I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Roche. Arising from the minutes, we undertook at our last meeting, which was attended by the Nigerian ambassador, to raise with the Minister for Foreign Affairs the issue of the sentencing of a young woman under Sharia law, and also the question of genital mutilation. The issue has been raised at the Council of Ministers and is being pursued. I formally raise it with the Minister of State to ensure we are all singing from the same hymn sheet. I am sure he will raise the matter and inform the committee in due course on what progress has been made.
General Affairs and External Relations Council Agenda.
If you wish, I can address the issue at the end of my opening comments. I know it was one of some concern.
For the benefit of members, I have asked that in future the agenda be laid out more consistent with the way Ministers do business. The notice which issues to the Minister from the General Affairs Council is divided into four parts, the first of which - it deals with the adoption of the provisional agenda and the A items and resolutions - is straightforward. I will come to this because we do not have a list of the A items. The second part relates to horizontal issues, the third to external relations and the fourth to what is called the margins of the Council. I have asked that in future our agenda be set out in the same order so that it will appear as (a) preliminary, (b) horizontal issues, (c) external relations and (d) in the margins of the Council. In the normal course of events parts (a) and (b) would not cause much delay because they are usually just for noting. On the first page, the contents page - it will be laid out like this in future - Nos. 1 to 4 are the horizontal issues. We will take them together on the first tour de table and on the second tour we will deal with Nos. 5 to 15, the external relations issues. Any questions or comments on the first tour should, therefore, be confined to Nos. 1 to 4 and, on the second tour, to Nos. 5 to 15. That is how I have asked the agenda to be set out in future. That is how Ministers follow it. I have done this for myself by hand.
Is it to be done in advance of European Council meetings or in respect of all of our meetings?
In advance of European Council meetings. I am referring to the Council of Ministers agenda. We will cover Nos. 1 to 4 on the contents page first. In relation to the approval of the list of A items, while we do have the resolutions from the European Parliament, we do not yet have the list of A items which are being discussed on Monday.
There is a difficulty with the A items. As you are aware from your own experience, the A items essentially are points which have been through the negotiating phase. There is another problem in that the General Affairs Council items are normally concluded on Wednesdays with which today's meeting happens to coincide. We are very anxious to provide the committee with the fullest possible briefing on any issue of significance or any issue that it regards as significant. As you said on the last occasion, A items essentially are scrutinised at a very early stage in the legislative process. Under the new Oireachtas scrutiny procedures this is precisely what we intend to do in our co-operation and work with the committee.
I recognise that there are some difficulties in that regard. However, they do need to be brought to the attention of the committee. Perhaps your staff and that of the committee could devise some way of——
I do not think that is quite possible because of the coincidence of the days on which we have had meetings. As COREPER will be completing certain work on a Wednesday it is, therefore, not possible.
If we are considering the matter, we need to see the material. We will not make a meal of it now.
It will be very easy to synchronise the times of both meetings. The Chairman will know from his own experience that the A list becomes available in the second half of the week.
If we are dealing with it in advance, at the very least the Chairman or somebody here will have to know what is happening.
We could make arrangements for you to automatically receive the A items as soon as they become available.
Perhaps Mr. McDonagh would speak to the clerk to the committee and set up something.
I see no problem.
There is no problem. I know they are usually just for noting, but if we are clearing them in advance, we should have them.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs cannot be with us today because of a meeting scheduled with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I welcome the Minister of State with responsibility for European Affairs to the meeting. He will, I am sure, be attending the General Affairs Council meeting also. In any event I thank him for the progress made so far in regard to staffing. While we still have some way to go, we are getting there. By the time we deal with the European Bill in a couple of weeks time I hope all matters will have been resolved. Perhaps the Minister of State would like to make some opening comments which can then be followed by questions from members.
Thank you. On the latter item, as you and I have had discussions on the issue of staffing, you know precisely where my sympathies lie. This is a committee of significance and it is particularly important that it receives the fullest co-operation. So far as my office is concerned it will receive the fullest co-operation.
I am very pleased to appear before the select committee to discuss the agenda for the forthcoming General Affairs and External Relations Council meeting. The Government's commitment to Oireachtas scrutiny underlines the importance it attaches to facilitating a wider and more open discussion of European Union matters. This is a view that the Chairman and I share with some passion.
At its meeting in Seville on 21 and 22 June last the European Council decided to create a new General Affairs and External Relations Council to deal with the horizontal issues - issues of co-ordination - as well as the whole of the Union's external action, including development co-operation and humanitarian aid. This is a significant step forward and broadens the agenda somewhat. The creation of the new Council will ensure greater coherence between the European Union's foreign, development and trade policies. For example, the treatment of cross-cutting issues such as conflict prevention, human rights and poverty reduction to which Ireland attaches high priority should benefit from this more coherent approach which has been welcomed by all sides of the House.
In order to facilitate discussion and as agreed at the last such meeting in July, I propose to focus on the more salient matters up for discussion at the Council. I understand committee members have been provided with a copy of the provisional agenda and background material on the individual items.
With regard to horizontal issues, I will address the preparation for the European Council meeting in Brussels, which is due to focus on enlargement; next, I will comment on the work of the Convention on the Future of Europe and then turn to the European Union Solidarity Fund, which is being established in response to the floods which affected so much of central and eastern Europe in August. Turning to external relations, I will comment on the current situation in the Middle East and also Iraq, although the latter item is not currently on the agenda. However, it is a matter which is of significant importance and concern to the Chairman and members of the committee. I am happy to take questions from them on any of the agenda items currently listed for discussion at the Council. If any issue is raised on which I do not have briefing material, I will ensure the fullest written response is provided.
Completing the enlargement negotiations by the end of this year is the major goal for the European Union. The Government, like all its counterparts in the European Union, is determined to play its part to deliver on this timetable and make a success of enlargement. One of the main tasks for this Council meeting will be to review the enlargement process and ensure the European Union is doing its best to deliver on its work schedule in the concluding months of the negotiations. The Danish Presidency has made it clear that it wishes to complete negotiations on all issues in the coming weeks, except for those related to the financial aspects of agriculture, regional funds and the EU budget. This timetable has been well understood.
The European Council on 24 and 25 October will consider the final progress reports on the candidate countries prepared by the Commission, which are due for publication on 9 October. The Council should be able to conclude that most of the countries concerned are ready to complete negotiations by the end of this year. From my own bilateral contacts, I am absolutely certain that that is the case. The expectation is that up to ten candidate countries may be considered ready. This will be a very important signal of encouragement to those countries which have worked extremely hard to reach this position.
This meeting of the Council, together with another on the eve of the October European Council meeting, will focus on finalising the EU position in the negotiations. One of the most contentious issues is expected to be the financial aspects of agriculture, which involves the question of extending direct payments to farmers in the candidate countries. Revised proposals have not yet issued from the Commission and not all member states may be in a position to agree to a deal. The Government will be keen to stress that any deal on agriculture should be kept separate from discussions on the mid-term review of the CAP. Having been in Ballacolla yesterday, it is a very important issue for this country and we all understand its significance. The Council will also consider a progress report, which is not yet to hand, on other issues such as institutional questions and the issue of the budgetary balances of the future member states.
The Council will also review the progress of work in the Convention on the Future of Europe. There will be a short report on the work of the European convention from Giuliano Amato, one of its two vice-presidents, but a detailed discussion is not expected.
The convention is now moving into the second phase of its work. It has held wide-ranging opening debates on all the main issues before it, and is now starting to look at the issues in greater detail. A number of working groups are assisting in this process - six set up to date are to report over the next few weeks and the four established earlier this month are expected to report before the end of the year. President Giscard is expected to bring forward some initial ideas about the possible structure of the convention's final document at the end of October, but detailed work will take several months after that, probably up to the middle of 2003. The work of the convention is of the highest importance, but it is important to remember that final decisions will be for the subsequent Intergovernmental Conference.
All the Irish representatives have played a very valuable, significant and energetic role so far. There are differences of emphasis among them, as is entirely understandable, but all of them have been taking a pragmatic, sensible approach to the convention, based on the realities of where we are now and the type of Europe people actually wish to see. I would particularly like to pay tribute to Ray MacSharry, who stepped down at the start of the holidays and whom I have replaced.
It is clear from the convention that many issues of concern to the Irish public have a resonance elsewhere in Europe. One of the most amazing aspects of the convention is that the concerns in one country are replicated in other countries. There is a clear consensus that the Union needs to become more open and transparent, and that it needs to be brought closer to its citizens. How this can be done in practice is a major theme of the convention's work. Questions such as how to simplify the treaties; how to give real effect to the principle of subsidiarity, and how to give national parliamentarians a more central role in the Union are at the heart of the work now under way. On all these issues the Irish representatives have made a worthwhile contribution. I personally intend to play a very active part in the matter in the months ahead. The Chairman will understand I have other more pressing issues on my agenda at this time.
It is also clear from the convention that there is common ground on other fundamental issues. Nobody is pressing for some kind of European superstate. It is important that this be said. There is general agreement that no new competences should be transferred to the Union from the member states. There is and will be a lively debate on how existing policies can be made more effective, and views will be expressed with which we will not agree, but we should have the maturity to keep matters in perspective and confidence in our capacity to shape the outcome. We can have confidence that we have always punched above our weight in Europe on all such issues.
I now turn to the proposal to establish a European Union solidarity fund. Members of the committee will be aware of the severe floods which affected central and eastern Europe last month. In the context of these floods, the Commission did what it could within existing instruments and structures. In response to the crisis, it has been decided to examine ways in which the EU could, in the future, assist affected regions in member states and accession countries in the event of major natural disasters. The Commission proposal for a Council regulation was presented on 18 September and has been referred to a committee of officials for examination. At the same time, the opinion of the European Parliament has been sought on the draft regulation. The Presidency had hoped to have a draft regulation ready for adoption at the Council next week.
However, during consultations with the European Parliament on 23 September last, it became apparent that Parliament was not yet in a position to conclude agreement on the issue. The Presidency hopes to bring a draft regulation to Council in the near future. We share a sense of solidarity with the victims of the flooding and support the idea of creating a specific Community instrument to respond in the future to the consequences of major disasters in member states or candidate countries. That is entirely in keeping with the sense of solidarity which has been at the very heart of Europe since its foundation.
As I said at the outset, I am happy to discuss any items on the agenda for next Monday. In these opening remarks, I wish to touch on the situation in the Middle East and Iraq. Developments in the Middle East are a recurring cause of concern and we all accept that the current state of affairs in the occupied territories is exceptionally bleak. The suicide bombings in Tel Aviv and Umm El Fahm last week were universally and rightly condemned, as was the terrorist attack on the Palestinian elementary school in Hebron. It has always been the Irish Government's position, and that of successive Governments, that terrorism can never be justified. However, Israel's action in intensifying its occupation of the West Bank and attacking the compound of President Arafat in Ramallah is counter-productive and contributes nothing to Israel's legitimate security interests. Restricting the freedom of movement of the Palestinian leadership does not contribute to the fight against terror or to efforts to reform the Palestinian Authority and its institutions. Indeed, the opposite is the case.
The Taoiseach was among the world leaders to contact President Arafat last weekend. He expressed the Government's concern and assured President Arafat that every effort was being made to secure a withdrawal of Israeli forces from the presidential compound. Our diplomats at the United Nations Security Council worked through Monday night to ensure the passage of Security Council Resolution 1435 which, inter alia, calls for an end to all acts of violence andan end to Israeli measures in and around Ramallah.
At the Council meeting on Monday, the Danish Presidency and High Representative Solana will report on their recent contacts in the region and on efforts to restart the peace process. It is clear that the way forward must be through a road map of the kind envisaged by the quartet at the 17 September meeting in New York. The international community must strive to convince the parties that they must work to give concrete effect to such a plan with international assistance and supervision. It is also clear that under such a plan both parties would have to shoulder onerous obligations and make difficult choices.
The issue of Iraq is not currently on the agenda for the Council on Monday. However, it is expected that Ministers may exchange views over lunch. Ireland welcomes Iraq's decision to admit inspectors in accordance with Security Council resolutions. Ireland now wants matters to move rapidly so that words are matched by deeds and we can see the rapid commencement of work on the ground with unstinting co-operation from the Iraqi authorities.
The dialogue between the UN Security General and the Iraqi authorities was instrumental in persuading the Iraqi Government to make its decision. I repeat our strong support for the Secretary General's good offices and hard work in this regard. We are pleased that President Bush has brought the Iraq issue before the Security Council. This plainly is the best way forward for everybody. We believe that the Iraqi offer is the beginning of what must be a longer process of full compliance with its international obligations. As such, the offer must be taken on its merits and given a chance to succeed.
We hope that a sequence of events will now unfold which will avoid the use of force, remove any threat to peace and security and lead to the lifting of sanctions. Ultimately, Iraq has it within its own power to ensure that this will happen. That concludes my opening comments and I am happy to take questions from you, Chairman, and members of the committee on any issue. I thank the members for their attention.
Thank you, Minister. We will take the first tranche of questions on what are called the horizontal issues, Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive. Nos. 5 to 15, inclusive, deal with external relations issues. On issues Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, which deal with progress in Council configurations down to "floodings", I call Deputy Mulcahy.
I add to the Chairman's comments of welcome to the Minister of State. This is a great opportunity for members to have an input into what he can report to the European Council meeting. I also pay tribute to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, and his staff on a very good job at a very difficult time on the Security Council, which has also come across in the media.
I want to refer first to the European convention. I was delighted to hear from the Minister of State that nobody is talking about a European super-state because if one was to talk to certain French, Belgian and German politicians, one might get the opposite impression. I want to ask a broader question regarding the representatives from Ireland to the convention. Is there a role for this committee with regard to those representatives? When they speak at the European convention they are speaking for Ireland, not the Government. In essence, this committee of the Oireachtas is the voice of Ireland when it comes to European affairs and I wonder if there is some way it could either make an input or receive reports from our representatives to the European convention in terms of its interim work. We should not exclude the possibility of issuing an invitation to the president of the convention,Giscard d'Estaing, so that we could hear his views on how the convention is proceeding and his vision for the future because the convention will be extremely important in terms of the long-term constitutional planning of the European Union.
An aspect on which I agree with the Green Party is the need for a debate on the future of Europe. Unfortunately, the Green Party is using the Nice referendum to have that debate, but we are all agreed that there are many areas that require debate and this committee should be engaged in that debate.
Second, the one item most people in Europe are talking about - we raised it in this committee - is consumer prices. There is talk of consumer strikes in Ireland, Italy, France and perhaps Germany. The reality is that ordinary European citizens are very unhappy about the increase in prices throughout the Union from 1 January. Some of those increases may not be attributable to the introduction of the euro but the citizens do not believe that. If a poll was taken of the 400 million citizens on whether the euro was responsible for an increase in prices, the overwhelming vote would be "Yes". We discussed the competition aspect of this matter. Globalisation or a lack of competition may be hitting the European market. Whatever it is, I ask the Minister of State to stress at the next European Council meeting that the issue of consumer prices must be put at the top of the European agenda.
Before I call Deputy Haughey, I wish to point out that the Minister of State is the Government's representative at the convention, replacing Ray MacSharry. Deputy John Bruton and Proinsias De Rossa, MEP, are the Parliament's representatives. I wish to put a proposal to the committee later that we invite DeputyBruton and Proinsias De Rossa, MEP, to meet us on 12 October.
Deputy Mulcahy's suggestion that we should invite Giscard d'Estaing to a meeting of the committee is a good one. We should issue such an invitation. The Deputy is quite right in what he said. I hope the committee will agree that we should issue that invitation. Whether Mr. Giscard d'Estaing would wish to come is a another matter, but we should issue the invitation. The issue raised by the Deputy is the type of issue we should address. I wished to reply to that question put by the Deputy, as I do not want to interrupt the Minister when replying to the questions that have been put.
I thank the Minister for addressing us on these issues. This is a significant meeting. It represents the European Affairs committee of the Oireachtas getting down to its work in dealing with the new responsibilities it has been given.
To follow up on the questions asked by Deputy Mulcahy on the Convention on the Future of Europe, I am also delighted to note that nobody at the convention is pressing for the creation of a European super state. The European Union should be a partnership of states. I assume that is the position we all adopt.
In relation to these discussions, I assume we are talking about having an Intergovernmental Conference at some stage in the future following the convention's deliberations. Are the Irish representatives conscious that would necessitate another referendum here? I seek clarification on that point. At this stage is it clear whether we are talking about a constitutional amendment, a referendum in relation to the deliberations of the convention and, if so, are the Irish representatives conscious of that?
Studying what is involved in the convention, it seems that a new treaty or whatever emerges from it would be easy to sell, if all the objectives in relation to the democratic deficit and so forth are achieved. I would like the Minister of State to comment on that. Has he a concern about a referendum on these issues? Does he think the results of the convention would be acceptable to the Irish people?
I do not want to get too involved in the Nice treaty because that is not what our work today involves. However, on the question of enlargement, which is dealt with in this section, the question of ongoing immigration as a result of it, the question of a two year derogation, followed by a further three year derogation, followed by a further two year derogation in relation to the influx of immigrants, will the Minister of State brief us on the stance of other EU states in that regard and how they intend to tackle that situation? I am particularly conscious of an article in The Irish Times yesterday by the Immigration Control Platform in which all sorts of wild allegations are made in the context of this country. Perhaps I am straying from the subject matter of our discussion, but it would be helpful if the Minister of State were to comment on that article.
Does any other member wish to comment on items 1 to 4? I wish to ask one question on the solidarity fund in relation to the recent flooding. The figure of €1 billion seems a small amount. The cost of alleviating the flood damage in Germany, the Czech Republic and other countries was a multiple of that figure. I recall the practice here of introducing a £10 Estimate to open the line and if larger amounts of money were needed later, a Supplementary Estimate was introduced. Is the figure of €1 billion to be read in that light or is it the total amount that will be made available under that solidarity fund? For a Union of 15 member states, that figure appears to be a relatively small amount?
I will deal with the questions in reverse order and reply to the Chairman's question first. I am deferring to the seniority of his position. The Chairman is correct in that the €1 billion figure is, effectively, the line item. We used to put £10 into the Estimates for various items many years ago. There is no way of calculating precisely what would happen in a disaster. The trigger figures mentioned in relation to the damage are €1 billion or 0.5% of GDP. In other words, a disaster would have to be of some magnitude, but the creation of a fund is a marker. The Germany and Austrian authorities are pleased with the response of the European Union and they accept it was a generous response given all the circumstances, including the lack of an appropriate instrument. It is regarded as a significant indication of the solidarity among nations on which Europe has been based. I can give the Chairman a further briefing on this after the Council when this item is completed and has taken its final shape.
On the questions asked by Deputies Mulcahy and Haughey, as the Chairman pointed out, I am the Government representative on the convention and the Oireachtas Members on it are Deputy John Bruton and Proinsias De Rossa, MEP. I pay particular tribute to Ray MacSharry whom I am replacing. I also want to pay tribute to the extraordinary energy that has been put into the convention by Deputy Bruton and Proinsias De Rossa, MEP. Both have come to the European issue from different viewpoints. Their contributions have been remarkable. That needs to be recognised and publicly endorsed. The alternates are Deputies Pat Carey and Gormley.
I should have introduced the members of staff accompanying me. I am accompanied by Bobby McDonagh, David Cooney, Tom Harney and Kathleen White. Mr. McDonagh is my alternate.
I wish to take up a valid point made by Deputy Mulcahy. It is for the committee to decide which issues it wishes to raise. Members of the committee will be aware of my personal interest in European matters, particularly European integration. I have a strong interest in creating a Europe with which the people of Ireland and the people of the rest of Europe can re-establish a link. I would be delighted to appear before the committee at any time to deal with issues arising from the convention. The Chairman made the point that this will be an issue of great significance as we go forward. If we want the Irish people to be fully engaged, it is appropriate that we should be able to discuss the developments on the convention as we go forward.
Deputy Mulcahy mentioned the euro. One of the benefits of its introduction is that it has created a tremendous public awareness and a transparency about price differentials across the Community. It makes it much more difficult for business to hide or disguise what has been happening. I welcome the growing consciousness among the public here and the public elsewhere in Europe on issues such as the sensitivity of prices. There is also a growing consciousness, although it has a long way to go here, of the power the consumer has ultimately to discriminate and to drive down pricing that is unfair.
Deputy Haughey asked a question about the Intergovernmental Conference. There will be an intergovernmental conference, as that is to where this process will lead. Coincidentally, the Intergovernmental Conference is most likely to commence during Ireland's Presidency. In all probability, therefore, this issue will be of tremendous significance to the Houses of the Oireachtas and this committee. In addition, although it depends on what is in the convention, I would be surprised if it was so modest that it would not require another referendum. I believe it will, although the Attorney General will advise the Government when the document is produced and the Government will make a decision then.
Deputy Haughey's contribution touched on how Europe goes forward to convert the work of the convention into reality. It is important to point out, in view of some of the wilder statements that have been made, that the Intergovernmental Conference will make a unanimous decision. Every member state will have its say in that regard.
Members of the House might differ on issues relating to the forthcoming referendum and the Nice treaty but I acknowledge the points made by Deputy Haughey in this regard. I will emphasise again the position with regard to migrant workers. As all political parties in the House accept, xenophobia and racist statements have no part to play in Irish politics. I welcome the fact that political parties who disagree with me on the Nice treaty have been forthright in their condemnation of such things. I also acknowledge the role played by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and others in this regard. There has been a real effort to prevent those things happening.
In June last year a consensus arrangement was reached among the 15 member states whereby they may continue operating their existing arrangements for the first two years after the accession of the new member states. I emphasise the words "existing" and "two years". They cannot change the arrangements or make them more onerous during that two year period. If the need arises, the existing arrangements may be continued for a further three years. That will cover the first five years of the accession period. For the last two years of this seven year period, which has been much discussed and misrepresented, a member state may, if it gets the Council's permission, continue the arrangements or continue with modified or more liberalised operations. The arrangements which will ultimately apply will be available to all member states. If Ireland wishes to continue its arrangements, it may do so. Whether it does or does not will depend on the labour market issues that apply at that time.
I listened to a fine debate on RTE yesterday in which members from all sides were at one on this issue. There is not a shred of evidence to suggest that there will be an influx of up to 75 million people into this country. It is important to make that clear. All the evidence available points in the opposite direction. Studies by the Commission show that migration patterns from central and eastern European countries will change. Deputy Ó Caoláin referred to this in a recent broadcast. There is no evidence to suggest there will be a flood of immigrants. Whatever view we take in the upcoming debate, we should be honest in that regard.
A number of studies have been carried out, particularly in the Czech Republic - a representative from its embassy is attending this meeting - Hungary and Poland, which clearly belie the extraordinary allegation that there will be a flood of immigrants into this country. I am speaking without notes but I believe my memory is accurate with regard to an article in one of our national newspapers on 13 August last which drew attention to a report produced by an agency called Tárki in Hungary. That agency was so perturbed by the extraordinary interpretation of its study that it issued a communiqué the following day pointing out that when it carried out a sample survey in Hungary of people who were likely to migrate, not one of them indicated that Ireland was a destination of choice. Other reports were published in May and June of last year. Members will be aware of the work of chief executive officerRG, the Central European Opinion Research Group. The headline of its study was that migration patterns will decline. If one thinks about it, it is natural that they would.
I accept there were concerns last year in a number of member states, particularly those which are most proximate to the central and eastern European states. There were political issues in those countries which determined their political debate. Whatever their concerns were, however, they should not have affected the Irish people.
On all sides of the House, irrespective of where they stand in this debate, Members have behaved with great dignity and decorum on this issue. I am particularly pleased that political parties which have taken the opposing view on Nice have attempted to advise people that there is no reason to be concerned about this issue and to counter the extraordinary stories that are being peddled. The stories are alarmist and have been described by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions as shameful and scaremongering. I agree with those appellations.
We have a right to debate the issue but we must debate the facts as opposed to the mythology. I am grateful to members for giving me the opportunity to make this statement.
That deals with items Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive. We will move to items Nos. 9 to 15, inclusive. I have some questions in this regard. The Minister will make a response with regard to Nigeria at the end of the meeting. I will take the issues in sequence, after which members can intervene with their questions. Item No. 7 refers to relationships between the EU and Switzerland. I note from the brief that there is some difficulty progressing negotiations on taxation of savings and on dealing with fraud. There are major differences between the EU and Switzerland about banking secrecy. Will the Minister outline the concerns the EU has raised on that issue?
Item No. 8 refers to the World Summit on Sustainable Development. I take it the Irish Presidency in 2004 will continue to give priority to these matters if they have not advanced by that time. However, there is a line in the brief which states that the most important area in which the EU failed to secure its objectives was renewable energy. The US and developing countries refused to agree to a new international target for increasing the share of renewable energy in primary energy production. Will the Minister tell the committee what the US and the developing countries have in common or are there two distinct objections to this development?
The Minister mentioned the immigration issue. I was intrigued by the note on Kalingrad. Kalingrad will have an unusual arrangement with the EU if what is proposed proceeds. What implications will that have for Schengen? Is there the basis of a precedent for Ireland in relation to Kalingrad? I have regularly queried the fact that Irish citizens are considered to be "foreign" in the European Union in so far as we are obliged to produce our passports. The reason is that we are not part of the Schengen agreement and we want to keep the travel area with Britain because we do not want passport controls at Newry. If a unique way is found to deal with the Kalingrad situation, will that set a precedent for Ireland? In other words, could we at some future date travel throughout the European Union without a passport or with a lesser document, such as a driving licence?
I take it that our discussion on No. 10 in relation to the Ukraine, Moldova and Belarus includes the need for democratic government in these states. The brief mentions human rights. As regards No. 11, the International Criminal Court and the proposed use of Article 98(2) by the United States, is Ireland contemplating an Article 98(2) bilateral agreement with the United States? What is our position in that regard?
Given what has happened in recent days, perhaps it would be a good idea to have an exchange of views on what is happening not just between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, but also in Iraq. The situation in Ramallah and the presence of suicide bombers are totally unacceptable. It is appalling to see it on television every day. It seems the European Union's proposals to the quartet are imaginative and advanced. I understand Prime Minister Sharon's reaction was not good, but Foreign Minister Peres appeared more positive. The reaction on the Arab side was generally favourable. What are the prospects of the EU plan succeeding? It would be a formidable plan if it was put on track. I note the Minister spoke to President Arafat by telephone about the situation in Ramallah. I am glad because we should be concerned about it.
As regards Iraq, the British Government published a dossier yesterday which the British Prime Minister presented to the British Parliament. I presume all of us have received a summary of it from the British Embassy. I have a copy of the full document, although I have only read the summary. What sources will we use at the European Union and the United Nations to inform ourselves as best we can about the dossier and the way the case has been presented by both the United States and Britain? What will we do to try to get an independent source of information to enable us to evaluate the dossier? What information will the Government provide to the Dáil to enable it to make an independent decision? If the time comes for Ireland as a member of the Security Council to cast its vote on a resolution, which may be sooner rather than later, I presume the Minister will bring it first to the Dáil. What independent assessment will the Minister put to the Dáil to enable it to make an independent judgment of the dossier and of the information put forward by the United States and Great Britain? No one wants a tyrant to succeed, but we want to be independent in our assessment of a precarious situation.
As regards the International Criminal Court, a majority of the people are concerned at current attempts to ensure that US nationals remain exempt from the ICC's jurisdiction. Ireland should not co-operate in granting any type of impunity agreement for acts of genocide or war crimes. Will the Minister assure us that Ireland will not enter into a bilateral agreement?
As regards the Middle East and Palestine, we all welcome the UN Security Council resolution yesterday. We should try, through the European Union, to ensure it is implemented and enforced. That should take priority over the quartet road map which is referred to in the briefing documents we received. The quartet road map is a flawed document. Although it may be a starting point, many parts of it should be defined in more detail, such as the interim steps required and the type of provisional Palestinian state which could be established. There are no specific details on benchmarking or on the deadlines outlined. I was glad the Minister mentioned that our diplomats helped to ensure the resolution was passed at the UN Security Council yesterday. However, like many other UN resolutions, they are passed, but attempts are not made to ensure they are implemented.
As regards Zimbabwe, will the Minister insist that the African union plays a central role in discussions on resolving the human rights crisis there? We are opposed to sanctions against Zimbabwe because we believe that inclusive dialogue is the way forward. Without it, we will not be able to address the inequality which exists in Zimbabwe in terms of land distribution. A small proportion of white Zimbabweans continue to occupy more than 70% of the land. That will only be addressed through dialogue.
I agree with Deputy Ó Snodaigh about the International Criminal Court. What is Romania's position given that it has signed the bilateral impunity agreement with the United States? It is not an accession state, but it is involved in the enlargement process. I would like the EU to take a robust stance on these impunity agreements. I do not understand how Ireland could sign such an agreement. The Minister might raise the issue as to why Romania, which is a candidate country for EU enlargement, has signed the impunity agreement and clarify the EU's view on it.
I welcome the Minister of State to the meeting. As regards relations between the EU and the US over the steel issue, while it is not of immediate national interest, it could have implications in other areas. The US recently announced the introduction of tariffs of up to 30% on imports of steel and steel products from most industrialised countries, including the EU. The US took a unilateral decision some time ago when it introduced the food Bill to take account of the serious income crisis facing the agricultural and food production sector in the United States. While it may not have an immediate direct impact, it will have an impact. The brief states that any short-term measures could be more or less immediate, while long-term measures would only arise after a WTO panel ruling on the legitimacy of the US measures, expected in mid-2003.
The time-scale involved is relevant here and in other areas. I understood that many of these trading matters could be addressed more expeditiously at the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and WTO discussions rather than having them appear before a panel in the middle of 2003. At a minimum it illustrates a lethargic approach to these issues when they arise. I do not refer specifically to the 30% tariff on steel, my point is also relevant to other sectors. There should be a facility for a more immediate response to these disputes when they arise. The issue is due to be discussed at tomorrow's meeting of the General Affairs Council, so perhaps we are anticipating what will arise. Perhaps the Minister of State has some views on the matter.
Item No. 13 refers to the Middle East and the situation in Iraq. I am disappointed that when real crises arise, such as in the conflict between Israel and Palestine, they do not receive a fraction of the international attention accorded to the situation in Iraq. No crisis exists for the western world in Iraq but there is a crisis in terms of what is happening in the Middle East. In his last appearance before the committee, the Minister referred to the quartet and so on. While there was a meeting on 17 September, it appears that very little has happened with the quartet or with any European Union initiative on the Middle East. The situation there seems to go from bad to worse. Does the Minister of State take the view this is because the United States is more focused on the situation in Iraq? It is difficult for people to understand why a real crisis is receiving less attention than what is, at best, a potential crisis.
The Irish representatives on the United Nations Security Council have done excellent work under difficult circumstances. There appears to be two policies on Iraq. The first, enunciated by the United States and the United Kingdom, seeks a regime change at any cost. The other - I hope - is that held by the European Union and United Nations, which seeks the destruction of weapons of mass destruction. Will the Minister of State confirm that it is our policy that we will only support those countries who take action on the basis of a United Nations mandate? It appears that the United States and, to a lesser extent the United Kingdom, take the view that even if the United Nations does not approve action, they will act unilaterally.
In this context the Chairman's question is relevant because at some point the Dáil may be asked to sanction or will debate a United Nations resolution either before or after the referendum. As legislators we must make up our minds on this matter. I oppose Iraq holding weapons of mass destruction and I also oppose the Iraqi regime. At the United Nations the Minister has made clear that Ireland only supports and sanctions activity sponsored by the UN. I ask the Minister of State to make clear at the European Union Council meeting that the European Union should stress to the United Kingdom and the United States that any action taken outside the remit of the United Nations would not have the support of Ireland and, more importantly, of the Union.
A couple of questions, including one by Deputy Ó Snodaigh, were asked about the ICC. Ireland's wish is that we work with our European Union partners on the ICC and that we agree a Common Position, especially regarding Article 98 arrangements. It is an approach that both Houses of the Oireachtas would welcome. It is our desire to produce a common arrangement across Europe.
Two Deputies raised questions about Romania. It presumably took its decision to sign an agreement on the basis of consideration of its relationships with the United States. We would have preferred if it had awaited for the European Union Common Position. It would also be better if both current and applicant states were to await a single Common Position.
Four separate questions were raised about Iraq and the general position in the Middle East. We agree that Iraq poses a major potential threat to regional security. We are all aware that the regime has consistently failed to meet its obligations under international law and to meet the requirements of the relevant Security Council resolutions. We also believe that diplomatic options should continue and that every effort should be made to avoid the use of military force. We all accept that military force could have the gravest repercussions for the stability of the region and holds the potential to spread to other regions. The Government's strong preference - it is one it will make strongly at the forthcoming Council meeting - is for the avoidance of the use of military force.
Ireland strongly supports the view that the primary role in this matter lies with the United Nations. It is the appropriate body to resolve the issue. European Union Foreign Ministers are agreed that the international order must be respected and that the United Nations's track record and role in this area must be supported. Ireland and the Government also believe that the existing body of United Nations resolutions provides an adequate basis for inspections to proceed as soon as possible. We are aware of the intention to table a further resolution in the coming days and we are prepared to consider any proposed text, provided it is helpful and progressive, although it would be pointless to speculate at this point on what would be our reaction to a text because none has been produced.
The recent British report is disturbing, although it does not produce conclusive proof that the threat is immediate and pressing. It reinforces our concerns over the issue and on the need for inspection on the ground. Ireland takes the view that sanctions should be administered in such a way as to ensure that humanitarian and long-term economic interests of the people of Iraq are secured, while ensuring that the necessary controls are in place to prevent Iraq from developing weapons of mass destruction.
We must be realistic on the question of information. We do not have the capacity to develop independent information and intelligence reports. We have contact with the chairman of UNMOVIC, the body on the ground. There is little in the UK report that can be challenged at this stage, but it is certainly not conclusive evidence of an imminent threat.
Ireland, the European Union and the United Nations are not in the business of regime change. This point was made by Deputy Mulcahy; it was also reflected in Deputy Ó Snodaigh's contribution. Our position is that, in the event of Iraqi non-compliance, action must be determined by the Security Council. That is the appropriate place for action to be determined.
Regarding the issue of the Middle East, the road map and, in particular, the contributions of the Chairman, Deputy Ó Snodaigh and others, the first point, which is directly related to the point made by Deputy Ó Snodaigh, is that the quartet is to seek to draw up an agreed road map. The point is correct, that obviously one can pick issues and debate them. However, drawing up the way forward in the Middle East will be difficult, but it is very much part of the EU's extensive plan in the area. Deputy Ó Snodaigh asked if a final road map had been drawn up and the answer is "No". The intention is to try to build a time-line and more detail into any agreed approach.
Regarding Deputy Mulcahy's questions, recently in New York the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, sought to highlight the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He made the point that it is a very significant issue. The Minister emphasised our concerns at the UN General Assembly and in discussions with Foreign Minister Peres and Secretary of State Powell.
The Minister also highlighted the need to implement all Security Council resolutions. The view has always been taken by successive Irish Governments that Security Council resolutions are not a matter of pick'n mix, where one may pick some and ignore others. All Security Council resolutions should be observed.
The Minister has also stressed several times the need to pursue political and security issues in parallel. A resolution will not be found in the pursuit of security issues only and there must be a parallel arrangement on the security and political sides. If nothing else, from our own experience, we, as a nation, must know that one cannot resolve one without the other. We feel that there must be an end to the Israeli occupation of Palestinian areas and to the settlement activities. This goes back to the contributions of two members here. The settlement activities and the occupation of Palestinian areas are not accepted. Regarding the Chairman's question, at EU level the general feeling is that it is a major concern for Ministers.
The Taoiseach spoke as recently as Sunday morning to President Arafat. He indicated our concern about President Arafat's situation. We assured him of our continued support and of the concerns of the Irish people in this regard. We assured him that he has continued support in international efforts from Ireland to resolve the situation. In his statement on 20 September, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, stated:
There can be no justification for terrorist attacks on innocent Israeli civilians. But these attacks must not be allowed to provoke a reaction which in turn causes civilian casualties and is totally counter-productive and damages the prospects for resolving this conflict.
If our recent history teaches us nothing else, it is that this statement would have the endorsement of the Irish people.
Regarding the Chairman's specific observation, the Presidency and the high representative have been in direct contact with the Palestinian and Israeli authorities. They made clear the repugnance which exists regarding the siege at Ramallah. At both UN level and EU level, the Government is fully engaged in this matter and there has been a huge amount of vigour in the area.
If I have missed a point, I will come back to it. However, I want to address some of the other issues raised. The Chairman dealt with one of the issues I find interesting. He asked how the situation in Kalingrad will be resolved. Kalingrad effectively will be a part of Russia that is surrounded, like an island, by the European Union. It is important that the issue is resolved. There is a feeling that this will be an important issue in terms of developing a positive relationship between the European Union and Russia. It is a very significant issue to the Russian people. The Chairman and I discussed this outside the context of this meeting. It has tremendous significance and it is appropriate that the EU should recognise it as such. As regards the questions about the implications of Kalingrad and the Schengen area, we have kept back a little from that because, as the Chairman will be aware, we are not part of the Schengen arrangements.
What exactly is the proposal on the agenda in relation to Kalingrad? As I understand it, it is a travel pass for Russians travelling through the European Union to Kalingrad which would be less than a passport. I am wondering if that would set a precedent for Irish citizens travelling within the European Union, while not upsetting the common travel area. That is really my question.
There are a number of options under consideration. At this stage, as I mentioned to the Chairman, Ireland takes a very low profile on the issue because we are outside the Schengen group. It is very hard to see what kind of arrangement below passport level will evolve. It would be wrong to suggest that there is some precedent for Ireland, the UK or any member state which has opted out of Schengen because it will not be a precedent. Geographically, the situation is different. There is a unique situation where the Kalingrad area, which is part of Russia, would effectively be an island surrounded by the European Union so it is a matter of practical importance that some arrangements are worked out. It is clear at this stage, however, that the final decision with regard to the arrangements has not been finalised and it is hard to envisage what arrangements will be reached. It is a very significant issue and the Chairman is right to point to it. It could have the effect of doing damage or it could have a very positive effect in terms of EU-Russia relations.
Regarding the Ukraine, Moldova and Bellarus, there are significant differences in all three. The EU's focus in this area has been on creating democratic structures. The secondary emphasis, although it is not secondary in terms of importance, has been the creation of institutional arrangements that support and enhance human rights in those countries.
There is currently an EU embargo on bilateral level ministerial contacts with Bellarus arising from concerns about the violation of democratic standards. From what I have heard the Chairman say publicly, I know that he is aware of that point.
If the Minister of State is having any bilateral meetings, he should bring a flak jacket.
As I come from the garden of Ireland, which was described last Saturday as the beer garden of Irish politics, I always carry a flak jacket.
The World Summit on Sustainable Development was raised. The European Union's implementation of the summit's outcome will remain under continuous review at the Council and will be on the agenda for forthcoming Presidencies, including the Irish Presidency because the issues involved will not be resolved in the short-term.
The issue of renewable energy was raised. At the Johannesburg Summit the European Union proposed that the international community should agree to increase its share of such energy to 10% of primary energy production. That is a realisable target, which the European Union is promoting. Deputy Mulcahy asked about the concerns of developing countries. They were reluctant to agree to this target because industrialisation will decrease rather than increase dependence on carbon based energy sources as they see it. One can understand and appreciate their concerns in this regard.
I asked that question. Did the developing countries have similar concerns to the United States?
The developing countries and the United States arrived at the same issue from different directions. Developing countries do not wish their development and industrialisation to be hampered while the United States does not want to commit itself to a new international target and is prepared to rely on its own efforts. The US position relates to its continuing opposition to the Kyoto Protocol. Both sides are concerned about the same issue but approach it from completely different points of view. We can appreciate the concerns of the developing countries.
The Chairman raised the issue of Sharia law in Nigeria and, in particular, the case of Amina Lawal, the woman under a death sentence by stoning. I have no doubt that every Oireachtas Member shares my concern about this issue on which my colleague, the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Kitt, issued a statement and in regard to which the Department has communicated the Government's concerns to the Nigerian Embassy in Dublin and the federal authorities in Nigeria. The Government expressed its opinion that such sentences are contrary to Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which prohibits cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment and has conveyed the widespread concern among the public for the safety and well-being of Ms Lawal. I have made inquiries about the matter and the details are truly and utterly horrific. I thank the Chairman for allowing me to mention it.
The European Council will issue a declaration on 30 September regarding execution by stoning and the broader issue of the application of the death penalty. The following is a draft of the declaration:
The European Union is deeply concerned about the continued use of the death penalty in many parts of the world and appalled at the application of particularly cruel means of execution that cause excessive suffering such as stoning. The European Union urges that any use of stoning or other cruel and inhuman punishment must be stopped immediately. Being a particularly cruel and inhuman punishment, execution by stoning is prohibited by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
The European Union reiterates its long-standing and firm position against the use of the death penalty, a punishment which impairs the human dignity, increases the level of brutality and provides no added value in terms of deterrents. Consequently, the death penalty is abolished in all European Union countries. It is worth noting in this regard that the international community has excluded the use of the death penalty in establishing international criminal courts and tribunals with competence to try the most heinous crimes such as genocide and crimes against humanity.
The European Union issues a strong appeal to all governments to desist from carrying out the death penalty in whatever form, to progressively restrict the use of the death penalty, to introduce and maintain a moratorium on executions and eventually abolish the use of the death penalty in domestic legal systems. The European Union considers as particularly unjustifiable the use of capital punishment for non-violent crimes.
The European Union's aspiration is to see the death penalty abolished in law and in practice in every country in the world. Finally, the European Union will continue to work determinedly against the death penalty and torture in accordance with its established guidelines on these issues.
These sentiments would have significant support among the public.
Reference was made to genital mutilation, particularly among females, which was raised as a result of sensational and inaccurate reporting following the recent summit. Ireland has consistently supported the inclusion in all outcomes of UN conferences of language strongly protective of the human rights of the individual and, in particular, women. This issue arose at the World Summit on Sustainable Development and was the subject of the most extraordinarily inaccurate reporting in one Catholic newspaper here. Ireland, together with its EU partners, supported the inclusion of a reference to human rights and fundamental freedoms in a paragraph of the text dealing with the provision of health care services. The inclusion of this reference to human rights, which was supported, inter alia, by both the United States and the Holy See, was essential to balance references in the text to religious values. I mention this because it has come to my attention that there is concern in Ireland about the inaccuracy of recent statements on the issue. It is important that the Ireland's position on it should be made clear. Nobody in this country would support concepts such as female genital mutilation.
I referred to Swiss banking and the use of Article 98(2) by the United States. Deputy Kirk asked a question about steel and there was also a question about Zimbabwe. I would also like to discuss Iraq again before we conclude.
Deputy Ó Snodaigh referred to Zimbabwe. The situation there will be discussed at next week's General Affairs Council meeting when we will decide whether Zimbabwe should be invited to the forthcoming EU-SADEC ministerial meeting in Copenhagen. The Government believes Zimbabwe should be invited for two reasons. First, we value our relationship with SADEC. It is important that I say that. We do not wish to jeopardise the dialogue by excluding Zimbabwe.
Second, we can use the ministerial meeting to voice concerns about Zimbabwe directly to it and the entire SADEC membership and also to stress the need for change, which, again, is implicit in the Deputy's question if I interpret his point correctly. Zimbabwe will not be flouting EU sanctions if the relevant Minister attends the meeting. The European Union has imposed a ban on bilateral meetings, apart from contacts undertaking to address the internal situation in Zimbabwe.The EU-SADEC meeting is a multilateral one which we fully intend to use to address Zimbabwe's internal politics and various human rights issues.
Deputy Kirk was concerned about steel. The US-EU steel matter is the subject of discussions at COREPER level - the committee of permanent representatives, which is discussing the matter today and tomorrow. Discussions between the Commission and the EU authorities have continued in recent months and the United States has continued to announce lists of products which are exempt from relevant US import restrictions. Deputy Kirk is quite correct and makes the point that the process of not deciding until some time in the middle of next year seems to be very long and drawn out. That is the reason short-term measures are being introduced. This is very much an interim arrangement. There is a problem regarding the steel issue which must be addressed. However, we must operate within the context of the WTO. There are also complex issues involved. That is the reason consideration is being given to the process of introducing short-term measures to deal with some of the difficult issues which may arise.
The Chairman and other Deputies, including Deputy Ó Snodaigh, mentioned the International Criminal Court, a matter with which we dealt. The Chairman also mentioned Swiss savings. Switzerland is something of an anomaly, an island surrounded by Europe. There are major differences, spotted by the Chairman, between it and the European Union regarding the taxation of savings. The European Union is very keen to establish a basis on which we can exchange information on fraud and other abuses as well as other matters. While Switzerland has chosen to remain outside the European Union and the European economic area, our relations are developing on a series of bilateral agreements. Sectoral negotiations were completed in July on several fronts and those agreements entered into force in June this year. There are ongoing negotiations on a set of further agreements which include this issue. The Commission will report on the current state of play to the Council on Monday. Until we receive that report we will not be in a position to outline a definitive position. Economic and Finance Ministers are also expected to discuss the issue in the next month. I expect the General Affairs Council will return to the general question of EU-Swiss relations, including this particular aspect of those relations, in coming months. The situation is quite fluid and not at a stage where I can give the committee a definitive response as to where we are.
I specifically asked about Article 98.2 and the bilateral agreement between Ireland and the United States. Is that on the cards?
Ireland's preference is that any action in this area should be taken on an EU-wide basis. That is the process on which we are moving forward.
Would the agreement have to be ratified by the Dáil? Is it an international agreement?
Yes, it would, but our wish would be to move forward on an EU-wide basis. That was the point Deputy Ó Snodaigh raised, to which I replied. He was concerned about Romania. The answer is "Yes," it would be preferable if there was an EU-wide arrangement. Deputy Andrews also raised the issue.
Returning to the Middle East and Iraq, I know from practice that an issue discussed by Ministers over lunch can often be important. If it is left until lunch, Ministers can speak more freely and perhaps deal with a matter in more detail before resuming in public session. I welcome the fact that the Middle East is being discussed in that way. This should be significant. I am glad the Minister of State has taken the steps he has. I hope the European Union's input into the quartet proposals helps to progress the issue which is of the highest significance.
Regarding Iraq, I do not know whether there will be a role for the European Union collectively, though I expect there will be, just as there is in the quartet. Under Common Foreign and Security Policy issues, Mr. Solana and the Commissioner with responsibility for external relations will at some stage want to brief the Commission. I will be surprised if there is not some discussion of this on Monday next at the Council, perhaps over lunch.
There is an important point which is linked directly to the democratic deficit about which people are concerned and which constantly arises in relation to the European Union and its treaties. Within the Common Foreign and Security Policy there is political and security advice available to Ministers and the Secretary General of the Council. It is important that we all bear in mind the need for the Dáil and this committee, if it is an EU matter, to be able to make some assessment of the situation in Iraq. We cannot bury our heads in the sand and make pious statements from the high moral ground based on ignorance. On the other hand, we cannot allow our vote at the Security Council to be used without question and some basic information being available to the Dáil. I do not know how this issue is to be addressed because I realise we do not have the secret service larger states have to accumulate intelligence, but we do have access to the CFSP in the European Union. This is an issue that has to be brought to the Minister of State's attention - the need for us to have information if we are to endorse at some stage action by the State, which may come sooner rather than later. I bring this to the Minister of State's attention because it exercises my mind and I would like information in order that I can make an assessment. I am sure most Members feel the same way.
The Chairman is right. Obviously, there are conflicting issues. On one hand, we are very anxious that Europe does not develop the trappings of superstatehood, mentioned in the context of the convention, while on the other there is a need in Europe for us to have value-free information that we can trust, not just in the Dáil, but in the parliamentary assemblies of all the other member states. It is a dilemma as to how that circle can be squared. The Deputy is correct in saying that there is obviously a degree of scepticism among the public at large about the veracity of information which is produced on one side in any dispute - maybe they should have some sort of commission. The Chairman has raised an interesting point.
One of the interesting things that will happen at the meetings on 30 and 31 September is that there will be an extension of the television coverage of the Council of Ministers. This is very important in the context of comments made about the secret nature of these meetings. I think that the Council of Ministers is probably one of the worst places to expect a secret to be kept because there are several hundred people in a room and people wander in and out. I know that the Chairman has been at these meetings often enough to understand that. The television coverage will provide an outside link so that journalists and other observers will see what is happening and, hopefully, that will help to de-mystify the proceedings and some of the material.
One issue which departmental officials could talk about is how the Communicating Europe task force could be used to persuade, for instance, TG4 or some other organisation to broadcast the proceedings of this committee when Ministers attend with information about the General Affairs Council meetings. It would lessen the democratic deficit. The TG4 broadcasts of the Public Accounts Committee meetings were very good.
They were good. This is a personal observation when I say that I agree absolutely with your views, Chairman. People are rightly saying that they do not know what is happening in the Oireachtas and there is an extraordinary situation where important committees of the Dáil are given merely a few seconds of transmission time. I know the amount of effort which a back bench Deputy or Senator puts into the preparation for these committees. I think it is grossly unfair. I know that you, Chairman, have been a champion on this matter over many years. It is not fair or reasonable to expect Oireachtas Members to put a huge amount of effort into informing themselves, making thoughtful and thought-provoking contributions and then it all drifts off into the outer atmosphere. The public then thinks that nothing is happening. If the communications media does not communicate the message it becomes very difficult for Members. There are many possibilities for broadcasting. A Deputy once referred famously in the House to television broadcasting relating to parliamentary affairs being consigned to a time of night when only insomniacs and others are awake. It is a pity that more time is not given to the broadcasting of proceedings. I do not think we can resolve this issue today.
I thank the Minister of State. The following issues will be dealt with on the margins of the Council meeting: accession conference at ministerial level and co-operation councils with Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia.
The committee will expect a report on what happened at the GAC regarding the issues raised at this meeting. It would probably be unrealistic to expect a Minister to appear before this committee after every meeting of the GAC but there is a need for some feedback on the issues which we have raised.
The decision was made at Council level that at the end of each Council session a detailed briefing would be made available instead of the usual one page press statement. One of the best ways to proceed would be to make that available to the committee. It would be a matter for the committee to raise any specific issue. The committee can be assured that the Minister and I will make any pertinent information available to it. The detailed communiqué which is issued at the end of each Council of Ministers' meeting could be circulated to all the committee members.
I thank the Minister of State and his officials for their attendance. That concludes this part of the meeting. We will continue in public session. There are a few other matters to be dealt with before the meeting of the sub-committee.
We have been here for two hours and I wonder if it is a good idea to have the sub-committee meeting immediately.
We will not have that meeting now, we will make the arrangements for the meeting. The draft contribution from the Danish COSAC chairmanship contains a proposal for enhancing the role of national parliaments in European politics and for the reform of COSAC. It is proposed to consider this at a meeting on 9 October in advance of COSAC. Is that agreed? That may be a long meeting.
The committee has received a letter from Mr. Klaus Larsen-Jensen, Chairman of the European Affairs committee of the Danish Parliament on the same subject and I propose we note that letter. The committee has received a letter of invitation from the Right Honourable the LordWilliams of Mostyn, Leader of the House of Lords, to visit the House of Lords. The committee has received a letter in German and a booklet dealing with European issues from Dr. Friedbert Pfluger. The committee has received a notice from the Assembly of the Western European Union of a seminar on security in the western Mediterranean, to be held in Lisbon on 7 and 8 October.
Can the committee request a copy of the proceedings?
Yes. I am advised we will receive a copy.
In reference to the proposal made by Deputy Mulcahy, is the committee agreed to invite former President Giscard d'Estaing to make a presentation? I suggest the committee meets with the representatives of the Convention on the Future of Europe in advance of the COSAC meeting. We should inform ourselves about the convention before we go to the COSAC meeting. There will be a large deputation from this committee at the meeting, as is the norm. We should know about what is happening at the convention before we go. Friday is the best day for the convention members because they are in Brussels on other days. I know that is a difficulty for members here. The proposal is that we call them on——
Is it proposed that we invite them for a meeting?
Yes, they will brief us on Friday, 11 October.
The convention has been operational for several months and I am sure there have been many speeches, discussions and position papers presented to it. I would not attempt to read every paper that has gone before the convention thus far, but I would like to know what has gone on in general up to now before our representatives come. It is only if we are briefed that we can have a meaningful discussion of what is happening. A general background briefing document should be prepared on the convention, outlining its members, its terms of reference and what kind of submissions have been made thus far. If there are important papers we should have them.
I support the point raised by Deputy Mulcahy. There is plenty of expertise in the Department to set the scene for the convention. I am interested in the status of the eventual report that will issue from the convention. I know it is intended that it be presented to an Intergovernmental Conference. Will the report be neutral or will it have specific recommendations? Will it deal with negatives and positives? What will be the timescale? The Intergovernmental Conference will set machinery in motion for decision making if it will not do it itself. We need a summary in clear and concise terms containing enough detail to set out the broad outline of how the convention operates and what will happen with the eventual reports and recommendations.
I agree with that. When I had the job currently held by the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, I was on the reflection group that prepared the Amsterdam treaty. In that case we issued a report stating that we agreed with some areas and offered alternatives to items with which we disagreed. On that occasion, when I was on the reflection group, there was just one person per state and two observers from the European Parliament. However, there is a much broader group now, so any report coming from the convention will be a public document. I understand that former President Giscard is trying to prepare a draft treaty. That may be easier said than done, but that is the objective he has set himself. By the end of October they intend to have a rough draft and by the end of the year he will make a report to the Council of Ministers. He might give them some idea at the Copenhagen European Council meeting towards the end of October. The objective is to have a more refined draft by December or January and to have a final draft by June 2003.
The final draft report will not bind the Council of Ministers. They will have to have an Intergovernmental Conference to decide what parts of the document to implement or whether to add or take from it as happens at any Intergovernmental Conference.
There are working groups within the convention——
Deputy John Bruton chairs one of them.
——and they are quite clearly getting down to specifics.
There is not a scintilla of criticism of our representatives who are bona fide and are working very hard. They will sign up to a draft, semi-final or final document. In theory this Parliament, the Dáil and Seanad, will have had no input into that. That is what people mean when they talk about a democratic deficit.
We have already scheduled the group to come here. We will get the briefing document before they come and that will be circulated. I planned on raising this issue under any other business. The problem is that, not only are there the 15 member states, but the applicant states also have an input into this.
Are the applicant countries involved with the convention?
Yes. They are not full members, but they are like——
What status do they have?
They are like the pillar at the European convention we have here. They are full participants but they are not equal participants. They are involved, are listened to and have their input and say, so that nothing comes as a surprise to them.
What about democracy?
I heard your comments. I have comments to make. This is my part of democracy. The document will be given to the members of committee. The members are anxious to come before the committee and we can question them about what they are doing. We can suggest to them what we want to see. If we reached a stage where all 27 member states' parliaments had the mandate to give input to the report, we would never get a report. The Deputy should think of it the other way around. The report will be published, go to the Council of Ministers, the Commission, the European Parliament and all the national parliaments. At that stage we will have significant discussion and will give our opinions to our Ministers as to what they should do in Ireland's interest. That will eventually find itself at an Intergovernmental Conference and will ultimately be put into treaty language. There will be a referendum here if, as I expect, it is a significant document. That is the process.
They will be here on 11 October and the members of the committee will get a briefing document before that. If we want them to come back again, we can arrange that.
Would it be possible to hold that meeting on Friday morning rather than in the afternoon?
Yes, it will have to be in the morning. Depending on when people are travelling back from Brussels, we should try to start at10 a.m.
The next meeting of the committee will take place on 2 October 2002 when it will consider the Committee Stage of the European Union Bill. We did say an explanatory document would be circulated to members in advance and that is in preparation. A copy of the Second Stage debate will also be circulated.
Did we agree on 11 a.m. for that meeting?
It will be at 10 a.m.——
I am talking about the meeting on 2 October. We tentatively agreed on 11 a.m..
Yes, we suggested that. However, I am told there may be a difficulty with ministerial availability. We may have to meet at 2 p.m. I will try to arrange that with the Minister, who is under many different pressures. There will now be a meeting of the sub-committee.
Under any other business, is there any news on the study visit to Brussels?
It will probably be the last weekend in October.
I raised a question about the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell.
I dealt with that at the beginning of the meeting. Were you not here?
He will come here on 9 October. He was not available today. We will have a significant amount to do on 9 October.
The Select Committee adjourned at 4 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Wednesday, 2 October 2002.