I welcome the Minister for Foreign Affairs all the way from County Cork which has been mentioned in the news repeatedly in recent months. We appreciate the presence of the Minister and the fact that he will address the committee on an important European issue.
General Affairs and External Relations Council: Discussion with Minister for Foreign Affairs.
I thank the Chairman and members of the committee. I welcome this opportunity to review the agenda for next week's General Affairs and External Relations Council, which will be the third under the Czech Presidency. Before embarking on a preview of next Monday's meeting, I want to give the committee a brief read-out of the developments at the last Council.
During February's general affairs session the Presidency briefed member states on its plans for the spring European Council, highlighting the need to make progress on the economic and financial situation and on energy and climate change. There was broad support from member states for the approach outlined.
The discussions at GAERC complement the detailed treatment of these issues by the Ministers with responsibility for finance, environment and energy in their respective Councils. They and their officials work at the various Council meetings to ensure that Ireland's perspectives are clearly articulated and that our interests are reflected in the outcome of those Councils which will feed into next week's European Council discussions. At GAERC, we had a detailed discussion of the European economic recovery plan. I informed the Council of our firm support for the proposals brought forward by the Commission in January, which includes provision for €100 million for our east-west interconnector project as part of a programme that is due to cost €5 billion. Considerable work has been done in the intervening weeks on this programme of projects and the funding arrangements.
The Council also discussed the eastern partnership as part of the preparations for the spring European Council. The intention is that the European Council will adopt a declaration on the eastern partnership. There are some tensions between those within the Union who want to stress either the eastern or the southern dimension of the European neighbourhood policy. We take a balanced view of the European neighbourhood policy, which we value as a means of bringing the countries concerned, whether on the Union's eastern or southern borders, closer to the norms and standards of the Union.
The external relations session in February began with a lengthy discussion on Afghanistan. It was agreed that this should be followed by a further discussion in the margins of the European Council next week. This was followed by a brief discussion on the Middle East, which focused on preparation for the donors' conference in Sharm-el-Sheikh on the reconstruction of Gaza. I briefed my colleagues on my visit to Syria and Lebanon in early February and underlined my extreme disappointment at the lack of progress regarding the humanitarian situation in Gaza and my concern about further Israeli settlement construction.
Over lunch, we discussed the western Balkans, specifically Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro and Serbia. On Bosnia-Herzegovina, there was general agreement that recent political developments are of concern but that the transition from the Office of the High Representative to an enhanced EU special representative represents the best way forward, provided the necessary conditions are met. On Serbia, discussion focused on the report on the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia presented by chief prosecutor Brammertz. It was agreed that a fact-finding mission to Serbia to assess its co-operation to date, as suggested by the Serbian side, would not add value and ran the risk of cutting across the chief prosecutor's mandate.
Finally, I briefed colleagues on my visit to Cuba last month. I stressed that the current EU line on sanctions was the correct one and underlined the strategic importance of the EU-Cuba-US relationship. I noted that I had raised human rights issues in a private meeting with Foreign Minister Roque, that the exchange had been frank and open and that the Cubans had engaged constructively. I have provided a brief outline of the previous meetings. This is a new departure and the committee was anxious that I would report back to the committee on meetings I attended as well as brief it on issues that will arise at the next meeting.
There are a number of significant items on the agenda of next Monday's meeting, many of which follow on from last month's meeting. I propose to address the general affairs items first and then the external relations issues. The general affairs session will focus on preparations for the spring European Council and the European recovery plan. No discussion is foreseen on the Lisbon treaty at Monday's GAERC. The spring European Council will, however, touch on the Lisbon treaty issue but no substantive discussion is planned because the main focus of the meeting will be the economic crisis and climate change. We have just received the latest draft conclusions for the spring European Council. The two key issues for discussion will be climate change and the economic and financial situation.
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister but we must vote.
Both Houses are voting. There is a state of total confusion. I apologise to the Minister.
I am at the mercy of the committee and the House.
I want to hear more about Cuba so I ask the Minister not to talk about it while I am gone.
We will suspend the meeting until after the vote.
Sitting suspended at 11.45 a.m. and resumed at noon.
We have just received the latest draft conclusions for the spring European Council. The two key issues for discussion will be climate change and the economic and financial situation. Recent weeks have seen the publication of some important documents on economic and financial issues, including the de Larosiere report which made 31 detailed proposals on the reform of financial market regulation and a Commission communication on implementation of the report's recommendations. The European Council is expected to provide the Commission with a mandate to bring forward draft legislation based on the recommendations of the de Larosiere report. These proposals will require careful study in the months ahead. We expect ECOFIN will be tasked with bringing proposals to the June European Council based on these documents.
There is now wide recognition that there will be a need for changes in the governance of the international financial markets and institutions. The downturn has exposed deficiencies in the existing system. We want to see this taken forward as a matter of urgency. Fixing the world's financial markets requires concerted international action and the European Union has a vital role to play in bringing this about. It has the economic weight and track record to be able to make a real impact in improving the regulatory climate. I hope we can adopt the necessary legislation as swiftly as possible. It is to be hoped the April G20 summit will produce agreement at a global level on improved regulation of financial markets.
In respect of climate change, the spring European Council will look forward to the Copenhagen climate change summit which will be held in December. The December European Council reached agreement on how the European Union would reduce its emissions by 20%. The Union is committed to reductions of 30% as part of a comprehensive global agreement under which other developed countries agree to adopt comparable emissions reduction targets. Agreement at Copenhagen is critical if the global community is to deal effectively with the threat posed by climate change.
It is becoming clear that emissions from emerging economies, especially such emitters as China, Russia, India and Brazil, will have to be curtailed as part of a broad international agreement. It is clear that cuts in emissions from developed countries alone will be insufficient to prevent global warming. Major investment in emissions mitigation technologies in developing countries will be necessary if they are to pursue their development in a sustainable manner. This investment, much of which can be undertaken on a commercial basis, will be crucial if vulnerable communities in the developing world are to cope properly with the challenges connected with climate change, for example, resource depletion, desertification and drought. The spring European Council will set out the basis for the European Union's negotiating position at the Copenhagen meeting. We will be supportive of an ambitious mandate which will pave the way for an agreement leading to concerted international action on climate change.
We continue to work with our European Union partners on the financing arrangements for the European economic recovery plan. It is important that we reach agreement on the plan at the European Council; otherwise, the Union's credibility could well be damaged. We will do all in our power to contribute to an early agreement which will demonstrate the Union's capacity to respond to the challenges posed by the current economic crisis.
Turning to the external relations session, the first item on the agenda is the western Balkans, which we also discussed last month. It is expected the discussion on Monday will centre on Bosnia-Herzegovina and we expect a new high representative and EU special representative will be appointed shortly. Draft conclusions have been prepared which focus on the current situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina and which call on the political leadership there to engage on the reform agenda in order to make real progress towards their European perspective. The Prud Odzak process which began in November 2008 is noted. The draft conclusions reconfirm support for the transition from the Office of the High Representative to that of a European Union special representative as soon as the five conditions and two objectives set down by the Peace Implementation Council are met. The European Union continues to support the efforts of the political leadership in Bosnia-Herzegovina to achieve progress on the issues that remain to be resolved. We strongly encourage Bosnia-Herzegovina to achieve the key goal of progressing towards its European Union perspective.
The November GAERC considered that the ESDP mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Operation Althea, should begin preparing for a move from current duties to a downscaled training mission. On Monday we will review this preparatory work and consider how we might best take it forward. Members of the Joint Committee on European Affairs made successful visits to Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia from 2 to 5 March. I understand they met parliamentarians and political leaders in both countries and visited Camp Butmir to meet the Irish troops and members of the Garda Síochána serving with EUFOR-Althea, EUPM and the OSCE.
We have a number of external relations items down for possible discussion next Monday, of which Belarus is the first. Relations between Belarus and the European Union have been at a low level for many years as a result of the very poor human rights record of the Belarusian Government. However, in recent times President Lukashenko has given indications of wanting to improve relations with the Union. However, the Union has made it clear that the human rights situation in the country must be improved for relations to progress. During 2008 there were slow indications that this might happen, including the release of political prisoners. Former opposition presidential candidate Alexander Kozulin was among the last to be released in August 2008. At the GAERC in October 2008 we decided that efforts to seek a positive way forward in the EU-Belarus relationship should be promoted. Accordingly, in October the Council decided to suspend the travel restrictions imposed on certain Belarusian officials, including President Lukashenko. On Monday I expect conclusions will be agreed, welcoming positive steps taken by the Belarusian Government following our decision in October to suspend the travel restrictions. The Council will, however, express concern about indications of a deterioration in the human rights situation in the country in recent weeks and it will be made clear that further progress in the EU-Belarus relationship is dependent on the previous positive steps being continued. While the conclusions have yet to be finalised, it looks likely that we will recommend a continuation of the suspension of the travel restrictions for a further six months. There may be a discussion on the EU-Belarus relationship, particularly in the light of proposals to include Belarus in the new eastern partnership initiative. This is opposed by some, given Belarus's mixed performance to date in moving forward on reforms. While we continue to have concerns about the human rights situation in the country and believe the European Union must continue to monitor developments closely, Ireland considers that encouraging contacts with the country is an important way to promote further reforms.
The issue of Sudan is provisionally on the agenda for the GAERC owing to the International Criminal Court issuing an arrest warrant against President Bashir last week. However, there is very broad consensus in the European Union on our position; therefore, there may not be a need for discussion. Ireland fully supports the work of the International Criminal Court which was created precisely in order to combat impunity for the most serious crimes. We continue to call on all parties to co-operate fully with the ICC in its work. Ireland and the European Union are deeply concerned by the Government of Sudan's decision to expel 13 NGOs from the country. So far, Concern and GOAL, the two Irish NGOs directly active in Sudan, have not been affected by the decision. Those who will suffer as a result of this decision are among the poorest and most vulnerable people in Sudan and it is outrageous that the Government should be so indifferent to their plight. Ireland is monitoring the situation closely in order to assess any impact for Irish Aid's humanitarian funding in Sudan. The plight of the people of Darfur remains a priority for us.
Over lunch Ministers will discuss the question of transatlantic relations. Since last year we have been looking at ways in which we can deepen the EU-US relationship. Both France and the Czech Republic have made this a priority for their respective Presidencies. The EU has agreed to focus on four foreign policy priorities where greater engagement with the US should be encouraged. These are the Middle East, the effectiveness of the multilateral system, Afghanistan-Pakistan and relations with the Russian Federation. In addition, energy security, environment issues, economic co-operation and the global financial crisis will feature as topics for greater engagement between the EU and the US. At the European Council in December 2008, the EU reached agreement on an energy and climate package. I welcome President Obama's decision to identify energy and climate policy as a key priority of the US Administration. The closest possible EU-US co-operation is essential, as we both face particular challenges in the field of energy security. The full commitment of the US to a broad and ambitious post-Kyoto agreement at the Copenhagen conference in December 2009 will be essential.
At the end of last week, US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton met with my Czech colleague. President Obama has accepted an invitation from the Czech Presidency to travel to Prague for an informal meeting with EU Heads of State and Government on 5 April. This will provide an early opportunity for EU-US dialogue in preparation for what I hope will be substantive outcomes at the June EU-US summit.
The Presidency has belatedly added the Middle East peace process to the agenda for next Monday's Council although it does not appear at this stage that any substantive discussion is planned. The EU Troika, including EU High Representative, Mr. Javier Solana, is due to meet with the Egyptian, Jordanian and Palestinian Foreign Ministers in Brussels next Sunday evening and the Council will receive a short briefing on those discussions as well as an update on ongoing Egyptian mediation efforts in the region. No conclusions on this item are foreseen.
Committee members will be aware that I attended the international conference in support of the Palestinian economy for the reconstruction of Gaza on 2 March in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt. The conference demonstrated clearly the strong international support which exists for the Palestinian Authority and for efforts to reconstruct Gaza, following the recent conflict, with a total of US$4.5 billion pledged by donors, including additional Irish Aid assistance of €2.5 million for humanitarian and recovery efforts in Gaza on top of our existing annual assistance of €8.6 million to the Palestinian people.
Among those who addressed the conference in Sharm el-Sheikh were President Nicolas Sarkozy, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, President Mahmoud Abbas, President Silvio Berlusconi and US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. There was considerable interest in and a warm response to Hillary Clinton's reassurance that the Obama Administration will pursue peace in the Middle East with vigour and intensity. However, as I emphasised in my address, the key political requirement remains ensuring the speedy and sustained opening of border crossings into Gaza to facilitate the urgent humanitarian and reconstruction efforts. It is unfortunate that the ongoing political talks in Cairo to secure a durable ceasefire in Gaza have not yielded greater progress so far in this direction although the international community must continue to do all it can to encourage both sides and to support Egypt in its invaluable mediation efforts. Similarly, greater progress on intra-Palestinian reconciliation remains essential if the strong political commitment in Sharm el-Sheikh to assist the Palestinian economy and Gaza's reconstruction is to have any practical effect. An encouraging start to the reconciliation talks was made in Cairo on 26 February and the goal remains agreement on a national coalition government for Palestinians by the end of March, in advance of the Arab summit in Doha.
I very much regret the decision by Prime Minister Salam Fayyad to announce his resignation on 7 March, given the achievements of his government in the past 21 months. His achievements were articulated and commented on by many of the participants at the conference. His resignation in many ways has been made with a view to facilitating agreement on a national government by the end of this month and can therefore be viewed as a hopeful indicator of progress towards reconciliation. I will again urge the Council to adopt as positive an attitude as possible to this process and to any national government which emerges since such reconciliation remains vital and we must judge any new Palestinian Government by its programme and actions, not its composition.
The Council may also briefly consider the prospects for resumption of overall peace efforts within the Middle East. In this regard, the international community must continue to urge that the new Israeli Government honours existing commitments, including under the Quartet road map, and clearly and unequivocally restates Israel's commitment to a two-state solution and to the process of direct negotiations with the Palestinian Authority initiated at the Annapolis conference.
While there will not be a discussion on Afghanistan at the March GAERC, Council conclusions will issue. As I mentioned, it is envisaged that Foreign Ministers will discuss Afghanistan again in the margins of the European Council on 19 March. One item for discussion at the European Council will be the question of extending the mandate of the EU special representative for Afghanistan, Mr. Ettore Sequi, to cover Pakistan as well. This move would reflect the mandate of the newly appointed US special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Mr. Richard Holbrooke. Since Mr. Holbrooke's appointment on 22 January, at least three EU member states, Germany, UK and France, have appointed representatives covering both Afghanistan and Pakistan. It appears that the intention is to form an international contact group among the main players present in Afghanistan. Ireland supports the extension of the mandate of the EU special representative on account of the close linkages between the security and political situations in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Council conclusions for the March GAERC are being prepared. It is expected that they will reaffirm the long-term commitment to working with the Government of Afghanistan for the stability, reconstruction and development of the country, including the EU commitment to assist police reform in Afghanistan through its civilian ESDP Mission, EUPOL Afghanistan. Conclusions will also cover the importance attached by the EU to the holding of free and inclusive elections in Afghanistan in August and the fact that the EU is ready to play its part in assisting electoral preparations, including through the possible deployment of an electoral observation mission, if security conditions allow.
That concludes my comments on the agenda for the General Affairs and External Relations Council meeting on Monday next. I would be delighted to hear the views of the committee which will feed into our preparations for next week's Council. I will be very happy to clarify any particular points of concern to the committee.
I thank the Minister. It is a very broad and important agenda.
I would like to specifically deal with the economic and financial situation and financial market regulation. Proposals have come back to us from Europe on the selling of sub-prime loans and other financial instruments. The mis-selling of sub-prime loans has got us into the current financial situation. The proposal from the rapporteur report in Europe was that when a product is sold on, 15% of the package be retained by the seller to ensure it was selling a good product. This was whittled down to 5%. In light of the high margins — called in financial circles "the haircut" — in selling these products, it would be much more appropriate to ensure we do not find ourselves in this situation again, if the seller of large amounts of financial instruments would retain responsibility for the product on an ongoing basis. Therefore 5% is insufficient and we should seek a 15% retention by the seller in light of the high margins and scope for greed to creep back into the marketplace leading to another difficult situation.
I thank the Minister for his comprehensive presentation and congratulate the Minister on his trip to Cuba. He is the second European Union Minister to go there, after the Cypriot Minister. He was very warmly received and it marked a landmark for the Cuban people and was a major issue. I hope the situation on accessibility and trade relations will begin to normalise. The Minister might say a word about that, as he referred to it only briefly in passing. I also compliment him on his position on the invasion of Gaza and throughout that time. He took a robust position and that was welcome, and he attended the meeting in Sharm el-Sheikh.
The Minister said the Lisbon treaty is not on the agenda, but it is the elephant in the room, or the elephant that is not in the room but should be. Could the Minister explain why it is not on the agenda? We have a referendum coming up some time this year and I would have imagined that there would at least be a progress discussion on the matter. The original legal guarantees and assurances were given in December. The understanding was that in the meantime, the Government would tease out the details and texts of these guarantees and what the formula of these guarantees would be.
After three months, we have not so far seen any text, nor are we aware of any negotiations that have taken place. There is no doubt that something is happening behind closed doors but if it is, the process is bypassing everybody in both Houses of the Oireachtas. This must be put before the people as it will end in a referendum to change the Constitution. On behalf of my own party I express disappointment that the Government has not been more forthcoming in opening dialogue and discussion on what we will have to campaign on at some time later in the year.
I presume the fact that it is not on the agenda means there is no likelihood of an immediate referendum. Will the Minister confirm that the referendum date is October? Is the Government keeping its options open by keeping everybody in the dark before suddenly springing the referendum on us? It is time we got some clarification on the issue.
On climate change, there is very little detail as to how the process will be tackled. I presume that much of the climate change agenda regarding reduction of emissions by 20% and the "20-20-20" target will be achieved automatically by the recession. Is there an estimate on how we are meeting our climate change targets simply through the massive reduction in the economy of virtually all countries in the world?
On the economic crisis and the European economic recovery plan, I would be very interested to hear how that will work out and what the elements will be. We had a stimulus package in this regard already and €30 billion was put forward by the European Investment Bank six months ago for investment in small and medium enterprises. That was supposed to be drawn down by member states. I am not sure if this is true but I understand that Ireland has not drawn down a penny of that €30 billion. If we put together a recovery plan in the context of the European Union, why do we not participate when hard cash is available for us to invest in the lifeblood of our economy? Our own banks are refusing to fund the small and medium enterprises and are complaining daily about the lack of cash flow. There is a constant credit crunch, although we have given guarantees and recapitalised the banks.
With regard to external affairs in the Middle East, I am glad to see such a quick response from the international community to the disgraceful activity by Israel in invading the Gaza Strip, destroying the entire infrastructure and economy. Has there been any progress in the investigations of war crimes there? The Minister spoke of war crimes in Sudan and the 13 NGOs which were expelled in that respect because Omar al-Bashir was being brought before the International Criminal Court. We have had the same kind of scenario with regard to the Israeli Army and how it operated in Gaza, including the weapons used and the indiscriminate nature of some of the activity. Is there any up-to-date information on that?
It strikes me as almost ludicrous as we are a couple of months down the road, with $4.5 billion committed by the international community to reconstruct what has just been destroyed when we could not have intervention to prevent it taking place in the first place. That is roughly the same amount of money sought by the Government in the upcoming budget in April.
The rest of the world will not help us find that, which is the difference.
That was the next line. That is the money gone to Gaza.
I will take suggestions in that regard.
That is the amount of money sought and we will help to find it.
The Deputy wants the Minister to borrow for Gaza.
The Minister knows what my point is.
I agree with the point.
One could consider the amount of money pledged for a narrow strip of land with 1.5 million people. It could be invested in the economy but now it will be spent trying to bring the infrastructure back to somewhere near what it was a couple of months ago. It is ludicrous. If we are engaged in any civilised humanitarian approach, it is crazy that we are going down this road time and again and repeating history. Although the money is welcome, it underlines the contradictions in the Middle East.
We cut the amount we pledge in overseas aid by €95 million, which is quite substantial in the context of Third World aid. I know we are in a difficult position in trying to put money together here but we are talking about the poorest of the poor. Is there any likelihood of improving this issue and restoring the aid that has been cut since the last time we met?
In the climate change context, we have an adverse impact in terms of carbon emissions. Third World countries are not responsible for virtually any of those emissions — they may be to blame for a very small quantity — but they must adapt their economies too. Do we have any funding agreed on a European level that would assist in the adaptation in response to the mechanisms and methods that we are looking to introduce on a European and, I hope, global basis? Can we expect any help from the European Union for Third World countries in the climate change context?
I will be brief as a number of my points have already been made. I wish to concentrate for a moment on the Middle East, and particularly the war crimes matter raised by Deputy Costello. Is there any appetite within the European Community to deal with Israel through sanctions?
Other countries, in recessionary times, have pledged $4.5 billion but Israel should be paying this and much more on top. We must get real on this. Although the Minister has taken and continues to take a very strong line on the matter — on which he should be complimented — others seemed to make noise at the time and now seem to have crawled back, to some extent, underneath a stone.
That is unacceptable and there must be a drive to ensure that Israel realises the wrongs it perpetrated on people in Gaza and those in the region generally. The only way Israel can be brought to heel on this is either through sanctions, or in addition to those that the country is seen to pay for the damage done to the area's infrastructure, which other countries are now seeking to address.
The matter is wider than just rebuilding the infrastructure as there should be consequences for the death and destruction. There should be some retribution over and above funding, although the funding should come from Israel and its supporters around the world. The sooner we see some level of direction by Europe in that, the better it will be for everyone.
We have spoken for a long time about Europe not involving itself to the extent that it should in conflict on its own doorstep. In this committee and others we bemoan the fact that the US has acted in a supreme way in conflicts around the world and we now have the perfect opportunity for the Union, from a foreign policy perspective, to show leadership at a time of peace. It could be seen to act as an honest broker by putting in place a framework that seems to address the reasons these things happened and, more important, brings wrongdoers to book under the general international law, to a point where people who have inflicted wrongdoing on the people in Gaza and the wider community are seen to pay the price. I welcome any comments in this regard.
I welcome the Minister to the committee. I know he has a busy schedule. The agenda for next week's meeting is packed and the Minister can only deal with a certain number of matters this morning.
Before we move to external relations I have a brief question about climate change. Obviously, the downturn in the economy will affect the commitment of European member states to tackling climate change. We can see this with regard to the motor industry in Europe, especially in Sweden, France and Germany, which are under considerable financial constraint at present. Perhaps the Minister would comment on developments in research and resources, particularly with regard to emission technologies, and the commitment of the joint car manufacturers in this regard.
On the question of European enlargement and Croatian accession to the European Union, has the downturn in the economy stalled European enlargement? The Chairman and I visited Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina last week and this was a major concern, particularly among Croatians, who had hoped there would be some movement on this in 2009. There is currently a bilateral dispute with Slovenia, but they feel this should not be an obstacle to their entering the European Union. What is the Minister's view?
European integration is very much on the agenda for the western Balkans. The country next door — Bosnia — is currently in a tense and volatile situation, as can be seen even from a 24-hour stay in Sarajevo. It is a difficult situation as there are three different ethnic groups involved. We must commend the work being done by Irish troops at Camp Butmir as part of Operation Althea. The Minister said the European Union is talking about downgrading Operation Althea. That would be an awful mistake and it is something we should reconsider, particularly in view of the Irish commitment there. We spoke to Irish troops about the work they are doing on landmines, which are still all over Sarajevo; there is an Irish expert out there. I hope the European Union will reconsider this at its meeting next week and continue the excellent work being done by the troops there. Those working in the Irish mission, under Commandant Billy Harrington, have said that its presence is needed there. It is very important because the country is in a volatile state. Will the Minister comment on that, particularly with regard to the position of the high representative and in view of the ongoing dispute?
Like other speakers, I am disappointed that Gaza is a low priority at the moment. It should be a high priority. I also ask the Minister to comment on border crossings in Gaza. There is only one from the Egyptian side and only humanitarian aid is allowed through. The situation in Belarus is also important. The Minister must continue his dialogue with Belarus because not talking will only send the wrong signal, and would also exacerbate the human rights problems there. Belarus is still not a member of the Council of Europe, which is the human rights watchdog. It has a long way to go yet, so the EU should continue its deliberations.
I am delighted to see that the remit of the EU representative in Afghanistan may be extended to include Pakistan, because the situation in that country is quite volatile and there are global security concerns in this regard. Is there a possibility of extending the remit of the EU representative?
The situation in the western Balkans is very serious and could lead to another outbreak of atrocities. We do not want to go back to that. We should remember the atrocities in Sarajevo took place only 16 years ago when the city was under siege.
To pick up on the comments made by my colleague, Deputy Costello, about the Lisbon treaty, I have no doubt that even if it is not formally on the table for discussion, it will not just be the elephant in the room but will creep its way into the discussion somehow. I have corresponded with the Minister about the issue of guarantees. We were all delighted to see that it is proposed to cover a range of issues under the guarantees, but there is considerable doubt and scepticism about their practical worth. A number of people have been in touch with me to say they do not think these guarantees will hold. They believe they will not ultimately circumscribe the activities of the European Court of Justice. I am not endorsing this view necessarily, but am giving the background to my question. They believe that if the guarantees are insufficiently rooted in the Irish constitutional tradition and do not give primacy to the Constitution, particularly with regard to how social and ethical issues are to be decided, the expansionist tendencies of the European Court of Justice will ultimately hold sway. Is it the Minister's intention to consult with different groups about the precise wording and scope of these guarantees? As Deputy Costello said, a number of months have passed and we do not have much additional clarity on the precise nature and scope of the guarantees. I am referring in particular to social and ethical issues — those relating to family life and education.
Another concern that has been raised with me in the context of the directive on equal treatment that is currently being negotiated is whether freedom of religious conscience will be respected in the long term. Does the Minister feel the guarantees can be negotiated in such a way as to have regard to the Irish constitutional provisions on religion? Is there such flexibility there? Does the Minister propose to consult with various groups, or will he present people with a done deal on a take-it-or-leave-it basis?
My second question relates to Third World aid. Would the Minister agree with the sentiment expressed in the speech of the UK Prime Minister, Mr. Gordon Brown, yesterday that the extent of the cut in overseas aid is a deplorable signal to be sending, notwithstanding the economic crisis we are in? To what extent does the Minister think the effect of those cuts can be offset by more efficient use of the overseas——
Did Prime Minister Brown say something on that yesterday?
I do not have the precise script in front of me, but he deplored——
Did he now?
He was not speaking about Ireland, but he emphasised that aid to the most vulnerable people in the world should not be cut.
The UK's contribution per capita is well below ours.
Would the Minister not——
That is a fact.
I accept that.
We never say that, though.
This is the sixth most generous country in the worldin terms of per capita contributions. Would the Minister accept that we are nonetheless sending the wrong signal by the extent of the proposed cuts? Hans Zomer of Dóchas has pointed out that we should be looking after the people who are least responsible for climate change in the world and most likely to be affected by it. Does the Minister agree it is important for us to send a signal by not making cuts to the extent suggested? Does he believe there is scope for increased efficiencies in the way our overseas aid budget is disbursed? Would the Minister envisage, for example, discussion on whether we have too many aid agencies and too much administration work involved with those agencies? Does the Minister propose to discuss these matters, and whether such efficiencies might offset some of the impact of the proposed cuts, which amount to almost €100 million? I agree with the Minister we are generous and that we have a certain percentage ambition in terms of our GNP. The Minister may say we are on course to achieve that but there is still deep disappointment about the extent of the proposed cuts among the community most concerned.
I am sorry I had to leave for a vote.
We realise that.
It is very important for this democracy to have two democratic Chambers and we are fortunate to have them.
Absolutely so, and to be in two places at the one time.
I resent the British Daily Mirror dictating the kind of democracy we have in this country. Let it deal with its own affairs.
I agree.
Good man, Senator Leyden.
Brits out, Senator Leyden.
All we need is a marching band.
Order.
I thank the Minister, Deputy Micheál Martin, his advisers and departmental officials for coming here today. When the committees are being culled I am sure the Minister will ensure this one will remain intact to allow him to make his contributions. When the Cabinet comes to decide this I am sure the Minister will have a role.
I have a great commitment to parliamentary democracy.
I know that and that brings me to the Minister's trip to Cuba.
That is a warning.
I compliment the Minister on his courage in going to that country. For too long Cuba has been ignored by the United States of America. It has thrived even though it has been deprived of medical care and supplies. I know the Minister's trip was successful but I am sure he regrets that his Cuban counterpart, Mr. Roque, was removed soon after the Minister's trip.
Perhaps as a result of it.
A great number of Foreign Ministers will not want to see him turning up.
Whatever commitments the Minister obtained in respect of more, or, indeed, some democracy in Cuba, Mr. Roque was called in and told he was getting too fond of the trappings of ministerial power and this was corrupting him.
Like Fianna Fáil.
I hope that the Minister's dialogue will continue with the new Foreign Minister, whoever he or she may be and however long he or she may last, if there is to be further dialogue with democracy in the European Union. That said, I hope President Obama and Hillary Clinton will bring about better relations between Cuba and the United States of America which are obviously needed. I hope there will be direct flights from the USA to Cuba and vice versa. At present one must go through Canada or from Spain or Portugal in order to get to Cuba. Quite a number of Irish people have visited Cuba in the past and I hope that relationship will continue. I compliment the Minister on his courage in going to Cuba and initiating relations.
Concerning the Minister's work in the Middle East, even though we have economic difficulties it is vital that our country should continue its role in international affairs. I commend the Minister, first for his support for and work towards a two-state solution and also because he was able, through the Government, to increase our funding by €2.5 million for the reconstruction of Gaza. I commend him on the fact that we provide approximately €8.6 million per annum to Palestine towards the creation of the Palestinian state. This is vital work. Even when we have economic difficulties we should always continue to support our international commitments and ensure that we fly the Irish flag throughout the world. I commend the Minister on his work and the tremendous energy he puts into his portfolio. I want to see a solution to the situation in Gaza, and in Palestine at large. I am delighted that Hamas is currently in discussions. One hopes there will be a unity government after the next few weeks. That would be very worthwhile.
I wish the Minister well at the meeting next week and I thank him for coming to brief us on the many issues involved and for his knowledge of the entire field of foreign affairs. Even during the difficult times in this country 60 years ago, in 1949 we were among the first ten countries that established the Council of Europe in Strasbourg. That body is 60 years old this year and it is to our credit that in difficult times after the Second World War, when we had a very difficult economy, we were at the starting point of the Council of Europe. I hope the Minister may have an opportunity of visiting the Council of Europe during this 60th anniversary year, representing one of the founding ten members. President Mary McAleese will attend the plenary session in June in Strasbourg and I hope the Minister might be present with her.
The meeting is very important and the Minister's report to the committee is very interesting at this crucial time. The points raised by members should be borne in mind and emphasised. What Senator Terry Leyden said relates to the dialogue at the Council of Europe, to which I have referred many times in this committee. It is of great importance because members of national parliaments within and outside the European Union have an opportunity to find out what is happening in every other jurisdiction and how the various climate change, economic and financial issues affect them individually and collectively. I fully subscribe to the points raised by members in that regard.
A number of members made reference to climate change. It must be eight or nine months since I had the honour to address members of the European Commission, its President and the European Parliament about climate change. I have looked carefully at the issue and I am sure the Minister has come to the same conclusion, given that he has much more information available to him than the rest of us. I believe that if the climate change proposals, as originally drawn up in draft form, were put into operation across Europe the result would be economic devastation the like of which we have never seen. Manufacturing and service industries in Europe, particularly in this country, would be placed at a considerable disadvantage and the economic problems this and other European countries now face would be minuscule in comparison. All committee members made reference to this and the point was well made. It is interesting that nobody wanted to hear this point of view eight or ten months ago. Now the Italians and Germans are beginning to listen. There is a tendency on the part of economic and climate change experts when they reach conclusions to proceed, regardless of whether the situation has changed in the interim. It has changed dramatically and for the worse. I agree with the views expressed by members.
The Lisbon treaty revisit is important for an entire series of reasons, different from those expressed. It is greatly important that this country gives an indication of its commitment to the European project and that it reaffirms that commitment in a clear and emphatic way, as quickly as possible. If that does not happen there is a grave danger that international investors will lose confidence in this country as an investment location. I am glad this has not happened yet but if it were to happen those who claim they wish to go back to the good old days will find out very quickly how good those days might be. It is a very important issue.
We were honoured last week to meet with the Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs in Croatia. We also met different political representatives. As was said, Croatia is hopeful and is advancing its case and cause at a rapid rate. From the point of view of this country and the rest of the European Union, it is important that we are seen to be supportive and I realise that we are. We must also be seen to be constructive in all our dealings with the western Balkans for a variety of reasons.
The western Balkans has been a volatile location in the past. It continues to be volatile and this has been pointed out by my colleagues. As in the past, at times of economic stress internationally, it will become volatile to a far greater extent than at any other time. The danger is ever present and the instability, especially in Bosnia, is still palpable. There is a very significant need for supportive investment, above and beyond anything which has taken place.
There is also a very significant need to reaffirm the KFOR and Operation Althea commitments previously made. Withdrawal from that region now by the European Union generally would be seen as a very short-sighted and negative step. I do not believe that should or will take place, but from our discussions, we know it is on the cards. Such a move would not be in the interests of European security or stability, or in the interests of the European project. I especially thank the Minister for reporting on the previous meetings related to the Garda in the Balkans, and Cuba, and I offer all possible support from the committee, notwithstanding the financial strictures to which Senator Leyden referred. Points have been made by all members.
I thank the Chairman. I will deal with the issues raised by Deputies and Senators. There may be an overlap as I may have dealt with some issues in earlier remarks to the committee. Senator Hanafin raised the specific issue of regulation for sub-prime mortgages. I made the point that it is our view that there must be global regulation, a global regulatory framework and the development of a new architecture. That should certainly be the case within the European Union and Europe should take a lead role in this regard. I hope the forthcoming G20 meeting will reflect the desire to establish a more global regulatory framework which would, at the very least, incorporate fundamental principles vis-à-vis financial regulation. There is an alternative view that stimulus packages in various states is the major issue, but I hope the G20 meeting will reach a consensus and will focus on the need for a proper and effective regulatory framework. I will refer the specific issue to the Minister for Finance and I agree with the spirit of Senator Hanafin’s comments. Many of these products have created the problem. The sub-prime mortgage problem was the major catalyst for the global financial crisis and a good deal more followed as a result.
I thank Deputy Costello for his comments on Cuba. Senator Leyden and Deputy O'Rourke and others also mentioned Cuba. By way of background to this issue, last year the European Union decided to lift sanctions on Cuba to try to develop a relationship. I was very taken by my Spanish colleague, Mr. Moratinos, in terms of his commitment to this issue and the degree to which he has advocated at European Council meetings. Our experience indicates that over time dialogue can work. The situation is changing. We made a visit to Mexico and Cuba which was very useful. My Mexican counterpart, Ms Espinosa, was very strong in expressing her support for our visit to Cuba. Central, Southern and Latin American countries all embrace this need for change, dialogue and engagement.
We met several Ministers on the visit, including the Cuban Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Roque. The meetings were frank and open. We were in a position to discuss the human rights situation on a one-to-one basis and to discuss the release of prisoners and so forth. We received a very good overview of how they see the situation and how they wish matters to move in future. We are keen to anchor and develop a bilateral relationship between Ireland and Cuba. We believe there is potential in a number of areas, including economic, development and culture, where we can have a fruitful bilateral relationship with Cuba.
Its biotechnology institute, from which I received a very comprehensive presentation, is especially interesting. As a former Minister with responsibility for health, enterprise and research, I was very taken by the quality of the presentation, but not only by what was said. Much of the institute's work and research is published in international publications which are recognised worldwide. Indeed many of its health statistics are WHO validated.
Cuba has a different system and doctors are paid a good deal less than here or anywhere else in the Western world. In Cuba there is one doctor for every 165 people. The Cuban population health data are very impressive. For anyone involved in health research there is an extraordinary, ready-made database available in Cuba for useful research on a whole range of issues, which I found especially useful. Some of our people are already engaged there. Professor Pauline Rudd from NIBRT, the National Institute for Bioprocessing Research and Training, will be a guest speaker at the annual biotechnology conference at which in excess of 1,000 international experts will attend. Other doctors will attend that conference also. I believe there is potential in that regard.
It is interesting that Cuba has developed one vaccine for meningitis B and meningitis C. As the committee will be aware, we have implemented a meningitis C vaccine which has almost eliminated meningitis C in this country, but meningitis B is a greater killer and a far more dangerous strain of the disease. People in Western societies may say there is an absence of clinical trails to validate the results. However, there are issues about which we should be a good deal more open to testing and working out. Are there applications for something such as that here? Is there more room for us to engage in terms of application of such vaccines in Ireland, especially in areas where we have a particular problem, of which meningitis B is one? Cuba is also developing vaccines for lung cancer and so on. That was interesting and I referred to it as an area in which I believe there is potential for partnership.
The Minister should bring the Minister for Health and Children on the next trip.
In respect of the Third World, Cuba was very keen to develop a triangular approach to development aid. It is active in Africa, especially Cuban doctors. Cuba has approximately 30,000 doctors worldwide. Many are in Latin America, but there are a number in Africa also. Irish Aid has confirmed that Cuban doctors in Africa will work in locations where very few other doctors, including native doctors, will go. That is a resource which adds value to the situation in Africa. We are working to see if we can now explore whether we can jointly add value to the work we do in certain locations. We believe in having a joint approach to certain locations in Africa, especially in the heath area where the sum of our parts can add greater value to the recipients of aid, especially in the area of health.
The third area relates to economic issues. We discussed telecommunications capacity and other areas, but progress in this area will take some time.
Cuba is concerned in respect of the US embargo and, although I await final confirmation, I was pleased to hear there has been some relaxation on the travel and remittances framework from the USA to Cuba. Cuba is very keen to open up and develop its tourism trade. Depending on to whom one talks, up to 500,000 Canadians visit Cuba on an annual basis. From a tourism perspective, Cuba is very keen to have people who are very good at developing tourism products, such as golf courses and so on. Cuba needs such people for its infrastructure and many countries are involved. The Canadians are especially involved in Cuba in drilling for oil.
We are in a period where there will be change and where we will witness change over time. Our view is that we should be a contributor to that and contribute to the EU's changing policy towards Cuba. I hope my visit will act as a catalyst for other Ministers across the European Union to visit as well. I met my Spanish counterpart, Mr. Moratinos, after the visit and I shared the discussions we had with him. I will do that with other administrations. I thank the members for raising the issue. I want to reflect how members feel about issues and to dovetail with the views of the committee.
Regarding Gaza, others, including Deputies Costello and Dooley and Senator Leyden in particular, were strong on the issue. I agree 100%. One can reflect on the fact that €4.5 billion has now been donated. Many members said this at the meeting at Sharm-el-Sheikh and asked if we were going to invest €4.4 billion in another war which will destroy everything again. That cannot happen. Everybody, including Israel, has obligations in this regard. I accept what Deputy Dooley says.
The issue of crossings was mentioned. I met separately Ms Karen AbuZayd, Commissioner-General of UNRWA, who comes from and is based in Gaza, to get an up-to-date account of the impact the closure of the crossings continues to have and the low volumes of aid which are actually getting through. They are frustrated. Paper and stationary for UNRWA schools is still not getting through on the grounds that Israeli security forces are of the view that perhaps it could get into the wrong hands and be used for propaganda purposes by Hamas.
Ms AbuZayd informed me there is a checklist at the crossing as to what is and is not allowed in. On one occasion two weeks ago lentils and pulses were not allowed in. This is an unacceptable situation from a humanitarian point of view. Ideally they would like 1,000 trucks to go in each day and there are approximately 200 going in now. This is unacceptable and I do not believe it contributes in any way to a durable ceasefire.
I want to pay tribute to Egypt, which is brokering the talks. To update the committee, representatives of Fatah, Hamas and other Palestinian factions, in terms of reconciliation among the Palestinians, have met in Egypt in recent weeks in an attempt to heal long-standing divisions between the parties. Joint committees have been established between them to examine some of the most divisive issues such as reform of the security services and the dates for possible Palestinian elections in 2009. They are due to present their recommendations by March 30 and an overall committee involving the parties will take them forward. The parties include independent Palestinian figures, the Arab League and the Egyptian Government.
The hope is this will ultimately lead to the formation of a Palestinian unity government. Egypt is pursuing the issue. I met the Egyptian Foreign Minister in Sharm-el-Sheikh. We had a separate meeting and he is very anxious that Europe is on board with the efforts and responds appropriately at the appropriate time if progress can be made. We see Palestinian unity and coherence as essential, as did all contributors to the conference. That is the situation and we hope the talks that have been brokered between Israel and the Palestinians can eventually lead to a durable ceasefire and the opening of the crossings, because that is essential from any humanitarian perspective.
Regarding the figures which were given, we can organise for a copy of the Palestinian recovery plan to be sent to members. The situation concerning sanitation and housing is dire. It is a humanitarian catastrophe and we cannot wait. We must get humanitarian aid in place as quickly as possible.
In terms of the Lisbon treaty referendum, I remind members that the conclusions of the Council at the December meeting were that in light of the commitments made by the Council of Europe, and conditional on the satisfactory completion of the detailed follow-on work on the guarantees by mid-2009 and the presumption of their satisfactory implementation, the Irish Government is committed to seeking ratification of the Lisbon treaty by the end of the term of the current Commission. That is what we agreed and faithfully communicated here. Deputy Costello was very strong with me early last summer and made it clear he did want any referendum before the general election.
(Interruptions).
I mean the European election.
The Minister made a Freudian slip, I hope.
As a former teacher, one must do things to get people going now and again.
We fully appreciate that.
It will awake people from their slumber.
It was a Freudian slip.
Deputy Costello was clear he did not want a referendum then. From our contact with parties, it is clear people still do not want a referendum before the European election. That is what I am being told.
It is to give people adequate time to consider it.
I am not complaining about that. I am making the point.
The Minister should let us all know what is happening.
We never anticipated the texts vis-à-vis the guarantees would be ready in March. We will consult the parties. It is not for us to dictate the form of that consultation, as I said when we discussed the issue after the December Council meeting
It was three months ago.
The ball is in the Deputy's court as well as mine. There was a sub-committee——
The Minister should be meeting with different groups and so on.
It included Parliament, parties and those represented on the sub-committee. We cannot meet everybody. We received submissions from Senator Mullen and other parties. We had discussions with other parties. The Labour Party made its areas of concern clear to us. The Senator has put down markers on certain issues. Fine Gael made a submission and announcements about where it stands on a range of issues, as has the Oireachtas joint committee itself. It has made recommendations to us on the package which should be put before the people.
Is the Minister talking about the report of the sub-committee?
After that the Minister went to the December summit.
The guarantees relate only to certain issues. Other issues raised by the committee are equally valid in any overall package we put to the people.
Does the Minister agree that the referendum will turn on people's perceptions of whether there is something new or different on offer? We want to satisfy people's aspirations.
We have made it clear that there is something new on offer such as the fact a Commissioner will be retained for every member state. As part of the December Council conclusions, it was agreed that the necessary legal guarantees would be given, that the provisions of the Irish Constitution on the right to life, education and the family would not be affected in any way by the fact that the Lisbon treaty attributes legal status to the EU Charter on Fundamental Rights or by the justice and home affairs provisions of the said treaty. That is in the conclusions.
The people will need to see the meat of that.
Of course people will need to see it.
I take it the Minister is saying there will be nothing substantial taking place next week and he will issue a draft set of proposals in June.
We always anticipated it would be the June Council. One can do something in between if one wishes and if the Presidency facilitates that, but we never anticipated doing it for the March Council meeting. I never anticipated being ready for the March Council meeting.
Can we get a level of consultation?
There will be consultation before it.
Can we have a level of consultation between now and June?
Yes, of course.
There is an intention to run the referendum in October.
I am not giving any dates for the referendum. It is a matter for the Oireachtas. We have given a commitment it will be done before the formation of the next Commission. That is our consistent position.
Which is the end of October.
It will be some time before that.
Are we to read between the lines?
No. The Chairman was strong on climate change. Last night I looked at a number of reports where it is suggested that the cities of Ireland, London and other European cities were under threat. This involves a reassessment of the rapidity of global warming and rising sea levels. It did not mention Cork but I am pursuing that.
It has featured recently.
The Minister is safe on the high moral ground in Cork.
I am pursuing that as a matter of considerable urgency because the city is built on a marsh. It was once known as the Venice of the south. That is why I am worried.
There are certain princes in Cork.
Once, boats were tied up at the steps that come off the South Mall. That was a channel. That is a big worry because it could become a channel again.
The Minister needs to watch the floating boats.
I take Deputy Costello's point on climate change and the recession, but the recession is a short-term opportunity. We might fulfil our Kyoto Protocol obligations by 2012 but the issue is we have significant work to do to get to 20% by 2020. For the first time in a long time there is leadership on this issue from the United States, under President Obama. Therefore, there is some optimism about achieving a 30% target following Copenhagen.
This has implications although my experience in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment was that industry was the best sector to cope with this problem because it has a clear focus on reducing energy costs. Some industries are more vulnerable than others, for example, cement, or the motor industry. That is why new technology is critical and I would take the recession as an opportunity. My personal view is that afforestation is one of the great weapons we have and we should drive this forward because it offers potential economic, climate change and carbon reduction dividends. We cannot hold back and it is not wise to do so. The BBC reported last year that ice caps alarmingly are melting faster than had been thought. There was also a very good report on the acidity of the waters and its impact on fish. I would not be complacent about this just because there is a recession.
In Ireland the two big sectors are transport, which explains our reprieve in the recession, and agriculture. There is however the question of food security and the national herd as an asset. I am not convinced that cutting the national herd is the most effective or efficient way to deal with that problem.
Therefore, there will be no cow tax.
Research on cows continues. The European agenda is very proactive.
The banks are in discussion with the European Investment Bank, EIB. I understand that Ulster Bank has moved in respect of EIB SME loans. The AIB and the Bank of Ireland are discussing that with the EIB too. I agree that it should be used for the benefit of SMEs here.
We are the sixth largest donor to the Third World aid programme at €800 million. We are ahead of some countries, including the United Kingdom in per capita contributions, although it says it will increase overseas aid despite the deficit.
I passed a note to the Minister. The British Prime Minister, Mr. Gordon Brown, has made a commitment to reach the 0.7% target. Are we on course to do that? Will we definitely do that?
The Prime Minister says he will do that by 2013.
That was the Gleneagles agreement.
Yes, that was the G8 agreement, but it is a long way off that. We are ahead of it at 0.54%.
I asked whether he had the right spirit and whether the Minister shares that. Is it even clear that we will meet our commitments?
No, it is not clear. We say we want to reach 0.7% by 2012, but that will depend on the budgetary situation.
Britain is arguably in an equally parlous state and Prime Minister Brown is giving a lead.
We have given the lead.
He is giving the guarantee that it will meet the 0.7% commitment. Did the Minister give the same guarantee?
Can the Senator tell me what the British percentage of GNP is now?
I accept what the Minister says.
Can the Senator tell me that?
I accept what the Minister says.
The Prime Minister has been outstanding in his commitment to Third World issues and has shown genuine global leadership, particularly in respect of the millennium development goals and so on. Several countries in Europe are very strong in this area, such as Luxembourg and some of the Nordic countries and the Netherlands, which is above the 0.7%. Ireland is very strong in being at 0.54% and is ahead of some of the big countries such as Britain. We want to stay there but we are now borrowing billions. The British Government does not have the same fiscal problems as we do. There is a fundamental difference between us.
We must make sure that we have a sustainable economic model that can ensure continued allocations to Third World aid. We are fooling ourselves if we do not get our house in order and organise our finances. We will not have a sustainable model for development aid. We grew incredibly rapidly in the past four or five years with large increases in our GNP, at 7% three years in a row. Last year it declined by 6% and we face a similar decline this year. That will have an automatic impact. The Senator mentioned our cut of €85 million but €50 million of that relates to our 4% drop in GNP. We calculated that it would be down 4% in 2009. If we are to make the contribution relative to GNP as we have been doing, we would be down €50 million.
We managed to come out of that last episode with our package relatively intact in respect of our commitments to priority countries in Africa. We are committed to retaining the volume of support that we provide there. Our programme is broad and our multilateral commitments are quite strong. We are careful about how we allocate the aid. It is regrettable. We do not like having to do this but we are in a difficult fiscal environment and we must be sensible about how we proceed. Our borrowings are high in a market where credit is not fluid and the rate is high. I take the Senator's point and we will do what we can to try to maintain our strong position in Third World aid.
The 2012 commitment relates to a percentage — even if our GNP goes down, the percentage remains.
I have never believed in percentage agreements.
Could we consider an innovative approach to overseas development, particularly in the current economic climate? Has any thought been given internationally to levying the banks to make a contribution towards overseas aid when formulating a new global regulatory framework? It might not be a bad time to do that, given the fine mess in which they have landed us. Many countries are under pressure and we have had to reduce our overseas aid. It might be worth exploring that idea, given the EU commitment to retaining overseas aid.
I think it is. In respect of percentages one of our key problems in recent years was managing a very rapid increase. Sustainable, modest increases are better than large increases in a short time. We will eventually get to that point because we had extraordinarily rapid growth in the past decade, which we will probably not achieve again for some time. We are going through a period of rapid decline with two years of negative GNP. Eventually, it will stabilise, which we can better manage. We are in a volatile situation because of the finances but we want to preserve our position so that we reach the 0.7%. The rest of Europe is committed to reaching it by 2015. Prime Minister Brown is talking about 2013, which is good.
It seems like a very definite agreement which gives a great moral lead at a time of severe crisis.
I hope he can follow through on it. We are committed to maintaining the dialogue in Belarus.
Deputy Breen mentioned the situation in the Balkans. The European special representative, Mr. Lajcák, and the operation commander, General McColl, are of the view that the transition to a support and training operation is the most appropriate position for the EU to adopt. I take on board what the committee is saying following its recent visit, but nothing is going to happen immediately, although the matter may be reviewed again in the June Council summit. We will keep a watching brief and give feedback based on what people have said. Originally we were to withdraw in February.
Have the French and the Finnish made a decision?
We will continue to serve there until June but the matter is under ongoing review at EU level.
In terms of the concerns about levels of violence in Bosnia and political tension there, Major General Stefano Castagnotto, the Italian major general and EUFOR commander, apparently said that while there are tensions at political level, all reports from the ground lead them to conclude that the situation throughout Bosnia-Herzegovina is calm and stable. He stresses that in addition to 2,000 troops from 21 EU and five non-EU countries currently stationed in Bosnia, EUFOR is also backed by all their capitals politically and militarily. In short, he does not envisage a new war starting. Having said that, I share people's concerns that we ensure continued stability.
I do not get any sense of a loss of momentum for Croatia because of the recession.
There is a dispute with Slovenia.
There is that dispute but there is talk of a mediator being appointed to resolve it, a person perhaps of the calibre of Martti Ahtisaari. There has not been the slightest hint, however, that Croatia should not be allowed in because of the recession. The fact that there is a dispute should not be a basis for holding back because that is a bilateral dispute which should be handled within a framework that respects its bilateral nature and it should not impact on Croatia's accession negotiations.
That is what we have heard but, unfortunately, not everyone agrees.
That is the feeling at the meetings.
There will always be barbs that will cause a hold up. We thank the Minister for his comprehensive account of the meeting and its outcome. We hope comments made by members will be of benefit to him. A report will follow from the committee on its visit to the western Balkans and other recent undertakings.
The joint committee went into private session at 1.25 p.m. and adjourned at 1.40 p.m. until 11.30 a.m. on Thursday, 19 March 2009.