We are joined today by the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Dara Murphy, who will update us on the upcoming General Affairs Council meeting. We expect to hear about issues such as the migration crisis, the UK's position in Europe and its forthcoming referendum and also an issue the committee has discussed at a number of its meetings, the five presidents' report.
Forthcoming General Affairs Council: Discussion with Minister of State
I thank the Chairman for inviting me here this afternoon. I welcome members from the diplomatic community and others who are joining us. I am very pleased to address the committee in advance of next week's meeting of the General Affairs Council. The meeting will consider five issues, the first of which is the preparation for meeting of the European Council on 17 and 18 December. That Council will consider the migration crisis; Economic and Monetary Union and the Commission's proposals made on the basis of the five presidents' report; the Commission's roadmap for the further implementation of the Single Market; the EU-UK debate; and our relationship with Russia and the situation in Ukraine.
In addition to the December European Council item, the General Affairs Council will also hold a discussion on ensuring respect for the rule of law; the Inter-institutional Agreement on Better Regulation; the 2016 annual work programme of the Commission; and the European semester.
A separate General Affairs Council meeting will take place the following day on 18 November and I will attend that in place of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin. As that is not a matter for this committee, I will not address it in my remarks today.
The General Affairs Council discussions on 17 November will build upon those that took place at last month's meeting and on which I have not yet had an opportunity to brief the committee, although the Taoiseach addressed the Dáil both before and after the October European Council. The October meeting was centred on preparations for the European Council that month and above all dealt with the very challenging issues of migration, Economic and Monetary Union, and, relatively briefly, the European Union and UK issue.
Following concerns raised by some non-euro currency member states, there was also an exchange of views on a pre-EPSCO meeting that had been convened by the Presidency for euro member states only.
In my intervention, I made the point that we are a Union of 28 member states and that we should meet and act as a group of 28, where possible.
The December European Council will discuss the issue of migration. This issue dominates debate at EU level and it was, once again, the main item on the agenda of last month’s Council. Much of the exchange built upon earlier meetings of Heads of State and Government and on progress to implement the various proposals. There certainly have been some advances, for example in the first relocations from Greece and Italy to other EU member states, and in listing countries of safe origin. However, challenges remain in meeting commitments, including on funding and seconding personnel. The slow pace of progress led to President Juncker convening a mini-summit just ten days after the October European Council, for countries affected by migrants travelling along the Western Balkans route. Discussions continued in the Justice and Home Affairs Council, including this week, and there will be further developments at the high level Valletta summit which is taking place as we speak in Malta.
There has been a particular focus on Turkey, as a key player in the EU's efforts to tackle the crisis through reinforcing co-operation with third countries. Delivering on the action plan agreed with the Commission just before the European Council will be a significant challenge for the EU and Turkey in the period ahead. While no one has any illusions about how difficult it will be to step up co-operation, the fact is that the European Union and Turkey simply have to work together to address the crisis of migration. There is no possible solution which does not involve Turkey to a very significant degree.
From Ireland’s perspective, we continue to respond to the migration crisis across a number of fronts, balancing the focus on long-term solutions with the need to tackle the immediate humanitarian challenges. The main elements of our response are as follows: we have voluntarily opted into EU programmes where we have offered to take 4,000 refugees and asylum seekers between relocation and resettlement programmes and we have provided six liaison officers to facilitate this work. Everybody is aware of the assistance provided by the Naval Service vessels to the search and rescue operations in the Mediterranean, where they have rescued 8,066 individuals since 1 May.
We have provided significant assistance to key organisations responding to the crisis including to the World Food Programme, where we have doubled our core contribution to €20 million per annum for the period 2016 - 2018; to the UNHCR, where we provided €5.8 million in core support in 2015, with an increase in core funding likely to be proposed for 2016; and to the UNOCHA, where we gave €3.5 million in core and discretionary funding in 2015. We will pledge €3 million over the next five years to the Emergency Trust Fund to Africa. In all likelihood, we will exceed a pledge made in March to provide €12 million this year to alleviate the impact of the Syrian crisis, bringing our overall contribution to €41 million by the end of 2015.
Discussions at the European Council in December will continue to focus on the EU’s response to the migration crisis. At this early stage, we expect that there will again be a particular emphasis on implementing agreed measures, including operational matters, such as the hotspots in Greece and Italy, providing experts and the agreement to commit funding are also likely to feature. We expect that relations with third countries, such as Turkey, the countries of the Western Balkans, and Africa, will also be addressed.
As the Chairman mentioned in his opening remarks, the Heads of State and Government will give further consideration to the five presidents’ report on Completing Europe’s Economic and Monetary Union, published on 22 June, and specifically the Commission's proposals of 21 October which seeks to give effect to some of the report’s recommendations at the December European Council.
As members know from their own hearings with Commission officials and academics, among others, the report proposes a two stage approach. The first stage is short term, up to 2017, and focuses on boosting competitiveness, maintaining responsible fiscal policies and completing banking union. The second stage is for post-2017 and could involve more significant changes to the EU’s economic and institutional architecture.
The report has been discussed in various Council formats and the Commission’s concrete proposals for stage one, which provide an anchor for further debate, have, as I said, now been published. These include an in-depth review of the six-pack and two-pack which set out detailed fiscal rules in the framework of the Stability and Growth Pact, some re-organisation of the European semester and a proposal for external representation of the euro area at international financial institutions. The Commission is expected to make further proposals, perhaps this month, and these are likely to focus on the completion of banking union. Issues such as strengthening competitiveness in the euro area, taking an overview of its financial position and strengthening the social dimension of the euro area have also been discussed.
Like many other EU partners, Ireland believes that the focus should be on full and effective implementation of the reforms already agreed in recent years. We should be prioritising what can be done now to build on and strengthen existing instruments and to make the best use of existing treaty provisions to develop and improve Economic and Monetary Union. In this context, the emphasis on completing banking union in the report was welcome. We believe this is one of the most important post-crisis reforms and, although much has been achieved, banking union needs to be completed without delay. We also want to see progress on the capital markets union and in this context, we welcomed the capital markets union action plan launched by the Commission at the end of September.
As regards economic governance, we strongly support the streamlining and optimisation of the European semester process which has been discussed at a previous committee meeting and which we see as an important vehicle for the delivery of reforms across the European Union.
We would be cautious about the creation of new institutions which might not add value to existing processes but might instead form an additional institutional layer. In this regard, we remain to be convinced by the proposal for a new euro system of competitiveness boards, not least because we already have the National Competitiveness Council. We would also question the added value of the newly established European Fiscal Advisory Board when Ireland already has the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council. The proposed composition of the new body and its operational focus both need to be studied carefully.
As regards the report’s proposals for stage two, post-2017, there is a need to reflect on the issues raised. The recent significant reforms to the governance of the eurozone require time to bed down.
We should not allow the focus to be diverted from our primary aim, which is to create jobs and growth which will deliver those jobs. Our discussions must remain grounded on what is achievable and urgent.
The December European Council will discuss the new Single Market strategy presented by the Commission on 28 October entitled, Upgrading the Single Market: more opportunities for people and business. It targets actions in three areas, first, creating opportunities for consumers, professionals and businesses; second, encouraging and enabling the modernisation and innovation that Europe needs; and, third, ensuring practical delivery that benefits consumers and businesses in their daily lives. We strongly support the overall focus on practical measures helping small and medium enterprises and start-ups and encouraging start-ups to grow and expand, which promotes innovation, unlocks investment potential and empowers consumers. Next year will mark the 30th anniversary of the signing of the Single European Act in 1986 and we see renewed momentum here as a crucial driver of job creation, growth and competitiveness. This can also be concluded in the discussions in the context of the current UK debate. There are 22 specific measures lined up for delivery by 2018, including guidance from the Commission next year on how EU law applies to the collaborative economy, as it is known, and those business models. The key issue is pressing ahead with concrete timelines and early results. There is no doubt that while driving ahead with the Single Market for goods, the European Union has done much less well in the Single Market for services and that this area retains considerable space for growth and job creation, particularly in peripheral countries such as ours.
The British Prime Minister, Mr. David Cameron, presented his proposals for reforming the European Union by way of a letter to President Tusk last Tuesday. The Prime Minister also delivered a speech on that day at Chatham House, in which he elaborated on the proposals made and outlined his view of how the negotiation process might proceed in the weeks ahead. The proposals fall across four broad clusters of issues, namely, first, economic governance - in effect, preventing non-eurozone countries from being disadvantaged by decisions taken solely by eurozone member countries; second, competiveness, including completion of the Single Market, better regulation and expediting international trade agreements; third, sovereignty, that is, strengthening the role of national parliaments in the European Union, as well as ending Britain’s obligation to work towards ever closer union; and, fourth, immigration, including proposed amendments to the United Kingdom’s welfare system and steps to address what are perceived by the United Kingdom to be abuses of freedom of movement. While outlining his objectives in each area, the Prime Minister’s letter made it clear that the details remained a matter for forthcoming negotiations. We expect these to commence immediately, with a first round of bilateral consultations at senior official level getting under way late this week or early next week. It is hard to know, therefore, what shape the December discussions might take at this stage. However, the Prime Minister, Mr. Cameron, has said his priority is to get the substance right. It is possible, therefore, that the negotiations might continue into next year.
As the committee knows, these are important, sensitive and complex issues which warrant careful reflection and analysis. The Prime Minister, Mr. Cameron, acknowledges that some of the proposals, notably those around immigration and welfare reform, will present difficulties for other member states and that work will be needed to identify workable solutions. As the Taoiseach said to the Prime Minister when they met in London on Monday, Ireland recognises the basis of British concerns and we will be open and constructive in supporting the United Kingdom in seeking reasonable adjustments to deliver a stronger, better functioning European Union. With constructive engagement by all partners, we believe sensible measures can be agreed across the four categories identified by the Prime Minister. Clearly, however, much remains to be done to achieve that end. I look forward to updating the committee on how the work is progressing ahead of the next General Affairs Council in December when we will return to the issue. As that will be in advance of the next European Council meeting, we may have more detail on the matter.
The President of the European Council has indicated that in December there will be a discussion of relations with Russia and the situation in Ukraine. The current respite in violence provides an opportunity for progress to be made on the political track and full implementation of the Minsk agreements which continue to offer the only viable framework for a resolution of the conflict.
The rule of law item is also on the agenda, following an agreement at the General Affairs Council last December to establish dialogue within the Council among all member states to promote and safeguard the rule of law in the framework of the treaties. As part of the commitment to return to this issue on an annual basis, we are looking forward to the Presidency-led discussions on the rule of law. It is incumbent on us and all EU institutions and member states alike to look carefully at this issue and how we are operating at home and abroad within a European Union of values. Many of our European partners have had to respond to acute and, in some cases, tragic instances of anti-semitism and Islamophobia, reminders that we all need to stay vigilant about protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms while upholding the rule of law.
The European Commission will have much to contribute to the discussion following its first annual Colloquium on Fundamental Rights in the European Union which was hosted by First Vice President Frans Timmermans and Commissioner Jourova on 1 and 2 October. Ireland has always stood behind the European Union as a union of values and we welcome the opportunity to look more closely at how this is operating and how we might push it forward. The Presidency has circulated a discussion document on the rule of law in the age of digitalisation which gives a useful background to the legal framework underpinning freedom of expression, as well as other rights. Member states have been asked to come forward with both positive and negative examples from their own experience. I intend to draw on our experience from the Irish point of view of how we have been coming to terms with the legacy of a different and less inclusive Ireland, for example, through commissions of investigation and no-fault compensation schemes; our experience of tribunals and commissions of inquiry, for example, into corruption claims; and also with respect to failure as regards the rights of individuals, specifically the circumstances surrounding the taking into care of two Roma children in 2014 which I am sure members will remember and which was a traumatic and unacceptable event for the two families concerned.
The Presidency has added an item to the General Affairs Council agenda on the inter-institutional agreement on better regulation. Ireland has supported the Presidency’s efforts to push forward the agreement and we have supported more generally the better regulation agenda which has moved ahead significantly under the current Commission. The negotiations continue in trilogue format between the Presidency, the Commission and the Parliament and we are hopeful they will be concluded later this year.
The General Affairs Council agenda also includes a provision to discuss the Commission’s work programme for 2016. With other member states, in earlier discussions we welcomed the Commission’s intention to follow the priorities identified in the strategic agenda which were agreed to by the European Council in June 2014. We have underlined the need to prioritise the restoration of confidence and the promotion of economic growth and job creation, particularly for young people. In that context, we welcome the Commission’s emphasis on deepening the Single Market, in particular, the commitment to delivering on the digital Single Market strategy. We have stressed the need for rapid progress in this area, as well as for full implementation of the services directive and maintaining a strong focus on support for small and medium enterprises which, as I have said, are the lifeblood of the European economy.
As we all know the European legislative programme has an enormous impact on citizens all over Europe. In that light we will take particular interest in the Commission's proposals to boost jobs, growth and investment; the digital Single Market; the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, TTIP; implementing the 2030 climate and energy package and on other items of particular interest to the Irish people.
There will be two presentations to the GAC that effectively mark the beginning of the European semester 2016. The Commission will highlight the key features of the next annual growth survey, to be published next Wednesday. This will set out the Commission’s key priorities for supporting growth and jobs over the period ahead. The committee will recall that last year’s annual growth survey developed a threefold emphasis on boosting investment, accelerating structural reforms and continuing to pursue growth-friendly fiscal consolidation. With recovery in the European economy broadly on course I would expect to see continuity of this in the next cycle.
There will be a joint presentation by the current and incoming presidencies of the roadmap for the European semester for 2016. I expect this to include the timelines for key council discussions on the annual growth survey publications of the Commission’s country reports, engagement with the European Parliament and presentation of the draft country specific recommendations. I look forward to continuing a high quality engagement with this committee. There is a very significant workload over the next few months which necessitates my long presentation. That concludes my statement and I look forward to answering any questions committee members may have.
I thank the Minister of State. He covered many topics and I have no doubt there will be many questions.
I share the Minister of State’s concerns about the Europe-wide competitiveness authority and its remit. We have an authority of our own. According to the five presidents’ report the Europe-wide one will have the ability to draw comparisons with economies elsewhere, such as in the United States and China, and make recommendations on matters such as wage rates or work conditions. The worry is that there will be a race to the bottom, particularly given that we have set up a Low Pay Commission to consider issues such as the minimum wage. I am not sure I see the need for a Europe-wide competitiveness authority.
A fiscal authority, however, could be quite useful because while we are lucky in this country to have an independent Fiscal Advisory Council, which gives reasoned opinions on matters such as our annual budget, some countries, such as Hungary, do not have that type of council. A Europe-wide one would help ensure that countries which do not have an independent fiscal council would stick to the requirements of the fiscal compact.
In respect of the fiscal compact, Article 13 of the treaty stated there would be a conference twice a year to discuss the implementation of the treaty. The most recent conference was held on Monday. I was surprised at that meeting by the lack of awareness or engagement by many member states on the issue of Britain’s potential exit from the EU. One member state for instance proposed that we set up a parliament for eurozone members, which would fly in the face of what the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, is trying to achieve. We could be in danger of sleepwalking into a situation where we do not reach a successful conclusion to the negotiations that would allow David Cameron make a case for staying in. Is the Government preparing for that worst case scenario? What will happen if Britain does vote to leave? What measures and ideas does the Government have on how that might impact on us? What is our plan?
I warmly congratulate the Minister of State on being elected a vice president of the European People’s Party, EPP, at the plenary session of the party’s congress. That involved achieving support from several countries, including some where the party is in government. It is a huge personal achievement for the Minister of State and an important one for the country and will enhance its influence within the EPP, which is a significant political force in most European countries.
I am very happy that the Taoiseach recently indicated in London his broad support for the Prime Minister. The Government should give clear support to the Prime Minster to achieve the kind of reforms he wants to achieve. Most of the reforms he wishes to achieve can only be good at an operational level. There is merit in reducing bureaucracy and in keeping good state institutions going, as the Chairman mentioned in respect of the Competition Authority and the Fiscal Advisory Council. While monetary and banking union are cardinal principles, progress on them should be secondary to making sure we achieve the necessary compromises to keep our good friend and ally the United Kingdom within the EU. It is our biggest trading partner and we have ties of kinship there. It is extremely important from my perspective as a Border representative that we do not re-establish the Border as we are normalising society there. Good progress has been made recently on dealing with criminality around it and I hope there will be further progress there. It is important to gradually make the Border irrelevant from a practical point of view.
I would like to have addressed other issues the Minister of State addressed but I am happy with his general viewpoint on them. I am sure other members will address them.
I would like a clear statement from him that we are very much in the business of accommodating, and working with, the UK and providing the Prime Minister with the kind of reforms that would give him a case to keep the UK within the EU. The EU will be a much richer place and more powerful diplomatically and politically and from all perspectives with the UK as a member. I need to go home to the people I represent on the Border with that clear statement.
I thank the Minister of State for his presentation today and offer congratulations on his elevation to the position of vice president of the EPP.
As we have often said, we live in changing times. On the refugee crisis, I welcome the recognition of Turkey and its pivotal position, a view I have always held. We have discussed the matter here at numerous meetings. Turkey is the single most influential benign force in the entire region and it is good to see that its case for European Union membership is being advanced again when it had been shunned. It is not really a great indication of the bargaining position of the European Union when it has to suddenly recognise Turkey's existence again and seek its assistance. There are lessons to be learned from this and I hope they will be.
I congratulate the Naval Service on its tremendous work in the rescue operation in the area. More than 8,000 people have been rescued since its members started their work. It is a great commendation of their training and ability to deploy without fuss and move quickly. In other situations throughout the European Union and vis-à-vis our neighbours, we tend to talk for a long time before any action is taken. In this case, action was taken instantly and followed up.
I recognise and welcome the identification of hot spots to deal with incoming migrants. To what extent, if any, are the European Union and the international community devising a means of dealing with the causes of the migration crisis? The causes are obvious, namely, strife and conflict. For example, in Libya there is no law; it is a case of anything goes. It was unnecessary in the first place, but it is a clear indication that intervention can lead to a worse situation than anything that has happened before. The international community, the United Nations and the European Union should be able to come to some conclusions about what might best be done to bring about peace in Libya and at least isolate the opposing groups that are causing such mayhem.
I note the reference to non-eurozone and eurozone countries and the notion that eurozone countries should not take any action that might militate against the interests of non-eurozone countries. I would have thought the reverse was an issue that also needed to be borne in mind. As we all know, opportunities always arise for countries geographically adjacent to those with a strong currency. They can usually play and operate this to their own advantage. That has happened and will continue to happen. Of course, it can also move in the reverse direction. There is a danger that we might see non-membership of the European Union being advantageous as membership. Allusions have been made in the debate in the United Kingdom to the fact that Switzerland and Norway have equal rights and entitlements. They do not and that fact needs to be identified. If it should become the case those countries committed to the European project will shoulder the burden of responsibility, while others enjoy the benefits. I am concerned about this happening.
To what extent does the Minister of State think the semester process is working? There was a ten-year plan which reached the end of its cycle before it was decided that it had not worked. To what extent do cyclical reviews identify issues that might have caused problems in the past?
We have received a very comprehensive document. I would like to speak about a number of issues, but because there are time restraints, I will talk about the migration crisis. It was quite obvious to many people seven or eight years ago that the problem had been completely underestimated by the European Union, when many organisations working in conflict areas were indicating that it would come upon us in a big way. Groups such as Amnesty International and Concern had indicated that developments in countries such as Libya, Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan and particularly Syria made it inevitable that many would leave these countries and head towards the West.
I am a member of the Council of Europe human rights committee. It is my opinion that the European Union has failed to deal with the origins of the migration crisis, which date back to the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and to Israel rejecting, I think, 42 UN resolutions on how to deal with the Palestinian crisis. The emergence of many conflict groups can be traced back to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. The European Union has failed to deal with how the crisis began and we are now reaping a whirlwind.
It has been acknowledged by many on the Council of Europe and within the European Union that America, Canada and other countries in the Middle East are not playing their part in dealing with the migration crisis. It could be said America has been instrumental in creating much of the crisis in the Middle East because of its unremitting and relentless backing of Israel and its attacks on the Palestinians and its failure to recognise a Palestinian state. What are the Minister of State's views on the conflicts?
We need to discuss the actual conflicts. We have moved beyond discussing the migration crisis which is upon us. All of the indications are that another 500,000 people may leave the conflict zone in Syria within the next few months. There is conflict in Chad and other African countries, including Nigeria. Are we preparing ourselves for the inevitable influx of another possibly 2 million refugees in the next two years if the conflicts are not dealt with comprehensively?
The European Union must come to terms with the fact that it has a part to play in bringing the conflict in Syria to an end. It cannot be left to the Russians and the Americans who are arming both sides to decide how it will be dealt with. We are not strong enough and are seen across the world as not being powerful enough to use our influence to deal with this awful conflict in the Middle East in which hundreds of thousands have died and millions have been disenfranchised. Unless we step up to the plate, we will be seen as a non-entity by the Americans and the Russians, as we probably were during the conflict in Ukraine.
Some might say we are living in exciting, challenging or dangerous times. We are very proud Europeans. The Minister of State has a very important role to play in representing Ireland, with his colleagues in Europe. However, the backdrop in Europe is disturbing. Britain is talking about exiting the European Union, while today Syriza is confronting a general strike in Greece which potentially is an additional destabiliser. In the wonderful European country of Spain Catalonia is about to declare secession. Already within the European Union there are very disturbing developments.
I will try to concentrate on two issues: migration and the rule of law.
I am very proud to live in Europe and to travel to Spain, Italy, France, Austria and Germany to absorb the cultural diversity that exists across Europe. Of course I am very proud to have grown up in a liberal democracy, just as our partners in Europe have done. Europe is a very attractive region for people who are trying to escape from poverty, war or dictatorship. How does the Minister of State, on behalf of this State, intend to address the issue of immigration to Europe? We are proud liberal democrats. Huge numbers of people are moving from areas of conflict to our region of liberalism and liberal democracy. It is wonderful that people recognise that liberal democracies are worth travelling to.
Of course we have to be, and are, sympathetic to people who are travelling to escape war. However, I suggest that there is an undercurrent to the movement of people that we have not really addressed. Is the Minister of State interested to note that a substantial number of Eritrean people, increasing numbers of Pakistani and Bangladeshi people and many Somalian people are travelling with that human mass? Eritrea has been highlighted as a terrible dictatorship that people are trying to escape. The Minister of State will be aware that Eritrea has a population of approximately 6 million. Does he think Europe is ready for a mass movement of people from an adjoining country, Ethiopia, which has a population of 90 million? The latest reports suggest it is almost inevitable that Ethiopia will be devastated by natural disaster. Given that their neighbours from Eritrea have travelled such vast distances, does the Minister of State believe the knock-on effects of a natural disaster of the scale that is being prophesied would involve Ethiopians travelling and adding to the terribly sad mass movement of people who are trying to escape poverty?
Before I move on to the question of the rule of law, I would like to say that I welcome the recent discussions with Africa leaders. Maybe it is a bit too late. I think that Ireland, which has played a great role in development aid, is very much to the fore in arguing that rather than having people leave their countries, we should go in there, provide the supports that are needed to make those countries attractive for employment and support the rule of law so that these countries become places where people are happy to live and work. The Minister of State might give me his opinions on the recent discussions with the African leaders. What was decided during those discussions?
I would like to follow up my reference to the rule of law, which is one of the issues that will be addressed. Our neighbours in Romania would argue that they are being unfairly treated by some of our European partners in the context of allegations of corruption. Is there an Irish position on that?
A vote has been called in the Dáil. Can I check with the Minister of State before he responds to Deputy Byrne that he is okay to stay here through the vote?
I am paired.
Okay. I can certainly continue on. I suggest that Deputy Byrne continue his questioning until he needs to go to the Dáil.
I will conclude in time to go to the Dáil. I was asking the Minister of State about the allegations against Romania. He will be aware that the Romanian Prime Minister, Victor Ponta, resigned last week. People in Romania have alleged that elements in Europe are unfairly targeting Romania as a corrupt nation. Does Ireland have a position on that? Moldova, which is one of our neighbours in the Eastern Partnership, has been in a state of perpetual chaos since the last election in that country. Does the Minister of State have a position on that? Does he have a position on what is happening in Europe vis-à-vis Spain and Catalonia? The possibility of a British exit from the EU has been mentioned. Does the Minister of State have a view on the difficulties being encountered by Portugal in forming a Government, and the stability of whatever Government might be formed as a result? I ask him to hold off on answering my questions until I come back from the Dáil Chamber so that I can listen to his answers.
Some of our members are leaving to go to the Lower House. In the interim, we will hear from Senator Leyden.
I welcome the Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs, Deputy Dara Murphy, and his officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the diplomatic corps. The Minister of State has given the committee a comprehensive report in advance of next week's meeting of the General Affairs Council. This is a period of critical difficulties in Europe and throughout the world. In light of what is happening, it is important for the EU to work together. The summit in Malta, which will place an emphasis on Europe's links with African states, is also important.
The people of Turkey should be supported by the EU, which has not really honoured its promise to provide support in the tremendous work they are doing with regard to migrants, emigration and refugees. The difficulty is that the Balkan countries are trying to cope with the situation. I am going to Montenegro next week in my capacity as co-rapporteur for the Council of Europe in monitoring that country. People do not realise that Montenegro has taken in refugees from Kosovo, including a number of Roma people. Montenegro, as a newly established democracy of just over 500,000 people, is coping extraordinarily well as it tries to deal with this refugee situation. When I visited a refugee camp in Montenegro, I noted the work that is being done by the Montenegrin authorities with the people from Kosovo. They would certainly be overwhelmed if they had to deal with refugees from Syria, Iraq and parts of Africa.
It would be preferable if we could try to keep as many as possible of the population of Syria, Iraq and Libya within the region and try to ensure they have the highest possible quality of life in the circumstances until a resolution is found, which must happen some day. These countries have the potential to be enormously wealthy. Syria, Iraq and Libya have substantial amounts of oil, for example. Rather than taking in refugees, we should try to support these people in their own region from a cultural and religious - Islamic - perspective. They need to be helped to stay within their own environments, which are very different from the environments they are going into in Sweden, Germany and elsewhere.
We are offering to take in 4,000 refugees, which is a reasonable number. It is very hard for many people to comprehend that we can cope with 4,000 people at a time when we are unable to cope with the homeless people on the streets of Dublin. It is very strange that we are in such a position. If people looking in can see what is happening here, Ireland must not seem like a very attractive country. Nevertheless, more support should be given to non-governmental agencies such as Goal and Concern, which are providing services within the camps on Turkey's borders with Syria and Iraq and in Libya. Every possible support should be given to facilitate the construction of temporary housing in Ireland to be sent to assist people in refugee camps as the winter draws in. No reference has been made today to the major difficulties that have been caused by the destabilisation of the whole population of this region by the so-called ISIS group. It has added to the existing conflict by creating mayhem throughout the whole region. It will certainly have to be dealt with before there is a solution in this area.
Generally speaking, I note and welcome the amount of funding that is being provided. The Brexit issue and the other issues that will be considered at next week's meeting of the General Affairs Council really pale into insignificance by comparison with the migration and refugee situation. The British negotiations are political issues which can and will be dealt with effectively. In that context, I note the support we will be giving the British Government in the renegotiation process. These issues will be dealt with in due course.
Reference has been made to what is happening overall in the Middle East.
The Minister of State did not refer in his statement to what is happening in Palestine and Israel, which is at the centre of the broader problems we are seeing. People are being killed on both sides in that conflict. It is a problem that must be resolved.
I wish the Minister of State well at the meeting of the General Affairs Council and thank him for briefing the committee. All we can do is support him in his work through this difficult period. I am sure he is working to the utmost of his ability to achieve our objectives.
Thank you, Senator Leyden. The questions that have been put to the Minister of State cover a broad range of issues. I invite him to respond.
I thank members for their very knowledgeable questions. I will begin by answering the last question, which related to the conflict in the Middle East. It is an issue that was highlighted by the Minister, Deputy Charles Flanagan, at the Foreign Affairs Council. I did not refer to it in my statement but we are in full agreement with the requirement that these issues be raised and discussed.
On the question of preparing for the worst-case scenario in regard to Brexit, we are looking at the various potential outcomes. It would be remiss of us not to consider what might happen if the people of the United Kingdom vote to leave the Union. At this stage, however, it is vital that we, together with other member states, engage fully with the elements of Prime Minister Cameron's letter, which highlighted four areas in which he wishes to see changes. The Economic and Social Research Institute, ESRI, published a report recently which stated that it is in our national interest economically that the UK remain within the European Union. Drilling down into those figures, it is important to acknowledge that the expectation of an economic difficulty for Ireland is based, in the main, on the greater economic difficulty the UK, our main trading partner, will suffer by virtue of its leaving the Union. In other words, while we do see some difficulties for our economy, we see them as arising, in large part, because we do not consider it to be in the best economic interests of the UK to exit the Union.
Deputy Joe O'Reilly and others asked about how we are positioning ourselves in respect of the proposals put forward by Mr. Cameron. We are absolutely clear that we want to support the British Government in achieving many of the measures it has set out because they are clearly in the interests of all member states. Particularly in the area of competitiveness and in the case of reforms that are to the benefit of the Irish people and all the people of the EU, we will support such proposals in a very full manner. We are now at the point where the detail is being discussed between European Council officials, Commission officials and member states. There was a period of time in advance of this process starting where people were wondering when these issues would be dealt with, given they were highlighted some years ago and discussed in the course of the general election campaign in the UK. However, we have now arrived at the substantive point. The Government considers the approach being taken, which involves seeking the views of member states, as prudent.
The Chairman asked whether the proposal to establish national competitiveness boards might see a race to the bottom in terms of wages. While I stated in my opening contribution that we are concerned about provisions which might add additional layers of bureaucracy and duplication, we are not really concerned that such bodies, if they come to pass, will undermine strong and important values such as the provision for a national minimum wage and protection for workers' rights. The argument is that they offer a way of assessing and comparing between different jurisdictions.
With regard to the proposal for a European fiscal advisory board, the composition of such a body is very much at the discussion stage. How it would operate certainly is of interest to us and the focus on the aggregate euro area fiscal stance might well be a welcome development. However, given that the decision was published so recently, it is too early to adopt a more advanced position. Reference was made to the fact that other countries do not have a fiscal advisory board-----
They do not have an independent board.
Yes, and perhaps that is what should be encouraged in the first instance.
I thank members for their kind words regarding my appointment as a vice president of the European People's Party, EPP.
The other parties share that view.
Yes, and the Chairman conveyed his congratulations to me personally.
I covered the question of the clarity of our position in respect of the forthcoming UK referendum. It is important to remember that we have other good friends in Europe and we will work to ensure reasonable ambitions are maintained.
I agree with Deputy Durkan's observation that these are volatile times. I agree, too, that the position and role of Turkey is now extremely important. There is no doubt that in order for there to be any solution to this crisis, that country must have a role to play.
Deputy Durkan asked whether the European semester process is working. It is something of a subjective question but that said, we are seeing growth across the EU, which was not happening for a long time. Employment is growing in many member states but we still have significant issues in many cases in regard to youth unemployment, which will have to be addressed. Given that the European semester process is a relatively new format and the format itself has been amended to give more time for discussions between the various stages, it is very much a matter for us here in this committee to ensure we make the best use of the process.
Deputy Durkan made a point about different types of EU membership. Certainly, the Norwegian and Swiss cases are often referred to in the debate in the UK. While Norway contributes very significant moneys, it does not have the same powers as member states. It is a different type of membership.
The Deputy also asked what is being done to address the causes of migration. As I said, discussions are ongoing today in Malta. There is absolute acceptance by everybody that the effects and consequences for member states and the people in transit must be mirrored by attempts to ensure the causes of migration are addressed. UN Special Representative Bernardino León has presented a political agreement for a government of national accord in Libya, as referred to by the Deputy. Indications are that this is the final option for all parties. Unfortunately, the deadline passed without the two main factions agreeing but the discussions will continue. Ireland has strongly supported this being a UN-led process and we continue to urge all parties to seize the opportunity to endorse the peace agreements as soon as possible.
We will continue to play our part in contributing to state-building assistance measures and supporting people on the ground. Deputy Eric Byrne returned at an opportune moment.
I came back to hear the Minister of State's response. I have missed two divisions.
Such defiance by the Deputy. I hope he does not lose the Whip as a result.
I hope the predictions of humanitarian and weather-related crises in Ethiopia and Eritrea do not come to pass. Unfortunately, there will always be crises, whether climate or conflict related, on the borders of the European Union. We must work much harder to mitigate and, where possible, prevent such crises, as well as building states.
Deputy Halligan made a similar point and noted the many reasons for, and causes of, the migration crisis. We are working actively in this area. While the issue tends to be discussed more at the Foreign Affairs Council, there is no question that the consequences of developments in many Middle East countries are a significant contributory factor.
We are closely monitoring developments in Moldova. These relationships are monitored through the eastern partnership configuration. We will continue to work with Moldova and other eastern partnership countries with a view to encouraging political and economic development. This highlights again the issue of the rule of law.
Deputy Eric Byrne correctly stated that asylum seekers are coming from a broad range of countries. Each application for refugee status is assessed on its merits. The principal reason for the so-called "hotspot" solution is to expedite the application process. It may be in order for me to circulate to the joint committee the report of the Valletta talks, which are discussing, as we speak, the specific issues the Deputy raised. I am sure we will have a report in the next day or two and we will forward it when it is received. Deputy Halligan noted correctly that we must address both the sources and consequences of conflict.
On the issue of political developments in Portugal and Spain, as members will be aware, a general election will be held in Spain on 20 December and Portugal held a general election in the past month. We will respect the democratic decisions taken in both countries, first as Portugal deals with the effects of its election and, second, as Spain prepares for its election. We may find ourselves preparing for a general election in early 2016.
Does the Minister of State have any information on that?
It will be held early in the spring. Does the Chairman not watch RTE news?
On the issue of providing more support on the borders as opposed to bringing immigrants and refugees into Ireland, we should spend money on building good quality facilities for them in Islamic countries in order that they can live with their neighbours in the Muslim faith. That is another way of doing things.
The Senator is absolutely correct; it is the essential way of doing things. Much stronger supports are available for countries of origin. Countries of transit outside the European Union must also receive the support they need. At the most recent meetings of the General Affairs Council, commitments were given and agreements made. At this point, the discussions are focused on delivering on these commitments, particularly with respect to hotspots for applicants in the European Union. We must also ensure people are in place on the ground. We must implement the commitments given by member states and work as quickly as possible.
The Senator stated that this issue stands head and shoulders above all other issues. That is without question correct and this is accepted. I attended some Justice and Home Affairs Council formations and, on occasion, Foreign Affairs Council formations, as well as the General Affairs Council meetings. If one adds the European Council meetings attended by Heads of State and Government, it is clear that the migration issue attracts the vast majority of discussion, as is appropriate, at all four Council formations I cited. European leaders will have to continue to focus on this matter until we start seeing significant improvements in the months ahead.
We are all proud of the exemplary work being done by the Naval Service. I am also very proud of Ireland's quick reaction which has saved many lives.
We all share the Senator's sentiments.
It has been frequently pointed out that, as a small country, Ireland has made a major humanitarian and financial contribution to addressing the crisis, including saving more than 8,000 lives. While we could have availed of an opt-out mechanism, Ireland instead chose to opt into the measures for relocation and resettlement of refugees. This reflects the humanitarian spirit of Irish people who know better than people in most countries that, from time to time, people have to leave their country of origin, whether as victims of war or famine. All of us look forward to welcoming people to this country, some of whom have arrived, while others will arrive soon. It is crucial that we ensure these people are properly integrated into Irish life and can play a full role in society, as Irish people have done around the world.
I thank the Minister of State for sharing his views and providing the joint committee with a comprehensive presentation. At our next meeting on 29 November, we will be joined by Mr. Jonathan Faull of the European Commission who is head of the team responsible for renegotiating the terms of Britain's membership of the European Union. I look forward to seeing all members at that meeting.
The joint committee adjourned at 3.20 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 25 November 2015.