The Minister for Foreign Affairs is with us this morning but must leave by 11 a.m. We will try to assist him in that regard by asking him to begin his presentation immediately and keeping questions to a minimum afterwards.
General Affairs and External Relations Council: Discussion with Minister for Foreign Affairs.
Thank you, Vice Chairman. I wish to be associated with the expression of sympathy to Senator Donohoe.
I welcome this opportunity to meet the joint committee to review the agenda for next week's General Affairs and External Relations Council. I will briefly summarise for the committee the key items discussed at the July meeting before turning to the items on the agenda for this month's meeting.
The July meeting of the GAERC was the first of the Swedish Presidency. In line with tradition, my Swedish colleague outlined the main priorities of the Swedish Presidency. In addition, the European Commission presented a communication on the Baltic Sea strategy. The Council discussed Iceland's application for EU membership which had been formally made on 16 July by letter from the Icelandic Prime Minister to Prime Minister Reinfeldt of Sweden. The Council referred the application to the Commission for its opinion, giving strong support to referring Iceland to the next stage of the process. Our discussion of external relations focused on Iran, in particular a review of relations following the disputed presidential elections. In addition, the Council discussed Georgia and stressed the importance of extending the EU monitoring mission's mandate and its full access throughout Georgia.
I now turn to next week's Council meeting. Ministers are expected to hold a short preliminary discussion on preparations for the European Council which will take place in Brussels on 29 and 30 October. Issues expected to arise at the European Council include the European Union's preparations for the climate change conference in Copenhagen in December, institutional questions, economic issues, the Baltic Sea strategy and illegal migration.
Ministers may also have a brief discussion on the security of energy supply. The Russian-Ukraine gas crisis last January brought this issue to the fore and the European Union has since been working hard to ensure energy security challenges are met. This is being done through action in areas such as infrastructure development and revising the EU legislative framework on security of gas supply. On the external relations agenda, Iran is an issue to which we will return over dinner on 14 September and will follow on from the discussion which took place at the informal EU Foreign Ministers' meeting which I attended in Stockholm last weekend. No conclusions are anticipated. Instead, Ministers will continue their consideration of post-presidential election developments in Iran and prepare for further discussion of Iran's nuclear programme in the margins of the UN General Assembly later this month.
While the immediate crisis arising from the disputed outcome to June's presidential election may have passed, the reality is that the overall human rights situation has deteriorated considerably since the events of last June. There is continuing suppression of the political opposition now coalescing around defeated candidates such as Mir Hossein Moussavi, as the hardline supporters of the supreme leader and President Ahmadinejad work to consolidate their position and control. We have witnessed what can only be described as mass show trials of opposition political activists and others who participated in peaceful demonstrations against the election result. Among those on trial are the French national, Ms Clotilde Reiss, and former local employees of the UK and French embassies who were previously arrested. Those on trial often have had no access to any kind of proper defence, with the show trials to date manifestly falling short of international legal standards.
Ireland and the European Union will need to continue making known to the Iranian Government our serious concerns at these developments, as has been constantly done since the start of the crisis. Any failure on Iran's part to ensure the observance of international legal standards in conducting the trial of those now charged will have serious consequences and will require an appropriate response from the European Union. We must continue to keep human rights in Iran at the forefront of our relations with that country since we should not underestimate the potential for further serious deterioration in light of the current internal political situation.
On Iran's nuclear programme, it has already been made clear that time is pressing on and the international community expects Iran to respond in some meaningful way to the offers to engage seriously on the nuclear issue which have been made by the E3+3 and President Obama's Administration. As yet, perhaps not too surprisingly in light of recent events, there has been no real indication from the Iranian Government that it is willing to suspend its enrichment activities. The issue will be one of the principal matters discussed at the launch of the new United Nations General Assembly later this month as well as at the G20 summit in Pittsburgh on 24 and 25 September.
The EU also needs to revisit this issue and this is the primary purpose for organising the ministerial discussion at the General Affairs and External Relations Council. Nationally, we have always made clear that, in the event of continuing non-compliance by Iran with the demands of the international community, we could contemplate the necessity for further restrictive measures being adopted against Iran. It obviously would be preferable for these to take the form of a new Security Council resolution although, if this does not prove possible, the European Union may need to look to adopting further measures of its own. The ultimate priority remains the attainment of a diplomatic resolution to this most sensitive of current international issues.
Once again, Afghanistan will be discussed at the General Affairs and External Relations Council. There can be no doubt that the security situation in the country has deteriorated considerably in recent months. News reports of major incidents involving the deaths and injury of a great number of people, including innocent civilians, remind us with alarming frequency of just how dangerous the situation in Afghanistan has become. It is clear that we have reached a very important juncture where the future of the country is concerned.
Presidential and provincial elections were held on 20 August and it goes without saying that the results will be extremely important for the future of Afghanistan. As members of the committee are aware the Electoral Complaints Commission decided on Tuesday to order a partial recount of votes, on account of the many allegations of fraud. The EU election observation mission, in which two Irish monitors served, also urged immediate action against large-scale fraudulent results. While the Electoral Complaints Commission did not indicate how many ballots may have been tainted it has been suggested that the number could exceed 500,000. I trust and hope that this recounting process will be carried out expeditiously. It will of course take time but the democratic process in Afghanistan must be credible and be seen to be credible. Fraud is simply not acceptable.
Ministers at the General Affairs and External Relations Council will also discuss the development of EU strategies and policies for the post-election period, with an emphasis on how best we can contribute to the development of Afghanistan in areas such as national and sub-national governance, agriculture and rural development, the police sector, including EUPOL Afghanistan, the justice sector, the electoral framework and human rights and reconciliation. We will take this work forward to the October meeting of the General Affairs and External Relations Council. Following the discussion on Georgia at the July meeting of the Council, the Presidency intends to discuss the situation in the southern Caucasus within the framework of the EU neighbourhood policy's eastern partnership. The Presidency wishes to focus on the potential for improving relations with the three southern Caucasus states — Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia — and to make progress with the existing plans to conclude association agreements, as well as deep and comprehensive free trade agreements, with those states.
I am grateful to have had an opportunity to give the joint committee some information about the agenda for next week's meeting of the General Affairs and External Relations Council. I will be pleased to hear the comments of members as I finalise my preparations for the meeting in the coming days. I will be happy to give clarification in response to any questions members may have.
I thank the Minister for his comments.
I apologise for missing the Minister's opening remarks. I thank him for his submission. Is it fair to say that the European Union is preoccupied with the Iranian issue? Having listened to the Minister's remarks, that seems to be the case. He mentioned that Ireland and its EU partners have told the Iranian Government they are not satisfied with recent developments in Iran. Have the Irish authorities been in direct contact with the Iranian Government, as opposed to contact through the EU? Have Irish officials spoken to the Iranian ambassador? Has the Minister contacted his counterpart in the Iranian Government? Is the Minister concerned that the United States is leading the way in dealing with the Iranian issue, and the EU is merely following suit? Does he believe Europe has concerns in its own right? I refer in particular to concerns about the abuse of the human rights of several small minorities in Iran.
I was surprised that the Lisbon treaty was not mentioned in the Minister's submission. It seems that it will not appear on the agenda at all. Can the Minister indicate whether he believes it will be discussed? Given that a new European Commission will have to be formed around the end of November, regardless of the result of the forthcoming referendum, I would be surprised if the matter were not discussed at all. Would the Minister care to elaborate on that?
I thank the Minister for his presentation. We wish him well at next week's meeting of the General Affairs and External Relations Council. Can he bring the committee up to speed on Iceland's application to join the EU? Can he indicate a timeframe within which Iceland may join the Union? It is important for Ireland to try to accommodate Iceland as we have common interests in many areas, particularly fishing. Iceland's inclusion in the EU could be advantageous for us.
Following the discussions on energy security at the most recent meeting of the General Affairs and External Relations Council, how satisfied is the Minister that the supply of gas from Russia and Ukraine into the EU and ultimately into Ireland is sustainable? Has the Union been assured that the supply will not be interrupted in the future?
How confident is the Minister that the United Nations, the United States and the European Union can exert the necessary pressure to improve the situation in Iran? Is he optimistic about that?
Does the Minister agree that this country's second referendum on the Lisbon treaty is critical to Ireland and the EU as a whole and could have a positive impact on countries like Iceland that are anxious to join the Union at some future stage?
As I said in my opening remarks, the European Union has been closely monitoring the situation in Iran. It is obvious that the major issues on the agenda at the moment are Iran, Afghanistan and the Middle East. We had a long session on the Middle East at the most recent informal meeting, in Stockholm. We discussed the efforts being made behind the scenes to try to secure the resumption of talks between the Israeli Government and the Palestinian leadership. It was suggested that the timeframe for the General Assembly could represent a key window of opportunity that might lead to a new breakthrough in the talks process. Ireland reiterated its position on the settlement issue, which is that there should be a freeze on settlements and, in return, the Arab states should establish missions, etc., in Israel, thereby facilitating the start of talks.
On Iran, Ireland, with our EU partners, firmly condemned the oppressive nature of the post-election response of the Iranian authorities. The European Union has been particularly strong in this regard.
I consider the ring tone of a person's mobile phone to be a reflection of his or her personality. I am not sure, however, if the optimistic ring tone of Senator de Búrca's mobile phone relates to the Lisbon treaty or the National Asset Management Agency.
Perhaps it is related to the programme for Government.
To return to the discussion, we have unequivocally rejected any suggestion that foreign intervention or interference can be blamed for the tensions and violence which afflicted Iran following the announcement of the results of the disputed presidential election. This charge which has been made is completely bogus.
At national level, Ireland has expressed its concern directly to the Iranian authorities at a number of meetings between senior officials of my Department and the Iranian ambassador which have taken place in the period since 12 June. At these meetings we made clear our solidarity with the United Kingdom, in particular, and France over the entirely unwarranted arrests of locally employed British and French Embassy staff and of the young French academic, Clotilde Reiss. I met the British Foreign Secretary, Mr. David Miliband, during the period in question to reassure him of Irish support for the United Kingdom's position. In a concerted action with other member states we have called in the Iranian ambassador on a number of occasions, most recently on 13 August, to express our strong concern about these detentions and the treatment of detainees generally and underline our continued commitment to a strong, collective European Union response.
I also wrote a strong letter to my Iranian counterpart prior to the election setting out our view on sustained violations of human rights in Iran, particularly against religious minorities, and our overall concern about the lack of respect for the application of human rights. The matter will be further discussed at the General Affairs and External Relations Council. The European Union is considering the prospect of introducing further graduated diplomatic measures. Any such decision will depend on developments in the cases of British and French employees in Teheran against whom charges have been laid. As I indicated, human rights remain at the forefront of agenda items concerning Iran. We have set out our strong position to the Iranian Foreign Minister on the deterioration in human rights in Iran.
On the Lisbon treaty, member states are, to put it mildly, conscious that a referendum is under way in Ireland. There is a genuine desire to refrain from any activity which could be construed as somehow impacting on the conduct or result of the campaign. The outcome of the Lisbon treaty referendum is uppermost in people's minds and our partners speak to us informally at meetings about how matters are progressing and so forth. There is genuine anxiety across Europe that the Lisbon treaty be passed.
This point feeds into the issue of energy security, including the supply of gas, raised by Deputy Treacy. The issue was raised at a meeting I held with the director general of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe this week. The OSCE is very concerned about medium-term prospects in the area of energy security which it regards as a fundamental issue. The reforms and additional competency provided for in the Lisbon treaty will make the European Union more effective in dealing with energy security on the world stage, for example, in negotiating with Russia and other countries across the globe. Without the weight and strength of the Union's negotiating position, member states on their own, particularly smaller states, cannot realistically expect to guarantee their energy supply.
The sustainability of energy security is central to the Lisbon treaty and key to our economic future. It hinges on the reforms contained in the treaty which will make the European Union more effective in addressing the issue. One should remember that last winter a number of member states went without gas because of the dispute between Gazprom and Ukraine. It was a very serious situation and the Czech Presidency intervened. This is the reason we need an EU Presidency and President for two to two and a half years who can build relationships and will be in a position to negotiate on our behalf on major global issues such as energy security and climate change. The latter equally is an issue of the present rather than the future; there is no question but that the impact of climate change on all our lives constitutes an emergency. It is not merely the Irish summer we have just experienced; it is far more serious than that. One should consider Africa and other parts of the globe that are suffering the impact of climate change. This is where the Lisbon treaty comes in.
What is happening in Iceland is extraordinary. In a country that traditionally wished to stay independent and never had anything approaching a majority contemplating membership of the European Union the global economic crisis clearly has given rise to a transformation in opinion. This does not mean membership is a done deal as obviously there will be significant internal debate within Iceland. However, the application for membership has been made and will be considered over time. In general, in principle, we are supportive of Iceland's application for membership. Nevertheless, it is interesting that the considered opinion of the Icelandic Government is that the future of Iceland and its economic future, in particular, are very much bound up with membership of the European Union.
People had made reference to Iceland and Ireland and the difference of one letter. However, there was a more fundamental difference — we are a member of the euro zone and have benefited significantly from the European Central Bank in the context of the current financial and banking crisis. This has not gone unnoticed in Iceland; there is strength in unity and in being part of a large trading bloc such as the European Union. It is instructive that such a transformation in opinion has taken place in Iceland largely as a result of the global economic crisis and we would do well in Ireland to reflect on this. Deputy Treacy was correct in raising the issue.
I have dealt with the Iranian question. I am not optimistic in that regard. It has been a very long saga. The Iranian Government has been skilful in maintaining channels of diplomacy and so forth on the nuclear issue, albeit with very little response to the offer made by the E3+3 group. Although President Obama has reached out and made overtures, to date there has not been a substantive response.
Does the Minister consider that Iceland's application for membership of the European Union has taken priority over that of other candidates such as Turkey, Croatia and Macedonia? Why does the Minister think progress on the applications of these countries but Croatia, in particular, has slowed considerably? The Minister should also update members on whether there have been developments in the territorial disputes between Turkey and Cyprus. As there were some developments in this regard last year, have there been further developments on the part of the Presidency? If Ireland passes the Lisbon treaty, does the Minister believe it will speed up progress on the applications of the aforementioned counties, given that it has slowed?
The Minister should update members on the position within Afghanistan. How serious is the situation there? Has he received feedback from the EU election observation mission, in addition to media reports? Will this issue take priority during his discussions next week?
What relationship does the European Union have with Iran? As a body, how trustworthy is the European Union? Is there much dialogue with Iran? My colleague, Deputy Timmins, asked about Ireland but I refer to the EU as a body in respect of what is happening in Iran. It is a very serious situation and dialogue is needed. The EU needs to build a better relationship with Iran.
I ask the Minister to excuse me for not having turned off my mobile phone before coming to the meeting. He said my ringtone was optimistic but we need optimistic ringtones on our mobile phones, anything that can help to improve the general mood.
I have a copy of a paper delivered to my house yesterday, which is being distributed widely by Alive!. It concerns the Lisbon treaty about which it contains a range of factually incorrect assertions. Hearing the statement of the Minister today, I was concerned that the matter of the Lisbon treaty is not on the agenda. I have no doubt it is a matter of extraordinary concern to members of the Council of Ministers. I heard the interview with the Minister and Nigel Farage of the UK Independence Party. I wonder if anything can be done about people who make fundamentally incorrect assertions to the public about the content of the Lisbon treaty. One expects people to hold different points of view in a debate but this is a publication. I do not know who produces the Alive! magazine——
It is published by a priest.
There is a priest's name on the back of it. It informs people that the legal guarantees the Government spent so much time securing and receiving support from other member states for are not legally binding. The Charter of Fundamental Rights is described as dangerous and the leaflet suggests that, if implemented, the charter will give major powers to the European Court of Justice, affecting the right to life of the unborn, the nature of marriage, the rights of parents to protect their children and religious freedom. These are the very matters we have secured conclusively in the legal guarantees. Are there any sanctions for people who put out information that is factually incorrect? Is the Minister aware of the parties involved in this initiative?
Iceland's application for EU membership will be discussed at the meeting. I hope Ireland will support the application. It is important that we point out in the campaign for the Lisbon treaty that it is strange that Iceland, which is in a more difficult economic situation than Ireland, is applying for membership of the EU when those who make the case against the Lisbon treaty suggest that it is bad for workers and will not be good for the Irish economy. We should emphasise this point.
The issue of economic recovery is not included on the agenda for the GAERC meeting. It was on the agenda for previous meetings and I am concerned about this. Discussions will take place on the EU preparations for the climate change conference in Copenhagen in December. If the EU is to sign up to its ambitious commitments, this will have implications for the EU economy and it will provide an opportunity to create a stronger, greener economy across the EU. This brings us back to the issue of an EU stimulus or recovery package, something much more ambitious than the current recovery plans being discussed at EU level. Ireland's economy is in difficulty and needs the prospect of some stimulus assisted by the EU. Is it on the agenda of the Council of Ministers or has it slipped? It is pertinent to Iceland's application for membership that the EU be in a position to provide an economic stimulus for all member states. To date, the economic recovery programmes are somewhat underwhelming. In light of the climate change conference and the commitment the EU is likely to make at that, is there serious thinking going on about attempts to stimulate a truly green economy? If the Lisbon treaty is passed we will have shared competence in the EU on an energy policy, which will provide many opportunities to all EU member states for economic recovery.
With regard to the Iranian situation and sanctions there is general concern that where sanctions were implemented in the past, such as on Iraq and Cuba, they did not always manage to be as effective as we would have liked. Sometimes the international community finds itself having implemented sanctions which are not having the required effect but from which it cannot withdraw. What types of sanctions are being considered? Are we aware of the danger of sanctions isolating a particular country? As much as possible we should encourage Iran to remain as full a member of the international community as possible. Is there a danger that sanctions might have the opposite effect and isolate Iran?
Deputy Pat Breen raised a number of issues. The talks between Turkey and Cyprus are ongoing and there has been no major development. With regard to Croatia, each membership application is decided on its merits and various chapters are opened and concluded in negotiations with applicant member states which must reach certain standards. As we discussed previously, a significant issue arises with regard to a border dispute between Croatia and Slovenia and the intensive mediation under way has not yet yielded an outcome. That is the major stumbling block to Croatia's application for membership. Turkey's application is a long saga and certain chapters have been opened on it. However, there are many difficulties and challenges and it will involve a longer timeframe. There is no real connection between enlargement and the Lisbon treaty and the treaty has no impact on the applications being received. Despite what various people may say that is the factual position.
We are very concerned about the situation in Afghanistan. A fundamental review is under way at EU level on Afghanistan and its neighbour, Pakistan. We began informal discussions in Stockholm last Friday; the bulk of Friday's discussion was on the Middle East but we had a significant discussion afterwards on Afghanistan. The elections and the importance of minimising civilian casualties in the military effort are key issues as are the development of economic and social sustainability in Afghanistan, governance in the regions, local governance, corruption, security and justice.
Our inputs must be strong on alternative crop production to the poppy, particularly with regard to aid. That is very important. Through Irish Aid we have a potential role in agricultural technique, expertise and knowledge. There will be a stronger call for co-ordination of aid among all donors and we have been stressing that for quite some time. We are concerned about the broader issues of governance, corruption and human rights. We would like to see these being significant parts of the new policy and strategy on Afghanistan that will emerge from our discussions over the coming weeks, particularly at the next GAERC meeting. It is not just a military issue; it is about developing the capacity to facilitate good governance at local, regional and national levels that will ultimately determine a successful outcome.
In regard to the European Union's relations with Iran, we are very conscious of the role of sanctions. The High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, Javier Solana, is involved in ongoing and exhaustive discussions with Iran, particularly regarding the nuclear file. The EU has been very patient and has persevered along the diplomatic road. Without question, our objective is the diplomatic resolution of all outstanding issues and we are pursuing diplomacy to avoid the unthinkable in terms of the nuclear issue. It is a cause of great tension for the region and it does not solely concern the EU and the US. The EU's approach has been strategic and temperate but there is no escaping the fact that the response has not been good.
Sanctions have always been directed against the regime rather than the populace because we are anxious that they do not make life worse for ordinary citizens. Senator de Búrca is correct in saying there is no point in using sanctions if they are counterproductive or do not achieve their goals and we will bear this in mind when we consider other graduated measures against Iran, particularly in regard to the treatment of foreign nationals and embassy staff. We may, for example, consider visa and travel restrictions on senior Iranian officials or other restrictive actions against Iranian Embassy staff in EU capitals. Again, however, we do not want to introduce measures that will be counterproductive or undermine our longer-term objectives in regard to engaging with Iran and resolving the significant issues currently on the table.
The Senator expressed her surprise that the Lisbon treaty is not on the agenda. It is not on the agenda because a referendum will be taking place in Ireland. If we pass the treaty, it will be put on the agenda for implementation. She also made reference to the Alive! newspaper. I appeal for a factual and accurate debate. We live in a democracy and I agree that many false claims can be made but it is up to those of us who support a “Yes” vote to firmly rebut them. I saw a good example of this from Blair Horan of the CPSU, who responded to a press release and website presentation from Joe Higgins, MEP, on the Charter of Fundamental Rights. This is an example of the kind of solid rebuttal required and I pay tribute to Mr. Horan for identifying a deliberate distortion of the charter to suit a particular construct of workers’ rights. It is regrettable that such issues arise. Mr. Higgins, MEP, has acknowledged the matter as a mistake and, although others may have a different perspective on the matter, at least it was exposed. There is a similar need to expose the untrue claims made in Alive!. According to the Eurobarometer report, 60% of people are aware of the guarantees that were secured in June. It is accepted that a comprehensive and effective, legally binding guarantee has been achieved with respect to the provisions in the Irish Constitution relating to the right to life, the role of the family and education. This guarantee is in addition to the Maastricht protocol, which has existed for 17 years and has been honoured throughout that time. We have no experience of an agreement concluded with the European Union that has not been honoured.
This raises the issue of trust and distrust. Some of the debate conducted by the "No" side presupposes the EU is out to do us down and acts in a conspiratorial way to undermine us but that is not our experience. We need to trust ourselves and the European Union, which works on the basis of consensus and of people working together for the advancement of the common good. The Referendum Commission was set up to clarify and provide information to people in a non-advocacy manner, by giving the facts.
Senator de Búrca mentioned Iceland and the progress of its application to join the EU will be fascinating. I have watched it keenly and have received a number of reports on the matter. Just as we are allowed the space to discuss our relationship with Europe so the people of Iceland should be allowed to hold their own debate. Given that we are also an island nation I would encourage Iceland to join as it would be good for it. There will be issues, as there always are in a discussion between an applicant state and the Union, but Iceland has strong associations with the EU and it is compatible in terms of the various chapters, so I welcome its application.
Senator de Búrca is right to draw attention to the climate change reference in Copenhagen. One of the great achievements of the French Presidency was the breakthrough in the December Council on climate change, which was followed up during the Czech Presidency. It is a very significant achievement to bring 27 member states to an agreed position on climate change, given the differences between the new member states and the more developed economies. Some member states, including ourselves, are over-reliant on fossil fuels but France and the UK have more diversified energy profiles.
The conference in Copenhagen is a significant milestone. People say we have three big forthcoming issues, namely, the Lisbon treaty, NAMA and the budget but I would add a fourth.
A Member
The Cork county final.
Yes, and the all-Ireland final is also very important. However, the conference in Copenhagen is make or break for the world. We lost ten years on climate change and it is interesting that President Obama has moved on the issue, as have the Australians where the Prime Minister, Mr. Rudd, has changed his country's position. Europe has led in this regard. I mentioned the impact on Africa, which has been significant in terms of desertification, flooding and the vulnerability of poor communities to those events. The great tragedy is that while climate-related issues such as CO2 were created by the developed world those who will suffer the most are the poorest, and many of those are in African states. It is vital that we achieve a result and the Swedish Presidency, in line with all the Nordic countries and the United Kingdom, is very strong on the issue. We have held an internal debate on the issues and have played a role. There will be challenges and many people still think climate change is a distant issue or has been exaggerated but that is not the case. It is a crucial issue that relates to our economy and the Senator is correct to say the challenge is to turn an imperative into an opportunity for economic growth.
On green technology and renewables, we must grab this opportunity as it will form a significant part of the economic recovery if we do it well. If we develop our indigenous industries to a degree where they become part of the solution to the global problems which arise as a result of climate change, we can create jobs in what is termed green technology or the green industry. Long before these terms were coined, there were firms across the country involved in processes such as water treatment solutions. I was kept abreast of them when I was the Minister working in conjunction with Enterprise Ireland. We have a lot of good technology to help us grasp the opportunities that climate change will open up. I am an enthusiastic supporter of the Copenhagen process and hope the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, will realise what he has been fighting for over a long period on the issue.
There has been a very significant EU stimulus package and the European Central Bank has pumped approximately €120 billion into our financial system. It is an extraordinary contribution underpinning our financial and banking system, of which we should be conscious. There will be a special European Council meeting next Thursday to prepare for the Pittsburgh G20 meeting. It will focus on all aspects of economic recovery, financial sector regulation, in particular, which will be a key issue. There is also the stimulus issue which has been raised, as well as the so-called exit strategy from stimulus packages.
I have covered most of the issues raised by members.
We have a number of other speakers offering and in order to confine our discussions to the Minister's timeframe I will take five or six together. I do not like to ask members to confine themselves to questions only but on this occasion we would be facilitating the Minister and allowing everybody some time to participate. I appreciate their co-operation.
We were very impressed by the Minister's recent visit to Sudan to seek the release of two GOAL workers, one of whom is an Irish citizen. In the past when kidnappings took place, they were taken off the agenda very quickly. I remember the time when Don Tidey was kidnapped many years ago; his colleagues had to go out ten days later to seek publicity because the matter had been taken off the agenda. The same has happened more recently in the case of others. Following his efforts in Sudan, does the Minister consider there is anything the European Union can do to put the kidnapping of two GOAL workers back on the agenda? As somebody working on behalf of the Irish victim, does the Minister consider there is anything that can be done at a European level? I fear such events are quickly taken off the agenda and almost forgotten.
My second query concerns President Barroso who has come out very strongly in today's edition of the Financial Times looking for a vote next week. I understand all 27 member states are supporting his nomination as President for the next five years. The vote will take place at the European Parliament on 16 September. Can anything further be done with regard to his nomination or is the matter out of the hands of the Commission and entirely in those of the European Parliament? It is a matter of seeking a simple majority? If he does not achieve this, will other candidates come into play? The French Prime Minister, Mr. Fillon, has been proposed as a likely alternative but perhaps it is not an occasion on which the Minister can comment as the issue may have been passed.
The Minister spoke about the importance of climate change in the world economy and to the world's population. The WTO and related issues are in danger of being taken off the agenda. It had high priority up until last December. The world's future will depend to a very large extent on trade talks which I fear have slipped from the agenda. The danger is they will not return to it. Perhaps it is up to the European Union to decide to take the next step.
I have a specific question about the Nord Stream project. It appears that, in their remembering past events, some EU members have not been co-operative in one of the most important energy security proposals in recent years. By all accounts, Finland is on stream but the co-operation of other Baltic states is required too. Some 25 million homes in Germany are to be supplied by this very important and secondary route which would give the EU the security it needs, and not leave it entirely dependent on the Ukrainian transit pipeline route. Will the Minister impress on his colleagues from the Baltic states the need to progress and move forwards with the Nord Stream project?
I wish to return to the issue of Afghanistan which was raised by my colleagues. I do so because I am aware the deterioration of the situation in that country will affect the security of our country, especially with regard to the supply of drugs in our cities and towns. The situation in Afghanistan appears to be at a tipping point because so much international support into that country was tied to a particular administration. There are serious claims being made regarding the veracity and conduct of the election by which that administration will probably be returned to power. My question concerns the conference that will take place in Kabul, as discussed in the briefing papers supplied to us by the Department of Foreign Affairs. Given the big debates that are taking place in the United States, the United Kingdom and perhaps even in Germany regarding those countries' participation in Afghanistan, how will the EU address the issue of Afghan security? What would happen in Pakistan if the situation were to deteriorate?
I wish to raise three issues with the Minister. He has shared some of his views and ideas on Afghanistan with us. It is most unfortunate that, despite the considerable resources allocated to dealing with that problem, the situation appears to have deteriorated seriously. Why is that? The Minister mentioned a review; perhaps he might give us some understanding of the nature of that review, and the timeframe in which we are operating.
Second, regarding Cyprus and Turkey, I always felt it was most unfortunate that when Cyprus applied for EU membership we allowed only part of the island to join. It was a missed opportunity. Does the Minister see the Turkish application as being coupled with the resolution of the Cyprus problem, or is it possible to deal with Cyprus on its own?
Third, regarding the Icelandic application, it appears there is widespread support for it. In view of that apparent support, and the magnitude of the difficulties experienced by Iceland, does the Minister see a possibility of that country's application being fast-tracked? Is there such a facility?
I welcome the Minister. I am substituting for Deputy Michael Mulcahy who is abroad. I compliment the Minister on his wonderful and outstanding work on the Lisbon campaign. He is available everywhere and anywhere and makes four of himself rather than one. I wish him well in that campaign and I believe we will have a successful outcome.
I have some questions. First, there is a great deal of uncertainty in the southern Caucasus region, near Ukraine. The Minister mentioned the security of energy supply. This is not a very stable part of the world. Georgia has had difficulty with its nearest neighbour. How secure are the relationships between Georgia, Ukraine and Russia? How much progress has been made in that area? The Minister talked about the European neighbourhood policy which involves Armenia and Azerbaijan. However, this is a very unstable part of the world and regardless of what signatures are signed it will remain a difficult area. Is there any way to avoid having pipelines and sources of energy for this part of the world coming through that region?
My second question is on Iceland. There has been much support around the table for Iceland. Iceland has got itself into huge difficulty arising from investments outside its own country during the past four or five years, somewhat similar to our own, but much more horrendous than our situation. By joining the European Union, does the Minister see this as a bailout for Iceland? What was its relationship with the EU during the past 20 years? Am I correct in saying that it was an associate member and that it opted out? I am aware of its closeness to the Nordic countries, principally Denmark and Sweden.
On the issue of a bailout, the Minister made a welcome point that the European Central Bank has been very generous to Ireland during the past 12 months and a huge amount of money has been pumped in here at very low interest rates which is trying to prime the pump in our economy. Much of the money is loaned at a 1% plus margin. Is Iceland trying to capitalise on a similar basis? My colleague, Senator Feargal Quinn, mentioned the Financial Times. Having read the Financial Times fairly regularly during the past five or six months, Iceland came across as being very reckless in its investments and its banking system totally collapsed as a result. I am beginning to wonder whether Iceland, going cap in hand to the European Union seeking membership based on its recklessness, is hoping for a bailout. As a long-standing member of the EU we must have protection. We have toed the line on all the rules and regulations and have been the strongest Europeans in the EU. Can a country apply for membership based on difficulties of its own making?
I welcome the Minister and his officials. I thank him for enhancing the role of the European affairs committee by appearing before it prior to the meetings in Brussels. The Joint Committee on European Affairs and, particularly, the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny are very much part and parcel of the Lisbon treaty. A "Yes" vote on 2 October will further enhance the role of the Oireachtas in respect of our conduct of business with the European Union.
I support Senator Feargal Quinn's views on the Minister's visit to Sudan. During what is a very busy time for the Minister it was very impressive that he travelled at the weekend and went to Khartoum where he met representatives of the Government. I hope his efforts will be successful.
Regarding the situation in the Middle East, I do not see any reference to it in the Minister's report. As the Minister is aware, 500 new settlements have been approved by the Israeli Government in the West Bank. The Israelis are making no effort whatsoever to secure a peaceful settlement in the region, irrespective of the presence of George Mitchell and Tony Blair on a regular basis. The situation is deteriorating and the Palestinian Administration will not deal with the Israelis once these settlements continue. The Minister has had first hand experience of settlements in the West Bank area where they have taken the best land and waters and have deprived the Palestinians of their right to earn a living in their own land. The issue appears to be off the agenda of the Council meeting, unless there is a flare-up in Gaza or the region. Perhaps it is on the agenda for the meeting but, if not, I would appreciate if the Minister would raise the issue again and keep it to the fore. As Senator Quinn said these issues can disappear from the agenda very quickly.
There is also the question of Cyprus. Deputy Seán Power referred to its dependency on the application by Turkey for membership of the European Union. Certainly, under no circumstances, can Turkey join the European Union without a settlement in Cyprus. It is totally out of the question that it will put forward an interim solution, or promise or commitment, for the reunification of Cyprus and it should not be dependant on the question of Turkey's membership of the EU. Cyprus has a right to reunification and a settlement. It is a divided country in Europe. Famagusta is actually a ghost city between the south and north of the island. It is totally unacceptable. When there is no flare-up, the matter is off the agenda and never discussed at Council meetings. That is a fact. I accept that other issues such as Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and so forth are at the forefront because they are current. However, this issue is very important to the people of Cyprus. There is goodwill for an interim arrangement or a settlement like that in our country.
I wish the Minister well in his work.
Ms Marian Harkin, MEP
I have two brief questions for the Minister. A number of speakers have raised the issue of Iceland. That country has extensive fishing grounds. What impact will this have, particularly given that there is due to be a review of the Common Fisheries Policy? If we vote "Yes" in the referendum and the Lisbon treaty is ratified, the European Parliament will have a greater say in that area. What is the Minister's view on the matter?
Mr. Barroso improved his chances of election yesterday when he said he was looking again at the posting of workers directive to perhaps strengthen and tighten it. The socialists, in particular, were seeking this from him and I am pleased that he intends to do it. It is also useful in the context of the Lisbon treaty. What is the Minister's position on the matter? Given that it took quite a while to get the temporary agency workers directive through, what is the position of the Government on Mr. Barroso's commitment to examine strengthening the posting of workers directive?
A number of speakers have commented on the Lisbon treaty. I agree with the Minister on the need to deal with the false propaganda circulating. However, he made the assumption that all the false propaganda was coming from the "No" side. He is probably generally right in that regard but not entirely. Yesterday in Brussels I drew attention to what is nothing short of a scurrilous advertisement in the current edition of Alive! placed by an organisation called Éire go Brách which is deliberating targeting vulnerable people. I received calls from carers in County Clare yesterday about it. The half page advertisement states Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights will take people’s children from them if they suffer from mild depression or alcoholism. That is the best part of the advertisement which sets out to target vulnerable people. However, that is not what Article 6 of the charter does. I see somebody has passed a copy of the advertisement to the Minister; he can see for himself how scurrilous it is. Alive! is entitled to take the “Yes” or “No” side of an argument but its publisher has questions to answer when he or she permits the publication of something so patently false and which is designed to frighten and terrorise families, particularly those who have children with special needs and who are autistic, who are mentioned in the advertisement.
Many eminent churchmen have taken a very positive approach to the European Union, from Pope Benedict XVI to senior churchmen in this country. They are positive about the European Union and the fact that it was founded on strong Christian social principles. Recently, the Jesuit priest, Fr. Edmond Grace, wrote convincingly and in an informed way in The Irish Times in welcoming the guarantees we had secured regarding the protection of the right to life as well as the family and marriage provisions of the Constitution. The guarantees state nothing in the charter impacts on these in any way. It is sad, therefore, that a minority of people from a religious background would engage in such glaring untruths as are included in that advertisement. It is wrong and unacceptable that these fears should be created. The fear described is completely without foundation. I pay tribute to Ms Harkin for drawing attention to it yesterday. As I stated, it is important that any misleading or false comments made on the Lisbon treaty from any side are firmly rebutted and highlighted and that we should move on to concentrate on the positive agenda of the treaty which includes steps towards economic recovery.
We have listened to the people who raised concerns about issues such as the retention of a Commissioner by each member state, ethical questions, neutrality and taxation. We also secured a national declaration on workers' rights. These were the key areas identified in our research and in talking directly to people. The Oireachtas also identified them in the work of the special sub-committee chaired by Senator Donohoe. We have responded comprehensively to the voice of the people as articulated in the last referendum, which is why we have a different package being put to them on this occasion. It is important, therefore, as we rebut misleading claims that we also keep in mind the key issues on the positive side of the agenda and not allow ourselves to be distracted.
Senator Quinn raised a number of issues. We have kept our colleagues in the European Union informed about the situation in Sudan. EU countries provide help and support in such situations. We have developed a strong bilateral approach to the issue and immediately dispatched a multi-agency team, led by the ambassador, Mr. Gerry Corr, who is based in Khartoum, to Sudan on hearing of the kidnap of Ms Sharon Commins and Ms Hilda Kawuki. We also had a team in El Fasher closer to the kidnap zone. I pay tribute to all those involved for their commitment. It has been a difficult 60 days, particularly for Sharon and Hilda and the Commins family who have visited regularly and have borne this situation with great dignity and fortitude, but it is still difficult and frustrating for them. We will continue to do everything we possibly can to resolve the matter and it will certainly not be taken off the agenda. I met Mr. John O'Shea of GOAL two days ago to reassure him again that we were in it for the long haul which is something I hope it will not be. I hope our visit created momentum. I greatly appreciate the space all Members of the House, particularly the spokespersons, Deputies Timmins and Higgins, have given me and the Department to work with the Government of Sudan to resolve this complex and sensitive issue. We do not want to discuss operational matters or details, as the issue has been very difficult for all concerned. However, we are hopeful and will keep at it. Until I see Sharon and Hilda I will not be happy. That is a view all members would share.
Ireland was an early supporter of President Barroso, an issue a number of members have raised. We hope there will be a vote next week when I hope he will be endorsed. I support his moves on the EU posting of workers directive which we have implemented quite well in this country and has been placed on a good legislative basis. In fact, many of the labour law issues that arose across Europe were case and country specific and the position has been appallingly distorted also. On the Laval judgment, for example, Sweden did not have a statutory minimum wage, whereas we do in Ireland. Whether one agrees with it, it is a matter on which we decide. That is how the matter is determined and provided for in legislation. The appointment of President Barroso will send an important signal because there are significant challenges ahead for the European Union in that regard.
Senator Quinn raised the issue of climate change, a matter about which I have spoken comprehensively. It is an important one for us.
What about the WTO?
Obviously, the Barroso decision is in the hands of the European Parliament and I do not want to interfere further, other than to state we have a position on the matter.
There has been no breakthrough yet in the WTO talks, although there have been discussions, as the Senator will be aware, with the EU Trade Commissioner and the United States recently. In fact, the Boeing-Airbus case might well be the catalyst for comprehensive talks or engagement, but there are challenges and difficulties.
Senator Hanafin referred to the Nord Stream project. That project is not necessarily proper to the EU. A number of member states are involved but there are also a number of competitor projects. Our view is that we must avoid dependency, from a strategic point of view, on any one source, transit route or delivery mechanism. That is obvious. We received significant support, approximately €110 million in financial terms, for the interconnector between Ireland and the UK from the EU stimulus package.
Senator Donohoe referred to Afghanistan. I already spoke at length on that matter. The Senator is correct with regard to the impact. In the context of the review that is taking place, a broad-based, multifaceted approach is being taken. That is important. Economic sustainability, particularly in rural areas in the context of the development of alternative forms of crop production in agriculture, is key. Education is also vital and there is a need to put in place good education facilities and good educational provision for the Afghan people. Governance is also a key issue. Regional and local governance are of central importance in the context of how Afghanistan will evolve.
Deputy Seán Power referred to the enormous level of resources that have been invested in Afghanistan. The agenda is extremely challenging and that has been the case for decades. It is important that we continue our work in this regard. It is also important that we be intelligent from a strategic perspective. We must move forward in an intelligent manner with regard to the responses we offer. I am confident that this is also the view of the US Administration. When we discussed this matter at our meetings in March, the US Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, was anxious that Ireland should examine its aid programme in Afghanistan from the point of view of sustainability.
I take the Deputy's point in respect of Turkey's application for EU membership. Turkey originally applied to join in the 1980s, so it has been a long saga. The negotiations have been in train for four years and there is a long way to go. The question of Cyprus is one among many that remain to be resolved. Our relationship with Turkey is important in the context of stability and so forth.
I agree with Deputy Ned O'Keeffe with regard to the southern Caucasus. This is a matter of concern and the practical response must revolve around stabilisation agreements between the EU and the countries of the region, particularly Georgia. I visited Georgia last year and it was interesting that in the aftermath of the conflict there seemed to be a greater impulse on the part of the Government there towards Europe than might have been the case beforehand. I am of the view that over time we can stabilise the situation in the region through various associative agreements and the development of relationships with the relevant countries. We should take a proper, incremental approach in this regard and there should be no great gaisces because the latter can destabilise.
The Deputy also referred to the ECB in the context of how helpful it has been to Ireland. I genuinely do not perceive the Icelandic application for membership as a bailout. The situation in Iceland came as a severe shock to its citizens but also to people and societies across the globe. Iceland has been a member of the European Economic Area, EEA, for a long period. In that context and as a result of its participation in this free trade area, a large number of its practices approximate to what we would consider the norm in respect of many matters. When the application is considered on its merits, therefore, those factors will be taken into account. In some areas, Iceland will have fewer hurdles to jump than other applicant countries. However, in other areas — reference was made to the fisheries question in this regard — I anticipate that extremely challenging discussions will take place. We are at the preliminary stage at present and we should move forward on a step-by-step basis.
On Senator Leyden's questions, I said earlier that the Middle East was discussed at great length at the informal meeting last week. I know the Senator is committed to this issue and has raised it on many occasions. Significant attempts are being made to get talks going and, in my view, we should allow that to happen. President Obama has made a determined effort to prioritise this issue and has invested a great deal of his own time and energy into it. The President, George Mitchell and others are working very hard on this and it is important we allow those who are trying to create the framework for peace the space to do so. We are experienced in terms of peace building and realise the necessity at times to call it as it is, as we did during the Gaza conflict.
We are continuing to push hard to allow humanitarian aid to flow into Gaza. What is going on there is unacceptable. I am unhappy with the situation in Gaza and voiced my concern in this regard again last week. Anything we do in terms of development must be relevant in that context. Javier Solana gave us a comprehensive briefing of the current position. For example, the view is that President Abbas is stronger now as a result of the Fatah convention and is more self-confident in terms of his power and support base. The freezing of settlements remains the crucial issue. We wish the current efforts success and we will do all we can to support them.
I hope I have covered all of the questions asked. I dealt earlier with the questions on Cyprus, fishing and President Barroso. On the temporary agency directive, the compliance agency, the National Employment Rights Authority, NERA, has been set up on an interim basis. It is interesting how issues and people's perspectives on them transform. When the Gama worker situation developed, there were calls in the House for urgent action in this area including the need for more inspectors and so on. We responded, through Towards 2016, with the establishment of NERA which is now being put on a statutory basis in the Houses. We now hear calls from every corner of the House to slow down and not go too far, which is interesting. It is an important issue.
There have been movements in terms of the transposition of the directive and there has been a great deal of engagement with the social partners in this regard. As I stated, we would welcome the posting of the workers' directive. Members will be aware that it is a directive to which all member states will have to be a party. In the meantime, we have a strong body of law in this area. The EU has been strong in terms of the advancement of workers' rights. It is logical that we pass the Lisbon treaty which includes the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is a plus for workers. If we do not pass the Lisbon treaty we will not have the charter which in turn will be a negative for workers. It defies logic that any trade union could vote against Lisbon. I do not understand how they could so do. I do not wish to be arrogant but it is a no-brainer. Not to vote "Yes" to the Lisbon treaty will result in a disadvantage to workers. I hope I have responded to members' questions.
I thank the Minister for attending the committee and wish him well in his deliberations next week.
The joint committee went into private session at 10.55 a.m. and adjourned at 11.15 a.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 15 September 2009.