The minutes of the last meeting were circulated to members. Are they in order and agreed to?
Business of Joint Committee.
This is not a quibble, but it is important to know where we stand. The minutes state that, following a proposal from Deputy Higgins that a delegation from the committee should visit Iraq in the near future, it was agreed that the feasibility of arranging such a visit would be investigated. My memory of the matter is that it was decided that we would go. That should be stated in the minutes. This proposal was seconded by Senator O'Rourke. It was agreed by everybody that a delegation from the joint committee should visit Iraq. The question of this happening in the near future is a little misleading. Many members wanted this to happen. We did not say it would be a good idea to discuss it at the end of January and to be prepared to go in March when everything would be over. The idea was to make a decision now. A delegation should go. We should set about organising this. That is what the minutes should reflect.
I agree with Deputy Higgins. I followed the matter up. I am getting suspicious in my old age. There is a danger that, for a variety of reasons, this matter could be put on the long finger. It needs to be acted upon immediately. There was a clear decision that a delegation would go.
We could say this should be investigated as a matter of urgency. I understood that was the situation.
No, it is not. The minutes should read as follows: "Following a proposal from Deputy Higgins that a delegation of the committee should visit Iraq, the committee decided unanimously to form such a delegation and it was agreed that such a visit would be arranged." The word "feasibility" should be omitted, as I am too used to its inclusion.
It only arises in terms of the logistical arrangements to be made in getting there.
That is also my recollection.
I have no disagreement with Deputy Higgins, but it was not agreed unanimously. It was recorded that there was general agreement.
Nobody objected.
We said we would look urgently at the possibility and feasibility of organising it and then decide how we would do it. As the point was made that we did not want to put it on the long finger, we decided to do it as a matter of urgency. If everyone agrees that should be the position, I do not have any difficulty with it. As Deputy Gay Mitchell has joined us, I will clarify the position. The minutes state that it was agreed that the feasibility of arranging such a visit to Iraq would be investigated as a matter of urgency. Deputy Michael Higgins said it was agreed unanimously that this should happen. Will we state that now because we did not ask yesterday if it was a unanimous decision? We said we would inquire into the matter and return to it today. If it is a unanimous decision, we will make it such arising from the minutes.
I am anxious to conclude this discussion. The issue is not whether it was unanimous. It is not necessary to include the word "unanimous" in the minutes. If we want to say nem. con., we can say no one spoke against it. My recollection of Deputy Gay Mitchell’s contribution is clear. He said that if we established a delegation, it should operate in an independent way and should not become an anti-American exercise. Different members spoke on the issue. We said that if we wanted to do it, we should do it when it would be of most assistance. It, therefore, had to be done urgently. My recollection is that I began by proposing the composition of a delegation. There was such a good reception from everyone around the table who felt it should be done urgently that I said we should do it rather than leaving it as a matter for discussion or consideration. I understood the minutes would record that “following a proposal from Deputy Michael Higgins, seconded by Senator O’Rourke and agreed nem. con., a delegation from the committee should visit Iraq in the near future.” That was agreed. The arranging of such a visit would then be set in motion. That is what we decided.
The practicality of arranging such a visit would then be set in motion. It was made clear that would occur immediately. I do not want to quibble with the Deputy about the matter. The secretary recorded the minutes as the secretary understood them at the time. If everyone agrees, I am happy to adjust the minutes accordingly.
I asked for arrangements to be made for us to come home.
I know. That is the reason the issue of the practicality of such a visit arose. Is everyone happy with this?
With what?
I do not want to go into all the details. As regards finance, we said we would examine the practicality and feasibility of doing it the right way and the mechanism for going and that we would come back to the committee. That happened yesterday afternoon. We will adjust the minutes to state it was agreed that a delegation from the committee should visit Iraq as a matter of urgency. Is that what the Deputy is saying?
What I am saying is simple. We can adjust the minutes to state: "Following a proposal from Deputy Michael Higgins, that a delegation from the committee should visit Iraq as a matter of urgency in the near future, it was agreed nem. con. that a delegation should be sent.” If it facilitates the committee’s procedures, I will propose it as an amendment to the minutes, which I am entitled to do. I do not have any difficulty with what needs to be included afterwards.
That is all right.
The minutes could also state: "The committee agreed that the arrangements for such a visit should be investigated and arranged as quickly as possible."
Is that agreed?
As regards correspondence, the three Irish citizens——
With respect, there was a certain wisdom in what Senator Norris said that such a visit would involve a long journey of approximately 12 hours across the desert from Amman to Baghdad. People must bear this in mind when considering travelling. I am happy with the changes to the minutes.
That was the issue of practicality to which the secretary referred.
That is for housekeeping, not for decision.
It is part of making the arrangements.
We should proceed because the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs is waiting to talk about Africa.
We are clear on what has been decided and agreed.
As regards correspondence and the three Irish citizens detained in Colombia, will there be a detailed discussion later in the meeting on the issue?
Yes. The main business of the meeting is the discussion with the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs.
As regards the second draft work programme, appended to the minutes, Tibet has——
I want to clear current business first. Are the minutes, as amended, agreed to? Agreed. With the agreement of members, I will defer correspondence and other matters until later in the meeting in order that the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs can proceed.