Vol. 637 No. 5
83 Deputy Bernard Allen asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will report on the content of the newly revised treaty recently agreed by European Union leaders at the June 2007 European Council meeting; the position of the Government on the Charter of Fundamental Rights; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18774/07]
The Government is pleased with the outline of the reform treaty that was agreed at last month's European Council meeting. The reform treaty will amend the existing treaties in various ways so as to create a more efficient and effective Union that can better serve Europe's future needs.
Our principal objective going into these negotiations was to retain the substance and balance of the draft constitutional treaty that was agreed during the Irish Presidency in June 2004. This objective was largely achieved in that the great bulk of the 2004 agreement will be incorporated in the reform treaty when it is finalised later this year.
In the wake of the referendum results in France and the Netherlands, it was necessary to make certain changes to what had been agreed in 2004. The changes decided on at the recent European Council included dropping the constitutional title and the removal of references to the EU flag and anthem, although these will, of course, continue to be widely used throughout the Union. Moreover, the charter of fundamental rights has been taken out of the treaty, but will retain its legally-binding status. National parliaments have been given an enhanced role in the Union's legislative process.
There will be an opt-in/opt-out arrangement for the UK in the field of criminal and police co-operation. We will need to decide in the coming months whether to join that arrangement. Although the double majority voting system will not come into use until 2014, the overall institutional package from the 2004 agreement has not been reopened. This was a key requirement of ours throughout these negotiations. Ireland also succeeded in getting agreement to include commitments on combating climate change in the new treaty.
As regards the charter, the Government wanted it to be incorporated in the reform treaty, but this was opposed by a number of member states. We are happy that its legal standing will be confirmed in the new treaty. In our view, the text of the charter itself and the wording to be included in the treaty adequately define the scope and application of the charter.
At a very late stage in the negotiations, the UK delegation introduced a protocol which seeks to clarify the application of the charter as regards its own national laws. While we have no difficulty with the charter and do not believe that such clarification is required in our case, we nevertheless considered it prudent to look for an opportunity to study the implications of the protocol for the charter and its application.
I am glad the Taoiseach has clarified the situation regarding reports that Ireland has sought a derogation. The charter refers to human dignity, the right to life, the right to integrity of the person and the prohibition of slavery and enforced labour so why has Ireland reserved this position on it when many such issues are already enshrined in Irish law? Why is it that we are being a third party to grandstanding by the United Kingdom?
Given that the Minister of State said we are examining the legal implications for Ireland of Britain's stance, when will we have a final position on the charter? The Charter of Fundamental Rights is one of the biggest selling points for all of the major parties in this House in the approach to a referendum and taking a reserved position creates doubts. Many doubts have already been created by reports in the media.
I fully appreciate the Deputy's concerns given some of the reports in the media but the Government has no reservations regarding the charter. As I said in my reply, it is prudent to take the opportunity to examine the implications for the charter of this additional protocol, which was introduced at a very late stage. As the Taoiseach and I have said previously, the additional protocol seems excessive given that the field of application section in the charter makes it clear that the charter applies to the institutions of the European Union and member states as they apply legislation. It is wise to review the implications for the charter, although we do not have concerns about the charter itself.
I recall that Deputy Allen was perturbed by my reading out the elements of the charter.
I was perturbed by the time wasted — some 15 minutes.
I, like the Deputy, regard the charter as a major selling point, not just in the constitutional treaty process but in the reform treaty process. There is nothing in the charter that should cause a reasonable person concern because, as the Deputy correctly points out, it reaffirms existing rights. The only issues that arose were the British concerns regarding the protocol.
As has been said previously, Ireland was not mentioned, and we did not seek Ireland to be mentioned, in the footnote accompanying the relevant section of the mandate.
I request that the Leas-Cheann Comhairle put down a ground rule. My questions tend to be concise and short but receive long, rambling answers from various Ministers. I ask that we play within the rules and that time be allowed for supplementary questions.
I think that is a preamble to the Deputy's supplementary question.
What is Ireland's position on the reported backtracking by the Polish Government on what was agreed last week? Have discussions taken place with the Polish Government in this regard?
Can we have a concise and precise final reply from an t-Aire Stáit?
My view and the view of the Government is the same as that expressed by President Barroso. Arrangements were agreed in the Council and it would be very unwise for a member state to try to reverse them.
84 Deputy Michael D. Higgins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if, in the context of the new proposed European Treaty, he envisages new mechanisms for making decisions on common, foreign and security policy accountable to parliamentarians within the European Union; if the proposed Foreign Minister of the European Union will be accountable to the European Parliament; and if in turn decisions taken on CFSP will require the assent and scrutiny of committees of the European Parliament to which such functions have been delegated or plenary sessions of such parliaments. [18797/07]
One of the key purposes of the reform treaty, which is due to be finalised by the end of the year in accordance with the Intergovernmental Conference, IGC, mandate agreed by the European Council, will be to enhance the democratic legitimacy of the Union and to strengthen its institutions, including the European Parliament. The treaty will give considerable additional influence to the European Parliament by extending the number of areas of EU legislation in which there will be a co-decision role for the European Parliament alongside the Council of Ministers. Another key objective of the reform treaty will be to give greater coherence to the Union's external policies.
The European Union mandate for the IGC on the new reform treaty confirms that the common foreign and security policy, CFSP, will remain essentially political and intergovernmental in character. The role of the European Parliament on CFSP will therefore remain consultative, with decisions on Common Positions and joint actions continuing to be made by the Council of Ministers, in accordance with general guidelines defined by the European Council. The specific roles of the European Parliament and Commission in this area are defined in the treaties. Consultation between the Council and Parliament on CFSP has greatly increased in recent years. During the Irish Presidency an extraordinary amount of the European Parliament's time was spent addressing areas outside the central focus of the original treaties.
The establishment of the post of high representative of the Union for foreign affairs and security policy, as provided for in the reform treaty, will enhance the coherence and effectiveness of the Union's external relations. The high representative will consult and inform the European Parliament on the CFSP and will ensure its views are duly taken into consideration. Javier Solana has established a very good relationship with the Parliament. There is also provision for special representatives appointed to deal with external issues to brief the European Parliament on their areas of responsibility.
Ireland has consistently supported the intergovernmental character of the CFSP, which we regard as most appropriate for the safeguarding of our interests. The Government acknowledges the importance of appropriate consultation with the European Parliament on CFSP issues, given its position of co-responsibility in relation to the Union budget. We welcome the improved level of consultation and interaction occurring between the Council and Parliament across the range of issues on the Union's wider agenda.
I am grateful to the Minister of State for his long reply, about which I will ask a complex supplementary question. The question I tabled was about accountability and I propose to make the matter simple. The European Parliament can have access to information on the Common Foreign and Security Policy it but has no right of decision. While it can summon people to appear before it, areas which are matters for intergovernmental competence will, as the Minister of State noted, remain matters for intergovernmental competence. The question of accountability then runs on to national parliaments.
I asked what additional accountability mechanisms would be available to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs or the plenary session of any member state parliament and to whom the new foreign minister of the European Union would report. I can concentrate the matter by putting the question in a concrete way. In 2003, a sub-committee of the permanent ambassadors of COREPER, the clearing committee consisting of five people, decided to add Hamas to a list of proscribed organisations. This decision had immense implications for Middle East policy. A common position was also announced in response to elections in Palestine in 2006. There was no accountability for these decisions in the plenary session of the Oireachtas, the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs or the European Parliament, which organises regular visits to Palestine but has no competence in this area. It is proposed that this absence of accountability will continue in the intergovernmental process and the proposed new post. I have serious reservations about the unaccountable positions taken up by Javier Solana, particularly on the Middle East.
As I stated and Deputy Higgins presaged, the CFSP, by its nature, will remain substantially intergovernmental. With regard to the Deputy's final point, as I acknowledged in my role of Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs in the previous Government, Javier Solana has established an extremely good relationship with the European Parliament.
That is not the issue.
On the issue of the link with national parliaments, the chairs of foreign affairs and defence committees of national parliaments meet every six months. This is a good process which could be developed in the Union. It is a matter for national parliaments, including the Oireachtas, to take a more active interest in the relevant issues and deal with the specific concerns raised by the Deputy.
Is the Minister of State aware that only the Chairman of the Joint Committee on European Affairs has access to information by way of consultation and no ordinary member of that committee or the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, including its Chairman, has access to such information? Is he aware that a discussion is taking place all over Europe among those interested in the word the Minister of State will not use, namely, "accountability", on the issue of making foreign affairs decisions that may arise in the context of the Common Foreign and Security Policy accountable to national parliaments? That is the issue.
As the Deputy knows well from all I have said and written over the years on this issue, it is very much a matter for each individual parliament and parliamentary committees to establish accountability. However, I make the general point that there is provision for much more intensive links with the European Parliament in the reform treaty.
85 Deputy Bernard Allen asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the political and humanitarian situation in the Middle East; the level of Irish and European aid to those most affected within the Gaza strip; the steps being taken to broker an agreement and stabilisation of the current crisis; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18775/07]
Before turning to the situation in the West Bank and Gaza, I would like to emphasise our continuing strong support for the sovereignty and independence of Lebanon, and for its democratically-elected Government, a sentiment which I believe is shared on all sides of the House. The recent violence, in an already tense political situation, is a reminder of the dangers of instability in Lebanon. I would like in particular to express the sympathy of the Government with the families of the six members of the Spanish UNIFIL contingent who were killed in a car bomb explosion in southern Lebanon on 24 June. It is important that I also place on record again the appreciation of the Government for the dedication of the members of the Permanent Defence Force, who are serving with such distinction in Ireland's UNIFIL contingent.
The appalling violence in Gaza last month represents a further tragedy for the Palestinian people. The root cause of the current crisis is the absence of a credible political process leading to a negotiated two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The General Affairs and External Relations Council on 18 June condemned the violence and the takeover by Hamas in Gaza. It supported the call by the Arab League for the restoration of Palestinian national unity and the unity of Palestinian territory.
The European Union has expressed its full support for President Mahmoud Abbas and underlined the need for a political solution to the crisis. The Union has supported the President's decision to form an emergency government and the Council decided to begin work on developing the conditions for urgent practical and financial assistance, including direct financial support to the Palestinian Authority.
The European Union increased its overall assistance to the Palestinian people last year to almost €700 million, of which some €340 million came from the Community budget. Already this year, €320 million has been allocated in Community aid for humanitarian assistance, direct payments to Palestinians through the temporary international mechanism, and technical assistance and institution building.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
The EU is determined to continue to provide emergency and humanitarian assistance to the population of Gaza, which is facing a serious humanitarian crisis. The majority of the population in Gaza is dependent on services provided by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, to which the EU has already contributed €90 million this year. It is essential that all parties, including the Israeli authorities, guarantee unimpeded access for humanitarian assistance to the people of Gaza.
I should add that the main cause of the financial crisis in the Palestinian Authority has been the withholding by Israel of tax and customs revenues since April 2006. The EU has called on the Israeli Government to release these revenues immediately, and Prime Minister Olmert indicated at last week's summit in Sharm El Sheikh that some funds would be unfrozen. I welcome the transfer of €119 million on 1 July, and I call on Israel to release the total remaining amount without further delay. I also welcome the Israeli Government's announcement that the normal monthly transfer of revenues will be resumed this month.
The Government increased Ireland's assistance to the Palestinians by 40% in 2006 to €6.4 million. Ireland's assistance will increase further this year. In January, during a visit to Bethlehem, the Minister for Foreign Affairs announced a 25% increase in support for UNRWA to €3.8 million this year. We have made a clear commitment to maintaining this increased level of funding over the next three years.
Reference was made earlier to accountability with regard to decisions. One of the most disgraceful decisions made without accountability to this House was the support of the Government for the decision made by the European Union to terminate funding to the Palestinian Authority last year. Some of us in the House forecast that the serious humanitarian situation brought about in Palestine would undermine the credibility and support for the Palestinian Authority and Fatah, and would strengthen the presence of the extremist groups, such as Hamas. This has come to fruition. What has happened in Palestine in recent times is as a direct result of the undermining of Fatah and the curtailment of funding, which proceeded from the holding of funds by Israel. Does the Minister accept there is a need for a new initiative to strengthen, if belatedly, the position of Fatah?
Was the Government consulted about the appointment of the former British Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, as special envoy to the Middle East and, if so, what was the opinion of the Government?
The Deputy raises two separate issues. First, the most practical example of support for the Government in Palestine is the €320 million which the Union has provided. In so far as the Government is concerned, we increased our assistance to the Palestinians by 40% last year to €6.4 million. The Deputy made a passing reference to the withholding of tax moneys by the Israeli authorities. Thankfully, that has stopped——
It is too late.
——and there has been a transfer, which I believe took place yesterday, which is late in the day. I agree with the Deputy it was disgraceful, but thankfully it is now over.
On 27 June the Taoiseach assured Mr. Tony Blair of his full support for his efforts in the Middle East. We personally strongly support the appointment which is a good one. We wish him well.
Was the Government consulted on this question?
Following consultations, High Representative Solana and the Foreign Minister of Germany representing the European Union, the US Secretary of State, the Foreign Affairs Minister of Russia, the UN Secretary General and members of the Quartet announced the appointment. Therefore, the European Union was represented by High Representative Solana and the Presidency.
We had no input and were not consulted. It is obvious from the Minister of State's response that there was no consultation with the Government and that its attitude is moulded by that of the Quartet.
That misrepresents what I said. The European Union was represented, as it is in all these matters, by the Presidency and High Representative Solana.
The Quartet is not accountable.
86 Deputy Bernard Allen asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs about the humanitarian situation in Darfur; when the full peacekeeping force will be in place; the latest contact his Department has had with the Government of Sudan and surrounding countries in respect of the crisis situation there; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18776/07]
The Government continues to be deeply concerned about the crisis in Darfur and its spillover into neighbouring territory in Chad and the Central African Republic. We are pursuing all avenues to support international efforts to address the grave humanitarian, political and security challenges faced there.
On the ground in Darfur the humanitarian situation remains very difficult. Civilians, humanitarian workers and the members of the African Union Mission in Sudan, AMIS, are being targeted on an ongoing basis. A further 150,000 civilians have been displaced this year, in addition to the 2 million already displaced, the majority of whom have not been able to return home. The difficulties being faced by UN agencies and NGOs are a particular concern.
Ireland continues to make a strong contribution to international efforts to alleviate this human tragedy. In the period 2004-07 Irish Aid provided €29.7 million in emergency and recovery funding for Sudan, of which €19 million was specifically for Darfur. Since 2006 Ireland has provided €3.31 million in humanitarian aid for the Central Africa Republic and €3.5 million for Chad.
Following sustained political pressure from the international community, on 12 June the Government of Sudan approved the proposed UN-African Union hybrid peacekeeping mission. On 22 June the African Union authorised deployment of the mission and agreed that it should be strongly mandated to protect civilians, support the peace process and work towards the establishment of the secure environment needed for the sustainable return of internally displaced people. Discussions are now ongoing in New York on a new UN Security Council resolution that would pave the way for UN funding for the hybrid mission.
The Government played an active role in the international efforts to address the underlying political crisis in Sudan which led to the breakthrough on the hybrid mission. In his meetings with the Sudanese Foreign Minister in Khartoum in July 2006 and in New York in September 2006 the Minister for Foreign Affairs urged the Government of Sudan to agree to UN engagement in peacekeeping in Darfur. The Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs with responsibility for overseas development, Deputy Conor Lenihan, met the Minister of Economy, Planning and International Co-operation of the Central African Republic on 8 February to discuss the situation there. The Government has also been working closely with our European partners in this matter.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
For example, on 18 June EU Foreign Ministers reiterated their support for the United Nations' work in establishing a multi-dimensional UN presence in eastern Chad and the north east of the Central African Republic. The Government will continue to accord the highest priority to tackling the humanitarian, political and security challenges in the Darfur region of Sudan and neighbouring countries and will remain closely engaged in international efforts to resolve all aspects of this crisis.
The situation in Sudan is appalling — hundreds of thousands have been killed, 3 million are displaced and depend on humanitarian aid, and security is needed. The Minister of State said discussions were taking place at the United Nations about the hybrid force on which the United Nations, the African Union and the Sudanese Government agreed. Surely it is time for action. As the days pass more people are killed and displaced. When does the Minister of State think there will be a final decision on the configuration of the so-called hybrid force which should have been in place yesterday?
I agree wholeheartedly with the Deputy. There seems to be an extraordinary delay in concluding these issues. Diplomacy involves excessive discussion of the issues and one can only hope this will produce action. The generally accepted view is that action is needed, rather than further discussions in New York. Speed is of the essence.
While the talking continues, what is the situation regarding the embargo to be imposed on the Sudanese Government? Has this been forgotten? What input will the Government have in formulating the hybrid force and will Irish troops be involved?
On the last point, as we have received no request, that matter has not been discussed. The European Union and the Government have implemented a range of arms embargoes on Sudan since 1994. Over the past few months the Foreign Ministers have repeatedly emphasised their readiness to consider further measures, within the UN framework, against the party which obstructs towards the AU-UN hybrid force.
Are there any indications of the attitude of China towards this hybrid force? Is there any danger that the Chinese Government will veto moves by the United Nations to set up the force, in view of the interest China has in that part of the world?
The general view is that China's role could be a very positive one. Its involvement seems to be benign at present and could be very helpful. There is no doubt it can play a positive role in that area.
87 Deputy Bernard Allen asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will report on the establishment of a conflict resolution centre here; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18777/07]
The rationale for the establishment of the conflict resolution unit, and its broad objectives, were set out in the Government's White Paper on Irish Aid, which was published last September. The unit was set up last autumn and is leading work within the Department of Foreign Affairs, in conjunction with Irish Aid and the Anglo-Irish division, on the preparation of a detailed draft initial plan. It is undertaking extensive research on, and analysis of, conflict resolution initiatives elsewhere, possible themes and regions of focus and the identification of possible future partners.
The work plan will, of course, reflect the targets set out in the programme for Government, which underscored the importance of conflict resolution as a theme in our foreign policy. The programme for Government includes commitments to the appointment of a number of roving ambassadors to crisis regions and to an enhanced stability fund of €25 million annually. The programme for Government also indicates the intention to establish an academic centre which will help deliver on the conflict resolution unit's mandate to work with academic institutions, civil society organisations and other potential partners.
More broadly, the conflict resolution initiative will enable us, where possible and appropriate, to facilitate elsewhere the peaceful outcome of conflicts and apply the lessons we have learned through the Northern Ireland peace process.
This is an exciting but challenging set of goals, the full implementation of which will inevitably require time and patience and will involve a certain amount of experimentation. It will also require intensive co-ordination nationally and internationally. We must ensure that the areas and themes on which we choose to focus are appropriate for us and that we can deliver on them.
Have extra staff been taken on and, if so, where will they be located? What connection is there between the sub-unit in the Department of Foreign Affairs and the group set up in Northern Ireland under the chairmanship of Lord Robin Eames and Mr. Denis Bradley? What is the Minister's view of the latter group and its membership? Does the Government intend to support in any way the body of people engaged in the work of looking at the legacy of the Troubles in Northern Ireland? I understand the body will report early next year.
As I mentioned in my reply, work is being done in this regard in two sections in the Department.
The Deputy raised a very interesting question on the establishment of the consultative group on the past. We are at a new and positive stage in the political process in Northern Ireland. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, has welcomed the announcement of the consultative group to examine the issues that arise when dealing with the past. The group, which is jointly chaired by experienced and respected representatives, will report next summer. The Minister understands that the group will look at the broader issues of how to approach the legacy of conflict rather than focus on individual cases. There remain a number of bodies and inquiries looking at specific cases, including the Bloody Sunday inquiry. We do not underestimate the fact that this is a very complex area. We wish the process well but it will be some time before the results crystallise.
How does all this excellent work, to be done over the coming months, sit with the refusal of the British Government to hold an inquiry into the assassination of Mr. Finucane?
The Deputy is being very creative in slipping in that question. He knows the view of the Government in that regard.
It is relevant.
I agree but he is being creative in introducing an additional issue and it is not particularly helpful. Rather than be negative we should be positive. Now that the consultative group on the past is under way it will be able to look at many issues.
That is a disgraceful attitude. This matter will not go away and it is not good enough to say it is not helpful to raise it. The reluctance of the British Government to have an inquiry undermines the credibility of much other work being done in that part of the world. I will ask the question again. Has the Government made a protest to the British Government about its refusal to have a real inquiry to get justice for the Finucane family?
The Deputy knows well that the answer is in the affirmative.
I do not.
The Government has repeatedly indicated its concerns about bringing the concerns of the Finucane family to finality on this.
It is not being very effective.
The Government has always supported the family in that respect and it is mischievous to suggest otherwise.
That concludes Priority Questions. We now move on to Other Questions, which are open to all Deputies.
