The Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Roche, will brief us in advance of his attendance at the General Affairs and External Relations Council meeting scheduled for 23 and 24 February. I thank the Minister of State for his presence as he will also address the Conference of Chairpersons of COSAC tomorrow, which I will host on behalf of the committee at Dublin Castle.
General Affairs and External Relations Council: Ministerial Presentation.
: Chairman, members of the committee, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to appear before the committee again to review the agenda of the forthcoming General Affairs and External Relations Council, the second of the Irish Presidency. The Council meets in Brussels on 23 February, with meetings on the margins of the Council due to be held on 23 and 24 February. The Council will be chaired by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen.
The Council will meet in two sessions, the first dealing with the general affairs agenda and the second with the external relations agenda. I will first deal with the general affairs issues and then turn to the external relations issues. I also propose to say a few words on the meetings due to be held in the margins of the Council. As usual, I am happy to take any questions on the various issues due for discussion at the Council, or any other related issue.
A number of key issues are on the general affairs agenda. There is the preparation for the spring European Council, which will be held on 25 and 26 March. The discussion will focus on the annotated agenda. The Council will have a preliminary discussion on the first draft of the annotated agenda, outlining the issues for discussion by the heads of state at the spring European Council. The Presidency intends to limit the agenda to the following four items: the Lisbon strategy; report from the Presidency on the IGC; international issues and any other business.
Concerning the Lisbon strategy, we have indicated to partners that our aim is to focus on a limited number of issues so that we can make progress. We have identified two key areas which were discussed by this committee, the issue of European growth and jobs. Our first priority is that of sustainable growth, which also includes action to promote competitiveness, innovation and greater respect for the environment through greater support for environmental technologies. Our second priority will be to deliver more and better sustainable jobs. Heads of State or Government will consider how we can increase the adaptability of companies and workers, improve labour force participation and invest more effectively in education and training. A copy of the letter which the Taoiseach issued yesterday to his colleagues has been sent this morning to the Chairman and members of this committee for information.
The second item under the heading of general affairs is that of financial perspectives. The president of the Commission, Mr. Prodi, will make a presentation to the Council on the Commission's communication concerning the future financial perspectives of EU, published on 10 February. Member states will have an opportunity to provide their initial reactions on the policy orientations and recommendations contained in the Commission's communication.
The negotiations ahead will be of fundamental importance for the development of the enlarged Union into the next decade. What is at issue is much more than the financial framework for the Union, it is also the policies and priorities which can best address the aspirations of Europe's citizens. Although the negotiations will run through until 2005, the Irish Presidency will begin discussions and give priority to advancing the dossier as effectively as possible. Our aim, as holders of the Presidency, will be to initiate and to progress discussions and, in co-operation with succeeding Presidencies, to map out how best to process the dossier and lay a solid foundation for our successors. We hope, in this regard, that the spring European Council might be able to agree on the calendar and processes for negotiations. The Commission communication on the financial perspectives has been circulated to members of the committee today.
The second session is on external relations and a number of key issues exist. There is the question of EU-Russia relations. In December 2003, the European Council invited the Council and the Commission to prepare an assessment report on the European Union's relationship with Russia. The Council also asked for proposals on how the EU can strengthen the strategic partnership with Russia and also strengthen respect for the values on which the European Union is based. Work on this assessment has been ongoing over the last two months, and at the Council, Ministers will complete the process by looking at ways to take the EU-Russia relationship further in a reciprocal and productive way. It is likely that the Council will also reiterate the importance which it attaches to the extension of the partnership and co-operation agreement, PCA, between Russia and the EU to cover the new member states by the time they join the EU on 1 May. The Chairman is aware this has been an issue of some contention. The Irish Presidency is very clear that it will extend this to all of the new members as and from 1 May.
On Iran, the EU is very concerned with the decision of the Iranian Council of Guardians to disqualify a large number of election candidates. We are disappointed that the appeals process did not rectify the situation and are concerned as to the likely effect on the perception of the legitimacy of the election process in Iran. The EU has for many years been pursuing a policy of engagement with Iran. This policy includes both frankness and respect for certain public policies and governance issues and, at the same time, encouragement for genuinely reformist tendencies. The human rights situation in Iran continues to be of serious concern for the EU. We would wish to see the EU-Iran human rights dialogue carried forward and achieving real progress. Unfortunately, the dialogue is currently stalled. We are currently considering our approach to the question of a possible resolution in the forthcoming session of the Commission of Human Rights in Geneva. This question will be discussed at the Council.
The European Union looks forward to the continuation of negotiations on the trade and co-operation agreement between the EU and Iran when the necessary conditions have been met. It is also the intention to continue the negotiations of parallel political agreements. As holders of the Presidency, we will continue to emphasise that the EU expects Iran to continue to co-operate fully with the IAEA and to provide the necessary transparency and openness to resolve all outstanding concerns about its nuclear programme. We will closely monitor developments in the IAEA in this connection.
The question of Iran's nuclear programme will be discussed at the upcoming Council meeting, as member states look forward to the meeting of the IAEA board of governors, which is due to take place on 8 March. The report of the director general of the agency has not yet been made available to member states of the agency but is expected shortly. If the report is issued prior to the meeting of the Council on 23 February, then Ministers will have the opportunity to have a preliminary exchange of views on its contents. There is some press speculation that some elements of that report will be available over the weekend but we are not in a position to say whether that is the case.
On the Middle East peace process, it is intended that the Council will have a wide-ranging discussion over lunch on the situation in the Middle East. The focus of the discussion will be to identify ways in which the European Union can advance the peace process. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, as president of the Council, will brief partners on the visit of the Palestinian Prime Minister to Dublin on 9 February. He will also brief on his contacts with other members of the Quartet, after the Palestinian visit. Other Ministers and the High Representative, Mr. Javier Solana, will also brief on their recent high level contacts in the region.
While the situation on the ground remains very grave, there have been some developments including the proposals of the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr. Sharon, for withdrawal from Gaza and the announced visit of a high level US delegation to Israel, which commences today. A further meeting to prepare for a meeting between the Israeli Prime Minister and Palestinian Prime Minister will take place this week and we expect the two Prime Ministers may meet later this month.
There are also ongoing contacts within the Arab world in preparation for the Arab League summit next month. Ministers will analyse these developments and assess the ways in which the European Union can assist the peace process through continued contact in the region and with the other international actors.
As members of the committee will be aware, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, in dealing with the ministerial Troika to India, Afghanistan and Pakistan is visiting the region. He was in Delhi on Monday last, in Kabul yesterday and is in Islamabad today. The Minister will report to the Council on the outcome of the EU Troika he is currently leading in India, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The political situation in Serbia and Montenegro remains fluid, in the context of continuing political instability in Serbia. Negotiations on the formation of a government in Serbia are continuing and the Council will review the situation in the light of developments, including developments over the next weekend.
High Representative Solana will present a report on ways and means of further enhancing the European Union contribution to the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1244 - the resolution which enables the UN administration of Kosovo. This report, which has been prepared at the request of the November Council, has been drafted in consultation with the Commission and with the UN mission in Kosovo. Ministers are likely to reiterate their full support for the work of the UN Special Representative in Kosovo, Mr. Harri Holkeri, and to invite the Council's competent bodies to examine High Representative Solana's proposals with a view to early decisions.
Also under the Western Balkans agenda item, High Representative Solana is expected to present proposals for an EU operation in follow-on to the current UN authorised NATO-led SFOR mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The planning of this operation in ongoing at an accelerated pace.
Last December's European Council confirmed the European Union's readiness to undertake such an operation and initial preparations are proceeding under the Irish Presidency. The EU force, to be deployed towards the end of 2004 or in early 2005, is expected to comprise both military and civilian components and to receive its mandate from a Chapter VII UN Security Council Resolution. Building on the achievements of the SFOR operation, the EU force will seek to provide a safe and secure environment in Bosnia-Herzegovina and will co-ordinate closely with other efforts of the international community in the region.
The EU enlargement on 1 May 2004 will create a number of new neighbours for the European Union. The 'European Neighbourhood Policy' is designed to strengthen the framework of the EU's relationship with these neighbours. The European Council meeting in Brussels in October last welcomed progress made on the policy known as the "Wider Europe Initiative". It urged the Council and the Commission to take forward work in implementing this initiative with a view to ensuring a comprehensive, balanced and proportionate approach, including a financial instrument, responding to the needs to promote cross-border and regional/trans-national co-operation on the external borders of the enlarged Union.
At the Council meeting next week, Ministers will consider developments in the initiative since that time. Commissioner Verheugen is expected to give us an update on the current schedule of work, including progress in negotiations on the creation of an action plan under the initiative. These negotiations are currently under way between the Commission and a number of the new neighbours, including Ukraine and Moldova in the east and the Euromed partners in the south, with which the EU has ratified an Association Agreement.
Ireland strongly supports the European neighbourhood policy and we will follow ongoing discussions closely. As we hold the Presidency, we are particularly conscious that accession of new members states will take place on 1 May 2004 and for this reason it is vitally important that progress should be made as quickly as possible. The eventual timetable for the delivery of the first batch of action plans will, of course, depend on how expeditiously the Commission can proceed with the negotiations in each case. I assure members of the committee, however, that the Irish Presidency will be working closely with the Commission to try to ensure that a number of actions plans will be delivered during our Presidency.
The European Union Common Position on Zimbabwe expires on 20 February 2004. The current common position expresses concern at the political and human rights situation in Zimbabwe and imposes sanctions, including asset freeze, travel ban, and arms embargo on individual government and ZANU-PF members in Zimbabwe. The situation in Zimbabwe continues to deteriorate. Facing this reality, EU partners have agreed to a renewal of the common position and an extension of the list of those under sanction. It is proposed that this will be adopted at the Justice and Home Affairs Ministers meeting on 19 February as an 'A' item and that the Council will adopt conclusions on 23 February.
As the committee is aware, a number of meetings have been arranged in the margins of the Council, which is a commonplace occurrence. One such meeting is the OSCE ministerial Troika. This meeting happens during each Presidency to discuss, at ministerial level, EU-OSCE co-operation in areas of common interest. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, will represent the EU Presidency and the other Troika members will be the Foreign Minister of the Netherlands and representatives of the Commission and the High Representative. The OSCE Troika will comprise the Bulgarian Foreign Minister, as current chairman-in-office, the Slovakian Foreign Minister as incoming chair-in-office and the Dutch as the previous chairman. The Secretary General of the OSCE will also attend. I should inform members that I met with the OSCE to brief them on the Presidency programme since I last met the committee. The agenda is not yet finalised but is likely to include discussions on Moldova, Belarus, Georgia and the western Balkans.
The Minister, Deputy Cowen, will chair a ministerial Troika meeting with Croatia on 23 February. Items for discussion will include EU-Croatia relations, the situation in the western Balkans region and a review of international issues, including the Middle East, Iraq and the European security strategy.
The third meeting of the EU-Lebanon Co-operation Council will take place on 24 February. The Co-operation Council provides the opportunity for a review of the EU-Lebanon political and economic relations as well as international issues of mutual concern. As a partner in the Barcelona process, Lebanon has signed an association agreement with the EU. Pending ratification of the agreement by all member states - Ireland has ratified the agreement - an interim agreement is in force and we will review its implementation at the Co-operation Council.
The sixth EU-Moldova Co-operation Council will also take place on 24 February. The EU will be represented by the Troika and I will chair the Council. Prime Minister Tarlev will head the Moldovan delegation. A wide variety of issues will be discussed, including EU enlargement and the Lisbon strategy, as well as international issues.
As I mentioned at the outset, I am very anxious to take questions from members of the committee on any of the agenda items which are due for discussion and I thank the committee for its attention.
I am very impressed by the amount of work the Minister for Foreign Affairs is doing abroad. I am tempted to suggest that there be a headline "Cowen to visit Ireland". We wish him well in his work.
I wish to raise two issues on the general affairs section of the brief. The Germans, French and British will meet to prepare a joint position, which I understand a number of other Ministers will be attending, in preparation for the spring European Council meeting. Is this an attempt to have an informal Directoire - an attempt to pre-empt the work of the Presidency? Will this be raised at the General Affairs and External Relations Council meeting next week? What view does the Irish Presidency take of this meeting? It is an alarming development when one looks at what happened in the past between Germany and France with joint Cabinet meetings, with one Head of State and another Head of Government and now the British joining in. This is a development which gives rise to concern in the small and medium sized states. Will the Minister of State address those concerns? What progress has been made in regard to the Intergovernmental Conference? Have the remaining issues been advanced and is it likely to conclude during the Irish Presidency?
Regarding the general affairs side, are the Government and the Presidency in a position to make an authoritative report in regard to the second item on the four item agenda? If so, can the Minister indicate, in the context of the main participants - France, Germany, Poland and Spain - having signalled a difficulty with regard to the double majority issue, whether the Taoiseach will be in a position to report progress to that Council?
My second question is in regard to the financial perspective. Can the Minister confirm there is substance to newspaper reports to the effect that the six net contributing countries are attempting to reduce the overall scale and size of the budget from 1.27% to 1%? If so, what will be the response of the Presidency, given that Ireland must kick off this process? It is clear that it will go in through 2005.
One of my questions regarding the financial perspectives has been addressed by Deputy Quinn and the other is in regard to the IGC. Given that, at your instigation, Chairman, the committee is carrying out a study on the Lisbon Agenda issues, is the Minister of State confident that our partners will go along with the very focused approached which, rightly, the Irish Presidency is adopting towards the Lisbon Agenda? Bearing in mind the input from expert witnesses to the committee last week, I have little confidence that, at the present rate of progress, we will go anywhere near the implementation of many of the goals on that agenda.
In regard to the enlargement heading, some newspapers reported recently that the Taoiseach had been in touch with both sides regarding the Cyprus issue. We all hope that issue can be resolved fully to the satisfaction of both parties by 1 May in order that Cyprus can join the European Union as a united country. Have the Minister of State or the Taoiseach had any input into this process? Will there be an update in this regard at the forthcoming meeting?
Regarding the Chairman's point on today's meeting of the three large countries, Germany, Britain and France, has the agenda for that meeting been notified to the Irish Presidency and will Ireland receive minutes of what transpires at it? I presume these countries would only undertake their business in an open and transparent manner. I note that one of the issues flagged for discussion is that of a super-competition commissar or Commissioner. Was this also discussed during the Convention on the new treaty?
Has Ireland, as a small nation, reason to fear today's Berlin meeting? In regard to the proposed new draft constitution for Europe, does the Minister take the view that the longer this process drags on, the less chance there is of agreement? Should we strive at least to make substantial progress during the course of our Presidency? I would welcome the Minister's views on this.
The Minister said that growth and jobs were our two priorities in regard to the Lisbon strategy. Regarding growth, the Minister stated that we need "action to promote competitiveness, innovation and greater respect for the environment through greater support for environmental technologies". In regard to jobs, he spoke about how we can increase the adaptability of companies and workers, improve labour force participation, and so on. We are beginning to explore this strategy at other meetings of the committee. Are we considering specifics with regard to these issues, some of which will definitely involve pain for some in this country - for example, the suggestion of increasing the adaptability of companies and workers, and so forth? Are we considering specific measures which we need to take to advance the Lisbon strategy? Could the Minister provide examples of obvious areas which need to be tackled by the Irish Government in order to come into line with this strategy?
New opinion poll data in regard to the draft constitution published in today's edition of The Irish Times indicates that 80% of Irish people support the idea of such a constitution, which is very encouraging. If the message can be got across to the Irish people that this is a consolidating treaty to simplify all previous treaties and which only involves areas in which the EU has competence, we should have little difficulty selling it in a referendum. Does the Minister of State have a view or any background information on this poll?
I wish to raise the matter of the EU rebate, which has lightened our load to the tune of €100 million in this financial year. Given that the process of enlargement is under way, I want to know whether this item was discussed among the Ministers and how the new countries are expected to contribute to this fund. Does the Minister accept that the situation has changed fundamentally since it was negotiated some 20 years ago, in particular in regard to agricultural subsidies and that it is time for us to negotiate our way out of this bind?
I support the comments of my colleagues in regard to the constitutional treaty. Deputy Haughey has spoken at length on the Lisbon strategy, an area in which I am particularly interested. Progress in regard to the strategy is still very slow and the Taoiseach suggested some time ago that we are modelling ourselves on the United States concept. How wide is the gulf at this stage? Is it possible to reach our target by 2010, in particular, as we are still behind in regard to "the adaptability of companies and workers", a very wide phrase, about which I would like to know more?
All the important questions have been asked so I will raise two issues of concern to me. Members referred to today's meeting of the French, German and British. Does the Minister of State believe this in any way undermines the Irish Presidency or, more importantly, the ethos of the EU in which, after all, there is supposed to be collective decision making? Is there any sense that this might be a threat of a move towards a two-tier Europe? Are these countries upping the ante before the IGC by holding such a meeting today? While Deputy Mulcahy seems quite satisfied that they will conduct their business in an open and transparent way, can the Minister of State provide us with the same reassurance?
In regard to the Lisbon Agenda, I am concerned with the phrase "the adaptability of companies and workers". Will the Minister of State explain precisely what this means?
We have certainly run the gamut. The tripartite meeting was raised by the Chairman and Deputies Quinn, Carey, Mulcahy, Haughey and Harkin. It has attracted much attention. Both in our Presidency and in our national capacity, we have no difficulty with today's meeting of the "big three". A point that is lost in most of the media commentary - although there is an excellent and perceptive commentary in today's edition of The Irish Times on the subject - is that meetings in a range of formats are now commonplace. For example, the Benelux countries meet all the time and nobody regards that as being in any way untoward. The Nordic countries and countries in the Mediterranean group also meet. Ireland participates strongly in such meetings and we certainly did so when a group of countries known as “friends of the Community” met on the Convention on the Future of Europe. We also meet separately in a group that is known as the “like-minded states”. These types of meetings are not unprecedented.
In the context of the Lisbon process, which is the main topic of today's tripartite meeting, there have been several such initiatives, meetings and inputs; for example, this week a letter was signed by six Heads of Government that was aimed at being helpful to the Irish Presidency. We also undertook a joint initiative recently with the Netherlands, Luxembourg and the United Kingdom on the issue of regulation. One must not lose sight of the fact that these types of meetings are not unprecedented. However, it is clear that this meeting is rather more elaborate than many previous meetings.
As the European Union enlarges and becomes more diverse, it is likely that these types of meetings of member states will perhaps be even more common. Members will wish to discuss issues of regional or functional significance that will not necessarily be of concern to all 25 states. Such meetings are natural.
However, the Berlin agenda concerns all 25 states.
I will return to that observation. Such meetings can be useful if they help countries to resolve issues that will feed into an overall Community response.
I come to the point made earlier by Deputy Harkin. Any group of states can propose an action but they cannot impose an action. That is where the significant difference lies, which is the point that Deputy Quinn made. The Union's structures and its decision-making processes must be respected, a point touched on by the Chairman. The equal rights of large and small member states must be upheld; that is the view of the Irish Presidency. The largest member states of the Union will have a certain weight and influence. Where they agree among themselves on prospects for united action, the Union can benefit. This meeting could be very positive; it could feed positively into the discussions on the Lisbon Agenda. The agenda for this meeting is primarily focused on Lisbon and it will be positive if the three major economies of the European Union take concerted action to focus on the Lisbon Agenda and to help to drive forward those developments. As long as the issue is about proposing rather than attempting to impose, there is no threat.
The question has been asked several times: does the Presidency have any difficulties with this? The answer is no. A second question is how we relate to this meeting.
I want to put it on the public record - I have already said this twice or three times today on the media - that the Presidency has had nothing but support from the three countries involved. Participants were particularly open to discussions on their concerns and their focus. We will be in immediate contact with them when the meeting is over. There has been openness, which some press commentary, particularly outside this country, has not reflected. There is a natural propensity in journalism to spin a story to suit a particular purpose, but the meetings have been open.
In the wider perspective, as the Union advances, it is critically important that member states advance together. Deputy Haughey questioned whether this would be part of a development towards a direct war. The answer is no. The Union operates best in concert, and it will be even better when 25 member states operate together. The large member states have their particular weights and influences, but I do not think that we have any reason to be fearful of this. It is natural that there should be input from all directions; in addition to the "big three", the "small and medium-sized six" have also written on the issue. We must keep the issue in perspective; this meeting is not unprecedented and is not a completely new departure. I mentioned that there was a perceptive article in the Irish media today that was balanced and well focused.
The Chairman and Deputies Quinn, Carey, Haughey, Mulcahy and Harkin, and Senator Ormonde, all touched on the issue of the Intergovernmental Conference. A substantial amount of energy has been put into this. At my previous appearance before the committee, I said that there had been some initial analysis after the December European Council that this issue would pass on to another Presidency at the end of the year and that the Irish Presidency would not engage. At the first possible opportunity, on 1 January, we commenced work on the IGC. The Irish Presidency is fully engaged and anxious to make as much progress as possible. Deputy Quinn asked whether the Taoiseach would hold a special summit to deal with the IGC; it is still too early to think about that.
Will he be reporting substantial progress from the four main participants on the double majority issue? I know that it is not the only issue.
Deputy Quinn is absolutely correct that it is not the only issue. It does something of a disservice that the commonplace portrayal is that this was simply a big issue between four countries that had a squabble, and that that was it. All four countries in question have indicated a greater willingness to sit down and discuss the issue than has been recognised. We must still work out what the resolution would be. The Taoiseach will make a strong report to the meeting. Our remit was to consult, assess and report; we will report. On the prospects of progress, it is still too early to say that we cannot solve it. We will make clear the results of the discussions to date. A substantial amount of political capital, energy and time have been invested, and the Taoiseach has worked exhaustively. It is too early to say whether we will make the necessary breakthrough, but if there is any possibility of making that breakthrough, we intend to grasp that opportunity with two hands.
Deputy Haughey asked if it would be easier in the second semester, during the Dutch Presidency in the second half of the year. The unequivocal answer is that it will not. I had many bilateral contacts last week. It is interesting that the analysis in the European Parliament and in many member states is beginning to converge. It will be challenging to make a breakthrough in the second semester of the year. A new Commission will be fully in place in November and a new European Parliament will be elected in June. At least two governments will have changed; there will be elections in Greece and Spain. There will be personnel changes in other governments. In some states, four or five current Ministers will be going into the new Commission.
A reshuffle is promised here.
One never knows what the future holds.
Hope springs eternal.
The Deputy took the words out of my mouth. There will be a lot of changes. It must also be pointed out that the financial perspectives and the discussion will be under way. There are other important issues relating to, for example, future enlargements. All that will fall during the second half of the year. There is a growing realisation that the challenge will not get any easier with the passage of time. Several committee members have reflected that view in the early part of January. There is a growing view in the rest of Europe that that assessment is correct. It will become even more difficult in 2005.
Another issue was raised with me in the European Parliament last week. People are fearful that stasis in this would feed into scepticism, which would not make it any easier in the new Parliament. I am being as forthright as I can with the committee on that matter. There is not much more to be said, but we will be making a substantial contribution on that in March.
I will now deal with the Lisbon challenge. Members will not have had the opportunity to read the Taoiseach's letter, dated 17 February, which is being circulated here today. I draw it to the members' attention because several members indicated that there might be some concerns. First and foremost, we are emphasising the need for better implementation, at EU and member state level, of the commitments that were made in Lisbon. We must stop talking about the Lisbon agenda and collectively make it operational. We have to start following the agenda.
The first priority in the Lisbon agenda is to have sound macro-economic policies. Member states must ensure that the budgetary consolidation process continues to achieve budgets that are as close to balance, or in surplus, as is possible. That is the key issue. Deputy Quinn was one of the masterminds of the financial perspective and structures. That still remains as valid as when the issue was first mentioned.
I mentioned new technologies and environmentally-sustainable growth. The Council will be calling for the rapid implementation of the environmental technology action plan which is already in place. However, like so much else, it is on the shelf and has not been operationalised. We want to see the plan operationalised.
With regard to competitiveness and innovation, Deputies Harkin and Andrews indicated that there might be some reason for concern. There are no concerns because Europe has to be competitive and innovative. If it is not, we will not achieve the sustainable long-term growth that is vital to the creation of good-quality, high-paid jobs in Europe.
There are three specific priorities. First, the institutional arrangements to enhance competitiveness. Europe has slipped down the competitiveness ladder since the Lisbon agenda was put in place. We have to make Europe competitive. We cannot allow Europe to regulate itself to stasis. The point was made that in the tripartite meeting of the "big three" there was reference to a competitiveness commissioner. I welcome the reference because the Irish programme for Lisbon specifically deals with how to improve competitiveness and how, in future, the structure of the new Commission will have to reflect a competitiveness concern.
Second, specific steps must be taken to make the Internal Market in the European Union more vibrant. That has been mentioned at previous committee meetings. The Internal Market is bizarre because it has focused on goods but not on services.
The Chairman made the point that services account for 70% of GDP in many countries but account for only a minuscule proportion of the intracommunity trade. One cannot have such a trade in hairdressing, but one certainly can in other services. It is vital that the services directive be operationalised.
The third issue concerns better regulation. The Competitiveness Council will be a key issue. Interestingly, another significant article appeared in one of the Irish newspapers today referring to the fact that a director general in the Commission talked about strengthening business investment and research and development. It is specifically taken out of the Irish Presidency programme. We are trying to focus on key issues.
A few other specific issues were mentioned. There was a question about the financial perspectives for which we are setting a timetable. The issue will not and should not be resolved during the Irish Presidency. It will go forward through the Dutch and the Luxembourg Presidencies. We are trying to look forward through the group of presidencies and set the timetable for that issue.
Deputy Mulcahy raised the issue of Cyprus. The Presidency is very concerned that the parties should seize the opportunity. Both the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs have been active, in a discreet manner, in encouraging the parties in that direction. We have always made the point that the entry of Cyprus into the European Union as a unified entity on 1 May would be beneficial for everybody, not least for Cyprus. It will certainly assist the European Union. The Secretary General of the United Nations, with the co-operation of all parties, has secured a very welcome breakthrough in New York in the last few days. As a result, negotiations will resume in Nicosia tomorrow. That breaking news is very welcome. An important new element is that the partners have agreed to import deadlock-breaking mechanisms - I think 26 March is the date that has been set. It will leave some unfinished business to be resolved by the Secretary General. This past Monday there has been significant and ongoing collaboration between the Irish Presidency and the Secretary General. The chief negotiator, Alvaro De Soto, was in Dublin on Monday and he briefed the Taoiseach. The Taoiseach has issued two statements in the past week; last Friday he welcomed the breakthrough in New York and on Monday he gave the Government and the Presidency's position on how to move forward. We have greatly encouraged the various parties to come together on that issue.
There is an opinion poll.
Yes, I saw that report. I have not seen the opinion poll. It is interesting that there is evidence of a growing view in the Irish electorate that there must be a constitutional treaty. That is welcome news because the constitutional treaty, which is being worked out and which we have discussed in this committee, is more open and transparent than what went before. It coherently brings together the existing treaty texts. It gives a clear indication of who does what in the European Union. It imports the charter of human rights. I cannot understand how anybody can see that as anything other than positive. It provides a positive growing role for national parliaments. It is certainly a win-win situation. It is an extremely positive development. That is why it is a prize and why it is worth putting significant effort into this issue. It is also why so much work is being put into it by the Irish Presidency. We do not go on the radio or television every day of the week and say what we have said to our partners, but I can guarantee this committee that every single day since 1 January, there has been some ministerial or head of Government contact on the issue. Anything that can humanly be done to bring the new constitution treaty to realisation will be done by this Presidency. If we do not resolve it, we will certainly have handed it over after a huge effort has been made. However, I am keeping my fingers crossed. I had better not go any further than that.
I think we have dealt with general affairs.
I had a question about the UK rebate, Chairman.
I knew that there was one other issue. It is certainly a thorn in some sides. There is discussion about a general rebate. The argument is that the UK rebate increases significantly the bias in that state's favour. A more generalised correction mechanism is being discussed which is aimed at correcting contributions for all member states in excess of a defined threshold linked to relative prosperity of the individual states. Clearly the UK will have some discussion on that issue. However, the general discussion is effectively about a generalised rebate that would apply the same philosophy to anybody who was over the limits.
It is a live issue in several member states. I was in the Hague in Clingendael last week, and it is certainly a live issue in that member state, which proportionately is contributing at such a high rate.
We have dealt comprehensively with the general affairs questions that were raised. We move on to the external relations questions.
I want to raise two issues of external relations, the first of which concerns Iran. The election there will be held on Friday. Clearly it is a phoney election. It is an election where 2,000 candidates have been barred, 80 outgoing MPs are precluded from standing, and it has all the hallmarks of an election that is not free, fair or democratic. Can the European Union take a tougher line in response to these phoney elections? It seems the mad mullahs have had their way, and the efforts of the reformers and those who are interested in open democracy have been thwarted. I saw the minutes of the last meeting of the Council, in which the Council hoped that free and fair elections would be allowed. Can a tougher stance be taken to make it absolutely clear that such an election is not acceptable, and will not be recognised?
Is any further action open to the European Union on Zimbabwe? Day by day, week by week, President Mugabe and his goons are robbing from and raping his own people, reducing them to absolute poverty. I know the common position involves different kinds of sanctions. Can any other steps be taken to force a new situation whereby the people of Zimbabwe will have the opportunity to lift this awful yoke off their backs?
In the course of his speech, Deputy Roche referred to High Representative Solana being expected to bring presidential proposals for an EU operation, following the current UN-authorised NATO-led SFOR mission. Will NATO be included? Will it retain its operational leadership role for the successor operation? Will Ireland continue to participate?
I reiterate what Deputy O'Keeffe said about Iran. What is happening there is extremely worrying. I wonder what further influence the EU can bring to bear on the situation there. In relation to the Middle East peace process, clearly the Minister, Deputy Cowen, as President has taken a very proactive role on the Middle East issue. What is the Minister's assessment of how the road map stands at this stage? Is the Israeli Prime Minister's latest proposal to withdraw from some of the settlements a fig leaf, or does it signal the end of the road map? Has the EU had any influence in modifying the construction of the barrier between Palestine and Israel? Clearly that is a cause of great concern.
It is probably too early to get a comprehensive report, but some progress has been made on the relationship between India and Pakistan. Apart from the Indian cricket team's agreeing to go to Pakistan, which is welcome in itself, is the Minister aware of any progress, particularly on the Kashmir issue?
Progress was made in the last meeting of the General Affairs and External Relations Council on the Barcelona commitments, generally on overseas development assistance, and I congratulate the Minister in that regard. What steps does he propose to take in advance of the April GAERC when this issue will arise again, to ensure that member states are advancing these goals and commitments? It is important before we finish with this issue as President of the EU, that we make significant progress. I would like to tease out exactly what steps the Minister will take to put pressure on member states in advance of that time. I notice that the European development fund will be integrated, and that is due for discussion in this month's GAERC.
My second question is the same as Deputy O'Keeffe's. Sanctions clearly have not worked in Zimbabwe. It seems a ridiculous approach. Surely there is some other way that the European Union can exercise pressure. I reiterate Deputy O'Keeffe's frustration that we are making no progress on this after four or five years of what has been happening there.
On the Middle East peace process, dealing specifically with the construction of the security wall, the Red Cross has spoken out recently about the illegality of the construction of this wall, and it is not an organisation that speaks out frequently on such issues. This matter seems to have been referred to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion. According to the briefing Ireland does not intend to make an oral presentation, either on behalf of the European Union or in our national capacity. Why is this? What exactly is Ireland's position on this?
In the context of the US elections, the briefing says there are fears that the US will disengage from the peace process. Does the Minister think those fears are well founded?
I note the pending visit to Pakistan and I support Deputy Carey's points about discussions between India and Pakistan. I hope that will lead to further progress. Has the General Affairs and External Relations Council considered the behaviour of Dr. Khan in selling nuclear secrets to rogue states. If it has, what action has the Council taken or what action will it take on this matter? Will this matter be raised directly with the Pakistani Administration during the visit?
I will take the questions in the order in which they were asked. The situation in Iran causes us deep concern. I do not want to use or repeat any of the language, but the situation is grim, and it certainly causes concern. We were concerned at the decision that the Iranian Governing Council took to disqualify a large number of candidates, including sitting members of the Majlis. On his recent visit to Iran, Javier Solana expressed concerns and made it clear that the European Union is deeply concerned about what has happened there. He stated:
The parliament is an expression of the will of the people in all democratic countries. Free and fair elections and the election processes are therefore a necessary condition of any democracy.
He made that comment in the context of the ongoing relationship between the European Union and Iran.
We were disappointed that the appeals process, to which Deputy Jim O'Keeffe specifically referred, did not rectify the extraordinary situation that had been precipitated. I understand that 90 sitting members have been disallowed to recontest.
The Union has pursued a policy of engagement with Iran and wishes to continue to do so. However, there are conditions on which we have engagement and, quite clearly, the policy will include criticism of Iran's failings as well as encouragement to reformists.
Not wishing to add gloom to what is a gloomy enough picture, nonetheless I should say that it is not merely the difficulties regarding the Majlis elections that are important. The Union has also made a strong impact on human rights issues. Issues connected to the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, report are also important, and in particular those related to the El Baradei report which is expected this week and about which there has been some advance speculation in the media. It is a difficult situation.
Will the Minister of State condemn the elections and be blunt in saying that they are unacceptable and will not be recognised?
This issue is on the agenda for Monday. The Union has been active in encouraging Iran towards democracy. However, the other issue of concern is the nuclear programme and what we have heard in the recent past on that. The election issue will obviously be prominent in the discussions because, as we know, the election itself occurs on Friday.
Deputy Jim O'Keeffe's second question was about Zimbabwe, about which Deputy Andrews also asked. Essentially we are talking about a roll-over of the European Union common position which was originally adopted in 2002 and is being reviewed. That position expresses the Union's concern about human rights violations and the political situation in Zimbabwe. It is being renewed and the Union is keeping it under review.
We have discussed the effectiveness of sanctions. Who are hit by sanctions? The ordinary people of Zimbabwe are hit. We know how desperate their plight is. Would any of us propose a course of action that would make the lives of people in a troubled country more miserable ? The answer to that is no. The existing sanctions are focused on the Zanu-PF group and are very much in the context of the regime.
Preparatory work on SFOR will be progressed during our Presidency and will probably be completed later in the year. The consultations between the European Union and NATO on the transition to an EU-led mission will seek to maintain a positive and transparent relationship between those two organisations. The initial consultations have already taken place with the authorities in Bosnia-Herzegovina with regard to the change.
The precise residual role of NATO is very much a matter of ongoing consideration. NATO has resources that the Union does not. However, what that residual element will be is difficult to say. NATO's current lead role is exercised under the UN Security Council resolution, and Ireland will encourage coherence between the work of the follow-on mission to SFOR and the ongoing police mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
It is too early to say what will happen with regard to Irish participation. A total of 12 members of the Defence Forces are in SFOR, and it is hard to say what will happen to them.
I have covered Zimbabwe and Iran, and Deputy Carey and several other members referred to the Middle East and Pakistan. The general issue is whether the road map is finished or still alive. It is still alive because it is the only plan in town to resolve this issue. Deputy Harkin asked a related question about the wall. I gave an extensive statement in the European Parliament on the issue and this was widely covered in the international press. I made the point that the Presidency was certainly anxious about the impact that the wall will have, first, on the peace process, second, on people on the Palestinian side in particular and, third, on long-term relations between Israelis and Palestinians.
Returning to Deputy Carey's point, the members of the Quartet road map, that is, the Union, Russia, the United States and the Secretary General, generally feel that we must engage to give it real substance. The Irish Presidency has said that we cannot take the big steps. We must make the small steps to show at least that there can be some movement in the region. Europe simply cannot accept the barrier, wall, fence or whatever terminology one want to use for it, and we do not believe that it serves any purpose in the region. It does not serve Israel's long-term security needs. In the European Parliament I quoted something that the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, said on the issue, which was that the long-term needs of the people of neither Israel nor Palestine are being served by this process. The Union has indicated its general concern about the wall, as well as a concern that the wall departs from the green line. However, that is the other issue.
The Union questions the wisdom of moving this matter into a legal forum. Resolving the issue between the Israelis and the Palestinians is not a matter for a court; it is a matter for politics. There is a propensity for people in this country to refer everything to judicial review, but occasionally politicians must make decisions, and political leadership, not court decisions, resolves issues.
We are one of 12 European Unions partners. When the International Court of Justice asked for the written submissions, the Irish Presidency submitted a paper on behalf of the Union that was little other than a reiteration of the Union's previous positions. We then bilaterally were one of 12 member states that submitted a written statement.
The Commission did not publish the written statements because that is not what happens in the court. The court's procedures prohibit that. However, our presentation is oral, so it is not necessary to follow up what is a strong written presentation. The court operates primarily on the basis of written presentations. I will return to the issue of development aid, as I have dealt with the war.
The Chairman raised the extraordinary revelations on the Pakistani side. The Troika mission in Islamabad has raised those issues and the Minister, Deputy Cowen, will reiterate the concerns today. The recent revelations from Pakistan that nuclear technology that touches on proliferation has been passed on are extremely worrying. That is clearly an issue of mutual interest to the European Union and Pakistan. The director general of IAEA is preparing a report which will be published later this month, on what has happened and what was passed on. Our general concerns are being passed on and the Minister's speaking notes make clear that the European Union has very serious concerns about Pakistan and nuclear proliferation. Those concerns are confirmed by the recent revelations concerning Dr. Khan, on which the Chairman touched.
On the regional process between India and Pakistan, we welcome the commencement of composite dialogue which started on 16 February. The fact that dialogue is taking place is a good sign. India's efforts to change the dynamic, particularly in relation to Kashmir, are very welcome because they at least bring that thorny issue into the discussion. As we hold the Presidency, we welcome the fact that the Kashmir issue is part of a composite dialogue. Yesterday, there were further positive pointers in talks between India and Pakistan and the mission that is there at the moment which the Minister, Deputy Cowen, is leading will encourage further developments.
Deputy Andrews asked about the General Affairs and External Relations Council meeting in April. I do not want to cut anybody short, but I will discuss that meeting when it is more in prospect. However, as Deputy Andrews is aware, the Irish Presidency has raised the issues surrounding development aid and the concerns of developing countries are a priority of the Irish Presidency. We will do all that we can and it is worth reminding ourselves that development aid is one area in which we have a good track record. We will work to achieve what can be achieved on that. I am not in a position to comment in more detail on the agenda for the April meeting but if Deputy Andrews files the question away, I have no doubt he will put it to me again in the briefing for next month's meeting.
Has the Minister of State planned anything in the interim to put pressure on the member states so that, when we arrive at the April meeting, we do not have to start all over again? That was the nature of my question, rather than what will be on the agenda at the April meeting.
My colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, has played and is playing an active roll, particularly in his bilateral contacts. I do not want to trespass on his area, partly because I am not briefed on what exactly he is doing. However, if the Deputy wishes, I will mention his concern to him and he might get back to the Deputy on it.
Deputy Harkin, I think, asked a question about US disengagement from the Middle East. We are striving to keep the dialogue and the Quartet's road map alive. The US is a significant player in the road map.
The EU-Russia assessment, which the Council invited the Commission to prepare in December 2003, covers such areas as common values, the rule of law, democracy, human rights and fundamental freedoms. The Minister of State will be aware that the committee has considered a report from Amnesty International about the treatment of women in Russia, in which grave issues such as violence, murder and disappearance were raised. Is that part of the assessment that is being carried out at the Council's request?
I would like some clarification on the European neighbourhood initiative. The brief that we have received states that relations with Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia are being considered as part of the neighbourhood initiative, but specifies that the initiative does not cover the countries of the western Balkans. Is that because they are in a separate category, or are they simply not ready for such engagement?
I will answer the second question first. The countries of the western Balkans have a special status: there is a clear indication in the Thessaloniki Council conclusions that those countries are considered to be potential members of the Union. That is why they seem to be excluded from the initiative. However, it is not an exclusion because they are in a different, more advanced category.
On the Chairman's question on the EU-Russia assessment, the Council invited the Commission to prepare a report and assessment, as the Chairman mentioned. The partnership between the European Union and Russia is strategically important, but it must be based on common interests and values. The Irish Presidency has made the point that the partnership is a two-way process. It is not only a question of Russia receiving something; there must be reciprocation. The assessment report will deal with all issues that touch on values - not only the one that the Chairman mentioned, but other values, such as the democratic process - and focus on ways in which we can make the partnership more productive in terms of values.
Two important issues are on the agenda at the moment. One is the partnership and co-operation agreement. As the Chairman knows, our Presidency anxiety is that that agreement covers all of the ten incoming states. The European Union's assessment is that all ten incoming states meet the Copenhagen criteria, and there is no reason the PCA should not apply to all ten incoming states.
Amnesty International strongly raised with us the issue that I mentioned. The number of women in Russia who have been murdered, who have been the victim of violence and who have disappeared is enormous. Amnesty International raised a serious issue, and I ask the Minister of State to ask the Commission to address that issue in its report.
I met Amnesty International, and it was anxious that the human rights agenda be imported into the Presidency, which it has. Human rights elements in general are part of the Presidency programme, and all aspects of human rights are being emphasised with Russian. However, I take note of the issue the Chair mentioned and we will see how we can factor it in.
I thank the Minister of State.
I am not sure whether the Minister of State replied to my question on the limiting of the financial prospectus to 1%.
Deputy Quinn is right. I did not answer that question, but I was not avoiding it. The short answer is that I do not know how it will work out. I might as well put my hands up and say that. Six member states that are major contributors suggested a figure of 1%, but last week, Romano Prodi, the Commission president, made quite a different assessment of what is needed. Both are clearly opening negotiating positions, and I am thankful that the burden of resolving the differences does not fall entirely on the Irish Presidency. We are working on the timetable but we are aware that, if the European Union is realistically to meet all the requirements of the enlarged Union, including the solidarity that has always been part of Europe. The reality is that there will have to be a lot of negotiating between now and a final figure being settled. There is a big difference between 1% and 1.24%.
That concludes the meeting. I thank the Minister of State and look forward to seeing him at the contact meeting on Thursday.
I look forward to it.
The joint committee adjourned at 12.30 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Wednesday, 25 February 2004.