There are two elements to today's meeting. The Minister of State with responsibility for European Affairs, Deputy Roche, will deal with the general issues that will come before the forthcoming European Council meeting. The Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Tom Kitt, is in attendance because a number of development issues will also come before the Council. Both Ministers of State will make introductory comments and we will then proceed as we normally do to deal first with general affairs and then external relations.
General Affairs and External Relations Council Agenda: Ministerial Presentation.
I am pleased to appear before this committee to review the agenda of the forthcoming General Affairs and External Relations Council. The Council takes place in Brussels on 17 and 18 November and has a heavy agenda, including the participation of Ministers for Defence and Ministers for Development Co-operation. There will be a meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference at Foreign Minister level. The Minister of State, Deputy Tom Kitt, will brief the committee on the development issues due to be discussed at the Council. I propose to address the general affairs items, including the meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference and then turn to the external relations agenda.
In accordance with the conclusions of the Seville European Council, held in June 2002, Ministers will discuss the draft annotated agenda for the European Council due to be held in Brussels on 12 and 13 December. Ministers will return to this at the Council's meeting on 8 and 9 December, immediately prior to the meeting of the European Council. President Prodi is expected to present the European Commission's legislative and work programme for 2004 to the Council. The programme is based on the Commission's annual policy strategy presented to the Council last March. As the incoming Presidency, Ireland took an active part in the discussions which followed the Commission's presentation of the APS in March last and we are satisfied that the priorities now outlined in the Commission's legislative and work programme are broadly in line with our own Presidency priorities, namely, accession, stability and sustainable growth.
Ireland agrees with the Commission that the key issue for the European Union in 2004 is the successful accession of the ten new member states. As the first Presidency to preside over the enlarged Union of 25, we are fully supportive of the Commission's objective of ensuring the successful completion of the accession process. The related priorities of stability and sustainable growth, which we have also identified as important to our Presidency, are also welcome.
The Commission's monitoring reports issued last week are among the final milestones on the road to accession. The message to emerge is mostly positive. The countries concerned have made tremendous progress in preparing for membership and earned the respect of their European partners while taking their rightful place at the Union table. As Presidency in office, the Government looks forward to welcoming them on 1 May 2004. We do not see any reason there should be any further problems.
Of the 1,400 sectors examined by the Commission in its remarkably comprehensive reports, only 3% of the total is described as giving rise to serious concern. The governments of the countries concerned have undertaken to give the priority needed to address the issues highlighted. The Commission believes many of these should be resolved by 1 May 2004. The accession of ten countries in 2004 forms part of a larger enlargement process. Negotiations are at an advanced stage with Bulgaria and Romania and 2007 is the target date for the accession of these countries. In addition, the European Council in December 2004 will make a decision on the opening of negotiations with Turkey. The Commission will issue its views on the Croatian application in the interim.
I am pleased to take the opportunity to brief the committee on the Intergovernmental Conference that will meet on Tuesday morning after the Council. The meeting will deal with Part IV of the draft constitutional treaty and the Union Foreign Minister. While it had also been scheduled to discuss security and defence matters, it will not now do so until a later meeting. Part IV contains the so-called "general and final provisions" which cover such matters as the entry into force of the constitutional treaty and its relationship to previous treaties. Procedures for ratification and subsequent amendment of the constitutional treaty were the subject of some debate in the convention. The current treaties require unanimity for any change and subsequent ratification of all amendments by all member states according to their constitutional requirements. The draft constitutional treaty envisages no change to this requirement. The Presidency has circulated a paper aimed at framing discussion at next week's meeting and I have circulated this to the committee. The Government is content with the draft as it stands and will oppose any change that weakens the requirement for ratification by all. We discussed this issue at a previous committee meeting. It is also envisaged that in the future, as on this occasion, for all but minor changes an Intergovernmental Conference must be preceded by a convention. We support this and believe that the convention process has been valuable on this occasion.
There will also be a further discussion of the proposed European Union Foreign Minister. While there is broad support for the creation of this post, some member states have a number of outstanding queries on issues related to the minister's dual accountability to the Council and the Commission and the procedure by which the Foreign Minister can be dismissed. The Presidency has circulated a paper, which has been circulated to the committee, proposing some limited drafting amendments and this will form the basis for further discussion at the Intergovernmental Conference. The Government supports the appointment of a Union foreign minister with separate accountability to the Council for the CFSP and to the Commission for other areas of external action.
Aside from the meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference itself, the Presidency is devoting much of the month of November to bilateral meetings with partners with a view to preparing a draft final package. The Taoiseach will meet Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi in Rome tonight as part of this exercise. The Taoiseach will again outline Ireland's key concerns, including taxation, justice and home affairs and defence. There will be a Foreign Ministers' conclave in Naples on 28 and 29 November, followed by the European Council on 12 and 13 December. The Presidency remains focused on concluding the Intergovernmental Conference by the end of the year and the Government is fully supportive of those efforts.
I now turn to the session on external relations. The Council discusses the western Balkans at every meeting, underlining the central importance of the region for EU foreign policy. Discussion this month will focus on the need for progress on reforms in Serbia and Montenegro, particularly in view of the work currently under way on the Commission's feasibility study on negotiations for a stabilisation and association agreement with the country. The study is likely to be completed during our Presidency, at which point the Council must decide whether sufficient progress has been made to enable the opening of negotiations with Serbia and Montenegro.
The Council will also consider the circumstances in Kosovo. The European Union fully supports the work of the new special representative both in establishing the mechanisms for the vital direct dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina on practical matters of mutual concern and in making greater progress on the standards before status policy under Security Council Resolution 1244. Mr. Holkeri is at present engaged in detailed discussions with the provisional institutions of self-government on a work plan that would underline the practical importance of the policy of standards before status for the creation of a democratic and multi-ethnic Kosovo. The western Balkans will remain an EU priority during Ireland's Presidency and we will work to maintain the progress made this year under the Greek and Italian Presidencies.
The Council will again discuss current security and political matters in Iraq. In this context, I condemn the recent violent attacks in Iraq. Such attacks only serve to delay the time when Iraqi people can live in peace and security. Attacks on civilians cannot be justified under any circumstances and attacks against international relief agencies and targets with high risk of civilian casualties are particularly abhorrent.
The Government welcomed the adoption of Resolution 1511 by the Security Council on 16 October 2003. While we recognise that it does not meet all the wishes of all the members of the Security Council, it represents an important advance towards the earliest possible restoration of sovereignty to the Iraqi people under a representative government. We also recognise that there are major practical security and institutional problems which must be overcome if an Iraqi government is to be able to function effectively. The Government hopes the role of the United Nations in Iraq outlined in the resolution will prove sufficient for it to carry out its work effectively. This is a crucial time for Iraq and the entire international community must work together to restore peace and stability to a sovereign, democratic and independent Iraq as soon as possible, as called for unanimously by the members of the Security Council in Resolution 1511.
The issue of weapons of mass destruction will also be discussed at this month's Council with the presentation of a progress report on implementation of the action plan agreed last June. Ireland has traditionally been active in the non-proliferation and disarmament area and is pleased that the basic principles and action plan agreed in June have provided a basis for discussion and action at every level within the European Union on this issue. As well as the progress report, we expect to adopt a common position on the universalisation and reinforcement of multilateral agreements in the field of non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and means of delivery. This is a visible signal of the importance the Union continues to attach to the existing multilateral structure dealing with disarmament and non-proliferation.
Iran is also on the agenda for this month's Council and discussion will focus on the report of the IAEA director general, due out this week, ahead of consideration of the issue by the IAEA board of governors on 20 November. I welcome the Iranian presentation of a declaration of its nuclear activities to the IAEA last month and support this development as a demonstration of transparency and co-operation with the IAEA. I also welcome Iran's decision to immediately implement the provisions of the additional protocol and expect it to continue to co-operate fully with the IAEA.
Ministers will discuss the EU-Russia summit that took place in Rome on 6 November 2003. The Italian Prime Minister, Mr. Berlusconi, the EU high representative, Mr. Solana, and the President of the European Commission, Mr. Prodi, represented the European Union while President Putin represented the Russian Federation. The summit specifically sought to make progress on the four spaces agreed at the St. Petersburg Summit on 31 May 2003 relating to economic co-operation, external security, freedom, security and justice, and research and education. It endorsed the work to date of the high level group on the common European economic space and agreed to continue this work, taking full account of the recommendations of the group's report, with a view to achieving tangible results as soon as possible. The impact of enlargement on EU-Russia relations was also a major topic of discussion. The European Union underlined the importance of ensuring Russia extends the EU-Russia partnership and co-operation agreement to the new member states from 1 May 2004.
Ministers will consider the Middle East in the light of recent developments on the ground and political contacts. The situation remains very grave and there has been little discernible progress towards peace over the past month. While Prime Minister Queri has accepted a new mandate to replace his temporary cabinet with a full administration, there remain difficulties over control of the security forces. There have also been reports of discreet contacts between Israeli and Palestinian Ministers. The implementation of the road map remains at an impasse.
In the margins of the Council there will be an association council meeting with Israel. This will give the European Union an opportunity to review the range of relations with Israel and send a strong message about our concerns at Israeli actions such as the continued construction of the separation wall and the expansion of illegal settlements.
The Council will also discuss matters in Afghanistan. Ireland participated in an EU Troika to Afghanistan from 19 to 21 October. There is a broad degree of agreement between the member states on the draft conclusions in which the Council expresses concern at the security situation and drugs trade in the country; welcomes the expansion of ISAF through the provincial reconstruction teams; encourages continued international support for the Afghan transitional administration; and encourages the adoption of a constitution that abides by international standards of human rights, leading to the holding of free and fair elections in 2004.
On EU-Africa relations, Ireland warmly welcomes the renewed impetus provided to the EU-Africa dialogue by last Monday's ministerial Troika meeting in Rome. We attach great importance to the development of EU-Africa relations and are heartened that these are now firmly back on track. Building on the momentum now established and working to strengthen the EU-Africa partnership will be one of Ireland's priorities during our Presidency. We look forward to hosting those meetings with the African Union already being planned within the framework of the enhanced dialogue during our Presidency.
We understand from our Dutch colleagues that Foreign Minister Jaap De Hoop Scheffer, current chairman-in-office of the OSCE, will outline his approach to the OSCE ministerial council, to be held in Maastricht on 1 and 2 December 2003. Discussions are ongoing in Vienna on a number of topics that will be addressed at the ministerial meeting. Chief among these documents are the "Strategy to Address Threats to Security and Stability in the 21st Century" and the OSCE2 "Strategy Document in the Economic and Environmental Dimension". At the ministerial meeting the Netherlands chair-in-office will also seek the adoption of an OSCE action plan to combat trafficking in human beings and an action plan on Roma and Sinti. We also expect that there will be a presentation on regional issues within the OSCE area.
In what has become a feature of successive EU Presidencies, EU Defence Ministers will meet in separate session within the framework of the General Affairs and External Council during the morning of 17 November. This will be followed by a joint session with foreign ministers in the afternoon, at which Council conclusions will be adopted. The conclusions are expected to encompass both military and civilian aspects of European security and defence policy.
Ministers will review developments on the operational front. This is an area in which there has been considerable progress during 2003, with the successful launch and conduct of three ESDP operations - an EU police mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina, a military monitoring and stabilisation mission in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and a temporary stabilisation force in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Planning for the European Union's second police mission, to be deployed in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia by the end of the year, is under way. Specific Council conclusions will be adopted on the participation of non-EU member states in the latter mission. The Council will also note progress in the development of the European Union's military and civilian capabilities for crisis management and consider the way ahead beyond 2003.
On the military side, specific project groups under the European capabilities action plan are working to reduce shortfalls in capabilities with a view to enhancing the European Union's operationality for crisis management. Further to a tasking by the Thessaloníki European Council, work is also being undertaken towards the establishment of an intergovernmental agency in the field of defence capabilities development, research, acquisition and armaments. The Council is expected to establish an agency implementation team which will carry forward work on specific modalities for the establishment of the agency.
Further issues to be addressed by Ministers will include EU training policy in the field of ESDP, encompassing both military and civilian dimensions. Ministers will also take note of efforts to enhance dialogue with Mediterranean partners on ESDP as well as ongoing consideration of the role of ESDP in the fight against terrorism. Developments in EU-NATO relations may also be addressed.
It is envisaged that Ministers on the margins of the Council will sign the EU status of forces agreement. The proposed agreement has been negotiated as part of the required arrangements to facilitate the development of the operational dimension of European security and defence policy. It is intended to provide a legal basis for the regulation of military and civilian staff on secondment to the European Union military staff, including the ongoing assignment of personnel from Ireland. It will also apply to headquarters personnel and forces made available to the European Union in preparation for and during the implementation of humanitarian and crisis management operations - both in Brussels and, as applicable, in the territory of other EU member states.
US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, will join Ministers for a working lunch on 18 November. While there is no formal agenda for the lunch, it is expected the discussion will focus on a range of foreign policy issues. A Troika with the United States will take place on the Tuesday afternoon. The Italian Presidency, the Commission and high representative, Javier Solana, will represent the European Union. This meeting will provide an opportunity to discuss a range of issues in the EU-US relationship, including current trade and economic issues.
When the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, has made his contribution, I will be happy to take questions from members of the committee.
I welcome this opportunity to discuss Irelands position on the cluster of development items that will come before the Council next week. I will be president of the Council for the development discussion. As members may know, this has now been integrated into the General Affairs and External Relations Council on foot of a decision taken by the Seville European Council.
There are now four items on the agenda of the Council - the annual report on the EC development policy, the implementation of external assistance in 2002, the Commission communication on governance and development and the creation of a peace facility in Africa. The Presidency has dropped the so-called "budgetisation" item in regard to the integration of the European development fund into the general budget of the European Union. We will need to discuss this at a later date. The cotton sector and development in Africa are also on the agenda.
The annual report is published by the Commission each year to inform the Council and the Parliament of the European Union's activities in external assistance and to account for the money spent during the year. In 2002 €6.5 billion was committed and €5.2 billion disbursed by the Commission on behalf of the European Union. This represents more than 10% of global aid and provides assistance for more than 160 countries and organisations worldwide.
Notable achievements in 2002 include the €275 million committed to Afghanistan which will enable the new government to rebuild and improve the lives of its people and the substantial additional resources pledged at the UN summits in Johannesburg towards the achievement of the UN millennium development goals. The first generation of country strategy papers - the CSPs - have also been completed, which will serve as a valuable tool in future and keep our focus firmly fixed on fighting poverty. The process of reforming the management of the European Union's external assistance, launched in 2000, has also begun to bear fruit. There has been a large devolution of management responsibilities away from Brussels and into the field which has in turn led to quicker implementation of an improvement in the quality of programming. Financial management has also been improved, leading to faster disbursement and a reduction in the number of dormant commitments.
That is not to say there is no room for improvement. The increased amounts of ODA available make the effective delivery of assistance a priority. The annual report has highlighted a number of areas which require further attention, including the need for increased flexibility and better integration at local level. Further work will be needed to consolidate and complete the reform process in order to deliver high quality programmes of assistance which have a demonstrable impact on people's lives. The draft conclusions prepared for the Council make several recommendations to the Commission to strengthen their assessment procedures and increase their efforts towards the three Cs - coherence, co-ordination and complementarity. Member states have invited the Commission to report on the progress of management reform by July 2004 and will continue to monitor the process closely. Overall, the report is positive and has been welcomed by all member states. The achievements reported are many and we have every reason to be proud of our contribution to the Union's development programmes.
I especially welcome the renewed focus on the eradication of poverty and the list of progress indicators drawn from the millennium development goals. These aims and objectives closely mirror those of our own development programmes in Development Co-operation Ireland and I am happy to see them being given such priority among our European partners.
In regard to governance communication, we will debate at the Council the Commission's communication of 24 October on governance and development with a view to adopting Council conclusions on the subject. The Commission's communication on governance and development arises from the November 2000 statement by the Council and Commission on the European Union's development policy. That statement defines institutional capacity building, especially in the area of good governance and the rule of law, as one of the six focal areas for Union development efforts in pursuit of the goal of poverty eradication. The communication groups together all the Commission's operations in the area of governance with a view to moving towards a more dynamic and strategic approach to governance.
Some 20% of programme resources allocated to the country strategy papers are supportive of governance objectives. In addition, other programmes in the areas of human rights, mainstreaming and capacity building, all have governance elements. The communication defines three types of governance partnerships between the European Union and developing countries - effective partnership, difficult partnerships and post-conflict partnerships. The challenge is for the European Union to provide effective support for governance in each of these types of situation. The main instruments at the Union's disposal for the promotion of good governance are dialogue and capacity building. Ireland welcomes the draft inclusion before the Council which represents an attempt to give concrete follow-up to the Commission's communication. The conclusions ask the Commission to build on the communication by preparing guidelines and a handbook intended to improve the effectiveness and impact of its governance programmes. They also recommend that the Commission strive for increased coherence, complementarity and co-ordination with member states and other donors in its governance interventions.
We particularly welcome the focus in the communication on the challenges posed for the European Union in promoting governance in the so-called difficult partnerships which the Union has with some developing countries. In such cases, it is important to remember that the populations should not suffer because of the actions of their governments. Activities such as humanitarian assistance and support for civil society should continue in such situations.
The proposal for the African peace support operations facility is a laudable attempt to tackle the endemic cycle of conflict in Africa which has hampered development for decades. There can be no development without peace, which many people including Kofi Annan have said. The peace facility is intended to provide funding to support African peacekeeping operations mandated by the African Union and endorsed by the United Nations. It will not contribute to military expenditure such as arms, ammunition or specific military equipment and salaries of troops. It will instead support non-military costs such as per diems, communications equipment, medical facilities, wear and tear of civilian equipment, transport and logistics. The initial €250 million for the peace facility will be taken from the long-term development envelope of the European Development Fund.
It is intended that the peace facility will not be a one-off operation but a more permanent mechanism. We would prefer if a separate budget line was created to fund it and only wish to see the EDF availed of as a short-term expedient as we believe the EDF should remain firmly focused on overseas development assistance as traditionally understood. We have some further budget information which I am happy to share with the members.
The question of the cotton sector and development in Africa was raised by four francophone west African cotton producing countries - Benin, Burkina Faso, Chad and Mali - at last September's WTO ministerial meeting in Cancún. These countries requested the WTO to take measures to address the depression in world markets for cotton on the assumption that it was caused largely by subsidies provided by developed countries, notably through elimination of domestic support and cotton export subsidies and the establishment of a transitional financial compensation mechanism. The world market price for cotton depends on the level of world production and consumption, the level of border protection, the level of production-linked subsidies in major cotton producing countries and the price of synthetic fibre. While all the above factors play a role, the significant decline in cotton prices in recent years has clearly been demand driven.
The share of cotton in world fibre consumption, in gradual decline since the 1960s, has dropped to just more than 40% of total fibre consumption, down from 65% in the 1960s. The production of cotton in the European Union is just a small fraction of total world cotton production at around 2%. EU domestic support for cotton does not have any significant impact on the trend in world prices. The Presidency has proposed draft Council conclusions which are broadly acceptable to Ireland. Current drafts invite the Commission and COREPER to examine the issue of the cotton situation in Africa under the following headings - continuation of work on the preparation of an adequate reply on cotton in the context of the Doha development agenda, consolidation of the competitiveness of the African cotton sector by taking into consideration the international challenges and elaboration of a framework which makes it possible to respond to the effects of price volatility and so on, using the arrangements of the EU cotton agreement.
I am happy to take questions from members on any of the above items.
I presume the Minister of State's speech is about to be circulated. We have agreed to take general affairs and external relations separately. The main meat of this agenda seems to be on external relations but we have some questions on general affairs.
In regard to preparations for the European Council on 12 and 13 December, does the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, anticipate that the meeting will conclude the Intergovernmental Conference?
That is the $64,000 question. There is a great deal of ongoing work in this regard but it is hard to say what the odds are in favour of a successful conclusion at that stage. We are hopeful and the odds are rather better than 50:50, which is where they were previously. The last assessment was that it was 50:50 but the odds in favour were declining. It is now better than 50:50 and the odds are improving. A lot of work has gone into identifying where the sticking points are. If there is the political will, a resolution could be reached but it is very hard to say at this stage.
As I have said to the Chairman, over the last two months governments have been continually reflecting and honing their own concerns. That process is over and now the different sides are being brought together. There are some bilateral meetings under way; I mentioned that Mr.Berlusconi and the Taoiseach are meeting this afternoon. We are also having many bilateral meetings ourselves - I have had two or three in the last week and several more are planned - to identify areas of commonality. The Irish are actively engaged in building alliances on issues of key concern to us and we have been very successful in this. It is hard to say but if there is the will, a solution can be reached.
There seems to be some indication from the Commission report that both accession states and other applicant states are falling behind in meeting the criteria. Is the message clearly being put across that a state may only join if it meets the criteria?
I read some of the press reports in the international English language media - not so much in the Irish media - suggesting that things were absolutely dire and that there had been a serious failure to achieve targets. More than 1,400 sectors were examined and serious concerns were indicated in only 39, less than3%. The will is there to ensure that any difficulties experienced by the ten states will be resolved by 1 May. The anxiety is universal; the enlargement must go ahead on 1 May. The Government's top priority is to make sure we ease the passage of the ten states and help them in any way possible. We perceive the strong wish of the people to welcome all ten on 1 May. The outstanding difficulties - in only 34 of 1,400 sectors - will be resolved.
We are discussing general affairs and will be moving on to external relations shortly.
I welcome the Ministers of State, Deputies Roche and Kitt, and their officials. I welcome the papers circulated which show that the transparency and open dialogue that was evident at the Convention might be continued at the Intergovernmental Conference. As members will be aware, I attended a consultative meeting with the constitutional affairs committee of the European Parliament last week at which the issue of the Union Foreign Minister was raised by a number of delegations. I am looking at paper CIG 45/03 in which there is reference to the independence of the foreign minister, the resignation of the Foreign Minister and the coherence between CFSP and external relations. Paragraph 3 contains the understatement of the ICG so far:
It is clear in addition that the subject of the Foreign Minister is closely linked to the composition of the Commission. Therefore it is not excluded that a further examination of the precise status of the Foreign Minister might be necessary.
It is clear, certainly among the parliamentarians I listened to in Brussels last week, that there is a divergence between those who are in favour of integration of the position of Foreign Minister. I note, by the way, that the position is referred to on page 2 of the document as foreign minister and in the heading of the memorandum as the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs. The pro-integrationists would say it must be foreign minister because it indicates the coherence in the new Union, whereas others who prefer a less integrationist approach would take a different view. Could the Minister of State indicate the Government's current thinking on the precise status of the Foreign Minister?
My second question is on the passerelles or bridging provisions mentioned in document CIG 46/03. Again, we are talking about how we might deal with revisions to the treaty, ratifications of its provisions and so on. Much thought has obviously been given by the Presidency to how the general bridging clauses might operate. What is the thinking of the Government on the operation of the passerelles? Is it close to what is contained in the final document of the convention or is it a more adventurous approach? I urge caution in this regard. Any revisions to this or future treaties should have to be subject to a convention followed by a referendum and so on.
I am not sure where my final question came up in the Minister's speech but it is item No. 6 in the papers we received: the presentation by the Commission of the legislative and work programme for 2004. It struck me from listening to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, and the Minister of State at previous meetings, that the Lisbon agenda and the forwarding of it is a key priority for the Irish Presidency. I do not see that it is accorded the same level of importance in the document I have in front of me. It may well be that the Lisbon agenda is a given as far as the Commission is concerned but is there the possibility of a conflict between the ambitions of the Irish Presidency for the Lisbon agenda and the ambitions of the Commission on other matters.
I thank the Ministers of State for being present with their officials. Could the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, update us on the overall progress of the Intergovernmental Conference? I am rather surprised to hear it is as advanced as he says it is and that we could have an agreement by the end of this Presidency. His speech referred to Part IV of the draft constitutional treaty. Does that suggest that all the outstanding items in Parts I, II and III have been resolved? I did not think so. He might give us a run-down on the points still at issue.
What are the preparations for the Irish Presidency? What role, if any, does the Minister of State envisage for this committee during the six months of the Presidency? Finally, on a general affairs matter related to international relations, I noted the reference in the Minister of State's speech to an association council with Israel. Could he indicate the attitude of the Government towards Israel, its illegal settlements and separation wall and the appalling policy of its current administration as distinct from the state of Israel?
Deputy Carey has touched on the role of the Foreign Minister. The Minister of State said the Government supports the appointment of the Union Foreign Minister with separate accountability to the Council for CFSP and to the Commission for other external areas. I would like the Minister of State's comment on this. How will this dual accountability work out for us? It seems that not all is well within the area when it comes to this post.
I look forward to the Minister of State's replies to the questions on the Intergovernmental Conference. My question concerns procedure in terms of resolutions, decisions and opinions adopted by the European Parliament at its sessions in Brussels. How is that dealt with at the meeting? Are these merely for noting? Are there any comments made by those attending the Council meeting? Is there a constitutional role for the Council on these issues?
I thank members for their questions. The primary subject for discussion is that of Foreign Minister. Our position is well established. We have welcomed the idea on the grounds that the proposed Union Foreign Minister would bring a great deal of coherence and visibility to the Union's external relations which have not always been present. At the same time, however, we have some anxieties in the area, the primary one being whether the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs should chair the external relations Council. We continue to take the view that the Council should be chaired by a member of the Council, in other words, by a member state. We are joined in that concern by a number of other states. The concept that somebody should be chairing the Council that should oversee his or her role is difficult to understand. We have no anxieties about the role other than these and we believe the existence of the Foreign Minister will be beneficial.
From the outset we have insisted on resolution of the issue of accountability to the Council and the Commission in the two specific areas mentioned. The issue of accountability is also important in terms of the effectiveness and efficiency with which the person appointed to the role will carry out his or her duties. Our concerns about this have not yet been resolved and it continues to be a matter for discussion. This point was raised by Senator Ormonde and Deputy Carey.
The second point raised by Deputy Carey is that of the passerelles, or bridging provisions, and particularly whether they will be an appropriate way of dealing with constitutional change into the future. Our view has always been that this would not be an appropriate way, although there have been some suggestions that it might. We are anxious to ensure we continue to make our point on this matter. Deputy Carey also raised the question of the programme of work and legislative programme of the Commission and whether it dovetails with our Presidency objectives and priorities. It is an interesting question because the legislative programme should dovetail with our priorities. To be fair, it does in general. The key issues that will be of concern to us are also dealt with in the legislative programme. I do not envisage any problems in this regard.
Deputy Quinn raised the issue of the general position of the Intergovernmental Conference. It is hard to say precisely what this is. Certainly it was not my intention, as the Deputy knows, to imply that because discussions have taken place on Parts I, II and III of the draft constitutional treaty there is agreement. There is not. As the Deputy has more experience in this area than I have, he will also know that the general tendency in all negotiations, particularly on issues of this significance, is that nothing will be agreed until the last minute, when everything will be agreed together. There is a practical reason for that: it would be very wrong of a Presidency - or anybody - to attempt to reach agreement on items of concern to them while leaving everything else till the end. In an organisation such as the Intergovernmental Conference, agreements, of their nature, will be of broad scale, there will be compromises and positions will have to be recognised by people who have concerns on different sides. There is no agreement on any element yet but I am glad the Deputy asked that question.
The Deputy mentioned my 50:50 rising, as opposed to declining, odds for the work being finished soon. There are a number of reasons for saying this. There is a degree of wariness about the amount of work that has gone into this process. I do not see that anybody wants to continue the process for too much longer. There is also a timetable requirement - things must be more or less done and dusted by early April, as the MEPs present will know, because there are issues with the end of life of the Commission and the election of a new European Parliament. All of those issues determine the timetable. The other matter is the political realities on the ground in a number of states. There are a number of general elections coming up next year, starting in the spring - for example, there will be one in Spain in the middle of March. All of these determine that there is a degree of pressure building up for agreement. That should not be a reason for people to abandon their positions and run to agreement but it suggests that there will be more political will to come together on the outstanding issues.
There are significant issues outstanding. Ireland's position is crystal clear, for example, on taxation. It is interesting that the concerns we have mentioned from the very beginning on the justice and home affairs areas are still outstanding, not just for us but for an increasing number of people. People are beginning to become aware that the JHA area in the constitutional treaty is of very great significance. We were regarded by some people as somewhat negative when we pointed this out but bringing together the legal traditions, particularly in terms of criminal issues, is a very big matter and there is a growing realisation of this. However, the problems there can be resolved and we have put forward some ideas.
On another matter we are absolutely adamant, as is Deputy Quinn; in fact, I know we share a view on this. The balance must be right, particularly on the side of the institutions. We are not over-emphasising anything nor are we over-ambitious. We have always taken a position that the Nice treaty was an agreement which was negotiated and endorsed by the Irish people and we can live with it. If there are improvements on offer we will consider them and, provided they are real improvements, we will endorse them. However, for all the reasons I have outlined, there is a lot of pressure building up in the system to make sure the Intergovernmental Conference finishes as soon as it can. Deputy Quinn, who has held my office previously, knows well it is important that we know at the earliest possible date whether it will go on into our Presidency because many contingency arrangements would have to be made. There is a will to move the process on. I am not sure whether the will is there to resolve all the outstanding issues yet but it will appear this side of Christmas.
Deputy Quinn asked about the association with Israel, which is very important. He knows our position which is that the Quartet road map needs to be given breathing space. Both sides must try to make it work. It is the only solution on offer. With regard to the dialogue in the association council with Israel, the Deputy is aware that the Minister for Foreign Affairs visited the region and met the President of the Palestinian Authority, Mr. Arafat. There was an unwillingness on the Israeli side to meet with us at that time. We are now using the opportunity to pick up the pieces. In general, we want to give as strong a pointer as possible to both sides that they must work within the peace process. The Deputy outlined the actions on the Israeli side which are impediments and I agree with him.
We have not yet moved on to external relations which will be the meat of the meeting.
During the Presidency we will brief the committee on a regular basis. I am open to any exploration of other issues and I have mentioned one or two I have in mind. I have in mind an initiative to engage the people in the whole process of Europe - in other words, to reopen communications with the people of Europe. Every member here would agree that there is a gulf and it must be bridged. We learned a hard lesson with the first Nice referendum and other European states are now awakening to the reality. I would be delighted to hear any proposals or suggestions of committee members. The Chairman mentioned COSAC and how it can be brought more closely into the picture. If he has some ideas in that regard I will do everything I can to advance them.
We will move on to the external relations part of the agenda. The Minister said the US Secretary of State, Mr. Colin Powell, would be attending a working lunch on 18 November. I note that the WTO authorised the European Union on 7 May to impose up to $4 billion worth of trade countermeasures on the United States and that the European Commission has proposed tariff sanctions of 5%, starting in March 2004 and rising to 17% in March 2005, on a number of US imports such as citrus fruits and textile products. Will this be on the agenda for the discussions over lunch with the Secretary of State?
There is no detailed agenda for that meeting but I doubt that the discussions will go into that sort of detail. This is purely speculation but the discussions will probably focus more on the general issue of EU-US relations. The Commission leads the general negotiations in the areas the Deputy mentioned - the question of additional customs duties on imports from the USA. If the WTO obligations are not met in this regard, regulations will see the 5% duty imposed from 1 March next year and that will be raised by 1% each month until it reaches 17% in March 2005, presumably close to St. Patrick's Day. If this point is reached the Commission will then present a proposal to the Council for further action vis-à-vis the United States. I hope this will not happen. The USA is working on compliance with the WTO ruling and there are currently two versions of Bills to address the problem before Congress. One of these proposals is to keep the FSC for three more years, which the Commission considers unacceptable. The Commission believes the European Union must follow through on its regulations in order to convince the United States that it is serious about this issue and that it must comply.
Does the Minister of State envisage the Secretary of State asking the European Union to take on greater responsibilities in Iraq?
I am not in a position to speculate about what Mr. Powell will ask. I do not have any indications one way or the other.
The Minister of State mentioned that the Council will be discussing again the current security and political situation in Iraq. European involvement at any level is now less likely than ever. As we all realise, the trouble in Iraq is that some people recognise not only the Red Cross but also the United Nations as targets because the United Nations is clearly identified as one of those bodies that caused and supported the trade embargo that was in place for many years before the war. Will this come up for discussion? Is there any way Europe could become involved other than through those people who are involved in the war itself?
The Council will discuss what is happening in Iraq, but it will not be at that level of commitment. There are divergent views within Europe on how the Iraq issue can be dealt with. Our focus, however, will be on UN Security Council Resolution 1511 and the Madrid donors conference. The resolution was unanimously passed by the United Nations and provides among other things for a UN authorised multinational force reporting requirements to the United Nations and the drafting of a timetable and programme for a new constitution and elections, with a deadline of 15 December. However, as Kofi Annan has pointed out in recent times, the United Nations will be engaged only when circumstances permit and we are clearly a long way from that point.
The Senator has identified what is going on in Iraq. I have already been highly critical of the attacks on civilian targets and on UN and Red Cross personnel, whose only interest in Iraq is to improve the position of the Iraqi people. The murder of international personnel who are there with a view to creating peace and creating a better system for the Iraqi people is to be abhorred. There is not much more to say about it but Iraq will be on the agenda for the foreseeable future.
Mr. Joe McCartin, MEP
I am happy to have this opportunity to exchange views with the Minister of State. Recent opinion polls in Europe indicated that a large percentage of the population of Europe were seriously concerned about the policies of the state of Israel and its excessive use of force in certain instances. Since then I have seen the President of the European Council, Mr. Berlusconi, seeking to placate the Israeli Government and convince it that the people of Europe are not as concerned as they appear. Mr. Prodi seems to have followed that with some sort of half apology on behalf of that 60% of the European population who expressed concern. It is the business of both the Council and the Commission to reflect the views of the European people in their dealings with the state of Israel. The Parliament expressed its concern in a very strong way a long time ago. I do not think the European Council has matched the resolve or decisiveness of the Parliament in setting down for the Palestinians and the Israelis what we regard as the limit of force that is permissible and the limit of the denial of human rights and aggression that is permissible in all circumstances.
I have a question for the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt. I see from the note provided that there has been some progress in recent bilateral meetings with the African Union representatives about Zimbabwe. As we embark upon the Presidency, what is the view of the Irish Government on what the European Union can do to bring about peaceful change in Zimbabwe? The political instability in the area has been hugely compounded by poverty and the collapse of the economy and the agricultural industry. Does the Minister of State foresee the retention of the ineffective and low level sanctions in place? Does he believe the European Union can play a useful role in putting pressure on Zimbabwe and some of its neighbours to bring about peaceful change? Does he see the Presidency giving priority to the issue of Zimbabwe over the next six months?
I also have a question for the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt. In the report on the annual EU budget the difference between what is committed and what is spent is substantial. I understand there may be administrative reasons for this but it also seems that no matter what resources are available to the Council or the Commission, they are never able to spend them despite the great demand. This is one of the issues we raised in the context of the Begg report. Perhaps the Minister of State would say something about the figures available for the assistance committed, what has been spent and the reason for the difference. Could the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, finish please on the question on the Middle East and then the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, can take the other question?
I will deal with the question about Israel but I want to refer briefly again to the question raised about importing certain products originating in the United States. I intended to say it is very important to put this issue in perspective. The disputes are high profile and they are receiving a great deal of publicity but in reality they touch on only an infinitesimal portion of EU-US trade. It is clear that the United States and Europe have their own views on the matter and each will vigorously defend its position, which is understandable.
Mr. McCartin asked a very significant question about Israel and its relationship with the European Union. The purpose of next week's meeting is for the European Union to make several strong points to Israel which touch on the issues raised in the question. For example, the Israeli Government refuses to receive the EU special representative for the Middle East process, Ambassador Otte, due to his meeting with President Arafat on 2 October. I mentioned that our Minister is in a somewhat similar position. This is simply not acceptable and it is not conducive to a dialogue which Israel and Europe wish to have. One cannot have dialogue in that way. We want to send out a clear message on this. Israel's continued refusal will have consequences for other contacts and will be costly if it continues to operate in that way. Everybody in the House would agree that is the right course. One cannot have a dialogue in which one party determines the rules for other parties.
The European Union will reiterate its position on terrorism and extra judicial killings on both sides. It will call for parties to live up to the commitments given at Aqaba and for an end to settlement expansion and to the construction of separation walls. Ministers are expected to emphasise their national support for these propositions and positions in the informal sessions. That is the Irish position.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs will also have a bilateral meeting on the margins with the Israeli Foreign Minister, Mr. Shalom, on the morning of 18 November. The Minister will discuss our forthcoming Presidency and our continued interest in the Middle East process which we discussed at length at a previous meeting here. We are anxious to use our Presidency to move forward work on the road map to peace, and the quartet of supervisory states. We can contribute something to the long overdue settlement of this historic and painful dispute. The Minister will emphasise our concerns about Israeli policies, raised in this committee and in discussions in the Dáil and Seanad.
During the Presidency our concern will be to work with all sides. If we continue to allow ourselves to be tied down by history, we are not going to make progress. It is possible to make progress and the people in Israel and the Palestinian people deserve the sort of peace and tranquillity the rest of the world takes virtually for granted. Our efforts will be unstinting in that regard. The Minister lays particular emphasis on this and has put some energy into it. I know that this committee will support him.
The budget comes under my reference to the annual report which highlights that progress has been made. The Chairman and others mentioned the EU budget. I assure the committee that I will make this a priority during our Presidency. There are issues, as the committee will see from the report, that with regard to the recipient countries and issues of poor governance there are faults on both sides. My earlier statement shows that the annual report indicates that progress is being made. I assure the committee we will make this a priority during the Presidency.
As Minister of State with responsibility for development and representing Ireland in Africa, I have raised the issue of Zimbabwe because of our own history and our knowledge and experience of this area. I was asked to lead a debate in Maputo at an EU-Africa meeting some time ago because Ireland would have an understandable position and would be seen as a neutral player in this area. We have been raising Zimbabwe as best we can. My concern is the effect on the lives of innocent people.
To respond to Senator McDowell, through NGOs we have kept the focus on helping those who are suffering. I maintain regular contact with many of our NGOs on this issue. The Department gave €2 million to five Development Co-operation Ireland projects in Zimbabwe this year. We will continue to do this.
Is that emergency relief?
It is humanitarian relief for basic food distribution and assistance on the ground. It is a most difficult situation because this is one of the conflicts on the issue of governance in which we are morally obliged to assist those who are suffering. We will continue to use our influence at EU level in EU-Africa dialogue and the African Union. We repeatedly make the point that under peer review the African Union must try and bring influence to bear but various African leaders have told me that many are inclined to stay detached from this real crisis which is the one outstanding conflict on the continent. We will continue to do our utmost and should use our Presidency to make progress because Ireland has a respected position as a country without any agendas and can be seen as a neutral player on such an issue.
I explained at the beginning of the meeting that I will have to go into the House at the end of the Order of Business. There are two speakers offering, Ms Banotti, MEP, and Mr. McCartin, MEP. The Vice-Chairman, Deputy Haughey, will now take the Chair.
Deputy Haughey took the Chair.
Ms Mary Banotti, MEP
In the European Parliament when it comes to the increasingly distressing discussions about the situation in Israel, the question of trade sanctions is regularly raised in the context of exports from Israel which clearly originate in the settlements against the trade agreement with Israel. Could this become one of the points in the Minister of State's artillery for his discussions there? The Israeli people have suffered a great deal as well as the Palestinians but every time there is a problem in Israel the borders are closed. I have been in the Gaza Strip during one of those times and seen piles of strawberries rotting on the streets, and donkeys eating carnations destined for the European market because they cannot be exported when the borders are closed. When it comes to a trade issue, there is no real equality between the exports from the Palestinian territories and Israel. The Israelis were extremely worried about discussions on this level almost 18 or 19 years ago when I first became familiar with the issue. I hope the Department's services might look at this and raise it again in the context of those discussions.
At the outset Ms Banotti touched on the sufferings of the Israeli people and we have to appreciate that there are two populations and both are suffering. We also have to be conscious of the history that has produced the state of Israel and its state of mind. The sanctions are mentioned from time to time but we do not consider that there is any possibility of suspending the Euro-Mediterranean agreement which covers Israel. We would need consensus within the Union to take such a step.
The point being made about difficulties the Palestinian people have in exporting out of the system is significant. The argument being made is that such action would not serve any useful purpose but could be counterproductive and have undesirable consequences in terms of its impact on the state of mind. There might be other consequences too. For example, in so far as Israel is concerned, it would diminish the capacity of the European Union to play a role in furthering the peace process. It would also have an unintended consequence on Palestinian trade precisely for the reason mentioned, that is, the difficulty they have in getting their produce out. It would also have a negative impact on the assistance which the European Union is trying to give to the Palestinian authorities. Even selective trade embargoes would be a two-edged sword. The potential downside consequences are probably greater than any direct impact they would have.
Mr. McCartin, MEP
The Structural Funds have become a large element of the European budget, consisting of more than 35% of the funds. The funds are spent within a regulation which is always agreed by the Council of Ministers. The Parliament does not have a say. Under the Nice treaty the Parliament will not have a say in the passing of the next regulation. After that it will be a matter for co-decision making. In any case, for the moment, we are stuck with a regulation which had to be agreed unanimously by the Council of Ministers and, because of that, it contained everybody's good idea. For example, the Spanish wanted a Cohesion Fund. It is not so economically important but they make it out to be politically important. The result is action in favour of women, the handicapped, inner cities and outer cities. There are thousands of issues. The result is that, because there are so many rules, the Commission cannot spend the money.
The Parliament has introduced a rule that the money must be returned after two years if it is not spent. The historical impact of that was that, in the early years of the Regional Fund, the conditions under which it was spent were written and the best applicants and the best spenders received the money. Ireland was one of the best. Therefore, when the Italians or the Greeks left this money behind, Ireland gained more. This continued until 1992 when we went to Edinburgh and it was discovered that we were already in receipt a huge share. Other countries, on seeing the figures, decided that this could not continue. Now we have a more or less fixed share of money which we will receive until the end of the programme in 2006.
The money is not wasted but goes back to the member states. However, I would like to see, as one of the foundation stones of both the enlarged and the existing Europe, a much more simple regional policy, such as existed in the past. In respect of countries that are fit to join the single European currency and compete in the Single Market, we should not have to send somebody from the Commission to police every shilling they spend. The money should be given to them within the framework of good economic planning. Ireland, which will be more an observer than a recipient regarding Structural Funds in future, should try to ensure more sensible regulation on the spending of regional money.
That is an interesting point. It is not an issue that will arise at the General Affairs and External Relations Council next week. Mr. McCartin is right because, under the preceding arrangements, it was always best dressed, first in, best served. Ireland was very good at that. It is interesting that, as one goes through all the new countries, Ireland's is the model they want to adopt because they are concerned about their absorption capacity and so on. We have supported the current arrangements. Regional policy will be considered in the context of the upcoming financial perspectives from 2007 to 2013. That issue may raise its head before the end of this year. It will probably be an issue for discussion certainly during the first half of next year. The chalice of the final arrangements will not be at our lips but will pass on.
Mr. McCartin has touched on the important issue of the new European position. There is something perverse about money in the accounts having to be returned. Generally, we support the current arrangements. Regional policy issues will be part of the financial perspectives at discussions and those are the perspectives for the six years from 2007 onwards.
Acting Chairman
There are no further questions on the external relations section. Let me bring the Minister back to the issue of general affairs. How were the resolutions, decisions and opinions adopted by the European Parliament at its series of sessions in Brussels on various dates in October dealt with?
They were noted only. I meant to say that, but the Chairman at the time moved me on.
I wish to make a small follow-up point to a specific point made by Ms Banotti, MEP, about Palestinian trade difficulties. It is a serious issue and I barely touched on it. It is only in part a problem of closures. There are wider issues. We have made it clear to the Israeli Government that its actions in this area are a matter of specific concern, and I have been briefed by the representative of the Palestinian people on that. It is an important matter because, as Ms Banotti rightly said, they have limited capacity, and anything that damages their capacity has a huge impact and certainly does not help the process of peace and reconciliation.
As someone who has consistently supported the Israeli position, the Zionist position, if one likes, I want to register my sense of dismay at the current behaviour of the Sharon-Israeli Government. It is a complex issue. However, will the Minister of State, during the course of the Irish Presidency, reflect the kind of concern that Mr. McCartin expressed, which is quite a shift in European attitudes? Given the Europeans' contribution to the Holocaust, there was much guilt associated with participation in anti-Semitism throughout Europe, including in this country in the context of our behaviour in the 1930s. However, that has shifted dramatically in recent years with the apartheid-bantustan creations now being imposed in Palestine. Europeans are the only ones effectively contributing to the Palestinian economy.
Given current behaviour, the Minister of State's understandably diplomatic response may need to be reviewed. Europe has used economic sanctions against other countries. It was able to use economic sanctions against South Africa because it was in breach of International Labour Organisation provisions. It is possible that, even within the Euro-Mediterranean agreement on trade, there are breaches of current civic procedure by Israel that would invoke specific sanctions of a certain kind. I ask the Minister of State not to respond now but to explore that idea because, if Palestine is made even more destitute, the control by anybody, whether it is President Arafat or his successor, of that country will be diminished.
I do not disagree. My point is that it is important not to become involved in Israel bashing. I do not think that is what the Deputy suggests.
I am suggesting that we exert more pressure than we have done to date.
Ireland's position has been put clearly and will again be put clearly and unequivocally to the Israeli administration next week in the bilateral meeting. The Minister has been quite forceful on this issue but there is a balance. We are all aware of people painting themselves into culs-de-sac and we do not want to contribute to that. There is an historic context that we all understand. Members rightly make the point that Europe has some significant moral responsibilities for producing a horror that has informed a state of mind. I have made the point several times that I find it sad that the Israeli people are effectively portrayed as not understanding the difficulties of another people in this regard. I have a huge sympathy for and a personal interest in the Holocaust. In proposing a Holocaust commemoration here, I would never wish to be seen to be bashing the Israeli people. I understand fully where they are coming from. Equally, I understand the point members are making that Europe must be forceful and make it clear that we will not achieve progress if horror is continually inflected by one side on the other, irrespective of where it comes from. What will resolve a difficult situation and prevent an horrific situation from getting worse is dialogue and one can only have dialogue if people sit down together. The best service we can do to the Israeli and Palestinian peoples is to encourage that as opposed to forcing them into culs-de-sac.
Acting Chairman
I thank the Ministers of State, Deputies Roche and Kitt, and their officials for attending the joint committee.
On the issue of translation facilities, I have a note from the Clerk which I shall read into the record. The Clerk raised the issue of interpretation with the Superintendent who has advised that there are existing translation booths in Kildare House. These booths are connected to committee room 4 and use a video link rather than direct line of sight by the interpreter. The system is used quite successfully by Rannóg an Aistriúcháin. However, foreign language interpreters usually insist on proximity and line of sight. The possibility of converting the waiting room and giving a view into the committee rooms is being examined. It would require major building works and the location of the room still might not provide a line of sight. It might, however, be feasible to convert one of these rooms to the same system as we have in Kildare House, that is, a soundproof booth with an interpreter using the video link rather a direct line of sight. This possibility is being explored also. That is a progress report if members can understand it.
As one of those who raised the matter, it is some progress. If we do not have a line of sight, it is not the end of the world. I have seen translation services provided while having no idea where the interpreters were located. What we need as a courtesy to visiting delegations is to have interpretation facilities available. We have had three or four significant delegations here in the past month. It is embarrassing that we are not able to conduct our business efficiently and courteously with them.
Acting Chairman
We will pursue the matter further.
The joint committee adjourned at 12.34 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 18 November 2003.