representative abroad, how the long arm of history, that dates back to the Christian monks who left Ireland, missionaries in Africa and more recently emigration from Ireland and the migrants who had great success internationally, is of considerable advantage to us both bilaterally and in a multilateral context. It is of very valuable assistance in representing the State abroad.

As an EU member we have the opportunity to promote our interests on a wider stage, to act with partners and to ally ourselves with a Union which has the capacity, to a greater extent now than ever, to influence international events in the political, economic and the development area and, with the EU's so-called comprehensive approach, it covers all of these areas.

Within the EU, our strengths are our history, our international profile on issues, particularly in the humanitarian and disarmament issues, and our willingness to back up our commitment with practical support such as our contribution to military and civilian peacekeeping missions, our aid programme and our willingness to mobilise other countries to support our efforts in this regard.

The challenge we face in the EU - or I suppose it can be more appropriately phrased as "the reality" - is that we are a small member state within a group of 28 states. Therefore, we must work hard and effectively to build up credibility in order to be listened to as an informed, reliable and effective member state of the EU whose policies and actions will advance not only our interests but can be seen to promote the interests of the EU as a whole.

It is a reality that large member states will always be listened to but smaller ones must establish their effectiveness. Our policies must be strategically selected where we have a national interest, where we can be seen to contribute and where we have knowledge. We can also, and often do, act in the role of facilitator or broker of compromises where no direct national interest is involved. This also raises our profile as a country.

A considerable amount of background work is necessary to promote our interests in the EU. It is a resource demanding activity, both in terms of numbers and capabilities, as can be deduced from the numbers and capacity devoted to this area by all of the other 27 member states. The permanent representative in Brussels is at the forefront of dealing with the EU but a very close co-ordinated network operating between the Departments in Dublin and our embassies and missions abroad is vital.

The officials of the Irish permanent representation unit must work through the layers of the various committees with a view to preparing the issues for consideration and decision by Ministers. By the time the proposals come before the Ministers they must be ready for final decision. For example, if foreign Ministers face a lengthy agenda of between ten to 15 items in a period that spans from 10 a.m. until 4 p.m. then only the most contentious issues can be debated at this stage. The agenda items under discussion are crafted and shaped by discussion in committee that is directed along the way by policy guidance from headquarters. Therefore, the work of the people who work at the permanent mission is to seek out and provide as much information as possible on the issues coming on the agenda, filling in the position of other member states and advising headquarters in Dublin. The policies are formed in capitals on the basis of information provided by the permanent representative and by the bilateral and other missions. Officers at meetings in Brussels, however, must be able to react to the ebb and flow of a discussion in the committee, to judge and, if necessary, to influence the direction of the discussion.

In the external relations foreign policy area - where issues are considered - there are a number of committees. I use it as an example because it is an area that I know well. In the external relations area the main committees are the geographical regional committees. For example, there is a Balkans committee, Africa committee, Asia committee and committees on Latin America, disarmament, human rights, civilian crisis, military, etc.

The work of such a plethora of committees feeds into the political and security committee which meets for two full days a week and more when they are preparing the agenda for foreign Ministers. The political and security committee discusses issues relating to conflicts, hears from EU special representatives - mainly for conflict areas, heads of military and civilian missions which are directed by the political and security committee and proposes actions for consideration, such as the imposition of sanctions, sending an EU force which is military or civilian, granting financial assistance, withdrawing financial assistance, etc.

In order to keep track of all of these areas of business and to adequately service the country's interests, the officers in the permanent representation unit must constantly keep up to date by informing themselves on the background to the issues. They do so by meeting relevant officials in the external action service and the desk officers which is where the proposals on the agenda often originate. They also meet representatives from other interested member states in order to get their views on issues. It is a constant mining of information. They have to maintain close dialogue with headquarters in Dublin which also engages with the bilateral missions.

Foreign staff in bilateral missions also build up information through contacts, constant meetings and a constant feed of reports to HQ from the bilateral missions passed through. That contributes significantly to the information gained and provides a background to the discussion that takes place in Brussels by shedding light on the positions of other countries on issues of importance to us. Let me give an example. If we want to bring an issue to the table we raise it within the external action service with the Presidency and we lobby in capitals. In doing so, if we want to bring an issue forward we need firstly to strategically assess the international context, the possible like-minded support from fellow member states and plan a campaign for discussion through committees with, if necessary, parallel lobbying by bilateral missions and at political level, if necessary up to the foreign Minister and the Taoiseach. It is also necessary, for the people in the permanent representation unit, to maintain close contact with MEPs who debate these issues, not just the Irish MEPs, but also chairs of committees and committee members. That is the generality.

I shall conclude by making some general points. It would be extremely useful to develop a public diplomacy strategy. We have a public diplomacy strategy - or the Department of Foreign Affairs does - which is focused on promoting the country abroad. I have felt for quite some time that it would be very useful to have one in order to inform people in Ireland of the work carried out on their behalf and in their interest. Social media could be used as a tool whereby the actions of people working in missions abroad could be detailed and would give an idea of what the work entails. There is a great fog and mystery about what people in the Department do on a day to day basis. Such a measure would open up and take the lid off some of that uncertainty. Schools and school programmes, group programmes, etc. could also be used. There is scope for such measures.

It is very important and would provide invaluable to get our people into the external action service and other Commission and Council organisations. They are international civil servants but it is extremely important to have our people in the organisations. We also need to have the capacity to accept invitations to second officials to other foreign Ministries.

This is an extremely useful way of broadening our information about how other foreign services work and bringing that information back to the Department.

One other aspect worth mentioning, which reinforces the idea of getting our people out and about and placing them in other foreign ministries, is that in an organisation of 28 member states, there are informal groupings of states which have regional interests in common and whose close political relationships add value to their EU membership. For example, Nordic member states meet together for dinner the night before European Council meetings. Other member states that have similar meetings are the central and eastern European states or the Benelux countries. These groups share information. We do not have an obvious grouping, although we speak English, which is a huge advantage because English is used so much. Therefore, we need to work all the harder at making contacts, because we come as one member state without being locked into a grouping.

I mentioned at the outset that this is a resource-heavy activity. The basic groundwork involves meeting people face to face to probe for points of interest, to sift through what is useful, to transmit relevant information and to persuade and convince others of our point of view. All of this requires committed individuals who operate at the top of their game. There is no replacement for the personal intervention.

Mr. Pat Ivory

I thank the Chair and members for the invitation to address the committee and to exchange views on Ireland's engagement with the European Union in the context of the review of foreign policy and external relations currently being undertaken.

IBEC and our numerous sector associations are keen to support this review. We are committed to working closely with Government and policy makers at national, European and international level, to shape conditions to drive business and economic growth. IBEC recognises the significant role the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Irish ambassadors and their embassy staff play in representing Ireland across the world. Taking responsibility for the task of representing Irish interests on a complex range of diplomatic and other issues contributes to a positive view of Ireland. This has been an important factor in restoring Ireland's reputation abroad and supporting economic recovery.

Ireland is a committed member of the European Union and IBEC is particularly conscious of the important role of the Irish permanent representation to the European Union. We meet regularly with Ambassador Declan Kelleher and Ambassador Tom Hanney and their staff to advance important issues of interest to Ireland at institutional level in Brussels.

During 2013, IBEC worked closely with the Department of the Taoiseach, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation on delivering a successful Irish Presidency of the Council of the European Union for Irish business and Ireland as a nation. The six-month Presidency was marked by an impressive array of activities, seeking to make progress across a broad range of EU policy issues. This was the seventh time Ireland held the Presidency since our accession to the EEC in 1973. It was not just about Ireland having to manage the affairs of the European Union, but an opportunity to advance a positive, forward looking agenda in Europe and prove that our returning confidence as a nation was justified. While the true legacy of this Presidency will emerge over years, an initial assessment from a national EU and business perspective must be positive.

Ireland's Presidency programme sought to promote economic stability, jobs and growth. This programme has great synergy with the business community's message which was formulated by IBEC in its document, Driving Economic Recovery. In promoting economic stability in the European Union, the Presidency made progress in areas such as the Single Supervisory Mechanism, the capital requirements directive, rules for banking recovery and resolution and the European semester process.

The promotion of jobs and growth is an issue that is of crucial importance to Ireland and the Presidency prioritised negotiations for a political agreement with the European Parliament and the Commission on the multilateral financial framework which secured a €960 billion EU budget for the period 2014 to 2020. It also secured provisional agreement on a new €77 billion research and investment programme for the European Union under Horizon 2020. In conjunction with the Presidency, our work also placed emphasis on advancing a number of outstanding Single Market issues, along with tackling youth unemployment.

An EU negotiating mandate for the transatlantic trade and investment partnership was also secured during the Irish Presidency. We particularly appreciated the support of Ambassador Michael Collins during his time in Washington and we are committed to working closely with Ambassador Anne Anderson in the months ahead on advancing this important initiative. These EU-US negotiations not only have the potential to deliver from an economic perspective, but are also extremely important from a global strategic perspective. They should deliver higher GDP growth, create job opportunities and help restore the European Union's position globally. IBEC continues to work with strategic business partners in both Europe and the USA to advance these negotiations. We meet regularly with key EU trade negotiators to advance business interests in areas such as pharmaceuticals, medical devices, food and drink, the digital economy and internationally traded services. It is important to achieve the correct balance through this agreement in reducing tariffs, improving co-operation on regulation, opening public procurement markets and ensuring that data is able to flow across borders to support and maximise the potential of innovation for both manufacturing and services here in Ireland and in Europe.

During 2013, IBEC also organised several events promoting business priorities. These included an address by the President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, to business leaders. The IBEC CEO conference focused on the strength of the Irish and European business model. Our CEO conference, held in the past few weeks, was also addressed by Lord Livingston, the Minister of State for Trade and Investment in the United Kingdom. A St. Patrick's Day event in the European Parliament, hosted with Irish MEPs, showcased Irish food and drink. The EU-US Business Round Table in Dublin Castle in April facilitated an important exchange of views with Karel De Gucht, the European Commissioner for Trade, and Michael Froman, who was then a White House economic adviser and is now the United States trade representative. The BusinessEurope Council of Presidents brought business leaders from across Europe to Dublin to agree priorities for the year ahead. We welcomed the support of the Government in the delivery of all of these events and initiatives.

IBEC also supports the work of the Export Trade Council and its role in driving effective implementation of the Government's trade, tourism and investment strategy, Trading and Investing in a Smart Economy. We welcome the inclusion of private sector members on this council, which includes four Cabinet members and the heads of State agencies relevant in the trade and tourism arena.

IBEC appreciates the work of ambassadors and their teams in a range of important global markets that helps to open doors for Irish business. A key element of the Government's strategy relates to the 27 priority markets that were identified and in which local market teams have been established, headed by ambassadors and comprising representatives of embassies and relevant State agencies. This team Ireland approach has facilitated the drawing up of focused local market plans and greater co-ordination among State agencies such as Enterprise Ireland, the IDA, Bord Bia and Tourism Ireland. This development should help to support the important contribution made by Irish companies trading and investing abroad.

At recent meetings of the Export Trade Council, IBEC has presented an overview of the trade agreements currently being negotiated by the European Union. These agreements should open up markets and provide opportunities for Irish business. Their impact should be considered in the current review of priority markets for Irish trade promotion and export agency support. The IBEC paper recommends a focused strategy that includes support for established markets, such as Canada, the USA and Japan, as well as support for emerging markets, both large, the BRIC countries, and smaller countries, like Korea, Singapore and Vietnam.

The potential to do business with African countries should not be forgotten as they can provide significant opportunities for future exports, growth and investment. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s Africa strategy and annual Africa-Ireland economic forum are initiatives which should be further developed in the coming years. The World Trade Organization agreement on trade facilitation reached in Bali in December 2013 provides for capacity building in developing and least developed countries. The agreement presents opportunities for Ireland to facilitate such assistance bilaterally, or through international organisations, to assist developing and least developed countries to implement its provision. If properly implemented, it should lead to more harmonised customs rules and procedures that will result in lower transaction costs and smoother trade flows for Irish businesses.

The success of Irish exports as a significant driver of economic growth depends on market access. Manufacturing sectors such as pharmaceuticals, medical devices, food and drink and internationally traded services such as financial and computer services offer significant potential for export growth. IBEC acknowledges the important role Irish embassies have played in helping to secure market access. We recommend this work be intensified in collaboration with EU missions and foreign governments to resolve market access issues as they arise.

Irish embassies also provide important networking opportunities for Irish businesses by hosting receptions that bring key decision makers together with visiting delegations from Ireland. Many Irish companies, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, appreciate these efforts to open doors and provide access for companies and foreign officials in various locations. Increasingly, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is ensuring all staff who take up places abroad have an appreciation of economic and commercial factors that drive the Irish economy. IBEC believes enhancing training and information for diplomats abroad can be important in delivering opportunities for increased trade and investment. We are happy to continue to support these efforts. We are pleased to directly support the new public-private sector exchange programme with a diplomat from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade having joined IBEC for six months.

Ireland continues to face significant economic challenges. While export growth and continued foreign direct investment have contributed to economic growth, we cannot be complacent. If Ireland is to continue to attract foreign direct investment, grow exports of goods and services and attract greater numbers of tourists, a fully co-ordinated and focused effort by various State agencies, Irish ambassadors and embassies will be vital. On a broader policy point, Ireland, once again, needs to reduce taxes to compete more vigorously in attracting foreign direct investment. At 52%, we now have one of the highest marginal income tax rates in the OECD, well above the average of 36%.

IBEC is committed to developing strategic alliances with international business partners, as we have found this to be an effective way to advance common interests and goals for Irish business. It was interesting to note in the recently published medium-term economic strategy that it was the Government’s intention to intensify its strategic engagement with European institutions and member states to shape a strong, growing and competitive European Union. IBEC will be keen to contribute to developing this more structured engagement on a more focused set of interests and priorities.

I thank Dr. Ivory for his presentation.

I thank the groups for their presentations. This year there has been more positive commentary about Ministers travelling to various countries for St. Patrick’s Day celebrations. When I was in the United States last year, I saw the benefits of it, with significant work being done in networking and developing contacts.

Is the OECD’s tax co-operation proposal to deal with base erosion and profit shifting, BEPS, on IBEC’s radar? What impact could it have on a small open economy like ours? In the last budget some steps were made in catering for a more transparent international tax regime.

What is Ireland's and the European Union’s relationship with Taiwan? I know there is no Taiwanese ambassador to Ireland for all sorts of complicated reasons. There was a discussion recently of an EU agreement with Taiwan. Is this on IBEC’s radar?

Deputy Dara Murphy took the Chair.

I welcome and thank Ms Cross and Dr. Ivory for their presentations. What are their views on how other countries appoint their ambassadors? The standard here is that an ambassador comes through the Civil Service, while other countries opt for business leaders, retired politicians and citizens of interest and note. I would be interested to hear both viewpoints, considering that Ms Cross and Dr. Ivory come from different backgrounds and have an interest in our foreign policy.

I thank the delegations for their presentations, as we need assistance in formulating our new foreign policy. If I interpreted them correctly, they are saying that while Ireland is a small nation that does a phenomenal job for its size, we will need to do much more to survive. Several years ago three embassies were closed on the grounds of economic necessity, but now we have reopened one of them. Embassy staff do phenomenal work in promoting Ireland. There are 27 ambassadors to each of our EU colleagues and then there are the representatives in Brussels, covering a population base of 800 million. How do we develop and expand our foreign and trade policy, given such a concentration of diplomatic representatives in European Union member states for this small state with limited resources? We closed the embassy in Teheran which is at the centre of another region of 800 million people. How do we balance our limited diplomatic resources to cover countries such as Iran, the BRIC countries - Brazil, Russia, India and China - and Asia, as well as the emerging African economies? How do we divide the pot of resources?

If I wished to be provocative I would suggest that perhaps too much money is going into the diplomatic services in Europe. I will expect an answer in that regard. There are up to 30 missions. At the same time we are looking at the broader world economies and emerging economies and are conscious that we should send diplomats there. However, we just closed three embassies in the recent past. The question is one of resources. How do the witnesses think we should manage the resources?

I will conclude by addressing what was said by Ms Cross, which was very interesting. It has been put to us previously, not just at this committee, but also in the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs. We keep hearing about the need for Irish people to be engaged at the heart of Europe as civil servants. The Minister of State, Deputy Donohoe, has engaged progressively with universities everywhere he goes. There are repeated calls to send more people into the European bureaucracy or diplomatic corps. It was stated that Ireland is an English speaking country which has its pluses. It also has its minuses in that we are very bad at languages. How can we compensate in that regard? We are very successful in attracting more and more foreign students and even though there are bilateral agreements we know that Irish students are not going to Korea to replace the Korean students who come to this country. That is just one example. There is a reluctance borne of inferiority among Irish students who are nervous of going to China, Korea, and Indonesia or wherever else, in effect because of the language issue.

I congratulate Ms Cross on her involvement with the Institute of International and European and Affairs, IIEA. I never heard of it until I became a Member of Parliament. I went to some fascinating talks there. Anyone who does not know about it should quickly get to know it because it is a fantastic organisation.

I will invite our guests to respond to the questions that have been asked and then we will take some more questions. They are at liberty to reply in the order they see fit.

Ms Marie Cross

In response to Senator Noone on the relationship with Taiwan, I am afraid I am not awfully well briefed on an EU agreement with Taiwan. Ironically, I was at the UN when the Chinese delegation was sent out and the Taiwanese delegation walked in. I was in my first year in the Department of Foreign Affairs. It was quite an historical moment.

There is just one China. Taiwan is a huge trading nation. Pragmatic mechanisms have developed even between China and Taiwan but nothing official is possible. The EU, as well as other countries, has to accept the huge trading capacity of Taiwan. Officially there is only one China and the Chinese are extremely sensitive to any official recognition of Taiwan and react accordingly.

The EU has a presence in Taiwan.

Ms Marie Cross

Yes, but it is not an embassy.

Ms Marie Cross

It is a trading office. The IDA had an office there for quite some time. That is okay as long as it is nothing that gives official recognition to it as a state. The reality of international commerce is reflected in the agreements and the business.

Deputy Dooley inquired about how other countries appoint ambassadors. A number of the bigger countries, in particular the United States, appoint almost all their senior representatives abroad on a political basis. Big member states in the EU, including the British and the French, do not do that. Some countries appoint people who are skilled in trade. We have never had a tradition of that. Our Civil Service is strictly a civil service. I should not say never because in the early years of the State we did have political appointments but in recent decades there have not been political appointments. In looking at the arguments, part of the reason for it is practical. Most of our missions are composed of one or two people. Up to 50% of the Irish embassies abroad have two people or only one person and a larger proportion now have one person. One must take account of the practical aspects of running an office. Everyone has to work to the pin of their collar, in particular doing a whole range of things such as consular work, administration, political work and economic work. The bigger countries could afford to have a figurehead who is politically well connected but other staff are required to do the work.

I accept Ms Cross’s point, but it worked well from a European perspective when John Bruton was appointed to act as a figurehead in the United States. I accept that much of the role was political, but is it something we should consider in the broader mix? It is not ideal in every circumstance but perhaps there is a role for such appointments.

Ms Marie Cross

As a former civil servant-----

Ms Cross will protect her patch.

Ms Marie Cross

-----it is open for debate. I feel there is a lot to be said for a Civil Service involvement being maintained because we work under the rules of the Civil Service but I agree it is an issue.

Deputy Eric Byrne asked how we balance the opening of missions. It is a difficult issue because the resources, in line with the country’s economic situation, have been cut in recent years and choices have to be made. We now have a very lean foreign service. As I mentioned to Deputy Dooley, what has been cut back significantly is the number of people in the missions abroad. We have quite a number of missions now that have one person from Ireland.

I feel one gets a very good return on having a person in the place, living and imbibing the culture. The information they pass back is invaluable. That is all the more so now, as Dr. Ivory has said, because we have such a heavy input. A huge amount of the work of missions abroad is related to the promotion of the economic potential. Having somebody in place who can work on the ground with the people who matter, find out what is happening, pass back information on contacts and work with the local business communities gives a great return for money. We must be realistic. A balance is required. Politically, we would like to be in certain places. Iran is a case in point. However, we must make choices on where our interests lie at a particular time. We are opening up a number of new missions and we expect that they will pay for themselves in the long run as we will get business promotion, better information on political interests and development return. The missions we open will have to pay for themselves as that is how we balance the situation. We have to make choices.

I accept Deputy Byrne’s point about languages. It is one I meant to mention. It is a big inhibiting factor for us that we do not have better skills in languages. One can see it very clearly in meetings where officials can relate to each other because they speak the languages. For example, in the whole political co-operation aspect of the EU there are two languages – French and English – and there is no interpretation in any of the committees. All of our diplomats who service this plethora of committees have to be completely fluent in French. It is sometimes a struggle because as a country I do not think we have accepted the value of languages, in particular in terms of the EU. That is an area on which the Department needs to focus and is focusing on to a greater extent.

It is a question of resources. Should we release someone to spend a year in China, Japan or Egypt, as big countries do?

I am fascinated by Ms Cross’s understanding that the new embassies, as proposed by the Department, will be self-funding. Could she elaborate on how an embassy becomes a self-funding entity? I criticised the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade at the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade because I could not understand the economics of closing three embassies on economic grounds, re-opening one and announcing the opening of maybe five new embassies, all from the existing budget. I am now getting an insight into how they will be self-funded.

May I remind other people who have questions the purpose of today’s meeting is to consider our foreign policy within the European Union? Are Ireland’s interests in the Union being promoted and how do we ensure Europe’s voice is stronger globally? We are moving a bit off message.

If I get the answer to that question I will not ask any more but the question of resources for the embassy network, whether it is international or whether it is concentrated in Europe, is relevant.

The committee is completing a report for next week on the EU element. I am not stopping Ms Cross answering the question or the Deputy asking it.

Ms Marie Cross

I might have misled the Deputy by saying the embassies are self-financing. If we open an embassy we get enough return in the way of business contacts, connections and support, as events over the years have shown, that one can say it has paid for itself in the overall economic situation.

Dr. Pat Ivory

I was asked about St. Patrick's Day and the value of the missions and travel abroad by Ministers and the Taoiseach and Tánaiste. It is a unique opportunity for a small economy such as Ireland’s to have a showcase over a week. It is very important to make the most of that for trade and investment. It is important for missions organised around St. Patrick’s Day to have a strong business element. That is increasingly the case. Senator Noone mentioned the USA. This year, as he did last year, the Taoiseach will include in his programme an address to IBEC’s key business partner in the USA, the US Chambers of Commerce in Washington. He will speak about the value of, and advancing the partnership negotiations on, trade and investment. That is particularly important. There are also very good opportunities to bring business communities together during these visits. For example, the State agencies, Enterprise Ireland, the IDA and Bord Bia will organise a business lunch to coincide with St. Patrick’s Day events. These are positive opportunities for us to showcase our ability to trade and invest abroad. During the St. Patrick’s Day festivities in Brussels we organised an event with our MEPs to showcase Irish food and drink. We will do that again this year. It is a good and valuable opportunity to show other nations what we have to offer.

The Senator also asked about the base erosion and profit shifting, BEPS, issue. That is extremely important, not only for Ireland but for our European partners and members of the OECD. We are closely following the OECD G20 project on BEPS and this year the work being done on it in Paris will reach important milestones. We meet regularly with the Revenue Commissioners and do joint work with our members and the Institute of Taxation to understand the progress of this project and its likely outcomes. It is most important that clear and defined rules come out of it. We have always taken what I think is the correct position, to make sure people comply, the most we can ask for is clearly defined international taxation rules and that companies follow those. That will have implications. We have many double taxation agreements, which will have to be considered. Until we see the results of this project we do not know what its likely impact will be. We are following it closely and will do so throughout this year when there are important deadlines. We are engaging with the business advisory committee to the OECD. IBEC has participated in some of its meetings in Paris on the international taxation issues and will continue to do so during the year.

Deputy Byrne asked how a small country with limited resources makes a global impact. A key part of that is building alliances. We in the business community have prioritised our own building of alliances with business partners, within and outside Europe, for example, in the United States. We must also recognise where we trade and invest, the European Union, the UK and the eurozone are very important trading partners and therefore it is important to maintain and work on our presence within the Union. We have limited resources and need to develop business elsewhere. We would welcome a review of where embassies are based, for example, a new embassy will open in Kenya. Africa offers opportunities not only for Ireland to assist development through Irish Aid, but increasingly African countries seek trading partners. Having worked with the group of African ambassadors here I know they are very keen that we develop trade links with Africa. The opening of the embassy in Kenya is very positive, in addition to our embassy in South Africa.

Members mentioned the work of the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, with responsibility for European Affairs, Deputy Donohoe, in representing Ireland. We were very happy to welcome him to the most recent meeting of our EU and international trade committee, last week. We had a very good exchange of views with him on advancing business priorities in this important year of change within the Union, with elections of MEPs, a new Commission being appointed, a new Commission President and a new Council President.

Deputy Byrne also asked whether students are coming to Ireland or going to Asia, specifically Korea. The number of students coming into Ireland has been increasing.

This is a great tribute to the strength of our education system and what our universities and institutes of technology have to offer. It is important to acknowledge that education services are an increasingly developing part of our internationally traded services. We expect the review being carried out by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to pay greater attention to the potential of the education sector to grow our internationally-traded services. We view this as positive.

We have significant programmes to try to help graduates work abroad. The export orientation programme has been running for many years. It gives young Irish people with basic qualifications the opportunity to work with companies abroad and gain valuable business experience and develop their language skills. Our Brussels office has a long tradition of using stagiaires who work for six months to gain experience at European level. It is important that these initiatives are continued.

I thank Dr. Ivory. I wish to return to Deputy Byrne's core point. Our limited resources in the permanent representation to the European Union were mentioned, but they are not that limited as a significant number of people work there. I would like to hear more about the relationship between how much energy goes into developing markets for Irish business, in other words the trade element, and how much energy goes on duplicating work done by the other 27 members of the European Union in sifting through data and information. I would also like the concept of democratic legitimacy, which is the big buzzword in Europe, to be teased out. How many decisions are made in buildings such as the offices of the permanent representation in Brussels, where subjective calls are made which are removed from the political process and do not find their way to committees such as this? Is there sufficient public scrutiny of decisions made on Ireland's behalf in Brussels in the offices of the permanent representation? We met both ambassadors recently and they are doing an excellent job. I wonder how it might be improved.

In this day and age do we really need an embassy in every EU capital? We certainly need a trade presence, but do we need an embassy given that we have EU passports? To develop this point, in the current economic climate would we be far better off having a presence in many joint European Union embassies throughout the world rather than picking and choosing those we perceive to be most important for a full Irish Embassy or consulate presence with nothing in other areas? The Lisbon treaty significantly allows for this.

The United Kingdom seems to be backing away. At the beginning of the week we attended an interparliamentary conference in Brussels at which there was no UK presence. Should we examine other bilateral arrangements? Obviously there is the euro. There are also north-south bilaterals, and Benelux was mentioned as were the Nordic countries. Which bilaterals should we focus on improving as well as those at which we are already quite good?

I welcome the witnesses and compliment them on their efforts in Ireland's participation in international trade and diplomacy. I compliment the diplomatic corps and the business sector on their engagement on, involvement in and support of the statutory services during our Presidency, with particular reference to the ongoing need and the role they have played. Congratulations should also be extended to the unions for the constructive role they have played in supporting the national cause, nationally and internationally. It has not been an easy thing to do in the type of climate in which we have been living and we should recognise it officially.

I am concerned about the point made by the Vice Chairman about reducing our diplomatic influence in EU member states because we are reducing our influence in the European Parliament numerically. The statisticians will state numerically we retain the same strength we had before and that we have a greater influence than some of our bigger neighbours in terms of exact proportionality, but democracy is not about proportionality and never was. One could reduce the membership of all member states by 20, in which case a number of member states would have no representation and one could still state theoretically the rest of the EU is proportionally represented. I do not accept this. There is a need to recognise now that we have not reached a juncture whereby each member state in the European Union recognises it is partly responsible for the EU itself. There is a tendency in this country, and I have spoken about it many times before as have other people, to refer to "our Commissioner". It should not be "our Commissioner". It should be the EU Commissioner for whatever responsibility that person has. The Commissioner appointed in Germany, France or the UK should be equally responsible for the portfolio to the Irish people and the Irish nation. The thinking must change fairly substantially before we can move forward to the extent we think as a union. We do not do so yet. When we do get to this point then we can think about the change in diplomatic representation, but I would be very concerned about doing so beforehand.

We do not often flag the strides the Irish economy has made since joining the European Union. For example, 20 years ago our GDP per capita was approximately one third of the average in the EFTA countries. This has all changed. Even in the difficult circumstances in which we have found ourselves we are at least on par with, or ahead of, most of our European colleagues. This again is largely due to the efforts of the business and diplomatic sectors and the policy being pursued at present. It is hugely important we recognise this.

I wish to briefly refer to the influence of Ireland within the European Union. With the US worldwide withdrawal from policing, as it used to be called, having regard to unfortunate experiences in recent times, there is quite strong evidence a vacuum is developing. I do not believe there is the same respect for the European Union by some of our neighbours as existed a few years ago. I draw a parallel with the war in Bosnia, where it was quite clear to a perpetrator nobody would or could interfere for historical reasons and did not interfere very long time. Eventually there was interference in the form of US intervention. This brought about a complete change in the pattern in the area. There were sudden recognition this cannot go on forever, and it did not go on forever. We remember all of the calls for intervention from the EU but it did not intervene. If the Ukraine were a member of NATO right now I wonder whether the same things as are happening there would have happened.

It is interesting that many of the new member states from eastern Europe joined NATO before joining the Union. There are interesting lessons for us and the European Union to take on board. Ireland is neutral. It claims its neutrality regularly, although I always point out that our neutrality only started in 1939, for a very good reason. We were not neutral before 1939. I am not suggesting we should become a warlord but what I contend about neutrality is a fact of life.

My last point is on the WTO. When the European Union negotiated at WTO level we found on occasion, to our cost, that the outcome is not necessarily beneficial to our cause. This is why it is always essential to try to ensure strong recognition at EU level of our particular position as an open economy greatly affected by any fluctuations in trade. Within negotiations, there should be a strong influence exerted by this country so as to represent our cause. The European Union itself should be able to achieve that, but it did not always happen in the past. We need to be alert to it.

Just to clarify, I asked a question about the EU embassies and did not express an opinion on them.

I was afraid the conversation might develop.

Let it develop. I call Deputy Joe O'Reilly.

I welcome the guests. It is good to have their input and the opportunity to talk to them. It is right that we embark on a review of our foreign affairs arrangements, our diplomacy, the aims of our foreign policy and where we deploy resources. Such a review is welcome and necessary. Circumstances have changed as a consequence of the extraordinarily deep recession, movement in Northern Ireland and changes within the European Union. This context informs why we would want to review policy. It is a worthy review and exercise.

Before we talk about the review, it is no harm to applaud ourselves on our outstanding EU Presidency. It was a great credit to us and we did well. Our chairmanship of the OSCE and our election to the UN Commission on Human Rights must be borne in mind. We have had three enormous successes. I had the privilege of leading the Irish delegation to the Council of Europe. Senator Terry Leyden, a member of the committee, is the vice chairman of that delegation. We are having a significant input, keeping Ireland at the forefront of the human rights agenda and concern for the rule of law and democracy. These are core values in this country. While they are important in themselves, they are also important to the Irish brand and the way Ireland is perceived, which have implications for trade and commerce.

With regard to promoting business, from my limited experience and intuition, more than anything else, I believe Ms Cross’s final remark was very important. She was correct in saying there is no substitute for personal intervention and the personal touch. No submission of documents and no use of IT or social media could substitute for interpersonal contact by people on the ground and the development and sustaining of relationships. We need to bear that in mind in any analysis or deployment of resources.

When the Minister set out the terms of reference of the review, he said we would review the contribution of foreign policy to the economic development of the country. I ask the panel to comment on this, particularly Dr. Ivory as the matter is relevant to his work. It is relevant to all the delegates. I would like to see a mission statement stipulating the job of our foreign or diplomatic policy is to maximise business and trade and the number of jobs. However, this should be achieved in a regionally fair fashion. Thankfully, we have had great success in recent years in attracting inward investment. There has been tremendous internal job creation by the private sector, which I welcome very much. However, as a representative of the regions it would be remiss of me not to point out that constituencies such as mine, Cavan-Monaghan, are not sharing in this. While inward investors cannot be taken by the ears to a certain part of Ireland – they have freedom to move capital and free choice and I acknowledge what attracts them to certain locations – it would be legitimate to expect, as part of the set of objectives in the mission statement, that regional balance would be fought for. There is too much acquiescence to the thinking that all development must be along the east coast. I welcome development there but there should be regional balance.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan took the Chair.

The electricity and the pylons.

Regional balance should be a mantra and we should work towards it. Obviously, the first objective is to achieve inward investment.

A significant diplomatic objective should be to achieve retrospective compensation of this country, as promised, on foot of the approximately €24 billion that was put into the banks to rescue them. We have done badly in the sense that we were the first country in this position. We were early and are almost victims of our own success as a consequence. Will the delegates respond on the role of foreign affairs activity in achieving that legitimate objective?

Unfortunately, I missed some of Ms Cross's contribution as I was speaking in the Dáil. Perhaps she mentioned the diaspora. An objective of the review as set out by the Minister in December is to examine our approach to the Irish diaspora. I know representatives from the diaspora and go frequently, at my own expense, to the Cavan associations in England and elsewhere. I consider my doing so vital. There are many emigrants in England who went there in the 1950s, and they are in a very bad way on a number of levels. The audience here is too intelligent for me to elaborate on this; it knows what I am talking about. Are the delegates happy that we are responding adequately to that challenge? Should a review suggest that more resources should be made available? We have an unquestionable moral responsibility to do something. We let emigrants go out into the world with minimal and perhaps very barbaric schooling and no resources or life experience. From the very rural environment of their childhoods, we sent them to an urban setting that was completely alien to them for a while. The results are horrific in many instances. We have an extraordinarily significant moral responsibility and I make no apologies for my saying so.

I contend without exaggerating that I am receiving anecdotal evidence of a diplomatic issue that concerns everyone addressing us today and their organisations, namely that many young Irish emigrants to Australia are in a bad way.

Their living costs are enormous and they are living in squats with too many in the one room. I am getting a lot of anecdotal evidence to suggest there is a problem in this regard and it should be part of a review. Similarly, the undocumented Irish in America remain a constant issue.

Does Dr. Ivory believe Ireland should have maintained the IDA Ireland link with Taiwan? Like Senator Catherine Noone, I had the privilege of visiting Taiwan and was impressed by its potential market, as well as its willingness to do business with Ireland. How does Dr. Ivory believe we can reconcile dealing with Taiwan with our efforts to expand into China also?

The European Parliament has expanded powers, particularly in the budgetary area. Have we enough input from our Irish MEPs and at a diplomatic level to have the necessary influence in the European Parliament?

The most imminent threat to Ireland is the potential departure of the United Kingdom from the European Union. While it is not probable, it is possible. All of our diplomacy should be centred on preventing this from happening. This should become a major objective of Irish foreign policy. We are an equally friendly partner and 57% of our trade is with the United Kingdom. As a Border Deputy, it behoves me at every opportunity to caution against the risk of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union. We must make efforts to support initiatives within the Union to reconcile the United Kingdom's position in it and convince it to stay. If it were to leave, it would be enormously problematic for this country and the Border areas I represent.

The White Paper will include a chapter on the European Union and the challenges it will face. One of these challenges is realising the potential of the Single Market and the greater integration of energy infrastructure. Competitively, we are at a disadvantage compared to the United States in that the cost of electricity and gas is high in Europe because we do not have the same level of integration. The role of the former Soviet Union in providing the European Union’s energy supply is also a significant issue. There were several meetings prior to Christmas of foreign affairs Ministers in Vilnius to discuss this issue. Will the delegations comment on it?

Human rights issues are also to the forefront in several countries, not least in Russia with respect to the LGBT community, of which we have seen horrific abuses. Will the European Union have a common policy on this issue or is it just paying lip-service, considering that Russia’s gas supplies serve the Union? While there are talks about the future enlargement of the European Union eastwards, Russia has a hold on some of these countries and their human rights records are not good, particularly on LGBT issues.

Several African countries have passed horrendous laws affecting the LGBT community. In one case, the death penalty was suggested, but it was retracted and changed to life imprisonment. I would have problems with international aid going from this country to those African states that have enacted oppressive legislation against the LGBT community.

There is an interesting array of questions. I am in favour of sharing our wealth in the eastern region with the rest of the country.

The Acting Chairman is a noble man.

It must be remembered that spreading industrial development across the country requires a highly developed infrastructure to be in place in all regions. However, this has not happened. One of the basic requirements for industrial development is the ready availability of sufficient electricity. If that does not happen, we will have problem. For example, 15 years after the discovery of the Corrib gas field, gas from the field is still not available on the national gas grid. Anyone looking at this from the outside, noting how long it has taken to do something regarded as simple elsewhere, would not be impressed. We need to have the best road and telecommunications networks in all regions. We cannot possibly cater for the level of industrial expansion required in the next 20 years unless that basic infrastructure is in place. The population at large needs to recognise this.

Ms Marie Cross

Trade is a European Commission competence. The policies and directions given are developed through committee meetings in Brussels at which departmental officials liaise with trade representatives. The Government is effectively giving direction and a mandate to the Commission to negotiate trade agreements. In the sense that there is democratic legitimacy, member state governments have the say in giving the Commission a mandate to negotiate.

Should we have an embassy in each member state? It has been my experience that we have deep relationships within the European Union in every area of domestic and international business. It is impossible to contemplate the extensive relations we have with member states without having a representative present in each capital. Before each Council meeting, the agendas go out and each ambassador is called to the relevant ministry where he or she is briefed on the member state’s attitude on each of the agenda items.

There is an incredible series of linkages between EU member states. The depth of the relationship is such that it seems impossible to contemplate that one would not have a representative in each member state where our interests are so intertwined.

The other question was on the UK's backing away. This is a very serious issue for Ireland and we are extremely anxious about it. All our representatives are liaising closely with EU representatives. The organisation where I work, the future of Europe group in the IIEA, has had many visitors from Britain to discuss EU business. We have used every opportunity to inform them of our view on the great value of the EU as an institution to each member, including the UK, and how retrograde it would be for the EU to lose a country such as the UK. Every layer of politics and officialdom is talking to its counterpart in the UK and doing everything possible to assist in informing and persuading.

The other question was on what bilateral relationships we should cultivate that would be of more use to us and where we should focus. We have always been close to similar-sized member states such as the Nordic countries and the Benelux countries, but we should also keep in close contact with other member states such as the central and eastern Europeans. In the political and security area, our close alignments are with Sweden and Finland, with whom we serve very closely in military missions, and with the Netherlands, which is relatively similar in size. We must be careful to maintain networks with all member states. For example, in the non-external relations area, we need other countries to be persuaded to vote and support our positions. It is hefty work maintaining networks but the countries of similar size are probably our closest neighbours and interlocutors.

Deputy Durkan asked about our decreasing influence in the European Parliament due to our decreasing numbers. It is a factor that if we are reduced in the Parliament we should keep in closer touch with the member states in capitals. I take his point about the military aspects, the vacuum caused by US withdrawal, Bosnia and NATO. The EU still has a mission in Bosnia, where it has contributed significantly to the peace and where there is still much unrest. On the WTO, we have committees keeping track of that.

Deputy O'Reilly spoke about interpersonal relationships in promoting business, and I made the case for that, and the mission statements on foreign policy. He mentioned retrospective compensation. The Departments of the Taoiseach and Foreign Affairs and Trade are working very closely together on this. There was a commitment by the 2012 Heads of State and Government to examine that and I have no doubt it is still very much on the agenda. I know something about the Irish diaspora because it was in my area in the Department of Foreign Affairs, as was the Irish emigrant fund. My experience over the few years I looked after that and visited the emigrant communities in Britain in that context was that it is quite well funded. The organisations we spoke to were satisfied that they had sufficient funding at that time - two years ago - to deal with the number of Irish coming to them.

In those Irish centres I encountered a reduction in the number of Irish people coming in, but other nationalities were coming to them and were not being turned away. I agree with the Deputy about the older Irish but it was interesting that the people in the centres tell us the recent Irish emigrants seem to be able to look after themselves. They have friends and they are on the Internet making connections. The rise in the number of other nationalities coming in was a factor. One hears about difficulties encountered by the people in Australia, but the embassy there and the consulate in Sydney would be very well aware of that.

Deputy Kyne asked about energy, which I will leave to Dr. Ivory. Regarding human rights, the role of Russia in EU energy is a factor. It is a major energy producer and that is always on the agenda. It has been used before as a mechanism. The EU continuously issues statements on human rights and raises it in meetings with the Russians, particularly in the recent EU-Russia summit. They raise these issues, particularly the issue of lesbian and gay rights and the Russian attitude to that. That is always raised at a high level. We keep a close watch on human rights in Africa. We have a very good spread of missions in Africa. They started as development aid offices and are now full embassies, so they have a political mandate as well as an aid mandate. They work very closely on that and will report on all negative aspects of human rights and allow the policies to be adjusted in that regard.

Dr. Pat Ivory

I will try to deal with the questions Ms Cross only touched on or left completely for more of a business focus. Regarding the democratic legitimacy of the EU system, it is important to recognise where legislation and directives are formed. Ms Cross made the point that, for example, in the trade area the European Commission has competence. We work very closely with officials here in Ireland who are engaged in the trade committee of the Council. We work very closely with the permanent representation in Brussels. The resources are focused in Brussels on important issues in terms of where the permanent representation has its focus - for example, on energy and climate change, taxation, institutional engagement, transport, trade and the development of the food and drinks sector.

Regarding alliances, it very much depends on the issue and one will have different alliances for different issues. For example, one may have one alliance for advancing trade and investment with the US, another for developing the digital economy here within Europe and a different alliance for developing the food and drink sector. In Ireland we have strong alliances regarding pharmaceuticals and medical devices with various European groups. The type of alliance one builds depends very much on the issue with which one is dealing.

One must be very careful in how one chooses one's partners and not just to think in terms of whether a country is a natural ally. One must look at what is on the table and one is trying to advance in building these alliances.

On the question of regional development, an issue raised by Deputies Joe O'Reilly and Bernard J. Durkan, the Acting Chairman, we certainly give priority to having a regional focus in terms of policy, as well as having a national focus. We have a developed regional network with regional offices and executives throughout the country. It is an appropriate time to look again at the national spatial development strategy and how it can aid regional development. There is also the development of business clusters around the country. There are different clusters such as a medical devices cluster in the west, a pharmaceuticals cluster in Cork and an international services cluster in Dublin. Deputy Joe O'Reilly mentioned Cavan and Monaghan. There has been significant investment in infant formula manufacture in Cootehill, County Cavan, by Abbott Nutrition and Town of Monaghan Co-op Limited has strong development in the dairy and food sector. It is a matter of looking at and leveraging cluster development across the country.

The Acting Chairman, Deputy Bernard J. Durkan, raised the issue of roads development, which is very important. Having developed five core networks of roads across the country, major urban road development has been one of the most positive elements in the development of infrastructure in recent years, but more work must be done, for example, in progressing the Gort to Tuam bypass. We are returning to a situation where public private partnerships will again be possible in Ireland. Our ability to borrow on international markets has greatly improved, with our ten year bond rates much closer to German rates than they were in the past few years. We have come out of the troika programme in a particularly strong position with respect to borrowing. There should be a focus on transport, telecommunications and educational infrastructure development across the country. It is time for us to look again at how we can ensure infrastructural development is a key priority in the year ahead.

With regard to Deputy Seán Kyne's comment on a balanced climate and energy policy, it is clear that the internal energy market must be completed and that the European Union must redouble its diplomatic efforts in securing energy resources, which is very important. At the same time, however, Ireland must ensure that in implementing the rules the benefits we have secured on an all-island basis for a single electricity market are retained. Energy is a key question not just in Ireland but also across Europe in terms of the availability of shale gas in the United States, which has heightened competitive issues. We must examine how Ireland and the European Union can ensure we will have efficient energy resources and that energy prices and costs for manufacturing are controlled and kept as low as possible in order that we can compete both in terms of trade and investment.

Before I refer to the United Kingdom, Deputy Joe O'Reilly asked about Taiwan. It is a very interesting question. Development in Taiwan is very strong in certain sectors, particularly software. I understand Taiwan will organise some ministerial and business-led missions to Ireland this year. We will be very happy to meet these delegations when they visit Ireland. Taiwan has been a trading partner of Ireland for many years. That is significant and should be developed. On the diplomatic side - I would not claim to be an expert on international diplomacy - I understand diplomatic relationships have changed since 2008. That is important in terms of the relationship between China and Taipei also.

As regards the referendum in the United Kingdom on EU membership, it is clear to us in terms of our engagement both at European level and in the United Kingdom that the business community in the United Kingdom has taken a very firm position that it is in the best interests of the United Kingdom to remain part of the European Union. Eight out of ten businesses in the United Kingdom have stated they wish to remain part of the European Union. Our colleagues in the Confederation of British Industry, CBI, produced a very interesting report which examined various options such as those of Norway and Switzerland. One of the interesting results of the study was that the advice of the people in Norway and Switzerland was that the United Kingdom should remain part of the European Union, if it wished to influence legislation, regulations and directives from the Union. If one is outside the European Union, one must often apply these regulations and directives, if one wishes to participate in the Single Market, which everybody wishes to do because of the strength and continuing development of that market in goods and services. A country must meet the same standards and regulations in a number of directives.

Of course, some issues are more contentious than others in terms of the difference between economic regulation and social regulation and flexible labour markets. It is a complex range of issues. It is healthy for the European Union to consider how it can reform and ensure it is operating in the most efficient and effective way possible in the regulations it introduces. There is a common interest in looking at European Union reform both between Ireland and the United Kingdom and between Ireland and other European member state partners. It is always healthy for the European Union to look at how it is doing things and ways in which it can reform to make it more effective and competitive on a global basis. However, from a business perspective, being a member of the European Union is certainly more advantageous than being outside it.

It is important, too, that we recognise that there are many areas in which we might collaborate with the United Kingdom. Advancing trade is one of them, as well as investment across the world.

We have common interests in opening up markets, but we also compete with the United Kingdom in important areas such as foreign direct investment. We need to look at what is happening there and in other jurisdictions within Europe and ensure our offering to attract investment here is at the level it should be and needs to reach. We need to think continually think about the competition we will face from other countries in attracting investment to Ireland and make sure we are the best in class in our offering.

I think I have covered all of the items raised. Is there anything on which I have not touched?

Dr. Ivory has given a very comprehensive reply. We could not have done better ourselves. I have the pleasant task of thanking the delegation for its attendance. The meeting has been worthwhile. Obviously, the questions were generated by Dr. Ivory's opening address. I thank him, Ms Cross and Mr. O'Donovan for their attendance and the discourse will be fundamental to the preparation of our references to the foreign policy review.

I propose that the committee continue in private session for a couple of minutes. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The joint committee went into private session at 3.50 p.m. and adjourned at 3.55 p.m. until 11.30 a.m. on Thursday, 27 February 2014.
Top
Share