JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS debate -
Tuesday, 20 Jan 2004

British Foreign Affairs Committee: Presentation.

Chairman

I am very pleased to welcome our colleagues from the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee under the chairmanship of the Right Honourable Donald Anderson. They are all very welcome and we look forward to having informal discussions with them after this session. I will introduce the members of the joint committee. Present today are Senator Michael Kitt from Galway in the west of Ireland, Deputy Tony Dempsey from Wexford, Deputy Pat Carey from the north side of Dublin, who has been deeply involved in the constitutional issue for the European Union, Deputy Dan Wallace from Cork, Deputy Jim O'Keeffe from west Cork, Senator Paul Coghlan, Deputy Michael D. Higgins, spokesperson of the Labour Party, and Deputy Gay Mitchell, chairman of the committee on European affairs and spokesperson for the Fine Gael Party. I am Deputy Michael Woods, the chairman of this committee and a member of the Fianna Fáil Party.

The Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Commons has mentioned a number of issues it would like to discuss. Perhaps its chairman would introduce the Honourable Members.

Mr. Donald Anderson

We are delighted to be here and I am particularly delighted to meet two colleagues from Cork as I come from the other end of the Cork ferry route. I will introduce my colleagues who are David Chidgey, a good colleague and a Liberal Democrat MP, Fabian Hamilton, Eric Illsley, Andrew Mackinlay, John Maples, Bill Olner, Richard Ottaway, Greg Pope, Sir John Stanley and Gisela Stuart, who was our representative on the politburo of the Convention. She will correct us on anything we say about the Convention.

Deputy G. Mitchell

It is good to see we have a politburo and a pope present at the same meeting.

Mr. Anderson

At the start of each Presidency, the Foreign Affairs Committee visits the country which holds the Presidency. We are genuinely delighted to be here at a key time because all the problems seem to have fallen into the lap of Ireland. I wish it good luck.

Chairman

We are used to that. It is no problem. I ask Mr. Anderson to state some of the areas of interest to his committee, after which we will have a general discussion.

Mr. Anderson

Although we are a Foreign Affairs Committee, we do not deal with aid and development, which, I understand, are within the competence of this committee. Our role is specifically related to the Foreign Office as opposed to the Department of International Development. Because the Foreign Office is the lead Department in the field of Europe, we are the relevant select committee in that respect and, therefore, cover the full spectrum. We have just completed a report on the war on terrorism and we shall deal with South Africa.

Clearly, we are interested in the prospects of Ireland picking up the pieces after the failure in December in respect of the constitution. We believe that the Irish Prime Minister, with his particular gifts of negotiation, is better suited than almost any other person to knit together the possibilities. We are examining enlargement and the way in which it will impact not only on the new countries entering the European Union, but also on those countries which form the new borders of the Union. I understand that Ireland has spent considerable time examining the west Balkans region.

We are interested in the fact that Ireland has set Africa as a priority and whether this is a personal preference of the Minister for Foreign Affairs or is an issue that resonates with the population. I was a founder of AWEPA and I have dealt in the past with a number of Members of the Dáil, including Tom Kitt, Nora Owen, Mary Coughlan and others, in respect of Africa policy.

At the end of six months, what will Ireland consider to be a success, in other words, what would be required to enable Ireland to look back at the end of the six months and say, "We have really achieved something"? What are its realistic ambitions for the Presidency? Perhaps some of my colleagues would like to add to that agenda.

Sir John Stanley

We have enough to start with.

Chairman

During the Presidency, our first priority will be to ensure a successful enlargement, a major undertaking, and successful integration of the new member states with the current member states. We will also work to advance negotiations with Romania and Bulgaria and will support Turkey's efforts to fulfil the necessary criteria with a view to the decision to be taken at the European Council this year on the opening of accession negotiations. We also fully support the efforts of the United Nations to reach a settlement in Cyprus which would allow a united Cyprus to accede to the European Union in May.

We are in the process of taking soundings from our partners, including the Heads of State, to ascertain whether grounds exist for moving forward the work of the Intergovernmental Conference during our Presidency. We are aware of the urgency of this task and, at the same time, of the need for exhaustive consultation and careful consideration before reporting back to the spring European Council and attempting to formulate a strategy which might break the deadlock. The joint committee is interested in hearing the views of the delegation on this issue.

While it is true that our Taoiseach has a reputation for negotiation, he has a difficult task ahead of him. Our objective will be to advance the process as far as possible during the six month period and to try to ensure that it is concluded this year. We can be certain that he is already applying himself assiduously to that task.

I was very interested in Mr. Anderson's comments on Africa and South Africa because this committee has taken a particular interest in Africa, which we have made one of our priorities. We are very happy, therefore, that the Government has also made it a priority during its Presidency. Although people sometimes feel that so much has been tried in the past in Africa, major opportunities are now open to us, for example, through NEPAD and the African Union. When I mention this to some people, they note that NEPAD has been in place for some time. That is not really the case as the organisation is only getting off the ground and needs the support of all of us.

We have made Africa a priority. When one visits various parts of Africa, it is interesting to note the number of Irish and British missionaries and NGOs one meets and the successful work they are doing. However, a comprehensive, integrated approach is badly needed. Regardless of how difficult the problems are on the ground, one needs an overall approach - hence the possibilities in NEPAD and the African Union. We do not underestimate the extent of the difficulties or the historical differences in Africa. Nevertheless, we believe we must be active in that region. We would be interested in talking to you about that while you are here and following up on it afterwards.

Deputy G. Mitchell

I join the Chairm an in welcoming colleagues from the House of Commons. I wish to make a couple of points in response to the chairman of the British committee. In regard to the Intergovernmental Conference, the ingredients for the cake are there but the question is whether we can put them in the oven and bake them. We have been through all of this. This committee deals with development aid while the European affairs committee deals with European issues, although there is a certain amount of overlap. The European affairs committee met Deputy Carey, his colleagues and, indeed, our Minister, who attended on a regular basis, before they went to and when they came back from the Convention. We went through the agenda on a regular basis in a proactive way and tried to influence, as far as we could, the setting of that agenda. Deputy John Bruton, a former Taoiseach, was on the presidium of the Convention, so we had the opportunity to hear at first-hand what was happening there.

It seems what has been agreed cannot unravel and that all that is left to deal with is the situation of Poland and Spain. There is a window of opportunity between now and the general election when Prime Minister Aznar departs. If it is not done between now and then, it will take longer because the new Spanish prime minister will have to settle in. Perhaps it will be done during the Dutch Presidency. The Poles appear to be indicating that they do not want to be seen as the bad boys of Europe and that the issue of their voting rights can be addressed. There is an opportunity to deal with this during Ireland's Presidency. If it is to come about, it must be before the general election in Spain which does not leave too much time. I do not believe it is likely to happen during our Presidency.

An interesting point on Africa was raised. Quite separate from this committee, the European affairs committee set up a group under David Begg, Secretary General of the Irish Congress of Trade Union, with Garret FitzGerald, a former Taoiseach, David Andrews, a former Minister for Foreign Affairs, Bríd Rosney, a former adviser to former President Robinson, and Noel Dorr, a former Secretary General at the Department of Foreign Affairs. We asked it to look at the issue of HIV/AIDS, indebtedness and hunger in the Third World and to compile a report as to how we might make that a priority during our Presidency. That report was presented to the committee which in turn presented it to the Minister. This committee, the European affairs committee and the House have pursued the Minister to make this a priority. I believe we can do that with some credibility. There are things we cannot do and cannot change but our history of famine and of being involved in the Third World through NGOs and missionaries gives us some credibility in trying to pursue this issue.

If, in its current format, the Convention report is agreed and translates into an agreed treaty, will it be ratified by the House of Commons - presumably without any reference to the British people? Ireland is required to hold a referendum because of its written Constitution. The first referendum on the Nice treaty was lost and the question was put a second time. Where stand the various tests on whether Britain will join the euro? What is the current feeling in the House of Commons? Will Britain ever join the European Union?

Mr. Anderson

The present British Government's view is that there is no need for a referendum in respect of the constitution. I suppose the golden rule is that governments do not hold referenda which they may lose. I think Mitterrand said in respect of France that the French people always answer the wrong question in a referendum. There is an element of that. It depends very much on the popularity of the government of the day and so on. The current view of the British Government is that there will be no referendum in respect of the constitution. The British Government is committed to a referendum on the euro and public opinion is currently at least 2:1 against joining the euro. Monsieur Delors has given a certain backing to public opinion on that.

In respect of the European Union, I believe we have been a reasonably good member for a long time. There are areas in which we may be deemed not to be at the core, such as the euro, and there are others, such as security policy, in which we are pioneers.

Mr. David Chidgey

It was very interesting to hear the points on Africa being at the heart of the Irish Presidency. I would like to know whether note has been taken of the need to persuade the Administration in the United States to show equal endeavour and sincerity. The importance of the New Partnership for Africa's Development, NEPAD, was mentioned. Members obviously know the US Administration has decided NEPAD is not a good idea. Not only is it not prepared to support it, I suspect it is trying to oppose it. It has it own initiative which, I think, is called the millennium challenge whereby one can bid to have American investors take over one's economy or something like that. I would like to hear member's views on that.

The second equally controversial issue where the chairman left off relates to common security and defence policy. Will it feature under the Irish Presidency? If it does feature, do members believe the Irish tradition of neutrality will be a help or a hindrance in bringing Europe along the path of greater co-operation on defence and security?

Deputy M. Higgins

I join the Chairm an in welcoming our visitors. Tá fíorchaoin fáilte rompu agus tá súil agam go mbeidh seansanna acu na hábhair seo a phlé níos doimhne.

It is a great pleasure to be able to welcome another foreign affairs committee and one which has powers perhaps beyond ours and which has been engaging with issues of joint concern. I do not wish to be repetitive but would like to ask a few questions on which I would appreciate views.

I will begin with Mr. Chidgey's position because his question on NEPAD was interesting. Our committee is representative of different points of view. It is fair to say my view is, to some extent, a minority one. When we had a presentation from the South African Government on NEPAD, I had a number of reservations about it. It was initiated by four countries. It is not quite clear what or how clear or inclusive the consultation process with other African states is. In the text of the NEPAD proposal, which is interesting, there is the problem of its reliance on foreign direct investment. Much of the text relies on conditions which will change Africa from a continent with low foreign direct investment and low participation in world trade but if one takes these two together - there are more - one might ask to what degree it is inclusive. Perhaps the most difficult problem for all of us is the contradiction between that and the statement of the African council of churches whose critique of NEPAD would be the same as mine in that it is in contradiction with most of what is being advised by non-governmental organisations and by those at the aid end.

The aid end, which starts with the crisis of HIV/AIDS to which our Government is correctly committed, is one aspect but food security is another. The right of economies to meet basic needs, whether health, education, food security, etc., is not reconcilable with the overall view of prioritising an increase in foreign direct investment on a neo-liberal market economy model. They do not fit together. This creates a crisis within the interpretation of NEPAD. At a practical level, it becomes a slogan if one starts waving NEPAD around and one does not address these issues of inclusion or discussion or whether one programmes it.

I agree entirely with Mr. Chidgey on the view of the United States in promoting an alternative. There is another practical issue which I hope will be addressed during the Irish Presidency, that is, the committed funds for HIV/AIDS. What conditions attach to those? For example, to what extent are offers regarding sexual activity confined to the containment of AIDS within marriage and so on? Those kinds of conditions come out of the United States right wing. What is their effect on United Nations policies on the general population? Those are real issues. I will list a few more, since this might be my opportunity to do so.

What has not been mentioned yet is the war. All our foreign affairs committees have been affected by what is taking place in Iraq. Our committee here has not reached a firm conclusion regarding a basic proposition that pre-emptive strikes are illegal. No provision exists for them in international law within the charter of the United Nations. I am very clear on that. It was an illegal action. The United Nations, as our most significant multilateral institution, has been substantially damaged, not only by the manner in which extra-charter action was taken before diplomacy had been exhausted, but also in the quality of the information put before the Security Council itself. I am thinking in particular of what was stated in November.

We discussed weapons of mass destruction here. Those of us who have been involved in foreign affairs policy for a very long time - I can speak only for myself and for the Labour Party, for which I have the honour of being the foreign affairs spokesperson - draw a distinction between the war on terror after the attacks of 11 September 2001 and Iraq. Not a shred of evidence has been put before us to connect those two.

Regarding international foreign policy and relations, it is not helpful to fight. Being positive, the questions that we have in the background of the Presidency include whether international law can be respected again. A recent issue of The Wilson Quarterly suggests that international law is itself subversive of the laws of countries which wish to be governed solely by their constitutions. To make a commitment beyond the nation is a strange and subversive action. That would be a terrible pass to reach. If we are to respect international law, it must be particularly binding on the strong rather than just the weak.

On the positive agenda to which I look forward, not simply during the Irish Presidency but in coming years, is the very difficult issue of the distinction between humanitarian intervention and human rights protection. I no longer hold the view that there are no circumstances in which one should not intervene to take action against genocide. At the same time, the signatories to the charter of the UN sign up in the context of sovereignty. We must face that issue. Mr. Sahnoun, formerly Somali representative at the UN, has recently made some good proposals in that regard.

On some other issues arising, we ask Dáil questions. Sometimes the Minister gives long replies, and we get fewer questions. Sometimes we get short replies and little information but get more questions. We will be repeating that exercise on 12 February. However, some small issues seem to fly away. Having looked at the website of the United Kingdom's foreign affairs committee, I believe that it discussed Diego Garcia. I would be interested in what conclusions it came to regarding the rights of the original occupants of those islands to return to their homelands. We also had very good discussions here regarding the present position on Burma. It is a recurring theme, and we regularly receive delegations on it and are very anxious that a more aggressive stance be taken in confronting the military authorities.

Sir John Stanley

I will not reply at length to Deputy Higgins's questions about Iraq, since I would deprive him and all his colleagues of lunch if I did so. Perhaps I might offer just one thought on the question of the legality of pre-emption. International lawyers have argued all the way around it, but I understand that under the United Nations charter there is an inherent right of self-defence. The issue that arises is whether Saddam Hussein and his regime represented a degree of threat that could justify the invasion of Iraq as part of such a pre-emptive right to self-defence. That is an excellent question, but we all understand the point about the current total absence of WMDs. Perhaps I might leave that there, but we can carry on ad nauseam over lunch.

I would also like to raise one of the very significant issues that we have faced in Europe over the last ten years - the huge increase in the level of economic migration, not just from eastern Europe but from as far east as China, African countries and so on. We have experienced that on a substantial level ourselves in the UK. One of the grounds that those who enter our country cite as contributing to the attractiveness of the UK we share only with Ireland among other EU member states. It is that the mother tongue is English, and that may therefore have been something of an issue for the Irish.

I see that, among the Presidency objectives, the Irish hope to prioritise actions aimed at combating illegal immigration and measures to facilitate the development of a common approach to legal migration. It would be very interesting to hear from members whether they hope to achieve anything really substantive in the area of common measures to combat illegal immigration and, equally importantly, to develop a common approach to legal migration. Will the Irish be able to achieve anything substantive in the area during their six-month Presidency?

Deputy Carey

There is a danger that we might be lobbing balls across at each other without anyone catching or even attempting to catch those from the other side. I may be as guilty as anyone else. Perhaps I might return to the Intergovernmental Conference for a moment. We may have been tantalisingly close to a solution, but we were also tantalisingly far away. I hold the view that no treaty is better than a bad one. During the last discussions that we had in Brussels some time ago, that was certainly the consensus among the parliamentary representatives. It is not simply a question of whether Spain and Poland modify their positions.

To be candid, I am concerned, as are many of us here, about the United Kingdom Government flirting with the temptation of a two-speed Europe emerging in the shape of pioneering groups or whatever. It seems that the current UK Government is anxious to be associated with the Franco-German axis in trying to push forward at a different speed in Europe. That has inherently destabilising potential for the whole European project. Perhaps I am misreading that, but I certainly feel that to be the case.

Connected with those questions are issues of trying to get the EU to sing from the same hymn sheet on foreign and defence policy. Someone raised the issue of Ireland's role in that debate. Quite frankly, it will be marginal. We will not advance matters as much as many of us might think. However, until such time as we make some attempt at achieving coherence on common foreign policy, much of the rest of Europe's influence will be significantly diminished.

I was going to ask a question already touched on by Deputy Higgins. One of the priorities, and by definition there is only one, is effective multi-lateralism - the role of the United Nations vis-à-vis the European Union so where do you see the UN re-establishing itself in light of the debacle which it has gone through over Iraq and other issues? Realistically, do you see the European Union having any influence in trying to improve the legitimacy or the role of the UN in the re-building of Iraq?

The western Balkans present an issue that, if we do not get our heads around it, has the potential to destabilise that part of Europe, certainly as far as the new neighbours initiative is concerned. Mine has been a rambling contribution but I could not catch enough balls to make any kind of a coherent reply to your questions.

Ms Gisela Stewart

Can I catch very directly that ball which Deputy Carey threw? We have spent quite a lot of time together over the last 18 months and there was a period when I saw more of Deputy John Bruton than of my own children. There is a debate about a two-speed Europe which is totally phoney because it is not clear where the fast lane intends to go. Do not accept this. There is no slow lane nor is there a pioneering group - a pioneering group going where? We are reaching a point at which we need to find a way for Europe to punch its political weight and that must be built by consensus. The Convention tried to synchronise the bureaucratic mechanism to create that political consensus. The bureaucratic mechanism on the table potentially posits large against small and that will be deeply damaging. The real way forward is to find in foreign policy a mechanism by which we can build on those areas in which we have consensus, such as the peacekeeping role and so on. That is where we need to progress at a speed at which we can carry our people but also the political will of the other governments. Therefore, I agree with Deputy Carey that no treaty is better than a bad treaty because it is trying to entrench a model and we did not really look at whether the post-Cold War model of Europe is still appropriate for the 21st century.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

I wish to focus on that issue because we could wander all over the place. I am interested in Ms Stewart's contribution. I read in the newspapers recently that she adopted a view that the present proposals were unacceptable, although I may be mis-quoting her. I am interested to know the principal aspects of the proposals to which she objects and what would she replace them with. Are her views shared by members of her own party and the other parties in the House of Commons? I want to focus on this to see if there is a way forward on the constitution as drafted and what changes Ms Stewart thinks are necessary to make it acceptable.

Ms Stewart

I think we should talk about it over lunch.

Chairman

Yes. Mr. Andrew MacKinlay would like to make a contribution.

Mr. Andrew MacKinlay

In regard to Deputy Mitchell's opening point, I was interested to discover that the Oireachtas can and does commission inquiries, which it can refer to the Government. We do not seem to have a parallel mechanism in the UK. Over lunch, I would be interested to hear more about the committee's parliamentary oversight of European legislation and whether the committee perceives it may be on top of it as Europe grows in breadth and depth.

A colleague raised the question of refugee and asylum issues. Even if it is dealt with on a European dimension, the UK and the Republic of Ireland need to sing from the same song sheet if we are to maintain our common travel area, which I think we take for granted. Mr. David Blunkett has said that over the next decade we will have the gradual introduction of identity cards and we are conscious of the need to combat terrorism and people trafficking. If we are to maintain our common travel area, particularly since we have a land border about which we must not forget, it seems to me that some urgent work needs to be done. There has to be bilateral agreement between us on that issue.

Earlier this morning, I raised the question of the European Growth and Stability Pact with the Tánaiste and the fact that a political decision has been taken to allow Germany and France have some slippage on the disciplines of the euro. That affects my stance because it seems that early in the existence of this currency, a capacity for the big players to move the goal posts does not increase my confidence to sell it to my constituents, even if it were the immediate issue. It is not because, as the Chairman said, we are not having a referendum because we know what the result would be. However, as someone who is sympathetic towards the concept of a common currency, one is watching closely to see how this plays politically. Initially, I do not like what I am seeing.

In regard to the Balkans, it seems we are fiddling while Rome burns. The fact that our newspapers go with fashion and the final status of Kosovo is yet to be decided and is not reported in our newspapers means that we are not addressing it as parliamentarians, which is a single failure. The whole situation could well implode, yet conversely we have a great opportunity. Our ambition should be to bring those former states of Yugoslavia into the European Union because we know that one of its great strengths is minimising conflict. It seems that our Government and Parliament are not addressing themselves to this issue sufficiently and we could be making a profound mistake by not using this window of political opportunity which has now almost closed. One of the great vehicles for conflict resolution should be European Union membership seen as a goal.

Deputy T. Dempsey

Ba mhaith lion fáiltiú riomh ár gcairde ón Bhreatain. Tá áthas orm go bhfuil sibh anseo. Like my colleagues, I welcome the delegation. As a student I worked in places like Edgbaston and Croydon and different places which I see ably represented.

Chairman

I worked in Long Ashton Research Station.

Deputy T. Dempsey

I worked on building sites with my Irish colleagues. Harold Wilson reminded a Taoiseach of the day that he had more Irish votes than the Taoiseach himself. There are obviously many of our friends still working there.

I am new to politics. This is the first time I have been in here. The Good Friday Agreement is a wonderful development. For it to happen, it needed an objectivity and sensitivity on the part of the British Government to the position of Nationalists in Northern Ireland and by our Government to the position of Unionists and we both had to row back.

It was implicit that we would look at the causes of terrorism. The war on terrorism must do something similar. It is too simplistic to respond militarily only and kill many thousands of people in the crossfire. Will the House of Commons foreign affairs committee persuade Prime Minister Blair, given his special relationship with President Bush, to address the causes of terrorism in the conflict in the Middle East?

Many young Irish people were sucked into the arms of the IRA and loyalist paramilitaries because the Government failed to examine where they came from and their heritage in the North. I am a Nationalist but I had to accept there was another side to people in Northern Ireland and the British Government had to accept that Nationalists had a say. When that happened, peace reigned and the IRA was no longer able to attract the relatives of innocent victims into their coterie.

Do the members of the House of Commons foreign affairs committee agree the US and the EU have taken a one-sided view of what is happening between Israel and the Palestine? We were offended about the undermining of the integrity of the UN prior to the Iraq war. I am a new politician who carries no brief for either side and I felt devastated, like ordinary civilised people, when reading about the Holocaust. Nevertheless, there is a holocaust taking place and the world is failing to address it. England is a powerful nation, which has strong influence over America and the EU. Will the country use it to adopt a more balanced view?

Mr. Fabian Hamilton

I thank Deputy Tony Dempsey for introducing this issue because I was hoping to refer to the Middle East. I take issue with him over one word he used. In a week's time we have our Holocaust remembrance day, a new commemorative occasion when we try to remember the victims of all genocide and holocausts that have taken place throughout the world, before the last war and since, as well as the Holocaust against Jews, gypsies and others. It is important we should remember that.

The word "holocaust" has been overused and abused. I deplore, like everybody present, the violence that is going on in the Middle East, the Balkans and other parts of the world where innocent people are caught in the crossfire. The Deputy referred to that. I wanted to raise the possibility of Ireland, during its Presidency of the EU, pushing forward, as part of the quartet, the peace process and ailing road map.

We visited the Middle East last September and, as a strong supporter of Israel, I was absolutely horrified by the war we witnessed, as we all were, but that does take not away from the fact that innocent people are being murdered in Israel, Israel's security is being compromised and the day in, day out frustration of ordinary Palestinians is building up more bitter resentment, especially among those who should, similar to the Palestinian farmer we met at Qalqilia, be sympathetic and friendly to the Israeli state because they have made a great deal of money being Israeli, yet they are being frustrated as well. Something drastic must happen.

More pressure must be on the quartet to make sure the road map, which I do not believe can happen, is at least forged and put forward as the only road to peace because it is the only one the Americans will support. I hope the committee will not take sides in this dreadful violence that is going on but rather try to see both sides stop the violence and move towards peaceful co-existence, which is possible.

I refer to one or two points raised by Deputy Michael Higgins. Perhaps we can further the discussion about the Iraq war over lunch. He and others have made an important distinction between the war against terrorism, which we all support, and its relationship to the Iraq conflict. I agree with many of the points he made.

The Chairman referred to the possibility of furthering the aims of Turkey in its ambition to join the EU. I fully support that. Hopefully, the issue of Cyprus will also be resolved during the Irish Presidency.

Mr. Richard Ottaway

I agree with Mr. Hamilton and Deputy Tony Dempsey about the Middle East process. The road map will not meet its target and a third party intervention is needed.

I refer to Deputy Gay Mitchell's remarks. The British Government's approach to Europe is very much driven by public opinion. We have been good members of the EU and we are playing our part but we will not go down the road of the euro or support for the constitution because British public opinion will not wear it. Why we are sceptical is a matter for debate. One can largely see the benefits in Ireland every day of the EU - the amount of public expenditure that goes on.

Deputy G. Mitchell

The main benefit was we enhanced our sovereignty.

Mr. Ottaway

The Deputy makes my point. We do not see that happening in Britain and that is why we consider ourselves mildly detached. The behaviour of the euro in recent years has not been a wonderful economic model for us to surrender the pound and go in. We will not.

How does the committee view the defence issue? My party is greatly concerned about the establishment of an independent European force outside NATO, which has been the cornerstone of peace since the Second World War. Since the template was established in the constitution, Germany has announced a reduction in its manpower and commitment to the military budget and it is a recipe for disaster.

Deputy Quinn

I will speak about the euro to Mr. McKinlay in another discussion. I refer to immigration. Ireland is facing a crisis, which is bubbling under the surface. A number of Members have been elected to the Dáil having uttered openly racist statements, which were half retracted but everybody got the message. Ireland has new found wealth which has made us an incredibly selfish society at one level as well as being a generous society. We are confused and do not know how to handle this. We are used to being immigrants in other countries and we complained for years about "No Dogs, No Irish" signs in Britain. We are pretty good at giving it back when the boot is on the other foot and it is not a happy prospect. In other words, we are normal, racist Europeans like everybody else and we are not the saints we thought we were.

We have a specific problem in regard to illegal immigration. It will continue because Europe is a wealthy and safe part of the world relative to where people are coming from and, as long as it is illegal, a criminal conspiracy will be created within which trafficking of various kinds will prosper. I agree with Mr. McKinlay's comments about co-ordinating our policy on the common land frontier because many women in the UK, particularly Nigerians, having reached seven months' pregnancy, travel to Belfast and on to the Republic and present themselves thinking they have secured the right to stay here because the child will be born here. This is no longer an urban myth. Our three main maternity hospitals are at crisis point. They are registering an increase of 20% in births and 50% of all births are to non-Irish people.

What is compounding the matter in my constituency, which encompasses, in London socio-economic terms, Hampstead Heath and Tower Hamlets, is that the asylum seekers are perceived to have a free ride when they get here. They do not have to work, they are supported and they get housing. That is generating an enormous level of frustration and resentment. When the Irish, and likewise the British, went to America or anywhere else the economic migrants worked and were seen to earn their keep.

Part of the difficulty with the European asylum system we have inherited from the 1950s is that we are dealing with people who are claiming asylum - in some cases they are fleeing from persecution of one kind or another - but are primarily economic migrants. However, they are being treated as political refugees in a way that is distorting the relationship and is having a disastrous effect on our society. What is the British parliamentarians' view of how that can be dealt with?

For demographic reasons, Europe is going to need a renewal of its population in terms of the age profile. We are going to continue to attract people and we need to have a radical re-think of how we treat this. If we continue to criminalise the movement of people we will have trafficking on the horrendous scale that currently exists in places like Serbia and parts of central and eastern Europe.

Chairman

Could we have a brief contribution from Mr. Bill Olner? I believe Sir John Maples and Mr. Eric Illsley wish to make contributions.

Mr. Bill Olner

I agree with what Mr. Dempsey said. This is the current state of the European Union. Aspirations are important. I went to the Middle East with my colleagues two or three months ago. Unless one gives the Palestinians the aspiration to live and exist themselves one will never get peace.

Ireland has a wonderful job at the moment. Perhaps we should thank our lucky stars we did not achieve this bad constitutional agreement. You are the people who must make accession work for the aspirant states who want to join the European Union. I can remember when Spain was an aspirant state. Its biggest driver was that it did not want to go back to fascism. Some of the European countries who wish to accede to the European Union want to strengthen their politics and there will be a way of working this through. They are our new allies and we must treat them as such. Ireland has a difficult but very rewarding job in making sure the European Union continues to work.

Chairman

Thank you very much. Our discussion will continue over lunch.

Sitting suspended at 1.05 p.m. and resumed at 3.10 p.m.

Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs

The Joint Committee met at 3.10 p.m.

MEMBERS PRESENT:

Deputy P. Carey,	Senator P. Bradford,
Deputy N. Davern,	Senator M. Kitt,
Deputy T. Dempsey,	Senator M. O’Rourke.
Deputy G. Mitchell,
Deputy D. Wallace,

In attendance: Deputy J. O'Keeffe.