The first item on our agenda is a discussion on the forthcoming General Affairs and Foreign Affairs Councils with the Minister of State with special responsibility for European affairs, Deputy Roche.
Forthcoming General Affairs and Foreign Affairs Councils: Discussion with Minister of State at Department of Foreign Affairs
With the Chairman's permission, I propose to recap briefly for the joint committee the key items discussed at the two Council meetings in June. I will then deal with the items on the agenda for this month's meetings. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Martin, attended the June Foreign Affairs Council, while I attended the General Affairs Council. The Minister of State, Deputy Peter Power, attended a separate session involving Development Ministers.
The European Commission presented its 2010 report on implementation of the economic and social cohesion policy to the General Affairs Council. The Commission also informed Ministers of the outcome of the 2010 Forum for Outermost Europe which was held in Brussels in May. Ministers reached agreement on a general approach on the draft regulation for the citizens' initiative. This general approach represents a reasonable balance between those who wish to have a user-friendly system accessible to citizens and the need to prevent abuse of that system. The agreement reached at the Council will form the basis for discussions with the European Parliament which will be held in the autumn.
The Foreign Affairs Council had lengthy discussions on Gaza, Iran and the western Balkans. With regard to Gaza, the Ministers were joined by Quartet representative, Mr. Tony Blair, for a detailed discussion on the prevailing situation, particularly in the context of the Israeli military interception of the Gaza flotilla. Council conclusions were issued following the meeting. Ministers also discussed the Iranian nuclear programme and agreed the European Council declaration on Iran, as well as short Council conclusions welcoming the adoption of United Nations Security Council Resolution, UNSCR, 1929, reiterating their support for a negotiated solution and looking ahead to the steps to be taken at the European Council. Following their lunchtime discussion with the chief prosecutor from the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, ICTY, Serge Brammertz, Ministers unanimously adopted Council conclusions agreeing to begin the ratification of the stabilisation and association agreement with Serbia.
Ministers had brief exchanges on the situation in Kyrgyzstan, Cuba, Somalia and piracy, Haiti and the lessons learned and the OSCE Corfu process. There was a meeting in Almaty on Saturday where progress was made on the OSCE summit to be held later this year. In addition, there was a separate session of Development Ministers, attended by the Minister of State, Deputy Peter Power, which dealt with the millennium development goals, as well as gender equality and development and the issue of east Africa piracy.
I turn to next week's Council meetings. I will attend the General Affairs Council and the Foreign Affairs Council. The day will begin with the General Affairs Council. The first item is the formal presentation of the Belgian Presidency programme. I had the benefit of discussing this programme at an informal meeting of Ministers for European affairs in Brussels hosted by my Belgian counterpart to mark the launch of the Belgian Presidency. The Belgian Presidency has identified five broad themes and a number of priorities within each of these five areas. In the coming six months we can look forward to an agenda focused primarily on implementation and follow-up in regard to a number of important policies and initiatives launched during the first half of the year. Work will continue, in particular, on implementing the Lisbon treaty, most notably with a view to concluding work on the citizens' initiative and the European external action service.
Exiting from the economic crisis and returning to growth will, rightly, be the first priority of the Belgian Presidency. Implementing the Europe 2020 strategy for growth and jobs, as well as continuing work on the suite of legislation on financial supervision, will be major elements of the Belgian Presidency. Another significant area will be climate change and the environment, where Belgium will oversee preparations for the COP 16 summit in Cancun which takes place in November. It will also seek to improve legislative instruments related to the environment in areas such as transport, industry, biodiversity and taxation. Other thematic priorities include poverty reduction, external relations and enlargement and the implementation of the Stockholm programme.
The recent informal meeting of Ministers for Europe in Brussels provided an early opportunity to exchange views with European colleagues on EU priorities for the next six months. In addition to the thematic priorities highlighted in the programme, it was noted that Belgium would manage negotiations on a number of significant dossiers, including the EU budget for 2011 and the mid-term review of the financial perspectives.
Preparation for the accession conference at ministerial level with Iceland and the opening of negotiations is another important item. In February the Commission published a largely positive opinion on Iceland's readiness for membership and recommended that a date should be set for the opening of accession negotiations. In the light of the Commission's opinion, Iceland's application was considered by Foreign Ministers at the General Affairs Council in June and by Heads of State and Government at the European Council on 14 June. The European Council decided that accession negotiations should be opened and invited the Council to adopt a necessary negotiating framework. The negotiating framework which sets out the broad principles parameters and procedures governing the talks with Iceland is being finalised and will be submitted to the July General Affairs Council this week for approval. No substantive discussion on the text of the framework is anticipated. An intergovernmental conference with Iceland, scheduled to open on 27 July, will mark the formal opening of negotiations, with substantive talks expected to commence in September. As in any negotiation, the eventual outcome and timeframe cannot be predicted. Ireland welcomes the opening of accession negotiations with Iceland and would regard its possible accession to the European Union as a positive development.
One of the items on the agenda of this month's General Affairs Council meeting will be consideration of the necessary follow-up to the orientations provided by the June European Council. To assist and structure this discussion, the Belgian Presidency has prepared a detailed information note on the elements which will be taken forward in the coming semester.
One of the key outcomes from the June European Council was the adoption of a new European strategy for jobs and growth — the so-called Europe 2020 strategy. Following on from the agreement on the five EU headline targets, our attention shifts to the substantial body of work which must be undertaken at national and EU level to ensure this strategy is implemented. We have work to do in agreeing national targets identifying potential bottlenecks and drawing together our national reform programme. We understand the Commission will brief the General Affairs Council on the overall implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy. As this process is to be conducted in "close dialogue with the Commission", a further round of bilateral contacts between member states and the Commission is envisaged, beginning in September. The Commission is also expected to brief on the roll-out of the seven EU flagship initiatives, as well as the Commission's communication on the Single Market Act, following up on the Monti report, each of which are intended to support the new strategy. For those who have not had the opportunity to consider it, the Monti report is worth a read and well put together. As well as taking forward necessary implementation work across the relevant Council formations, the Belgian Presidency plans to present to the December General Affairs Council a report which will take stock of progress achieved.
President Van Rompuy's task force on future economic governance in the European Union has now met three times since May and continues to make good progress. He presented a progress report on the work of the task force to the June European Council and conclusions were agreed on enhancing economic governance which adopted a set of orientations concerning budgetary discipline and macroeconomic surveillance. President Van Rompuy will provide a further progress report to the September European Council, before presenting the task force's final report at the October 2010 European Council. I note there will be a pick-up in the number of European Council meetings given President Van Rompuy's enthusiasm that this should be the case.
The June European Council adopted conclusions concerning various aspects of regulating financial services in the European Union, including in regard to the European Systemic Risk Board and the European supervisory authorities. The Presidency intends to ensure that work is rapidly taken forward on a number of important legislative proposals on the regulation of financial services, including hedge funds and private equity funds. On the issue of the possible introduction of a Union-wide bank levy, the European Council agreed that "Member States should introduce systems of levies and taxes on financial institutions to ensure fair burden-sharing and to set incentives to contain systemic risk". This issue will now be discussed at ECOFIN which will prepare a report for the October European Council.
The G20 Toronto summit, held at the end of last month, recognised that there was a range of policy approaches in the area of bank levies and agreed that individual country's approaches would be based on principles reflecting the need to protect taxpayers, reduce risks from the financial system, protect the flow of credit in good times and bad, taking into account individual country's circumstances and options and help to promote a level playing field — there is an amount of juggling to be done. The October European Council will set the European Union's position for the next G20 summit in Seoul in November.
The European Council's conclusions looked forward to the UN high level plenary meeting on the millennium development goals, stressed the European Union's determination to support the achievement of the millennium development goals globally by 2015 and reaffirmed its commitment to achieve development aid targets by 2015 as set out in its June 2005 conclusions.
The June European Council took note of the Commission's communication which analysed options to move beyond 20% greenhouse gas emissions reductions and assessing the risk of carbon leakage. The European Council will revert to the climate change issue at its October 2010 meeting in advance of COP 16 meeting in Cancun, to which I have referred.
The European Council decided that accession negotiations with Iceland should be opened and invited the Council to adopt a general negotiating framework. The Council is expected to do this on Monday next.
The June European Council congratulated Estonia on the work it had done towards joining the euro area. ECOFIN has since adopted the necessary legal acts to allow Estonia to adopt the euro as its currency from 1 January 2011.
Ministers will have a short discussion on the format and agenda for the informal European Council which will take place in September. The main focus of the Council, convened by Council President Van Rompuy, will be on the European Union's relations with strategic partners, in particular China and India.
For the first time since the entry into force of the Lisbon treaty, Foreign Ministers will attend the European Council. Officials have commenced work on preparations for the Council and there will be an initial discussion by Ministers at the General Affairs Council next week which will be followed by a more substantive discussion at the informal meeting of Foreign Ministers — the "Gymnich" — which will take place in Brussels on 10 and 11 September and at the General Affairs Council on 13 September.
The European Council is expected to adopt the Council decision on the organisation and functioning of the European External Action Service, EEAS. It agreed on a general approach to the matter in April which formed the basis for consultations between the Council, the Commission, the European Parliament and the High Representative. There was much toing and froing between the Parliament, the Commission and the High Representative on the issue. The Parliament approved the text of the proposed Council decision by an overwhelming majority on 8 July. Work is continuing on the necessary amendments to the staffing and financial regulations and it is hoped the EEAS will be up and running by 1 December.
Turning to the Foreign Affairs Council, Sudan is on the agenda. In this regard, the European Union's policy will be discussed and it is expected the Council will agree conclusions which look to the implementation of the comprehensive peace agreement. This is of particular importance in advance of the referendum on self-determination in south Sudan due to be held early next year. I also expect the Council to express its readiness to send an EU election observer mission to Sudan in time to observe all steps of the referendum process.
On Iran, the Council is likely to finalise the relevant measures allowing for implementation at EU level of UN Security Council Resolution 1929, adopted on 9 June, which provides for further sanctions against Iran in the light of the continuing serious concerns about its nuclear programme. The Council also is likely to agree additional, complementary EU restrictive measures, called for in the declaration adopted by the European Council on 17 June. Discussions on finalising the new EU restrictive measures have been continuing in Brussels for a number of weeks and are close to agreement, in which case there may be no need for a substantive discussion by Ministers at the Council on Monday. Ireland supports the overall emphasis in the new EU measures on penalising those within the regime who are driving forward the nuclear programme, rather than punishing the Iranian population as a whole. This appears to be a much more prudent approach to adopt. This is the approach Ireland has been advocating in the official discussions under way in Brussels.
The sole purpose in imposing new EU restrictive measures against Iran is to encourage a more co-operative attitude on the part of the Iranian political leadership and persuade the Iranian authorities to finally engage seriously with the international community in addressing and removing the long-standing and serious concerns about its nuclear activities. In that regard, there are some indications that Iran may be contemplating a return to the negotiating table, which obviously would be welcome. In particular, High Representative Ashton has recently exchanged letters with the chief Iranian nuclear negotiator, Dr. Jalili, an exchange which has given grounds for hope that it may be possible to convene a meeting between the E3+3 and Iran in the autumn.
Gaza and the Middle East peace process will feature in next week's discussions. The focus will primarily be on the situation in Gaza and the impact of the recent changes in Israeli policy that have led to an easing of the blockade. Ministers will hear from High Representative Ashton who visited the region from 17 to 19 July, including a further visit to Gaza last Sunday, following her initial visit in March. It is likely the Council will adopt conclusions on Gaza that will reflect the outcome of the High Representative's visit and discussions in the region. The Government remains seriously concerned at the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza and will reflect the unanimous view of the Oireachtas in this regard. While the recent measures to ease the blockade of Gaza announced by the Israeli Government, including the move to a shorter negative list of banned items, have been welcomed by many in the international community, ultimately their effectiveness can only be judged by their impact on the ground in improving basic living conditions for the people of Gaza. The evidence, to date, is that any such resulting improvement is, to say the least, modest.
A particular concern relates to urgently needed building materials that are required for reconstruction and which continue to be restricted to specific UN operated or PA approved projects. The Minister, on behalf of the Government, has stated clearly its view that there should be no restrictions on construction materials required for the building or repair of schools, homes and hospitals. There also must be greater movement by Israel on ending restrictions on movement and allowing exports from Gaza, since this is an essential step to enable the private sector economy in Gaza, or what is left of it, to recover. The Government looks forward to hearing High Representative Ashton's assessment of conditions in Gaza and what further contribution the European Union can make to ensure the new arrangements will be fully and effectively implemented on the ground. Ultimately, the only durable solution remains a complete lifting of the blockade and the opening of all crossings to normal commercial and humanitarian traffic and movement of people. The Government must continue to exert pressure on Israel in this regard.
High Representative Ashton will report also on her discussions with President Abbas, Prime Minister Netanyahu and US Special Envoy George Mitchell, among others, on the ongoing proximity talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority and the prospects for moving in the coming weeks and months to direct, substantive discussions on final status issues. Moving to such direct negotiations is obviously greatly to be desired, but it is far from clear that there is sufficient confidence on both sides to allow this to happen. In particular, reports of further house demolitions in east Jerusalem and continuing settlement expansion directly work against all of the current efforts to achieve political progress and undermine confidence in the Israeli Government's commitment to engage in genuine peace negotiations. Continuing doubts about Israel's willingness to renew the partial moratorium on settlement expansion on the West Bank which expires in September are also a clear obstacle to progress in the short term. These are areas in which the European Union must continue to pressure the Israeli Government to make a greater movement.
It is also expected the Foreign Affairs Council will have an initial discussion on India and Brazil as strategic partners for the European Union. Thereafter, consideration will be taken up again as part of a more general discussion on strategic partnerships at the Gymnich meeting in early September. Strategic partnerships will also be discussed by the Heads of State and Government at the European Council on 16 September. I greatly welcome the fact that Foreign Ministers will discuss Brazil and India as strategic partners at the Foreign Affairs Council next week. It is important, particularly following the adoption of the Lisbon treaty, that the European Union should now begin to streamline and consolidate its external relations for the mutual benefit of both the Union and its international partners. Given their geographic size, immense populations and growing economic clout and the political weight this has brought them, both Brazil and India can be considered as very significant partners for the Union. This is the right time to carry out an assessment of the relationship with them, as well as the general potential this relationship offers. For Ireland, it is important that the Union should continue to work together to develop even better and closer relations with both Brazil and India. Members of the joint committee can be assured the Government will avail of every opportunity to support efforts in this direction.
Kyrgyzstan is also on the agenda and draft conclusions have been prepared. They could be taken as an "A" point, if required. If a discussion takes place, it will cover recent developments. The overall conduct of the constitutional referendum of 27 June which was viewed as an important step in establishing the legitimacy of the current government and interim President Otunbayeva has been generally welcomed and the Commission has moved to provide assistance for the Kyrgyz authorities in the implementation of their reform programme. A development forum or donor conference will be held in Bishkek on 27 July and is being organised by the World Bank. There has been some progress made in Vienna on an OSCE police advisory group. Concern has been expressed about the fragile security situation and there are reports of continuing threats to human rights defenders and those belonging to the Uzbek minority. The situation of displaced persons, including those who fled to Uzbekistan and have since returned, is also a cause for concern. On 16 July the UN High Commissioner for Refugees estimated that the number of displaced persons was 75,000. The Kyrgyz authorities indicated they might establish an inquiry into the causes of the recent violence. There are also suggestions that an international inquiry may be established.
Georgia will be an item on the Council agenda, although no conclusions have been prepared. High Representative Ashton will brief the Council on her recent visit to the country, where she was present at the launch of negotiations on an association agreement between Georgia and the European Union on 15 July. She is also likely to raise the action plan produced by the Georgian authorities recently as a way of reaching out to the populations of the two breakaway areas of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The European Union is on record as strongly supporting the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Georgia but has been urging the Georgian authorities to adopt a less confrontational approach to these two entities. The action plan has been welcomed by the European Union and the United States. Ireland has encouraged the Georgians in this endeavour, seeing it as essential to demonstrate that Georgian territorial integrity, which we fully support, is more than just a land issue but also involves reconciliation. I met the Georgian Foreign Minister earlier in the year and again last weekend and emphasised that this was the Irish view. The action plan centres on seven instruments which are practical steps to promote co-operation. Discussion is likely to focus on what the European Union can do to help with the success of the plan. However, the initial reactions of the Abkhaz and South Ossetian leaderships to it are not encouraging. That may be an initial response and we should press ahead in helping Georgia in reaching out to the minority areas.
It is expected the western Balkans item at this month's Foreign Affairs Council will focus on Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo. The discussion on Bosnia-Herzegovina will be in the context of the elections to be held in October. In particular, Ministers will consider the role the European Union can play in advancing the political situation in the aftermath of the elections and helping Bosnia-Herzegovina to make the reforms necessary to, inter alia, advance its European perspective. They will also discuss the nature of the Union’s involvement in Bosnia-Herzegovina which will have to be considered in the light of possible developments post the elections. It is possible there could be a delay of a couple of months before a government is formed.
Tomorrow afternoon, 22 July, the International Court of Justice will deliver its advisory opinion on the legality of Kosovo's declaration of independence. The matter was referred after a UN General Assembly discussion and it is not clear how the judgment will go. Ireland, with 22 other EU member states, has recognised Kosovo. Ministers will discuss the court's judgement and the reactions in Kosovo and Serbia. The European Union, despite its differences on recognition, plays a key role in the international community's efforts to build on the progress made towards stability under way in Kosovo. It is also committed to working closely with the Governments of Serbia and Kosovo to seek pragmatic solutions to allow them both to move forward towards eventual EU membership and enhanced regional co-operation. It will fall to the European Union to take a lead role in the aftermath of the court's decision, regionally and perhaps at the United Natinos. This will require delicate handling.
Spain has requested that Cuba be added under any other business. The Spanish Foreign Minister, Mr. Moratinos, wishes to brief colleagues on his visit to Cuba earlier this month and the subsequent announcement by the Catholic Church in Cuba that 52 remaining prisoners from the group of 75 detained since 2003 will be released. I very much welcome the Cuban Government's decision to resolve this divisive issue in a comprehensive and positive way. It is right to acknowledge the efforts of the Catholic Church in Cuba and the role of the Spanish Foreign Minister in achieving this outcome. Some 11 prisoners and their families have travelled to Spain and it is my hope the remaining prisoners will be released in the near future. Following this development, relations between the European Union and Cuba can move forward and we should work towards an early agreement on arrangements for a more structured political dialogue and enhanced social and economic co-operation.
That concludes my comments on the agendas for the meetings of the General Affairs Council and the Foreign Affairs Council next week. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to set them out for the Oireachtas and will be pleased to hear the comments of committee members. I am willing to respond to any questions they may have.
I thank the Minister of State for briefing us on the extensive and important meetings which will take place.
I welcome the Minister of State. Negotiations are continuing on Iceland's membership of the European Union. When does the Minister of State expect Iceland to be ready to accept membership? Is it too optimistic to expect it to be ready by 2011?
I refer to the deteriorating security situation in Sudan. What steps has the European Union taken to ensure the Sudanese Government will co-operate fully with the International Criminal Court?
The Minister of State mentioned the possibility of further sanctions being imposed against Iran. How can we ensure sanctions will be targeted at the regime which is driving forward the nuclear programme, rather than penalising the Iranian people? It is a difficult balancing act and there are indications the Iranians are now willing to enter dialogue. What progress does the Minister of State see being made in that regard?
The Minister of State has referred to the easing of the blockade of Gaza and the fact that the measures taken are modest. What steps are being taken to return the possessions of those detained on ships and deported and on the transfer of cargo to Gaza?
I welcome the Minister of State and thank him for his presentation. We had good discussions on a number of occasions on the progress made or lack thereof in Gaza. Reports emanating from the Israeli side suggest there is a desire to move towards a complete blockade of Gaza. There is an expectation EU member states will develop the necessary links and infrastructure to provide for the people of Gaza. I read a report at the weekend in which it was suggested Israel would divest itself of the responsibility to provide electricity and water and for the passage of goods and materials to Gaza. Does the Minister of State have a comment to make on this? That perhaps would be a step too far, with Israel reneging on its responsibilities. To most right-minded individuals, it would not be an appropriate solution to the crisis that has developed, as Israel has played an active role in reaching the current position in Gaza, the people of which have been adversely affected. I have demanded that the European Union play a more active role in seeking a solution to the problem. This is not the answer any of us wants. Suggesting one can seal the border with Israel as a long-term solution is not acceptable to the people of Gaza, the European Union or the international community and Israel should be made aware of this at the earliest possible opportunity. The only appropriate outcome is a normalisation of the relationship between the two peoples. That is easier said than done, but if one side suggests the only effective solution lies in a hardening of the delineation between the two territories, it misunderstands the situation.
I do not see any reference in the Minister of State's presentation to the discussions on the accession of Croatia. Will there be a discussion on that matter during the meeting? The Minister of State's clarification in respect of the accession of Iceland was helpful.
This is the first meeting of the Joint Committee on European Affairs I have attended.
The Deputy is very welcome.
I am very happy to be given another job. I am obviously underused. I am still finding my way and there seems to be a blunderbuss effect in that there are so many issues one could get one's teeth into, but I will try to restrain myself and ask a few questions to understand things.
The Minister of State has said that at the last Council meeting there was a discussion over lunch on the stabilisation and association agreement with Serbia, at which the chief prosecutor, Mr. Brammertz, informally briefed the Council. There seemed to be a unanimous view that the matter could be advanced. Is there now full co-operation on the part of the Serbian authorities in the prosecution of fugitives from the war in Bosnia such as Mr. Mladic and others? What exactly is Serbia's position?
I will not go into the changes arising from the Lisbon treaty for Members of the Houses, one of which concerns the citizens' initiative. There is a meaty agenda and I am aware the Chairman has done a lot of work on it. I look forward to working on it also. My other office has a role to play in that regard. However, I am interested in the discussion on financial oversight co-operation within the European Union, in particular as regards a universal bank levy, on which ECOFIN will report to the Council. What would its purpose be? It would be close to a uniform tax, which would cause us concern. How would it be determined locally and how would it be utilised?
I have an interest in the situation in Sudan and had the privilege of addressing a session of the Pan-African Parliament last Friday in Kampala. I also held discussions with the Speaker of the Pan-African Parliament and that of the Ugandan Parliament, Mr. Ssekandi. There is deep concern about the situation in Sudan and an indication that matters are about to go ahead, but can the Minister of State give me a clearer picture of the European perspective of the violence? The boundary commission is a necessary first step in determining whether a referendum should be held. Has the Minister of State been advised as to whether there is a register of possible voters in place for the purpose of holding elections? There is unease in Uganda after the killing of 75 people in the bombings last Sunday week. What are the implications for Somalia, south Sudan, Uganda and the general region of the growing base in Somalia of militant Islamists?
I welcome the Minister of State. I join Deputy Howlin in expressing concern about the beginning of the ratification process for the stabilisation and association agreement with Serbia, without any apparent pressure being exerted on that country on the ongoing freedom of Mr. Mladic. It should be made clear that we regard this as a very serious issue and that we must be satisfied that every possible attempt is being made to arrest this man and bring him before the courts for his part in war crimes. It is not good enough to begin negotiations with a country which has a deep involvement in this issue without seeing what steps it is taking in that regard.
I support the steps taken by the Government towards the removal of sanctions imposed on the importation of construction materials required for the building or repair of schools, homes and hospitals in Gaza. While we discuss the future of Gaza from a political point of view, people are starving. As schools are without roofs and hospitals are damaged, we should be demanding a relaxation of the sanctions to allow badly needed construction materials to be imported to enable this work to be done.
The decision not to allow exports from Gaza must be explained. Exports would allow ordinary human beings in Gaza to enjoy a decent way of life, which is far from the case. The Government has made its position clear, but is the European Union pressing this issue sufficiently?
The Minister of State has said there was much discussion and some agreement on the European External Action Service, but Members of this Parliament have received little information on it. This is a big step forward in that a raft of offices will be set up throughout the European Union, involving significant costs. How will the service fit in with our foreign services such as our embassies? What will be the role of the individual European External Action Service offices? What support will they give to European citizens? What will their functions be? In the interests of openness and transparency, national parliaments should also be involved in the discussions. Information should be supplied before 1 December, by which date the Minister of State said the offices should be up and running. The Council agreed to a general approach to this matter in April which formed the basis for consultations involving the Council, the Commission, the European Parliament and the High Representative. There is no mention of national parliaments. I thought that was one of the reasons the Lisbon treaty was put in place in order that there would be greater involvement of national parliaments. I do not see why they should not be informed about the actual workings of these offices. My understanding is that the only reason the European Parliament was brought into the loop was that it had reminded the Commission that it was responsible for the passing of the budget and that unless it was brought into the loop, there would be a difficulty in having the budget passed. I do not think it was an act of generosity on the part of the Commission to involve the Parliament. National parliaments should be asking these questions and we should have a clear understanding of what services will be provided and what they will consist of because they will be using a vast amount of money from the European budget.
I will allow the Minister of State to catch his breath and we can come back to other issues later. I particularly want to ask about Iran and Cuba also.
I will not go back over other questions that have been asked. However, nobody has asked about India and Brazil, two powerful countries that will be discussed at the meeting next week. The Minister of State might elaborate on trade with Brazil and India. A conference is taking place in Brussels on CAP reform post-2013. The issue of beef imports from South America is of concern to many farming organisations in this country. The Minister of State has said it is important that the European Union continue to work to develop better and closer relations with Brazil and India. He might share some of his thoughts on the possibility of developing a closer relationship, particularly from an agricultural point of view. Many agricultural products are being imported into the European Union from South America with little traceability.
To take up where Deputy Dooley left off, where does Croatia stand in terms of accession to the European Union? To add to the comments made about Turkey, I see that Cyprus is not on the agenda for the meeting. Discussions are ongoing about Turkey's accession and a new chapter is due to be opened shortly with regard to Turkey's fulfilling its obligations for EU entry. The Cypriot Government has entered objections to further negotiations with Turkey, but the President, Dimitris Christofias, has put a proposal to the United Nations that if people are allowed back into the Cypriot city of Famagusta, it will lift its objections. Perhaps the Minister of State might comment on this.
I will not go over what other speakers have said about the situation in the Middle East. Does the Minister of State believe the Prime Minister of Israel, Mr. Netanyahu, is listening to the Palestinian people? By the end of September the agreement on the settlements will expire. Obviously, direct talks are extremely important and should continue. George Mitchell has been to the area on a number of occasions and met all of the players involved, but discussions seem to have reached a stalemate in terms of his input into the Middle East peace process. I welcome the fact that the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Catherine Ashton, has taken an interest in the matter and met the main players involved. There is further room for the European Union to be involved in the peace talks. Obviously, there is urgency attached to the talks, particularly in view of the fact that the agreement on settlements is due to expire.
Many subjects have been covered and I will not go back over them. How will the issue of whaling affect Iceland's negotiations on accession to the European Union? I understand from Pat the Cope Gallagher, MEP, who was here yesterday that there was a vote in the European Parliament and that it has almost been set down as a precondition that the issue of whaling be addressed. I am not sure what the motion in the Parliament consisted of, but I imagine it had to do with reducing the level of or ultimately banning whaling. I can see this being a major issue for Iceland. How will matters unfold over time?
The return of Iran to the negotiating table is to be welcomed. Nuclear proliferation in Iran is the most serious case globally. Therefore, the restarting of negotiations is to be welcomed.
The issue of climate change was mentioned. My view in watching the Copenhagen conference last year was that the European Union had effectively been sidelined, despite being the most progressive party at the talks, with a planned set of reductions up to 2050. It is important that this is not allowed to happen again. How is the Council approaching the negotiations to be held in Cancún in December? What happened to the European Union last time was nothing short of humiliation. It was also bad news in terms of our ability to implement carbon reductions on a global scale.
That is a long series of questions for the Minister of State. The points made by members are all relevant. For the benefit of new members, the committee has discussed the European External Action Service at length, including with the Minister, and is involved in an ongoing debate on the issue which will be added to further when the Minister of State replies. In fact, we agreed a long time ago that this was an issue of considerable importance to the country.
They could think of a better name for it, for a start.
Absolutely.
It sounds like the SAS.
Among other matters raised by members, the situation in Kosovo remains a sensitive issue, while the situation in Kenya and Sudan, a matter raised by Deputy Howlin, is likely to come to prominence very soon.
We should welcome the discussions between the European Union and India and Brazil, but we should also remember not to relegate ourselves to an inferior position within the Union. There has been a tendency in recent years, particularly on the part of the Americans, to move east in terms of investment and the relocation of industry which could have serious implications for all countries in the European Union but particularly Ireland. It should be borne in mind at all times in the negotiations that these countries are already powerful but will soon be even more powerful. I will not go down the road of discussing the number of bondholders in China, for example, compared to the number in the United States.
The situation in the Middle East has again been raised by many members. There should be ongoing progress in this regard. We need to ensure the impetus to reach a solution is maintained. This is of critical importance. Incidentally, representatives of both sides appeared before the committee recently in the form of the head of mission of the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli ambassador. We had an interesting, although fragmented and sometimes animated debate. The debate must start somewhere and needs to be kept going. I hope the European Union will do this.
Iran was discussed and I am sure will come up for discussion again. We have raised issues with particular reference to human rights abuses, the treatment of prisoners and their entitlements and so on.
We discussed the millennium development goals which have significant implications for this country. We also recognise the emergence of what appears to be an improvement in relations with Cuba, which is to be welcomed. This is part and parcel of the diplomatic activity that has continued for some time.
The Minister of State will know all about the 2020 strategy which we have discussed heretofore and which remains important. I call on him to respond.
I thank the Chairman. There were many questions asked. Deputies Barrett and Howlin are very welcome, but I say to Deputy Howlin the agenda is light because it is the holiday period. I read every day in our august national media that we are on holidays. We will return to business in early September when the agenda will be even more elaborate.
A number of members raised the issue of Iceland. It is not possible to say what the outcome will be, but there have been movements in public opinion on Iceland, a point touched on in a number of contributions. Generally, Ireland welcomes this move and both we and Icelanders see it as advantageous that Iceland should become a member. The framework will be agreed on 26 July and will go forward to be considered at the intergovernmental conference. It is very difficult to say what the issues will be. There are certain issues for a number of member states in regard to the recent difficulties with Icelandic banks and undoubtedly these will show up. There is a great deal of goodwill towards Iceland in the negotiations and I hope they will proceed quickly. There is no reason they should not do so because Iceland is a member of the EEA and consequently has adopted a great deal of the acquis. Obviously, a negotiation framework never sets out a time limit but substantive negotiations will only start to take place in September.
Senator Dearey touched on an issue related to Iceland's application, namely, whaling. The Commission's formal opinion, or avis, on Iceland’s application notes that Iceland allows the hunting of whales which is not in line with the acquis in general and that necessary steps will need to be taken regarding this issue. It is likely to be a thorny matter during the course of the negotiations. Icelanders take the view that they have traditions in that area. Issues such as the collapse of the Icesave Bank and its impact, especially for some local authorities which had banked with that organisation, will be very difficult.
The first speaker, Senator Cummins, mentioned not only Iceland but also Sudan and asked specifically about the International Criminal Court. Ireland is a party to the Rome Statute and obliged to arrest the President of Sudan if he were to visit us. Sudan is a difficult issue. It is on the agenda because member states want the discussion on Sudan to continue and believe that doing so may help to highlight what needs to be done in the area. Some of the specific issues that may be discussed include the situation in Darfur which, although it has dropped from the main news, has not disappeared. As the Senator stated, the situation is again beginning to deteriorate, which is serious. Another matter is the continuing role the European Union will play in future peacekeeping missions. There is a high level African Union implementation panel for Sudan which we wish to encourage to ensure it does its work. The European Union's willingness to send an election observer mission will be discussed. Senator Cummins spoke about voter registration. This is problematic enough in Ireland and we can only imagine what it would be like in a country as divided as Sudan.
The Senator also mentioned Iran. I have expressed my views on this issue to the committee on a number of occasions. I am very anxious, if the route of sanctions is to be taken, that they be well targeted because I do not believe the people of Iran are the culprits in this regard. There is an issue with the leadership in that country and its obduracy and unwillingness to become involved in any sensible way in negotiations. I have regard for the Iranian people and wish there were a more normal relationship between them and their neighbours. We hope any EU sanctions and accompanying measures will be targeted, as the Senator observed, and that they will focus where they need to be in order that they do not make many suffer who are already suffering. There is an enormous young population in Iran that is very well educated and they are suffering very badly because of the country's isolation. The measures are necessary, therefore, but they must be targeted in the way the Senator mentioned. The negotiations have been frozen since October 2009. One hopes there will be some improvement. I mentioned that Baroness Ashton wrote to the Iranian nuclear negotiator, Dr. Jalili. If that exchange is followed up it should be helpful.
Senator Cummins mentioned the flotilla, specifically all the issues relating to Gaza, as did other members. A very large number of people on board the first group of ships were detained and left their personal possessions on board. Subsequently, some were allowed to retrieve these. Those on board the Rachel Corrie, for example, took their own luggage from the ship and brought it with them when they were deported. Detainees’ cameras, telephones and electronic equipment were seized and most of these have not yet been returned, for which there are obvious reasons. It would be in everyone’s interest, not least in the interest of transparency, that electronic recording devices, in particular, would be returned by the Israelis. The Senator also mentioned the material on the ships. There have been delays in transferring the cargo and the Free Gaza movement has been in contact with the United Nations in that regard.
That touches on the general point raised by Deputy Dooley. There is no point in putting a tooth in this because there is no other way of saying it. What is happening is simply wrong. It is wrong that an entire population is fenced off behind walls. It is wrong that there is collective punishment, as Deputy Barrett observed. It is counterproductive in any realistic sense in terms of returning the relationship between the two nations to normality. How will this difficult issue be broken down? It will be even worse if there is a fuller attempt to isolate the people of Gaza. The European Union must look at creative solutions, one of which may be to use a European port to have a measure of international approach to clearing goods, allowing the Israelis see that the goods do not contain anything of a threat. The port of Gaza could be reopened subsequently. There must be creative thinking around this issue because the longer it goes on the more difficult the situation becomes.
Deputy Barrett specifically mentioned the possibility of the blockade becoming even worse and if that were to be the case, it would represent a huge tragedy. There was once a private sector in Gaza which is now dead. The only substantive material coming in is coming in underground and, as the Deputy knows, that is controlled by people who are not necessarily interested in the rekindling of democratic institutions or establishing normal relationships. It puts the countries in the neighbourhood in an appalling condition and puts the Egyptian Government under pressure. In terms of humanitarian aid, international relations, having some sort of normality in the Middle East and making progress with the peace process, this extraordinary arrangement makes no sense.
I mentioned a number of times in the European Union that there may be a need for more creative thinking. My view is that if the ports of Gaza and Famagusta could be opened and there was international customs control on products coming into Gaza which would involve the Israelis, they could see that everything was happening under seal and control and could allow the people of Gaza to get on with their lives. Some creative thinking is necessary.
I often wondered why we have no problem with sending peacekeepers, but there seems to be a problem, as the Minister of State suggests, in sending customs officers who would act independently
That is part of the proposition which I have sounded informally. If there was——
Correct
For example, if there was something similar to the old Irish duty free areas in Shannon, there could be an area under international control where humanitarian and building supplies and all the materials the people of Gaza need to live could be landed and inspected to make certain that there was no threat to the Israeli people who have rights too. The supplies could then be transferred on ships under a European Union flag to Gaza. There could be no way of interfering with it because one could have a secure transfer of material. It is not the most difficult problem in the world to solve if there is a willingness to solve it.
I was asked whether there was a will to solve the problem. Again, my view is that it is one of the questions which arises from time to time. I have never been hostile to Israel, but I cannot understand why there has not been more movement on that issue. With some ingenuity and lateral thinking the blockade could be lifted and the people of Gaza and Israel could get on with their lives and live in peace.
Deputy Dooley mentioned the recent Israeli proposals. The European Union and the wider international community, including Egypt, in particular, have been very clear that it is not an option. I have said enough about Gaza.
The question of Serbia was raised by Deputies Howlin and Barrett. Deputy Barrett asked about the international criminal tribunal, in particular, and the degree of co-operation which has come from Serbia. One thing which strikes me forcefully on this issue is that the member states who founded the European Coal and Steel Community, the precursor to the European Union, within five years of the most monstrous war which humankind had ever waged on itself were able to sit down and sign the treaty of Paris to create the European Coal and Steel Community and then create the European Economic Community a few years later.
The same can be said of Serbia. As it is more focused, there have been some problems. Serbia has made some significant conciliatory gestures and it is accepted that is the case. Most notable was the declaration of the Serbian Parliament condemning the massacre at Srebrenica, which was unbelievable. Less than 60 years after the Holocaust when the Europeans slaughtered people simply because of their beliefs, the same thing happened in Srebrenica. It was an extraordinarily dark day. President Tadic of Serbia attended the commemorations on 11 July which was an important conciliatory move.
There is a belief the current Government in Serbia is very serious, that it is operating in a bona fide way, that it is very strongly pro-European and is very anxious to put the dark and dismal past behind it. There is still the problem of full co-operation with the international criminal tribunal. The belief of most member states is that everything which can be done is now being done and we should recognise this.
On the report of the prosecutor, Mr. Brammertz, did he say that Serbia would co-operate fully?
The report is positive and has helped to move the European Union in that way. There was a briefing at the launch which seemed to suggest he was satisfied with the current Administration's bona fides and that it was anxious to meet the international requirements. I would not want to say everything has been done because it has not, but he was satisfied that it was making very real moves in that direction.
Deputy Howlin referred to the bank levy. It is at a very early stage and it will not be opening the back door to taxation. We share a view on that matter which remains to be negotiated. The idea is that if a levy were to be introduced, it would be a way of preventing taxpayers having to pick up the can for any further misbehaviour by high-flying bankers.
On the European External Action Service, EEAS — it sounds like "SS" which has little to commend itself — the first point which should be made is that this is part and parcel of what flows from the Lisbon treaty. Deputy Barrett asked about cost. Most of the costs will arise from the transfer of existing services into the EEAS. A lot of the costs are already in place. The draft amending budget for 2010 has been agreed at official level and will create a new section in the European Union's budget for the EEAS. It was part of the discussion which took place with the Parliament. Its concern was wider than the budget and was about the level of consultation. The High Representative will shortly give member states more information on the structure and budget. The net impact for 2010 is about €9.5 million.
What will the service actually do? The first thing to do is put it in place. It strikes me as rather bizarre that we have had a long period since the ratification of the treaty but the service has not appeared. It does not reflect very well on the capacity of the European Union to make decisions. The service is not in place and the key personnel have not been adopted. There will be competition and various member states will hope to get key positions. A small number of Irish people have indicated an interest and we will support them. There are constraints on the budget but the service will be in operation.
On how the service will relate to the national services, from the point of view of a country with a relatively small footprint all over the world, I can see the service, as it grows and develops during the years, being very useful, in particular to Irish citizens who travel to places with which we could not have a relationship. It is still a work a progress.
I understand it will not deal with individual citizens.
That is one of the issues.
That is why it is very important that it is set out clearly what the service will provide in order that we are all aware of it. Is it replacing the European Commission office in Molesworth Street? What will it be doing? We should all be clear on its role and function.
It will not replace the offices in member states or the Commission because it is an external, not an internal service.
There will be two offices.
No. It will be dealing with activities outside, not inside, the European Union. This is part of the division of responsibilities between the Commission and the European External Action Service. A territorial issue arises in that regard.
I should mention one important issue. One of the biggest issues that arises with an external action service is the sharing of information with national diplomatic services. There is a complaint in that regard. The European Union continues to have a very big footprint around the world. It is not always clear that the information it gathers in the course of its diplomatic activities is fed back into the system. One of the more important issues will be the way in which that information is integrated back home.
It all depends on how one defines the term "back home".
The individual member states. They will be involved and will co-ordinate their activities with those of the diplomatic service abroad.
The Minister of State might make the point that national parliaments should be given information on the ongoing negotiations and discussions on this matter. It is a point of principle. It is not that we want to be nosy, but we should be in the loop and automatically informed of developments because if we are asked a question, we are only guessing in trying to answer.
I agree with the Deputy that that should not be the case.
It should be automatic.
To be fair——
The Minister of State might raise the issue at the Council.
I will be straight with the Deputy. That would be in the interests of the EEAS and the High Representative because it is one thing to have a battle occasionally with the European Parliament, but the last thing they need is a battle with 27 natiional parliaments. It would be unwise to fight on 27 fronts. I do not believe, therefore, that the problem will arise.
Deputy Breen mentioned Brazil. I was there recently for the conference on civilisations when I had a bilateral meeting with the Foreign Minister and the very first comment he made to me when I went into his office was, "So you are the fellow who stopped our beef imports." I felt pleased about this and pointed out to him that nobody had stopped them. What we wanted was the same levels of traceability, the same health requirements and the same high standards that applied within the European Union. The issue was discussed at the Agriculture Council in May and in advance of the Council Ireland, France, Austria, Finland, Greece, Hungary and Poland have joined forces to prepare a discussion paper which sets out the shared concerns about the potential negative impact of a Mercosur deal on the agriculture sector. We have all made the point consistently that it is not just about protection but about health. The people need to know from where their food is coming and the standard applied in its production. A series of other issues arise also. We have been forceful on the issue, as has been recognised in that case. The Minister, Deputy Smith, has had separate meetings with the Commissioner, as well as with the Trade Commissioner, to highlight our concerns. The Minister, Deputy Batt O'Keeffe, also met Commissioner De Gucht in Paris recently to make our concerns known. We have also cautioned in the negotiations that talks will be held at the World Trade Organisation. We are not being excessively protectionist, but we are making the point, as we have the right to do, that if we impose very high standards on food producers within the European Union, particularly this country, we should expect nothing less from those who seek to export to the European Union.
The Deputy also mentioned India, with which it is critically important that we have a better relationship. I am not sure if members of the committee saw it, but an organogram, an organisation chart, was circulated recently which showed the locations of Commission personnel worldwide. It was stunning to see that India and Brazil had received little attention. There was a substantial number of staff in other areas. I recall wondering why in Nicaragua there would be a far greater number of EU personnel than Brazil. In one of the upcoming meetings President Van Rompuy is particularly anxious to discuss this strategic relationship. This is an issue that will be discussed at Heads of State and Government level and it would be a sensible reorientation.
A general point was made about the situation in Israel. The point should be made that it is not just in connection with the blockade of Gaza that there are concerns. There are also concerns about the settlements and a series of other issues.
Cyprus was mentioned by a number of members. It is essential that Turkey, for example, implements the Ankara Protocol on trade with Cyprus. I am familiar with the interesting proposals made recently which are being circulated by the President of Cyprus. The three points he is making appear sensible. They can be discussed and will undoubtedly find support.
Senator Dearey mentioned the issue of climate change. I agree with him. The last Conference of the Parties meeting was not a high point; the opposite was the case, it indicated disarray to an astonishing degree. What has changed is that the Lisbon treaty gives the European Union greater responsibility to create a focus on the issue. The June European Council took the Commission's communication which analysed the options for moving beyond the 20% greenhouse gas emission reductions target and assessed the risk of carbon leakage which is one of the big issues. There would be no point in the European Union being virtuous if production moved offshore and there was carbon leakage in that way. We would have a double problem because workers in the European Union would lose their jobs while something was being produced somewhere else. There is something bizarre about a piece of sirloin steak being exported from halfway around the world from an animal fed on soy, the production of which involves half the rain forest being cut down. That is an issue, of which a much more logical view must be taken. The Council will revert to the issue of climate change at the October meeting at which time I believe there will be a greater focus on it. There will certainly be a greater focus on it before the meeting in Cancún because if we have another disaster like the one we had last year, it will make a laughing stock of everybody involved. There will be no point in traipsing halfway around the planet to attend a meeting if nobody can agree on anything, other than the fact that they all disagree.
On the security situation in Sudan after the bombings in Kampala last Sunday, what are the implications for south Sudan and the region?
The Deputy has raised a good point. The region is unstable. It is one in which there is a big vacuum.
Does the Minister of State have a view on the viability of the process envisaged for the referendum in south Sudan?
The issue of holding a referendum in an area in which there are so many other issues to deal with is difficult. The international community has to pull up its boots and get on with the task of trying to at least create the conditions in which a free and fair referendum can be held. Deputy Barrett made the fundamental point about who will be registered to vote. That is the reason the European Union has talked about providing support, but substantial technical and financial assistance would have to be given in that regard. The question then arises: to whom do we give it? No one is underestimating the difficulties in that regard.
I note the Minister of State indicates in his statement that Cuba will be dealt with under the heading "Any Other Business" at the Council meeting as a result of a request from the Spanish Foreign Minister, Mr. Moratinos. We should all join in welcoming the news that the 52 remaining prisoners of the group of 75 detained since 2003 will be released. All those concerned, including the Catholic Church in Cuba, should be congratulated on the role they played. I also welcome the Minister of State's comment that, as a result of moving forward in this respect, relations between the European Union and Cuba can move forward and an early agreement on arrangements for a more structured political dialogue and enhanced social and economic co-operation could be brought about. I very much welcome this. The European Union can lead the way in ensuring something is done.
We spoke about the ordinary citizen in Gaza, but the ordinary citizen in Cuba has suffered enough. We have grown up a little since the heady days of the possible threat of invasion of the United States from Cuba. Someone should make the effort to get things moving and the European Union is in an ideal position to do this. Everyone thought that as a result of the election of President Obama something would happen in this respect, but this matter seems to have been put on the long finger. The European Union is in a good position to move things forward and deal with the prisoner issue in Miami, the lack of availability of visiting rights for those prisoners and such issues.
Cuba has taken its place in the sporting world. I was delighted that a Cuban boxing coach came to Limerick and assisted the Irish boxers exceptionally well. That reflects good relations between our countries. Sport can achieve a great deal. It was great to see that happen. If the Minister of State makes a contribution at the Council meeting, I would like him to record our views, if members agree with me, that matters in respect of Cuba should be moved forward.
I will do so. The Deputy will be aware that the Minister, Deputy Martin, has been to Cuba on a few occasions. He met the Foreign Minister, Mr. Roque — his surname is the same as the name at the bottom of the map in our kitchen — and met the subsequent Foreign Minister, Mr. Rodriguez. The issue which was a stumbling block is now resolved. There were issues relating to journalists——
I accept there are still issues.
——and death sentences passed, but the Cuban authorities have moved on. It is time the European Union played a role in this regard. The Spanish Foreign Minister, Mr. Moratinos, made a brave point when he said there is a special affinity between Cuba and Spain and he wants Europe to take a lead role in that respect. If I get an opportunity to speak on this matter, I will make the point that there is support in this committee for it. I have done that faithfully in the past, as the Chairman will know. I have reported the view of the committee and will do so again.
I thank the Minister of State. I support that view and compliment the activities of the Cuban ambassador who has actively engaged with Members of the House and members of the committee in the past.
I make the point in passing that in the context of the WTO negotiations during the past two months, a further agreement was reached between Brazil and the European Union on beef imports. The point was made by members that events can happen that we do not learn about until after they occur, the reason being that there are many facets to the interaction that takes place. A gentle reminder should be given in the context of future negotiations with the European Union, through the forum of the WTO, that it should be recognised that we fully support the trade agreements, but we should also remember that any one or other EU member state can well be disadvantaged as a result of an agreement deemed to be for the general benefit of the community. I thank the Minister of State for his comprehensive report and we look forward to the next meeting.
On the issue of the WTO, I agree 100% with what the Chairman said. It is all very well to talk about the general good but we have a responsibility to protect the specific good in Ireland. I have never had a difficulty in representing Irish agriculture because I have believed in the attitude adopted by the farming organisations which has not been one of putting up the shutters and being protectionist. They were asking for fair play and a level playing pitch and that is not an unreasonable request in any negotiations. I am sure the Ministers, Deputies O'Keeffe and Smith, would also take that view and the view that the committee should be kept informed. I do not know if the committee from time to time would have recourse to speak to the Ministers, but I will convey members' concerns to them.
We have a number of new members and it is time the committee visited the institutions in Brussels again to get an update on everything that is happening there. I have asked that this be done as quickly as possible.
I note we are not in private session, but I suggest that might be done in September, as that would be the appropriate time to do it.
Yes, that is the general idea. There are a number of new Commissioners we will have to meet. It is very important from the point of view of the Government, the Minister and committee members that we get up to speed.
That is fabulous. I posted something on a website earlier today about the committee and its work. It is a positive move that its members would meet not only Members of the European Parliament but also the Commissioners. If there is anything I can do to facilitate this, I will do so. I would be delighted at some stage, if my itinerary permits it, to accompany the members to meetings with the Commissioners. I know a significant number of them. Such meetings represent the political link between this Parliament and the Commission. As Deputy Barrett said, one of the central core points of the Lisbon treaty was to create that democratic network and to ensure it worked.
While we are still in public session, it is worthy that the Minister of State made that point to the committee. I note from an e-mail I received this morning that we, as parliamentarians, have yet again been subjected to a freedom of information request in respect of our foreign travel during the past 12 months. While the necessity to network is recognised, I am sure a spin will be put on this for those of us who find it a burden to do it and that we will suffer the wrath of the pens of some journalists in regard to our work, despite the fact that we are supposedly on holidays, although we are still working.
That is a pity because this is an island off an island off the coast of continental Europe.
We cannot get there otherwise.
Other than swimming or travelling by boat, there is no way other than flying to get to continental Europe. I am sure the committee will give a robust group assurance on this and will handle it.
Absolutely. We will suspend briefly and then move on to deal with item No. 2, EU-Asia and EU-Australia relations, which are important matters.
Sitting suspended at 2.08 p.m. and resumed at 2.10 p.m.