I welcome the Minister and apologise for delaying him.
General Affairs and External Relations Council Meeting: Ministerial Presentation.
Thank you, Chairman. I am accompanied by Mr. Dan Mulhall, director of the EU division, Mr. Colm O'Flynn, deputy political director, Mr. Ronan Murphy, director of Development Co-operation Ireland-Irish Aid, and Ms Siobhán Coyne, political division. I thank the committee for allowing me to give members a brief overview of next Monday's meeting in Luxembourg. I will represent Ireland, along with the Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan, who cannot be here today.
At the general affairs section of the meeting we will examine the financial perspectives and the inter-institutional agreement. The only substantive item for discussion is the potential for agreement on which there was some agreement last night. As expected, the Council will be briefed on the trialogue which involves the Parliament, Commission and Council which was represented by the Presidency and dealt with the institutional agreement. The IIA is the final stage of the decision-making process on the financial framework, following on from the political agreement reached at the European Council meeting in December 2005. The agreed package preserved Ireland's key interests. It also provided the enlarged Union with the necessary financial framework to meet the challenges over the coming period. The IIA is an instrument which, when agreed, will permit financing to be made available from the beginning of next year for the next round of EU programmes. It will be the first financial framework of the enlarged Europe.
These have been difficult and complex negotiations. I understand from the Presidency that they have been working in a fairly constructive atmosphere. We support the Presidency in its efforts to conclude the negotiations. A key priority for us is to ensure that the outcome retains the delicate balance struck by the Heads of State and Government in December in terms of the level of funding and the breakdown between the different expenditure categories.
On the external relations aspect, we will discuss the developments in the World Trade Organisation. As members will be aware, last December's Hong Kong WTO ministerial meeting decided to work towards reaching agreement by the end of April 2006 on the full modalities, by which is meant the details of how the negotiations should be taken forward in different areas. The aim remains to conclude the Doha round by the end of this year.
Since Hong Kong, discussions at official level have continued in Geneva. While some progress has been made, we are still not close to reaching the desired agreement on full modalities by the end of April. However, it may be possible to reach a partial agreement on modalities by that date if all parties show goodwill and a degree of flexibility. The Director General of the WTO, Mr. Pascal Lamy, hopes to arrange a restricted ministerial meeting of the main parties to the negotiations in Geneva at the end of April. This has still to be confirmed. Participants at the meeting would include the EU, US, Japan and other key countries.
As there are vital issues at stake for Ireland, the Government will remain vigilant to ensure our interests are protected. Agriculture is one of the key issues. We remain of the view that the Commission's offer of last October goes to the limit of the mandate given to the Commission. As far as we are concerned, there is no question of further EU concessions that would call into question the 2003 Common Agricultural Policy reforms. There is more than agriculture at stake. As a significant trading nation, and a nation that has manifestly benefited from the liberalisation of trade, we support fully the strong stance taken by the Commission on trade in industrial goods and services. The EU is seeking real additional market access in these sectors. This must form part of any successful and balanced conclusion to the negotiations. It is essential that the EU maintains its ambition to achieve a positive outcome across a broad range of issues.
While there may have been reference in the documents members received to the western Balkans, that matter will not be discussed at the Council meeting. In regard to Ukraine, we are expected to welcome the parliamentary elections held in that country on 26 March, which are generally recognised as free and fair. This underlines the fundamental democratic choice of the people of Ukraine over the past 18 months, which was recognised and supported by Ireland and the EU. As members will be aware, a new government has yet to be established. However, whatever its composition, it is important that it continues the process of economic and institutional reform.
I welcome the contact the Oireachtas has had with Kiev. I have said to my Cabinet colleagues that we should be as helpful as possible to them in these early years of their democratic infrastructure. We need to develop further the EU's relationship with Ukraine as well as our own bilateral relationship. We must support the reform process taking place in that country.
A more difficult situation is that of Belarus. Following a European Council statement on Belarus on 24 March, it is expected that Ministers will adopt a visa ban on 31 individuals among the Belarussian authorities responsible for electoral fraud and for the crackdown on protestors, including President Lukashenko. We fully support this measure. There will also be discussion on what other restrictive measures the European Union can take as well as further strengthening of EU support for civil society and democratisation in Belarus. The conclusions still under preparation will express disappointment at the manner of the elections, condemn the violence used against the protesters, demand the immediate release of political detainees and commend the brave actions of the Belarus democratic opposition.
The Council will review developments in the Middle East peace process following the Israeli general elections on 28 March and the swearing in of the new, democratically-elected, Hamas Government of the Palestinian Authority. We expect there will be full agreement among Ministers that the events of recent months emphasise the basic reality that only a negotiated, mutually-acceptable two-State solution can provide for a lasting and peaceful settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is important that the European Union should play its part in keeping alive the prospect of a solution based on the co-existence in peace and security of the State of Israel and a truly viable Palestinian State, with agreed international borders.
Following the Palestinian elections in January, the European Union and the international Quartet issued a clear message on the absolute incompatibility between a commitment to violence and participation in democratic government. The international community has set out the conditions for engagement with Hamas. It must renounce violence, disarm, recognise Israeli's right to exist and accept existing agreements reached through negotiations between the PLO and the Palestinian Authority and Israel. The overall message has been backed by regional neighbours, and by President Mahmoud Abbas, who has appealed to Hamas to commit itself to a platform of peace. So far, there has been little sign of movement by Hamas. However, if there is evidence of a willingness to make progress on these essential steps, based unequivocally on the continued absence of violence by Hamas, I will urge a strong response from the European Union.
The European Union is, by far, the largest donor to the Palestinians, providing assistance of approximately €500 million annually. About half of this is administered by the Commission. At its meeting on 27 February, the Council approved the early disbursement of over €120 million in assistance. I expect that at our meeting on Monday we will review the implications of the policies and actions of the Palestinian Authority for the shape of future assistance to the different elements in the Palestinian Government and society. If difficult decisions on funding prove necessary in the future, I hope we can ensure that they will not be at the expense of the welfare of the Palestinian people. The European Union must maintain its support for the Palestinian people and remain engaged in the search for a lasting and peaceful settlement.
I have offered my congratulations to Acting Prime Minister Olmert on the success of his party, Kadima, in the Israeli general elections. It seems likely that he and the other Israeli political leaders will need some time to negotiate the formation of a new coalition government. Those discussions are currently taking place and will, hopefully, be fruitful. I welcome Mr. Olmert's statement, following the elections, that there is no good alternative to a peace agreement, and that his Government will work for a negotiated agreement with its Palestinian neighbours.
The Government, and our partners in the European Union, look forward to developing a close working relationship with the new Israeli Government. The Union will work for early progress based on the implementation of commitments under the roadmap and international law. We will continue, both bilaterally and through the Union, to raise our concerns directly with the Israeli Government on policies and activities in the occupied territories which are contrary to international law and which threaten to undermine a solution based on the co-existence of two viable states. The Government will also work closely with partners to ensure that statements by the Council continue to reflect these concerns.
The Council will also discuss Iran, notably the UN Security Council presidential statement of 29 March and the meeting of the five permanent members of the Security Council with Germany in Berlin on 30 March. The Security Council presidential statement reinforced the role of the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, and called on Iran to take the steps required of it by the IAEA board of governors. The statement underlines the particular importance of Iran's re-establishing full and sustained suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including research and development. The IAEA Director General, Dr. El Baradei, is also requested to report within 30 days on Iranian compliance.
We welcome the presidential statement and urge Iran to immediately cease all research and conversion activities and fully and proactively co-operate with the IAEA to resolve all questions in a spirit of transparency.
The Presidency has not so far confirmed a discussion on Iraq, but given that Foreign Secretary Mr. Straw will be back from Baghdad, I expect he will brief the Council on his recent visit with Secretary of State Rice. Our main concern is to encourage the parties in Iraq to agree a new government as quickly as possible.
An "A" point refers to conclusions from last September's UN world summit. The Council, at the request of Sweden, has agreed there may be an opportunity for Ministers to intervene briefly under "any other business" on the adoption of the conclusions.
The Council welcomes the progress made post-September, particularly the establishment of the human rights council and the peace-building commission. It also welcomes the efforts to make the UN more proactive on humanitarian emergencies, including through the establishment of the central emergency response fund, CERF, which will ensure more predictable, additional and timely funding for relief operations, complementing existing emergency financial mechanisms within UN agencies. It will also contribute significantly to the financing of chronically underfunded emergencies.
The short discussion will also provide an opportunity to assess a number of ongoing issues, including UN management reform, the principle of EU representation in the peace-building commission and the need for continued strong EU involvement in the reform process. In putting together the human rights council the Union held a strong and united line on it and should take credit that it is now in place.
There will also be some discussion on the EU sustainable development strategy, SDS. The June European Council intends to review the existing strategy and to adopt an ambitious and comprehensive set of conclusions. This will aim to bring together the Community's priorities and objectives with regard to sustainable development in a coherent strategy that can be communicated clearly and effectively to citizens.
On Monday next, the GAERC will discuss the SDS issue, with a view to injecting a strong external relations perspective into the review of the Union's sustainable development. It is beyond question that the issue has a truly global reach. It is important that the Union's external relations, especially in the area of development co-operation where the Union is a world leader, should take appropriate account of sustainable development.
Development issues will include reference to the African-Caribbean-Pacific, ACP, partnership with the European Union. The ACP countries will be allocated approximately €22.6 billion at current prices under the financial perspectives for the period 2008 to 2013.
The meeting will also refer to the EU aid effectiveness package. At the beginning of March, the Commission published three communications aimed at improving the effectiveness of EU development aid concerning the setting out of an operational agenda for 2006-07, a joint EU programming framework for EU aid and the monitoring of performance against its commitments.
All this takes place in the context of the commitments undertaken in 2005 to increase aid substantially. If 2005 was the year of commitment, 2006 and beyond must be the years of delivery on the commitment made by the 25 EU member states. The target is for the EU member states to achieve 0.51% of ODA on the basis of GNI by 2010, with at least 50% of the increase to be dedicated to Africa, the primary focus of Irish Aid's activities. The Commission monitors progress in implementing the EU's commitments on the basis of an annual survey of EU member states based on a detailed questionnaire. Each EU member state is committed to strive to attain a GNI-ODA ratio of at least 0.33% by 2006. In our case we are on course to exceed that by a considerable margin. Our ODA this year is likely to exceed 0.5% of GNI, which is more than we committed to last September.
I personally witnessed at first hand the terrible effect which the Asian tsunami had on the countries affected. We have had the experience of hurricane Katrina and the Pakistan earthquake.
At GAERC next week the Presidency has decided to frame the discussion around three questions: how the European Union, through its member states and the Commission, can effectively support and reinforce the ongoing work to reform the international humanitarian response system; how the ongoing reform of the international humanitarian response system fits into the overall UN reform; whether Ministers think it would be useful for the Commission to provide more regular information on humanitarian and related issues to the competent Council bodies.
We are pushing ahead with a distinctively Irish rapid response initiative which will allow us to harness Irish talent and resources to respond to some of the gaps identified by the UN in its humanitarian response mechanisms. This includes a register of experts deployable at short notice, the stockpiling of humanitarian supplies and enhanced support to those directly involved in humanitarian relief, particularly the UN, the Red Cross family and the NGOs. Ireland has supported all this practical improvement and will seek to ensure that the UN has sufficient flexibility to provide adequate support to governments of developing countries in their policy analysis and planning. Ireland has already contributed €100,000 to the extra-budgetary expenses of the UN panel. This is a broad outline of next Monday's discussion.
The Minister made it clear that some discussion will take place with regard to the restrictive measures that might be taken against Belorussia and he listed four of five of them. Does the Minister believe any more tangible or concrete action can be taken, apart from condemnation of the violence and the demand that political detainees should be released?
Apart from the visa ban, there is talk of freezing the assets of those people directly responsible for the events and issues relating to the election. There would be strong support around the table for the freezing of the assets of these people if that is practicable. We are all concerned to ensure that independent media are able to flourish. If this is not possible within the borders of Belorussia, then it should be beamed into Belorussia from outside. This is happening at the moment to some degree. Ireland is in favour of offering further support to civil society in every shape or form and has made this argument at recent meetings. Countries like Lithuania and Poland are particularly directly affected by the Belorussian issue and are pushing for much more stringent sanctions.
I note the Russian gas company is increasing the price of gas by four times and has made this early announcement. It was indicated to me by the Foreign Minister for Ukraine that one of the reasons the economy in Belorussia is doing so well is that it is the recipient of very cheap gas from Russia. In the context of the security of supply issue which we discussed when he visited Ireland, the Ukrainian Foreign Minister showed me a small map of Europe which indicated what countries are paying for gas. It showed quite clearly that Belorussia was receiving gas from Russia at a very cheap rate, whereas all the other countries around Belorussia were also getting gas from Russia but were paying three and four times the price. It is said that even if the elections were fair and free, more than likely Lukashenko would have been re-elected.
I was in Minsk last July when I was on my UN travels. Even though there is a ban on EU Ministers visiting Belorussia, I was allowed to go on the basis that I was on UN business. I was surprised by what I saw in Minsk. The massive airport had only eight planes due the next day and one of them was coming from Shannon Airport. There was very little activity at the airport but the city was thriving and seemed as European as any city in Western Europe. I saw very expensive four-wheel drive BMWs and Mercedes and normal cars as one would see in Dublin. This was a surprise to me because of my experience of Belorussia over the years through the Chernobyl issue. It had a growth rate of 11% in the past year, mainly on the back of the cheap gas prices. The situation is peculiar in that it is a country whose economy is getting better. This is one of the reasons the Opposition has not had the same support as the revolution in Ukraine had.
While the Deputy has been Minister for Foreign Affairs, Ireland has opened more embassies. There seems to be a policy on diplomatic expansion. I note we will open an embassy in Vietnam soon. I was in Malta recently and met the Irish chargé d'Affaires. It is one of the new ten accession states and it makes sense to open an embassy there. There are obvious benefits, even from the point of view of Irish citizens who visit those countries. Is it the case that Ireland is expanding diplomatically? Are there benefits to having more embassies? What are the criteria for opening an embassy? Is it dependent on a certain volume of trade with a country?
The embassy in Vietnam is being opened mainly because of overseas development aid issues but it will also provide normal consular services for citizens. From an economic point of view it is also a part of the Asia strategy. Ireland wants to achieve better economic relationships with that part of the world which is developing. When I became Minister, the decision was made to expand the number of embassies to cover the remaining 25 EU member states. That expansion is ongoing and resources are being made available. We already have a presence in such places and even if we do not have embassy buildings, our representatives are housed in rented accommodation.
I have always said that we will examine other possibilities. Some Members of the Oireachtas have suggested that we should look to locations in the Middle East. Indonesia has also been suggested. Many of our citizens go there and it is a huge country. It is quite a good business country and we will consider it strategically. The ambassadorial appointments we announced yesterday will not result in a cost to the Exchequer. The missions in some African countries originally had chargés d'affaires only. We have raised those posts to ambassadorial level, which gives a clear signal to the resident governments that we will be present for the long haul and that not only our aid programmes but also our diplomatic service in those countries will expand.
I welcome the Minister and his officials. He gave a comprehensive presentation on many issues. In the more relaxed atmosphere of the committee, we can again discuss the development fund for Iraq to which I referred yesterday. Tens of billions have been siphoned off as a result of a lack of monitoring, in contravention of the original UN resolution, by the agency representing the coalition forces there. That happened against the background of widespread suffering that occurred on foot of the inadequacy of the health services and a lack of water supplies and the usual social services. The allegations are of such a serious nature that the UN should carry out a thorough investigation. The European Union should also have serious concerns. In view of the fact that the British Foreign Secretary and the US Secretary of State have returned from their visit — Mr. Straw will report to the gathering next week — it would be an appropriate time for the European Union to undertake an initiative on the issue. Has the Minister reflected on what we discussed yesterday? It is time for these appalling allegations to be investigated. There seems to be a black hole in terms of accountability and billions belonging to Iraq have been diverted for other purposes. Does the Minister believe there should be a joint European Union approach to the issue?
On UN reform, no progress has been made on the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, NPT, which, in my view, is now redundant. While progress has been sidelined for some years, serious issues have arisen in Iran and India. India is seeking membership of the UN Security Council but it is not yet a signatory to the NPT. While, on one hand, the United States rightly condemns Iran for what it is doing, on the other, there are double standards and hypocrisy regarding the developing relationship between the US and India in an extremely volatile and sensitive area. Ireland, as one of its architects, should accept that the NPT is redundant and take a new initiative that will lead to a total restructuring of policy regarding the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. Without a responsible approach to this issue, it is inevitable that nuclear weapons will fall into the hands of rogue states or groups, with a resultant threat to democratic structures. What is the Minister's attitude to the NPT?
On the allegations of siphoning of funds in Iraq, as I said yesterday, this is primarily a matter for the Security Council, which is the body responsible for the investigation of any allegations. I understand that quite a number of companies in the US have been fined and prosecuted in respect of this matter. I am not sure whether the EU will be able to agree on it because quite a number of members states are members of the Security Council and, on occasion, they adopt attitudes at that forum which are very different to those they adopt at EU level. I can refer to the issue if and when Iraq is discussed. As I informed the Deputy, however, it is not anticipated that we will discuss Iraq on Monday. However, given that the British Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, has returned from Baghdad, the matter may well arise.
In light of the fact that some people cannot put bread on the table, any siphoning of funds is disgraceful and should be condemned. The Security Council established a monitoring body because of the allegations of what occurred, mainly during the period in which the provisional Government held office. The position has changed because a new Iraqi Government has come to power and it is generally accepted that the situation is better than before.
I do not agree with the Deputy's assertion that the NPT is redundant. The NPT has stood the test of time. I accept that there are difficulties involved but it represents one of the successes of multilateralism, a process under which the vast majority of countries have agreed certain standards and norms. The Deputy's comments about hypocrisy are correct. Ireland has always articulated its views on non-proliferation and disarmament. Those countries that possess nuclear arms exhort those without them not to use such arms and in order to ensure there will be no proliferation of nuclear weapons. I articulated that view at the UN review conference some months ago. I also followed on from Kofi Annan comments to the effect that it was disgraceful, in the context of UN reform, that this issue had been parked as a result of the difficulties with Iran and issues such as those to which the Deputy refers regarding India and a number of other significant countries not being signatories.
We should endeavour to maintain the treaty. I do not accept that it is redundant. I assure members we will continue to support it in whatever way possible.
The Iraqi situation is the biggest fraud in history, in my view. It is not good enough just to leave it to the UN Security Council. I gently suggest to the Minister that it should be the concern of the European Union. The nuclear non-proliferation treaty has been made redundant by the failure to make some progress last September.
I do not accept that.
We will agree to disagree on that.
While there are problems with it, of course, it has generally been a restraining force.
As one of the original architects of the treaty, I suggest that it is now time for Ireland to consider the future of the treaty seriously, in view of what has happened. We will not agree on that.
I would like to speak about the organisation now known as Irish Aid. Given that its name was changed a short time ago from Ireland Aid to Development Co-operation Ireland, why was it renamed again, to Irish Aid, a few weeks ago? Why have such changes been made at a time of major expansion?
My final question relates to the Middle East. When some of us visited Bethlehem last year, we saw the restrictions on pilgrims which have been put in place by the Israeli forces. What is happening there is a serious affront to Christian communities of all persuasions — to the whole of Christendom. If what is happening in Bethlehem were to happen to any other religion, there would be serious consequences. Why is the EU being so silent about the situation in Bethlehem? I refer to the difficulty of access for Christians who are trying to visit the birthplace of Christ, for example, or the manner in which the inhabitants of Bethlehem are being subjected to oppression. There seems to be silence from the EU on this issue. Now that there is a new Prime Minister in Israel, the EU should take a more vigorous stance on what is a very sensitive issue.
I accept what the Deputy says about the restrictions on pilgrims going to Bethlehem. The EU has not been silent about it, however. The issues of access to all the major sites and access from an economic point of view are on its agenda. It has said many times that there needs to be a viable Palestinian state. There is no good in opening borders in a way that will, in effect, strangle any economic development or restrict the type of normal daily access that we would take for granted, as happened in the case of Gaza. The EU will continue to raise this issue.
The name of the organisation referred to by Deputy Allen was changed to Irish Aid because not many people in Leinster House knew what Development Co-operation Ireland was during its two years under that name. I guess that many Members, on all sides of the House, who took up the foreign affairs brief did not know what Development Co-operation Ireland was before they took up that brief. One of the most important things the Oireachtas needs to do — I do not say this as a representative of the Government — is to let the Irish people know that it is allocating €750 million to overseas development projects, mainly on the continent of Africa, on their behalf in 2006. The name of the organisation was changed to build on my personal desire to make the general public much more aware of what is being done in their names. I told my officials, on foot of my discussions with the Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan, that we need to transmit the message to ordinary people. That is one of the reasons for the development of a public awareness campaign.
I asked the Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan, to travel the highways and byways of Ireland to discuss the White Paper on overseas development aid. I thought it was important that, rather than listening to the same voices on this matter, he would get the views of ordinary taxpayers, whether they are governmental or non-governmental, religious or non-religious, on this matter and help them to understand the work that is being done. If one asks a person on the street outside Leinster House whether they know that Ireland spends €750 million——
Why was the name of the organisation changed in the first instance? That is the question.
I cannot answer that question.
There are people in the Department of Foreign Affairs who might be able to answer the question.
My strong personal view was that we needed to make the Irish people much more aware of what we were all doing on their behalf.
The achievement of our overseas development targets is more important than any change in the name of the organisation that is providing the money. The Chairman spoke about our overseas representatives. The members of the All-Party Committee on the Constitution were pleased with the manner in which they were looked after by the Irish embassies in Norway, Sweden and Denmark when they visited those countries last week. I ask the Minister to convey to the staff of the embassies the committee's thanks for doing a good job of arranging the various programmes, etc. The committee's experience has always been that Ireland is extremely well represented overseas. The people who represent us are of the highest calibre. I have no criticisms of them at all.
The Minister has emphasised the importance of funding for agriculture at GAERC level and with regard to the WTO. I am sure the Minister will agree that we negotiated a fairly painful reform package at GAERC level in 2003. It was very well negotiated. It would be an act of extremely bad faith for the EU to row back on the commitments which were made at that time. I am sure that is something the Minister will emphasise at GAERC level. There is a related aspect of it regarding the WTO — the two things impinge on each other with regard to the CAP reforms. I agree with what the Minister said about the need for trade in industrial goods and services. It seems that we could get to a point at which there would be a trade-off. In other words, it is hard to hold our ground on both issues — on agricultural access and the protection of agriculture, on the one hand, and the liberalisation of trade in industrial goods and services, on the other hand. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that aspect of the matter.
I would like to speak about the Middle East peace process. I appreciate what the Minister said about Hamas and the Government of the Palestinian Authority. I note the figures given by the Minister to outline the extent of the assistance given by the EU to the Palestinian Authority, but I am concerned about the degree to which the humanitarian side of it can be protected. In other words, I am not clear about how much money is devoted to humanitarian aid. My query is like the question that Deputy Allen asked about Iraq, in so far as it relates to how the people on the ground will be protected. If the EU takes a hard line with Hamas — I agree it should if Hamas is not prepared to renounce violence — how will it be able to ensure that the many vulnerable people in Palestinian society can be protected? Although it has not been explicitly stated, I assume that the road map is the only show in town in respect of the Middle East peace process, the new Israeli Government and the new Government of the Palestinian Authority.
I agree with Senator Dardis's remarks about the 2003 agriculture commitments — a deal is a deal as far as we are concerned. Commissioner Mandelson went to the extreme limits of the mandate that the Council gave him and we have said that we should not go any further. The Senator correctly stated that we have to hold the line, but we firmly believe that the EU has given much more than any of the other blocs in this regard. Ireland and a number of other EU member states were put under pressure to alter their positions. It is fairly clear that the EU will not allow the position to regress from that set out under the existing CAP reform programme. We will watch this very carefully.
Senator Dardis also spoke about the Middle East peace process. Ireland provided €6.5 million in humanitarian aid last year, mainly through the non-governmental aid agencies and the UN organisations, to the ordinary people of Palestine. Much of the €500 million provided by the European Union is expended on paying the wages of civil servants, members of the police, etc. One of the reasons we agreed to release a sum of €120 million recently was the need to maintain supplies of electricity and other utilities. At the time, there was uncertainty as to which way Hamas would jump — this is still the case — and the EU decided to continue providing funding in light of the absence of violence and the fact that it would take weeks rather than months to get an indication of how matters would progress. Members can rest assured that the European Union, as the custodian of European taxpayers' money, is vigilant about how such moneys are expended and seeks to ensure that they are not siphoned off but are used to meet the needs of ordinary people. Determining which mechanism should be used to transmit resources to ensure that ordinary Palestinians benefit from them has proved difficult and is the subject of discussions between the European Union and President Abbas.
With two new administrations imminent, can one assume that the status of the roadmap remains as strong as heretofore?
As far as the international community is concerned, that is the case.
I thank the Minister for his detailed briefing on the many areas covered by his Department. I had planned to ask a similar question about Hamas because I have a difficulty concerning the allocation by the European Union of €500 million per annum to Palestine and whether the EU took into account the decision by the Palestinian people to elect a Government that does not recognise Israel and will not take the first steps in the peace process. The Minister answered the question already and is taking a sensible line on the issue.
With regard to the World Trade Organisation and as the Minister noted, liberalisation of trade in industrial goods and services is in Ireland's interest. This prospect was threatened last year by what became known as the "bra war", which was only resolved when Commissioner Mandelson succeeded in ensuring that ships loaded with women's clothes that were made in China could berth. As a result, Europeans had sufficient clothes last year. A similar episode occurred recently in the area of shoes. It is clearly in Europe's interest to have an open economy in this area.
A new threat is emerging from within Europe, namely, demands that every clothing and footwear product imported to the Union be fitted with a label identifying the country in which it was manufactured. The purpose of these demands is clearly to engineer a new form of protectionism. I encourage the Minister to ensure that Europe continues to liberalise trade and does not erect barriers to protect countries that wish to prevent external trade in this sector.
I am also concerned by recent setbacks in elections in Belarus and Ukraine, where an anti-EU movement has developed rapidly. For example, it swept aside the pro-European movement in Ukraine. I am informed that the reason for this development, both in Ukraine and elsewhere, is a view in these countries that the European neighbourhood policy has not been beneficial. This policy places countries such as Belarus, Ukraine and Croatia on a par with countries such as Algeria and Morocco. Should the neighbourhood policy be reconsidered to distinguish between neighbours on the European landmass and countries outside Europe with which we would like to have good relations? The latter should not be treated in the same manner as potential members of the European Union.
I agree with the Senator on protectionism. In the WTO and Doha round discussions, Ireland, which has one of the most open economies in the world, has adopted the position that removing barriers and allowing countries to trade is advantageous. At the same time, a balance must be struck between protecting the national interest and the interests of the region. One of the difficulties we face is the mistaken perception that our position at the WTO talks is focused exclusively on protecting agriculture. We seek to ensure that Irish companies can trade freely and, as the decision to bring a strong delegation, including the Minister of State with responsibility for development co-operation, Deputy Conor Lenihan, demonstrates, to emphasise the need for a package of measures to assist the less developed parts of the world.
Ireland strongly supported the package produced at the Hong Kong meeting, which included the elimination of export subsidies for cotton from 2006, duty and quota-free market access for virtually all exports from the poorest developing countries in the world, agreement on licensing of generic drug production by the developing world to tackle major diseases and an aid for trade package. The European Union is the region of the world with the smallest number of barriers against trade with the developing world. The outcome of the WTO talks will give significant advantages to large developing countries with significant agricultural or industrial sectors to the detriment of Europe. For this reason, the EU must protect itself. The focus must be on ensuring that extremely poor countries are able to trade. A fine balance must be struck but we have arrived at a good position. While we try to protect the national interest, we also seek to have open access for trade into Europe in a way that also assists the least developed parts of the world.
On the position in Ukraine and Belarus, I do not believe there is an anti-European movement in Ukraine. It is too early to conclude that the recent elections delivered an anti-European outcome. Even the pro-European outgoing Government fully understood that it will take some time for Ukraine to meet the criteria laid down for full membership of the European Union. In the meantime, the neighbourhood policy can be worked to assist the country in making progress in this area. We must await the outcome of discussions on the formation of a new Government. It is more than likely, however, that the administration to emerge from negotiations will, by and large, be pro-European.
It is assumed that the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union will proceed next year. For the past six to nine months, the joint committee has debated the issue of freedom of movement for workers and will issue a report on migration in the coming week. The report notes that the joint committee concurs with the decision not to hinder freedom of movement of workers from Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and the other accession states. A decision must be taken soon on whether to allow similar freedom of movement to workers from Romania and Bulgaria. Does the Minister have an opinion on whether we should open our borders to workers from those countries?
While I have a personal opinion, I will not make it known until such time as the Government makes a decision on the matter. We will bring forward legislation in the near future on the accession requirements to allow Bulgaria and Romania to join. Later in the year we will have to make a decision on the free movement of workers from these countries.
In the section of the European Council meeting with which I was dealing, on the enlargement of the European Union and the discussion on the constitution, I emphasised the point that in 18 months we had taken in significant numbers from the ten accession countries. A total of 175,000 people from those countries came to this country which has a population of 4 million, whereas in the same period 250,000 went to the United Kingdom which has a population of 55 million.
I have stated to our EU colleagues that, in the context of further enlargement, there must be an understanding that all countries will take their fair share in order that some countries will not have to take on an undue burden. I do not say this is a burden for us. We made the decision for good reasons. At the time it was clear from research that we needed extra people to come here to fill some of the vacancies that had been created. We also made the decision on the principled stand, which most accept, that even though this was an extremely poor country when we joined the European Union in 1973, the Germanys of this world did not stop our workers from gaining access. We were giving people the same opportunity we had been given in 1973.
We must be more careful as a country about the decisions we make, given the large proportion of workers who have come here. We need to make strategic decisions, in the context of what happened in the United Kingdom and given that other countries did not allow in any workers from the accession states on 1 May 2004. The discussions that will take place at this committee will feed into the deliberations of the Government which will ultimately have to indicate its view before the end of the year.
I thank the Minister and his officials.
The joint committee went into private session at 2.05 p.m. and adjourned at 2.20 p.m. until Wednesday, 26 April 2006.