John Gormley
Ceist:80 Mr. Gormley asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will report on his speech to the UN General Assembly in September 2006; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34477/06]
Other Questions.
Official Engagements.
The annual national address to the UN General Assembly provides an opportunity to set out Ireland's approach to international issues of our day. In my speech of 26 September, which can be seen on the Department's website and a copy of which I have placed in the Oireachtas Library, I began by acknowledging the contribution of Secretary General Annan and reviewing the progress of UN reform.
I then moved on to key elements of the Government's approach to development, as set out in the White Paper on Irish Aid which we had launched a few days previously. I set out in some detail our approach to the situation in Darfur and the Middle East and also referred to Burma, Iran and North Korea. I emphasised the importance Ireland attaches to the issues of disarmament and human rights. As is customary, I briefly outlined developments in relation to Northern Ireland.
Finally, I underlined Ireland's commitment to playing a part in conflict prevention and resolution. I told the General Assembly that, as set out in the White Paper, we had decided to establish an Irish conflict analysis and resolution support unit. It will seek to harness the experience, resources and expertise generated by the peace process in Northern Ireland, our involvement in peacekeeping and the Irish Aid programme. Detailed proposals regarding the organisation and work programme of the new unit are being developed within my Department.
In the Minister's wide ranging speech he said there was a need for further restrictions on the use of cluster bombs. Is this not just a pious platitude? Should we not be calling for a ban on cluster bombs? Is it not the case that currently Irish troops are in Lebanon assisting Finnish troops in clearing up the more than 1 million cluster bombs there? Should we not learn from that experience? Is it not the case that cluster bombs are part of the arsenal of the new EU battle group? Looking at all the evidence, should the Minister not be much stronger in his comments and have a more defined goal? Should he not call for a ban on cluster bombs?
The Minister indicated that Ireland supports an arms trade treaty. This is welcome. Is it not the case that Amnesty International has produced a number of reports which show that Ireland is already involved in the arms trade through dual-use weaponry? Indeed, according to that organisation, we have become involved, through dual-use exports, in conflicts in Liberia, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Sierra Leone. Has the Minister spoken to his colleague, the Minister, Deputy Martin, about the arms brokering legislation which was promised for this autumn, although there is still no sign of it? Can the Minister discuss that legislation? This is an important issue for the Minister for Foreign Affairs.
I was amazed that there was no mention of Iraq in the Minister's speech. What is the Irish Government's position on Iraq? When 100,000 people protested in the streets of Dublin, the Taoiseach and the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, said Ireland opposed the war. Are we opposed to this futile war in Iraq and does the Minister believe the United States and its allies should withdraw?
I remind the House that supplementary questions on other questions are limited to one minute.
There is a multinational force in Iraq. The UN, by unanimous vote of the Security Council, authorised the continuation of the multinational force. This is something the Deputy and his colleagues tend to forget. When America and the UK originally entered Iraq, we did not support their action. However, the UN subsequently passed a number of resolutions — the most recent of these was the subject of a unanimous vote — to allow Iraq to be rebuilt and to permit the Iraqi people to assume responsibility for their destiny. The international force is in place, with a full UN mandate with which we comply. Regardless of whether the Deputy likes it, that is the Government's position.
It is the George Bush-Tony Blair position.
I am glad Deputy Gormley referred to cluster bombs because Ireland has recently been to the fore at the Convention on Conventional Weapons in this regard. Ireland, along with a number of countries, proposed that the restrictions on the use of cluster bombs be tightened dramatically. In the context of what took place in the Lebanon in recent months, we condemned the use of cluster bombs. It was as a result of what we learned was happening in the Lebanon that we proposed, at the most recent meeting of the convention, that the use of cluster bombs against innocent civilians be severely restricted.
Why not introduce a total ban? I also asked the Minister about his conversations with the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Martin, regarding arms brokering legislation.
The latter is an issue for the Minister, Deputy Martin, and I will raise it with him.
Ireland would very much welcome a total ban and that is why we are working at the Convention on Conventional Weapons to drive cluster bombs out of use altogether.
So the Minister wants a total ban.
In his speech at the United Nations, the Minister stated that he shared the Secretary General's outrage at the failure to make any reference to nuclear disarmament in the summit statement. In view of his outrage, what is the Minister's attitude to the deal between the United States and India — which has not signed the treaty — to which I referred earlier, particularly as, in the context of the deal, there are questions regarding uranium enrichment and a number of other issues. What will be the Government's attitude at the forthcoming nuclear suppliers group meeting? Will it be opposing the dangerous deal to which I refer?
We have not yet made a decision in respect of that deal, nor should we until the final version of it emerges. As the Deputy is aware, a special representative of the Prime Minister of India met me, and also the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, and I forcefully put to him my views on behalf of Ireland, as a member of the New Agenda Coalition and indicated that this is an issue about which we are gravely concerned. We have not made a decision on the deal because we must wait to see what will be the implications. We are concerned that it will have implications for the non-proliferation treaty, NPT. Much work remains to be done. I understand that the process to put the deal through the US Congress has not yet been decided and that it will probably be next year before anything happens in this regard. It would be premature to made a decision until we discover exactly what is involved.
As of now, what is the Minister's opinion?
At a recent meeting on this issue in Vienna, Ireland was to the fore in asking the relevant questions regarding the implications the deal will have for the NPT.
Emigrant Support Services.
Seán Crowe
Ceist:81 Mr. Crowe asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the funding for Irish emigrant groups in England providing services for Irish emigrants; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34675/06]
The strong commitment of the Government to support the Irish community abroad is reflected in the unprecedented level of funding secured for emigrant services. This year, €12 million is available for that purpose. This figure represents an increase of 45% on 2005 and is 12 times greater than the allocation in 1997 when the Government came to office.
The interests and needs of the Irish community in Britain continue to be a matter of particular importance for the Government. Most of the available funding is directed to organisations there that are engaged in a wide range of community care activities of benefit to Irish people. Increased funding is having a very tangible and positive effect. So far this year, 142 organisations in Britain, of which 129 are located in England, have received grants amounting to €8 million. I am delighted that our support is extending beyond the major cities and is, for the first time, reaching Irish community groups in many towns.
While the primary emphasis of funding continues to be on supporting frontline welfare services, I am pleased that the additional allocation has also made it possible to support a number of capital projects as well as projects that support our community in Britain in its wish to express its Irish identity. Further applications for funding are under consideration and I look forward to making an announcement shortly on additional grants. By the end of this year, I expect that funding to the Irish community in Britain will have reached the unprecedented amount of €9 million, an increase of some 25% on last year's figure.
The funding I have outlined forms an element of a much wider picture of the Government's engagement with our community in Britain. Officials of the embassy and consulates, as well as those in the Irish abroad unit of my Department, will continue to work closely with our community organisations in Britain and elsewhere. In this way, we can ensure that they have a very direct channel to Government and that our response to their needs will be effective in the period ahead.
I appreciate the increase in funding in recent years, but this is only a small amount. What plans are in place to provide additional funding beyond this year? The Minister indicated that he hopes to make further announcements shortly. Is it proposed to provide a substantial increase in funding so that the many groups with which I and others met can ensure that they can properly address the major issues facing Irish emigrants in their 50s, 60s, 70s and even 80s who are living in squalor and who are isolated? Some of these people wish to return to Ireland, while others are seeking an improvement in their quality of life. Are there plans to deliver more packages of the sort that were previously in place in order to encourage or help some Irish emigrants to return home? When I met representatives of the Irish emigrant groups last year, one of the issues put to me was people's desire to return home to the small communities from which they came and perhaps live out the rest of their lives there. These people subsidised the economy when times were hard in this country.
As stated earlier, €9 million will be given to community groups in Britain this year. I can safely say that a greater allocation will be made next year in order to honour our commitment to dramatically increase the funding. As already indicated, that funding has increased 12 times since the Government came to office.
It is not often taken into account that when I was Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs, I made changes in respect of pre-1953 contributions. The latter allowed Irish pensioners, not only those in this country but also their counterparts abroad, to gain benefit from stamps they paid prior to 1953. This year alone, €67 million will be paid to 14,000 Irish pensioners under this scheme. The scheme to which I refer has been criticised by the Comptroller and Auditor General since its inception, but I make no apology for it. The pensioners to whom it relates made contributions but did not gain the benefit of them. The vast majority of pensioners who benefit from it are elderly emigrants living in Britain and the €67 million to which I refer will be added to their relatively small British pensions. In my view, that is one of the greatest reasons that the circumstances of Irish people living in Britain have changed dramatically. I accept, however, that difficulties still exist. There has been a dramatic decrease in the number of Irish homeless in Britain, according to a recent report. An official with the Simon Community stated in August that the number of homeless Irish in the six inner-city boroughs had fallen from 600 in 1999 to just 100 this year. He attributed the decrease to the Government's DION projects. He stated that millions of pounds had gone into supporting the Irish to get them off the streets of London and that this has had a very positive impact. He also stated that the Government had done its bit and that the Irish taxpayer had really helped.
Does the Minister share my disappointment at the fact that proposed legislation in the US to help our emigrants has run into the sand? What is his view of the stalemate that has arisen there due to the impending elections? Does he think the legislation will be resuscitated after the election?
This question refers to the Irish emigrant groups in England. The Deputy's question is separate to that.
I thought my question would be allowed.
I am willing to answer it.
I welcome the capital projects. Do I take it that the Department has no problem in providing capital funding for shared projects? The groups serving Irish emigrants in Britain realised that the buildings they are replacing will be used by a number of groups. The predominant group may well be Irish so the funding may be in the form of capital partnerships and so on. These partnerships will be multi-ethnic.
I entirely agree with the Minister about the pre-1953 issue. The fact is that 1956 is the year in which most people left Ireland since the Famine — 56,000 people left. A quarter of a million people left between 1955 and 1960, so the 1953 revision helps those people.
There are many ethnic groups being dealt with in most of the major Irish emigrant centres. I want the system to be as flexible as possible and I suggested to my officials that as we had built the funding up to a critical mass, we should provide some small capital grants. Emigrant centre officials have told me that if they could inform the local authority in London, Manchester or wherever that they had obtained funding from the Irish Government, the local authorities in the UK would follow on. That has been beneficial.
The situation in the US on the legislation for emigrants is a source of disappointment, but we are keeping a close eye on it. I was in the US recently where I met representatives of the ILIR, the lobby group for Irish emigrants. I also met representatives of emigrant advice centres and we are keeping a close eye on things. The legislation is not dead. The mid-term elections have knocked all legislation off course, including the US-India agreement. We will come back to it, but I do not know whether we will come back to it as before or find another way of doing it.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.