Billy Timmins
Ceist:47 Deputy Billy Timmins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will establish an Irish forum on the Israeli and Palestinian conflict; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [42164/09]
Priority Questions.
Middle East Peace Process.
The Israeli and Palestinian conflict, and the Middle East peace process, are issues of enduring concern to the Irish public, and have been a foreign policy priority for successive Irish Governments for many years. Ireland is an active and vocal participant in discussions on the Middle East at EU and UN level, as well as directly with the main players in the region. I have made two extensive visits to the region as Minister for Foreign Affairs and I hope to return again.
There has been a renewed effort this year, led by President Obama, to bring the Israeli and Palestinian sides together to begin a final negotiating effort to reach an overall settlement. Both in Ireland and the EU, we have been concerned to give every possible support and encouragement, and, indeed, space, to this process, which is being actively pursued by Secretary of State Clinton and Special Envoy Senator George Mitchell, in both of whom we here in Ireland have every confidence.
The issues, the difficulties and how Ireland and the EU can try to play a positive role are frequent subjects for discussion here in the Oireachtas as a glance at the questions listed on today's Order Paper shows. Issues relating to the Middle East are examined regularly by the joint committees on foreign affairs and on European affairs. As the Middle East appears on the agenda of the great majority of external relations Councils, I also have the opportunity to discuss these issues almost every month with the Joint Committee on European Affairs, when we meet prior to each Council. We also examine it in the context of Irish Aid's long-standing and substantial commitment to assist the Palestinian people and my Department engages extensively with non-governmental organisations and members of the public concerned about the conflict. There is, perhaps, no other foreign policy issue, with the exception of the Lisbon treaty, on which I have engaged in more public discussion.
Given the amount of time the Oireachtas already devotes to the Israeli-Palestinian issue, I assume the Deputy's question refers to a public forum. I would be happy to consider any detailed proposal for an Irish forum which the Deputy might wish to put forward.
While public fora of this nature can help spread awareness of complex issues, it is important to point out that they themselves can become a focus of conflict, particularly if they come to be dominated by interest groups with extreme views. They also require scarce resources of time, energy, personnel and finance if they are to work.
In the case of the Middle East, both domestically and internationally, what is needed is not new architecture but to concentrate our efforts with a firm focus on pressing ahead within the structures we already have.
I thank the Minister for his reply. My motivation for tabling this question is the fact that this is probably the most emotive foreign affairs issue and takes up the most time. In my time in this House, it appears that both sides of the argument are becoming more divisive.
I note the Chairman of the Joint Committee of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Michael Woods, is seated behind the Minister. It has come to the stage where, with the best will in the world, the committee almost becomes dysfunctional because the two extremes of the debate in Ireland are almost being reflected in it at this stage. It has happened unbeknownst to members.
How can we expect people in the Middle East to resolve their conflict if we here in Ireland are so divisive along with the various interest groups? I will send the Minister correspondence on a forum. I would hope he would look upon the proposal favourably. Where I am coming from is to try to bring in the various interest groups. In this House we have a friends of Palestine group and a friends of Israel group. That is not a good idea. We should have a friends of Israel and Palestine group. We are only adding to the divisions.
I will drop the Minister a note on the matter. I thank him for his reply. I realise it would involve a cost but if the economic circumstances allow, I suggest that there be a bringing together of these groups to let them approach the matter in an open and fair way. Many of those who pronounce on this solemnly believe that is where they come from. I really try to go down the middle on this and when I see both sides, I find the approach being adopted by some a little disheartening.
I would not necessarily accept that we here in the Oireachtas are a contributing factor to the division that naturally occurs on an issue as historic and as ingrained as this.
The Government has a principled position on this.
That would be my position. On the other hand, I have no difficulty at all in facilitating engagement between people on the issue and I look forward to the receipt of proposals.
On the point I made earlier, any structure or forum we establish invariably will draw the very same divisions to the fore but only in the context of another theatre. What I would be interested in ascertaining from Deputy Timmins is ways and methodologies by which we can try to have a reasoned teasing out of the issues, be it settlements or whatever. For example, the resignation of President Abbas is bad news for the process. It is a further illustration of the degree to which political opinion, here and internationally, and, indeed, the Israeli authorities, must realise that moderate politicians like President Abbas must be able to show their people that politics works and that politics and the political process can yield results.
I would be interested in teasing out both perspectives. I take Deputy Timmins's point.
I agree with the Minister on that matter.
Earlier, he mentioned President Obama. In my view, his success or otherwise as President of the United States will be judged by how he does on this matter by the international community. He started with good intentions but he is now coming under pressure internally. He might make no move and could become hamstrung on the issue.
Perhaps the Minister could comment on the fact that, in the final analysis, both sides of the argument will state they want X, Y and Z, a two-state solution, etc., but there is significant variance on both sides about their concept of a two-state solution. While utterances indicate that they want this solution, the motivation or the understanding of what the other person wants is not evident.
I look forward to receiving the presentation of a proposal from Deputy Timmins. I undertake to work with him and others in the House to see if we can put flesh on the bone of his suggestion.
Overseas Development Aid.
Michael D. Higgins
Ceist:48 Deputy Michael D. Higgins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if, in view of the 25% reduction in overseas development aid spending over the past 12 months and the consequences from this which have flown to the poorest of the poor, he is in a position to confirm that there will be no further cuts and that Ireland will honour its commitment to reach the UN target of 0.7% of GDP by 2012. [42162/09]
As Deputy Higgins will be aware, last year Ireland spent €920 million on official development assistance, ODA. This represented approximately 0.59% of our gross national product and placed Ireland as one of the most generous donor countries in the world on a per capita basis.
In 2009, the Government was faced with the regrettable, but unavoidable, decision to reduce its allocation to ODA. For the record, ODA is expected to reach €696 million in 2009, which, based on current projections, represents at least 0.48% of gross national product. While this represents a significant reduction in volume, our expectation is that Ireland will still remain one of the most generous donors in the world on a per capita basis. This is a significant achievement in the context of the difficult circumstances which afflict the country.
I have stated on many occasions that the Government very much regrets the necessity to reduce the development assistance budget, and, indeed, any budget. I fully understand Deputy Higgins's strong concern over the reduction and its effect on the aid programme. However, we must recognise that this necessary decision was taken solely in the context of Government's absolute priority to stabilise the public finances. This was the sole motivation behind the Government's decision. This is a fundamental prerequisite for the resumption of economic growth, which is the only sustainable way Ireland can meet its future ODA commitments. We have made a public commitment that we will resume the expansion of the aid programme when economic circumstances permit.
I assure the Deputy that the Government remains strongly committed to maintaining the high standards set out in the OECD report, particularly now given the background of international economic crisis which has disproportionately affected the world's poorest countries.
I should also stress that there was no reduction in the important technical expertise which Irish officials bring to their work with our partners. This is also an important aspect of the programme.
The Government is now engaged in the final stages of preparing the budget for 2010. This will be a difficult budget given the current financial climate. There are many competing demands for scarce resources but the Government is determined to bring stability to the public finances. Savings are being sought across all areas of Government expenditure and no area is considered immune. However, I assure Deputy Higgins that our aim is to protect the aid programme to the maximum extent achievable within that process.
As the Deputy will appreciate, in advance of the budget I am not in a position to provide detailed figures on the development assistance allocation for 2010. This is ultimately a matter for the Minister for Finance and will be announced on budget day.
I have heard this presentation before. When Ireland made its international commitment on overseas development aid we had a moral yardstick. We were complimented on our willingness to achieve 0.7% even if the economic circumstances reversed. We basked in that compliment. Now we are comparing ourselves to others who have reduced their commitment. The fickleness of that is not lost on me. With €222 million already taken out, that is a cut of 25%, so there is little more that the programme can take now if it is to retain its integrity and efficacy. The Minister and the Minister of State should be able to tell us that they will hold the ground on this issue. Does the Minister agree that there was a considerable reputational enhancement through the ODA programme? It is one of the great positives for Ireland abroad. People admired us for it and the Pope paid tribute to us, as did several countries. That is in stark contrast to the reputational damage done by the banking sector. If the Minister were to interfere with the commitment in the coming year, he would sacrifice that reputation.
The Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs supports holding the line at this stage and not ceding any more. It is an all-party view reflecting both sides of the House. The Minister stresses that technical expertise is being retained, but the voluntary NGO sector will lose some of its most valuable staff. That affects practically every NGO, so their intellectual memory will be damaged. I want an assurance that the Minister will hold the line against this suggestion of cuts.
I assure the Deputy that my aim, and that of the Minister, is to protect the aid budget and aid programme to the maximum possible extent in the context of the budgetary process that is under way. I simply cannot give another response to the Deputy, other than to say that we remain committed to reaching 0.7% of GNP on ODA levels. The sum of 0.7% of an economy that is faltering and significantly reducing its GNP is not of much assistance to our development partners in sub-Saharan Africa. I would much prefer to see the percentage, commensurate with our current financial position, of an economy where we are laying down the foundations of a solid platform for future growth. In that case, when we reach our commitment of 0.7% of GNP it will be 0.7% of a robust, thriving economy which can sustain an aid programme in future.
Deputy Higgins said that we experienced a reputational enhancement through the ODA programme and I accept that. It was borne out by the OECD report, which was published earlier this year. However, the reputation of our country would be seriously damaged, perhaps forever, if we did not take control of our public finances and continued to borrow at unsustainable levels to the extent that the IMF would come in. That would be the ultimate damage to our reputation.
I can see that the Minister of State is migrating his speeches on finance into the foreign affairs area, which is a great pity. What has damaged us is the year-on-year deficit of the past two years, which was €10.8 billion. Of that sum, €4 billion went into Ango-Irish Bank. If the Minister asked the public to choose between meeting our target for overseas development aid and bailing out Anglo-Irish Bank, which is a zombie bank, he would get a convincing answer. It is not a choice between getting the economy right and meeting our aid targets, because we can do both. The Minister cannot escape the fact, however, that a small clique in the banking sector has done almost irreparable damage to Ireland's reputation abroad that will last for a generation. At the same time, people working effectively in several countries are enhancing Ireland's reputation and have built up a huge legacy. Let those in other Departments who want to go soft on the likes of Anglo-Irish Bank deal with that, but the Minister of State's responsibility is to the poorest of the poor. The senior Minister's responsibility is to explain how a further cut can be made without damaging the structure of the programme, given that €222 million has been allocated already, which represents a 25% cut.
The fact that Anglo-Irish Bank is being brought into this debate at this stage disappoints me.
The Minister of State brought up this question.
Deputy Higgins introduced it. It disappoints me because if we do not have a thriving banking system we will not have an economy.
An acceptable and transparent one.
We cannot divorce a robust economy from an aid programme. One cannot have one without the other. We cannot have an aid programme without a sustainable economy.
I am not suggesting that we can.
The Deputy said we can have both, but I am suggesting that we cannot.
We can have both if we have clean banking and a clean development programme.
Exactly. The process we are currently undertaking is to clean up our banking system and bring growth back into the economy. We cannot borrow unsustainably for development purposes. Deputy Higgins knows more than anybody else that we preach sustainable development in sub-Saharan African.
Yes, we do.
If we were to practice unsustainable economics in our country we certainly would not do our reputation any good at all.
EU Appointments.
Pat Breen
Ceist:49 Deputy Pat Breen asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he has made contact with his EU counterparts to support the candidacy of the EU’s Ambassador to Washington and former Taoiseach, Mr. John Bruton, for the position of EU president; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [42346/09]
The Lisbon Treaty provides for the creation of two major new posts: the President of the European Council and the High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy. These posts will bring greater coherence and continuity to the work of the EU, particularly in its external dimensions. The President of the European Council will chair that body, driving forward its work and ensuring continuity while endeavouring to facilitate cohesion and consensus within the Council.
Both these new posts must now be filled as the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty by all member states was completed this month. The Lisbon Treaty will therefore come into force on 1 December, less than two weeks from now.
The Swedish Presidency is consulting bilaterally with member states regarding these posts and has convened a special meeting of the European Council to consider these two appointments. The Taoiseach will attend this meeting tomorrow evening, 19 November.
A declaration attached to the Lisbon Treaty provides that, in filling these posts, due account be taken of the need to respect the geographical and demographic diversity of the Union and its member states. It is expected that other balances will also be considered, including the political affiliations of candidates. The President of the European Council will be elected by the European Council for a two and a half year term, renewable once.
The Taoiseach has discussed these appointments with the Presidency and will contribute to the collective discussion tomorrow at the European Council. This process has not been marked by intensive lobbying on behalf of individual candidates as heads of state and government are understandably concerned not to undermine whoever is eventually appointed to the post. However, the Taoiseach has made known to colleagues his high regard and support for the former Taoiseach, John Bruton, who has expressed his availability for the position of European Council President, particularly if no serving member seeks the post.
In addition, officials in my Department and in the Department of the Taoiseach have made direct approaches to their counterparts in other EU member states, to make clear our support for the candidature of Ambassador Mr. John Bruton. I have also discussed the issue with colleagues at the General Affairs and External Relations Council, confirming my support for Mr. John Bruton.
Several other well qualified people have been mentioned for this post and we await a report from the Swedish Presidency on the outcome of its soundings as to which candidate, or candidates, would appear to command the most support.
I thank the Minister for his reply. What soundings has he taken from Foreign Ministers in the European Union regarding ambassador John Bruton's interest in the position of President of the European Union? Having looked at the CVs of all the candidates mentioned for the job, I believe Mr. Bruton is well qualified. He has served for five years as European Union ambassador to the United States. This must be borne in mind considering the Union is going through an important transition and given Ireland's ratification of the Lisbon treaty, in respect of which the focus of the Union was on us in the first week of October. Ambassador Bruton is a former Vice President of the European People's Party and was Taoiseach between 1995 and 1997. Everybody believes he put us on the road to economic recovery at that stage. His contact with ambassadors from the EU member states in Washington and with US Senators and Congressmen makes him well qualified for the job.
The Minister's support for ambassador Bruton has been lukewarm. There are three strong contenders for the job, the Prime Ministers of Belgium, The Netherlands and Luxembourg. Has the Minister for Foreign Affairs made contact informally with other Foreign Ministers and has the Taoiseach contacted the Swedish Presidency?
The Deputy's last comment is unfair. I have been a strong admirer of Mr. John Bruton, particularly in his role as European Union ambassador to the United States. This arose because of the present Taoiseach's proactive engagement with former Commissioner Patten on the idea of having a political figure hold the position of ambassador in Washington. It was a very good display of political ecumenism by the Taoiseach, who was Minister for Foreign Affairs at the time.
A rare display.
It is a fact and the Deputies should acknowledge it. That is how ambassador Bruton was helped to get the position. He has done his job well. The idea was that, because of Ireland's historic engagement with the United States and capacity to "work the Hill", an Irish political figure, particularly a former Taoiseach, would be an ideal EU ambassador to the United States and would be able to carry out his functions ably and effectively. Mr. Bruton has been able and effective.
With regard to the soundings, people are non-committal because they seem to be filtering their views and approaches through the Presidency. The other complicating factor is that the European People's Party, of which Deputy Breen's party is a member, is producing all the candidates, although many of them have not announced themselves officially. The current Belgian Prime Minister, Mr. Herman van Rompuy, is emerging as a very credible candidate if one is to believe the soundings. Mr. Jan Peter Balkenende, the Dutch Prime Minister, was an early candidate mentioned frequently at the Council on the last occasion it met. Mr. Jean-Claude Juncker has vast experience also, as does Mr. John Bruton. These four candidates are from the same grouping and therefore the grouping itself must work something out.
In the letter to all the leaders, ambassador Bruton based his interest on sitting members not seeking the position. Much will happen through the Presidency tomorrow by way of determining who is in and who is out. Mr. Tony Blair, from the socialist grouping, is a very strong candidate. The British Government is working hard on his behalf.
Mr. Gordon Brown is very vocal in his support for Mr. Blair, not like our Taoiseach.
Does the Minister believe a decision will be made tomorrow in Brussels on the Presidency or will the decision be postponed until the December meeting? What support does the Minister believe Mr. Bruton has for his candidacy among the major countries, such as Germany and France?
People are keeping their cards very close to their chests, particularly the leaders of the leading countries, including France and Germany.
Is the Government keeping its cards close to its chest?
I would have believed the Deputy would have had some insight into the position of the European People's Party.
I am talking about governments.
I hope there will be a development tomorrow night because it is important, in terms of the timeframe, that there be clarity and certainty on this question. There may not be a development. Tomorrow evening will be interesting.
Humanitarian Aid.
Michael D. Higgins
Ceist:50 Deputy Michael D. Higgins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he acknowledges that the most appropriate way of marking the 20th anniversary of the murder of six Jesuits, their housekeeper and her daughter in El Salvador by anti-democratic forces, is for him to respond generously to the loss of life and homes of some of the poorest people in El Salvador as a result of Hurricane Ida. [42163/09]
The Deputy is referring to the extra-judicial killings of six Jesuit priests, their housekeeper and her daughter on 16 November 1989 in the Jesuit residence at the University of Central America in San Salvador. A 1991 report by the UN-sponsored truth commission concluded that this massacre had been perpetrated by members of the Salvadoran military.
These brutal killings were among 75,000 others that occurred during El Salvador's civil war in the 1980s and the early 1990s. The wave of international outrage and condemnation that followed the deaths of these innocent Jesuits, their housekeeper and her daughter was instrumental in bringing an end to the war through the UN-brokered peace agreement.
On the occasion of the 20th anniversary of these deaths, it is fitting that we remember these and all of the victims of the civil war in El Salvador. We acknowledge the great progress made there since those dark days.
Today the people of El Salvador are facing the tragic consequences of a natural disaster. Hurricane Ida, accompanied by torrential rainfall, has had a devastating impact on vulnerable communities in at least five Salvadoran departments. The exceptionally heavy rains caused floods and landslides, with at least 144 reported deaths, and many thousands displaced. I sympathise sincerely with those who have been affected by this disaster and in particular those who have lost loved ones.
On 8 November, the Government of El Salvador declared a state of national emergency. The Salvadorian authorities, supported by local and international humanitarian agencies, are now providing emergency assistance to those affected by the floods and landslides. This includes temporary shelter, food, water, first aid materials, blankets and clothing.
Drawing on pre-positioned support from Ireland and other humanitarian donors, the International Federation of the Red Cross was immediately able to respond to the crisis with an emergency contribution of over €120,000. This contribution has been used by the Salvadoran Red Cross to distribute essential relief items, such as blankets, kitchen sets and hygiene kits.
Ireland is currently the third largest donor to the disaster relief emergency fund of the International Federation of the Red Cross. This fund ensures that emergency resources can be rapidly and efficiently disbursed to where they are most needed when disaster strikes. The rapid response of the Red Cross in El Salvador demonstrates once again the value and effectiveness of pre-positioned funding.
I will continue to keep the situation in El Salvador under review. Following detailed needs assessment missions over recent days, a UN-co-ordinated humanitarian appeal will be launched today in New York. On receipt and consideration of this and any other appeals, I will determine whether additional emergency funding by Irish Aid would be appropriate.
I had the privilege of meeting Dr. Ellacuría when I visited El Salvador in 1981, eight years before his murder. He, his five Jesuit colleagues, their housekeeper and her daughter were savagely murdered, principally because they had adopted the option for the poor and were organising in the poorest districts of El Salvador.
My question refers to the 20th anniversary of the killings, which was yesterday, and implies it would be a very good idea to respond generously to the loss of life and homes of some of the poorest people in EL Salvador as a result of Hurricane Ida. There have been mudslides previously in El Salvador, particularly along the border with Honduras. The Irish Department of Foreign Affairs offered assistance on the last occasion and it would be worthwhile considering this again. The deputy director of the UN co-ordination mechanism was visiting Ireland and I raised the matter with her in respect of the organisation's meeting in New York.
The lowest estimate of the number of lives lost is 144. People's homes have been simply destroyed. There has been a significant displacement of the population. The Minister correctly identified that a number of Irish organisations, including Trócaire, which is represented by Sally O'Neill-Sanchez, are in a position to put a preparatory mechanism in place. It would be appropriate after the New York meeting that they would be considered for direct assistance to deal with this humanitarian tragedy.
I agree with Deputy Higgins that the loss of life, currently 144, somehow masks the many thousands of people who have been displaced. That is one of the real issues in terms of aid. I acknowledge Deputy Higgins's long-standing interest in this area, especially at the time of the civil war in the 1980s and 1990s.
This type of humanitarian disaster underscores the importance of pre-positioned supplies. One often needs to get aid to an area in a matter of days, if not hours. The delivery of aid to where it is urgently required on the ground must be rapid and efficient. In terms of the assistance at this stage, somewhat removed from the disaster itself, best practice would dictate that we would consider the outcome of a needs assessment. Each disaster, be it Cyclone Nargis which hit Burma-Myanmar last year, which killed more than 125,000 people, or this hurricane, deserves a response commensurate with the needs assessment carried out by experts on the ground. That is something I intend to do once I receive the report.
I thank the Minister of State for his response. I am anxious that he would confirm after the meeting in New York when the needs assessment has been done that the Government will be open to making such small grant as might be available to make a quick response, rather like it did before.
I can confirm that.
European Union Relations.
Lucinda Creighton
Ceist:51 Deputy Lucinda Creighton asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the position on the report of the European Parliament’s Committee on Constitutional Affairs on the development of relations between the European Parliament and national parliaments under the Treaty of Lisbon; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [42335/09]
The report on the development of relations between the European Parliament and national parliaments under the Lisbon treaty was adopted by the European Parliament's Committee on Constitutional Affairs on 13 March 2009. Following debate in plenary session, it was adopted by the European Parliament on 7 May 2009.
I welcome the report's conclusion that the enhanced role for national parliaments under the Lisbon treaty will "contribute to stronger democratic control and bring the Union closer to the citizen". That was a point I made repeatedly during the Government's campaign for a "Yes" vote in the Lisbon referendum.
The report takes stock of current relations between the European Parliament and national parliaments and addresses a number of recommendations to national parliaments on how these might be improved in the future. I note that it proposes "new forms of pre- and post-legislative dialogue" and advocates strengthening of the network of meetings between corresponding committees of the European Parliament and national parliaments. The report also urges various innovations from the national parliaments such as the right for MEPs to participate in meetings of European affairs committees of national parliaments.
It is a matter for the Oireachtas to judge how best to respond to the report's proposals and suggestions. The Oireachtas has already shown its willingness to engage with the European Parliament, including by allowing for the attendance of Irish MEPs at the Joint Committee on European Affairs. In making arrangements for closer relations with the European Parliament, it will be important to have due regard for the role of COSAC, the Conference of Community and European Affairs Committees of the Parliaments of the European Union.
Domestic preparations are in hand to give effect to the new role of the Oireachtas, as under the Lisbon treaty, and in particular the provisions of protocols 1 and 2 of the treaty. The European Union Act 2009 gives effect to the relevant provisions of the Lisbon treaty in the domestic law of the State and section 7 of that Act provides for the new powers of the Houses of the Oireachtas under the terms of the treaty.
I welcome the Minister's comments on this important report of the European Parliament. I would like to see the Irish Parliament adopt a strong position, which due to the system we have in this country must be led by the Government. The provisions of the Lisbon treaty in regard to national parliaments are exciting. They offer a huge opportunity to bring Europe and European affairs to our citizens. We have an opportunity to shape how that will happen at a European level.
The previous resolution of the European Parliament on national parliaments was in 2002. That indicates the level of priority that was given to this issue when the Treaty of Lisbon was being negotiated and was going through the ratification process. Now that is done we are in a position to move on.
The report contains some exciting proposals. We can even look beyond that at the elements which need to be driven from a domestic level. There have been several joint parliamentary meetings between national parliamentarians and MEPs. I attended one such meeting in Brussels yesterday and the previous day. Deputy Dooley and Senator de Búrca attended as well. It is not a satisfactory forum at all. It is far too big and unwieldy and it is very difficult to focus on issues of mutual concern. The way forward has to be through co-operation via committee structures involving members of national parliaments with MEPs who have specific expertise in a particular area where they can drive an esoteric agenda.
I urge the Minister to look seriously at the proposal to have a state of the European Union debate on an annual basis in the Chamber and to allow MEPs to participate in it. That would send a strong and positive signal.
The Swedish speaker has called a meeting of all national speakers for next month and the Ceann Comhairle has been invited to see specifically how national parliaments will implement the Lisbon treaty provisions.
I am in broad agreement with the Deputy in terms of the points she has made. However, I fundamentally disagree with the point she made at the outset, that given the system we have, this must be led by Government.
The Government has a majority on every committee and in every vote.
During the campaign on the second referendum on the Lisbon treaty the Oireachtas came together in committee. It did not come together on Government and Opposition lines. I accept most members were pro-Lisbon treaty, but they were not divided along party lines. There is an opportunity for Parliament to come to the Executive. We are often criticised for the way things are organised; that the Executive leads the Oireachtas. I do not wish to be overly prescriptive or to impose a solution on the Oireachtas. The solution must come from the Oireachtas. That is my genuine position. Issues might arise and we might not agree with everything. The Executive will have a position on some issues, as will I and the Government. I cannot determine these matters on my own.
From 1 December on, the provisions of the Lisbon treaty will come into force. We have to work quickly on the administrative arrangements to give effect to the new disposition, which will mean that all laws will come directly to Parliament from 1 December onwards. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle has already said that the speakers will meet under the Swedish Presidency. There is a need for the Oireachtas to come together, perhaps at committee level or through the Ceann Comhairle, to put together a programme on how parliamentarians consider we should move forward.
I agree fully with the Minister. I do not suggest that the Executive should impose a prescriptive way forward but the report of the Sub-Committee on Ireland's Future in the European Union from this time last year contains specific recommendations that can fundamentally transform our engagement with the European Union and in so doing facilitate meaningful engagement with the people of this country on the European Union. Will the Minister accede to the demand of that committee to introduce a mandate system that would require Ministers to come before committees? It would have far-reaching consequences for the Minister and his colleague in terms of their powers. Is he prepared to make that sacrifice to introduce a system that would replicate the system that is hugely successful in the House of Commons?
I am not so sure that it is hugely successful in the House of Commons or that the British system is the ideal one to follow. Every Minister should go before their respective committees prior to going to the Council. I have views as to whether they should get a mandate from every committee they meet prior to every Council meeting. That is something that can be discussed. Currently, it does not happen——
It is nearly 12 months since that report was issued.
As we speak, Ministers do not go before every committee. When I was in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment I did not attend the relevant committee prior to attending a Council meeting. There was no great demand for the committee to have the Minister of the day before it either. It is different in the case of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs. We are well used to that in the Department of Foreign Affairs. We go before the European Affairs committee before every foreign affairs Ministers' meeting. That is a good approach but I agree we should have a joint session or a state of the Union debate here at least once every 12 months, if not more. At Government level we are bringing forward proposals and working on how the Cabinet and the administrative system can engage with Europe on a more effective and co-ordinated basis in the future because the one lesson we must learn from the first and second Lisbon referenda——
We must move on.
——is the need to communicate Europe more effectively and make it an integral part of political life.