Priority Questions
1Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the progress, if any, he has made in securing an agreement with the Vatican over the use of the Irish embassy to Italy in Rome as a dual host to an ambassador to the Holy See; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17429/12]
Amharc ar fhreagra3Deputy Mattie McGrath asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the reason a decision was taken to close the embassy at the Vatican as opposed to all other embassies; if he will publish the cost of running this embassy relative to all other embassies; if he will reconsider his decision to close our embassy to the Vatican; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17438/12]
Amharc ar fhreagraI propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 3 together.
In November 2011, the Government announced its decision to close three of Ireland's overseas missions - our embassies in Tehran and to the Holy See, and our Mission in Timor Leste. This decision, taken with the greatest regret and reluctance, was driven by economic factors deriving from our need to cut public expenditure and focus the modest resources of our diplomatic service on economic recovery. The choice of missions for closure followed a comprehensive review of the diplomatic network, in which particular weight was given to the economic return from missions, and their role in rebuilding Ireland's reputation abroad. As regards the Holy See, the logic for closure was based on the fact that the embassy is not involved in consular services or trade promotion and that essential issues of church-State relations could be handled relatively well by a non-resident ambassador.
In a full year, the combined savings from the three closures is estimated at €1.175 million. Net savings in respect of the closure of the Embassy to the Holy See are estimated at €400,000 this year and €845,000 in 2013. These projections take into consideration the relocation of the offices of the Embassy to Italy and the residence of the ambassador to Italy to the State-owned Villa Spada. It is expected that the transfer will be completed during the course of the present year and that the full-year rental savings, amounting to €445,000, will be realised in 2013. A list of the budgets for all overseas missions in 2011 will be provided to the Deputies. This shows that the annual running costs of the majority of our missions is approximately €500,000 per annum per mission.
On the issue of co-location of missions to Italy and the Holy See, for what I understand are historical reasons the Holy See does not accept accreditation from a resident embassy that is also accredited to Italy. It will not accept the appointment of the same person as resident ambassador to both states. Nor will it agree to a country operating its embassy to the Holy See from the same address as its resident Embassy to Italy. This issue of operating our embassies to Italy and to the Holy See from the same premises has been raised with the Holy See and will be further explored.
As I have previously stated in this House, the decision to close the resident Embassy to the Holy See will not be reversed in the immediate term. However, as the economic situation improves and in the context of the regular review of our diplomatic network it may be possible to revisit the matter at some time in the future. If the Holy See were prepared to relax its current requirements so as to allow the State-owned Villa Spada to serve as a location for both our Embassy to Italy and our Embassy to the Holy See, that could be taken into account in any future considerations.
Gabhaim buíochas leis an Tánaiste as ucht an freagra sin a thabhairt dúinn, cé nach bhfuil mé ró-shásta leis an méid atá le rá aige. Ba mhaith liom díriú isteach ar Cheist Uimh. 1. I ask the Tánaiste to elaborate on the level of engagement and who participated in the engagement with the Vatican on the issue of the possible use of Villa Spada for both embassies. An honourable attempt has been made by people who are quite passionate on this issue to encourage the Tánaiste to use Villa Spada as a dual-purpose embassy. I am sure the Minister of State, Deputy Creighton, whose heart I believe is in the right place on this matter, has been encouraging the Tánaiste in that direction also. What was the nature of the communication? Was it through the Tánaiste, the Department or the Secretary General and acting ambassador that these contacts took place?
The Tánaiste has rightly said much about the need to continue to build Ireland's reputation abroad. We have already had a protracted debate on these matters and that debate will not go away because this issue will continue to be raised here. Will he now accept that the decision he made effectively to torpedo the country's relations with the most important diplomatic listening post in the country, far from advancing the entire business of Ireland's diplomatic initiatives and our reputation abroad has in fact done damage?
I do not accept the allegation about torpedoing the diplomatic relations between Ireland and the Holy See. Ireland has good diplomatic relations with the Holy See and that will continue. I was very glad, for example, to be present when the President received the new papal nuncio to Ireland and accepted his credentials. Indeed I welcome him to Ireland and had the opportunity of doing so on that occasion.
There are two issues with the use of the same premises. First, there is the issue of the ambassador. The position of the Holy See - as it is entitled to maintain - is that it will not permit the accreditation of an ambassador to Italy to also be an ambassador to the Holy See. So it is not possible to have one in the same embassy and one in the same ambassador serve Italy and the Holy See. That is a long-standing position of the Holy See. The same applies to the use of the embassy premises. The long-standing position of the Holy See is that it does not permit that to be done. It is a matter for the Holy See. It is not a matter for Ireland and is not an issue of negotiation. It is a matter for the Holy See to decide what is acceptable to it in terms of arrangements for a resident ambassador.
On the appointment of a new ambassador, when the decision was made to close the resident Embassy to the Holy See, the Government appointed the Secretary General of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to be a non-resident ambassador to the Holy See. Arrangements are being made for him to have his credentials accepted. I understand there will be a ceremony in early May when he will hand in his credentials. In the meantime he has of course been visiting the Vatican and has had a number of meetings there already.
I apologise for not being in the House when the Tánaiste gave his reply. I am not satisfied with his answer. From the outset there was a degree of - I will not say mischievousness-----
A question.
When will the Tánaiste give us the facts and figures for the savings to be made in comparison with other embassies? Why was it picked upon? I believe it was picked upon because there was a weakened Catholic Church and the Tánaiste wanted to exercise his bias against the Catholic Church and close it for that reason. It is a shame. It is naked politicisation and is wrong.
I reject in the strongest terms the allegation by the Deputy that I have any bias against the Catholic Church. I hold no bias against the Catholic Church or any church and the Deputy should withdraw his allegation.
On a number of occasions I have set out the reasons for taking this decision. It has been necessary given the financial circumstances in which we find ourselves. Limited resources are available to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade for our diplomatic service. We have a small diplomatic service with 340 diplomatic staff to cover the entire world across 73 missions. In the present climate and with the resources available to us, it is not possible for us to spread ourselves as thinly. We are being pulled in a number of different directions to service varying needs, particularly the country's trade needs. For example, we have all heard of the need to extend our reach into the Brazil, Russia, India and China, BRIC, group of countries in particular. I am mindful that we have only two resident embassies in South America but we need more. In these circumstances we have had to cut our cloth to suit our measure. Regrettably, we have had to reduce the number of resident embassies abroad. We examined the matter and we decided to close three, one of which was in the Holy See. We can service our requirements to the Vatican and the Holy See by having a non-resident ambassador. In recognition of the importance many people in the country, including myself, attach to our diplomatic mission to the Holy See, we specifically decided to appoint the most senior diplomat in the diplomatic service, the Secretary General of the Department, as the non-resident ambassador to the Holy See.
While I disagree strongly with the Minister, I do not attribute any mal-intent to him in these matters. I am unhappy with the Minister's response. I asked him about the nature of the contact he had with the Vatican to try to achieve a resolution. Given that the nominated ambassador, the Secretary General, has not yet presented his credentials will the Minister advise us if he has been able to do anything on our behalf in the intervening period? Given that strong proposals have been made about a dual use of Villa Spada, has the Department carried out an architectural study of the building to ascertain whether the suggestion is feasible from a practical or logistical point of view?
I will not withdraw what I said. The Minister and the Government should have been more aware of the situation in respect of the church before the final choice of the three to cut as well as the various comments made by those in the Minister's party when in opposition on issues addressed in many other areas and on investigations. They should have kept away from this because they should have known it would be seen as having a bias against the Catholic Church. The Minister and the Minister for Education and Skills should try to tell the public what they have told me. I do not accept what the Minister says. I am convinced, as are others, that there is a bias against the Vatican and the Catholic Church.
I reject that. Deputy McGrath has given expression to his view in the House. I realise it has been stated by Deputy McGrath and others that there is somehow a bias against the Catholic Church on my part. I absolutely reject that. The Deputy can point to no occasion or find no statement in which I have expressed bias or hostility towards the Catholic Church.
The Minister should talk to his members.
I simply do not accept that because it is absolutely false. It is a base political charge that Deputy McGrath and others have been touting. His interest here is not in the embassy to the Vatican or the Catholic Church.
It is a fact.
Deputy McGrath's interest is to have a political cut at the Government. If he wishes to make a political charge or take a political pop at me, that is fine, but I will reply to it.
The Minister makes plenty of them over there.
I am saying in clear terms that there is no bias against the Catholic Church or any other church. We made a pragmatic decision about the number of embassies. I have made it clear that if financial circumstances improve and especially if the Holy See relaxes the position on arrangements acceptable to it for the appointment of ambassadors, then we will take these factors into account in any reconsideration.
2Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade his views on the imposition of economic sanctions on Israel; his further views on the imposition of sanctions on Iran; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17431/12]
Amharc ar fhreagraIt is important to distinguish between the different circumstances of Iran and Israel, especially with regard to compliance with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, NPT. Under the NPT, Iran has committed not to engage in a nuclear weapons programme. However, it has repeatedly failed to live up to its international treaty obligations and it is in breach of a succession of UN security council, SecCo, and IAEA resolutions concerning its nuclear programme. The report issued by the IAEA last November concluded that there are strong grounds for serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear programme while also indicating that Iran had carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device.
In response to Iran's failure to address the international community's serious concerns about its nuclear programme, the EU, along with other international actors, has implemented sanctions against Iran with the aim of persuading it to return to meaningful negotiations. These sanctions are immediately reversible should Iran demonstrate its commitment to addressing the concerns raised by the IAEA report. In this regard, I welcome Iran's indication that it is willing to resume dialogue with the EU3+3 and I hope that it enters negotiations this time in a genuine spirit of compromise and co-operation.
Israel is not a party to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and it has never officially declared that it possesses nuclear weapons. Ireland is keen to see full universality of the NPT. We have repeatedly called on the remaining three states which are not party to the NPT to accede to the treaty as non-nuclear weapons states and to conclude a safeguards agreement with the IAEA.
It is the long-standing position of successive Governments not to support a policy of boycotts or sanctions against Israel. To do so would only weaken the weight carried by our views in Israel, where we seek to persuade, and among our European Union partners. We must recognise that there is no prospect at present of securing agreement at EU level to adopt sanctions or to suspend the EU-Israel association agreement.
Essentially, we are dealing with double standards of the most profound nature. Israel has been in defiance of UN security council resolutions on this issue. It has not opened up its facilities but no sanctions whatsoever have been taken. As the Minister of State has acknowledged, it is not a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty while, on the other hand, Iran is a signatory. Iran has tried to be a responsible member of the international community. It has tried to meet the agreed responsibilities of the international community, that is, not to allow any further proliferation of nuclear weapons. However, it has faced sanctions of the strongest terms. There are double standards and there is a lack of balance. What does Israel get? Not only are there no sanctions against Israel but it is party to favourable trade agreements with the European Union. We wonder why so many people in the Middle East and the wider region have no confidence in the United States and the European Union to negotiate a fair settlement of the conflicts. Why is the European Union, of which Ireland is a part, applying double standards and undermining consistency and trust in our role as an arbiter of peace and conflict resolution?
We have had this discussion at the Joint Committee on European Union Affairs. I respect the Deputy's viewpoint on this matter. However, I simply cannot agree with the view that Iran has been responsible in meeting its international obligations. I am unsure of the Deputy's views on the integrity of the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, but I suspect I have some indication based on some of our previous exchanges. The agency is the implementation body which the Government respects and whose opinion and report, published in November, we give great stock to.
The conclusions of the IAEA on Iran are contrary to Deputy Mac Lochlainn's assertion that it has behaved responsibly. Since 2002, the IAEA has become increasingly concerned about the existence in Iran of undisclosed nuclear related activities involving military related organisations, including activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile. The report published in November also states that the lack of co-operation from Iran means that the agency is unable to provide any credible assurance about the absence of undeclared material and activities in Iran. This precarious and dangerous situation threatens not just the Middle East, but global security. I am sorry to say that I cannot agree with the Deputy. We cannot simply turn a blind eye and suggest that Iran has been responsible in meeting its international obligations under the non-proliferation treaty.
As the Minister of State may be aware, the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency has been heavily criticised for publishing that report. He is seen to be way too close to the American-Israeli analysis of the situation. That report was not substantiated. It was opinions and it is contradicted by the US intelligence agencies in their report to their Senate. I am very critical of the Iranian Government and Iranian regime on many different levels, not least their human rights record. However, in terms of trying to develop nuclear weapons, the evidence is not there. We know the road this has led to in the past, in terms of Iraq and the disaster that took place there. It is time to produce the evidence on whether there is any ambition to develop nuclear weapons.
We have very significant evidence that Israel possesses hundreds of nuclear warheads. However, there is no determination by the international community to access its sites or to have consistency. Can the Minister of State not see how this does and could undermine faith in that region in the European Union and the United States and their bona fides on peace?
On whether the evidence exists, when I visited Vienna recently as part of a visit to the United Nations' Human Rights Council, I also met the deputy director of the IAEA, who had just visited Iran. It is clear that he and the others in the agency are people of enormous integrity who are professionals in their field and they have carried out countless site visits. With regard to the report, Deputy Mac Lochlainn asserts it is questionable or unreliable. I disagree. The report is based on information that has been drawn from a wide range of sources, including the regular inspections which have been carried out by IAEA inspectors, including the gentleman I met in Vienna, and it is deemed by the IAEA to be consistent in terms of technical content, individuals and organisations involved in that timeframe. I reject the Deputy's assertion.
4Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if Chinese human rights abuses have been raised by him with the Chinese authorities; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17430/12]
Amharc ar fhreagraAs the Deputy is aware, the Taoiseach has just returned to Ireland after his first official visit to China. During the visit, the Taoiseach and Premier Wen Jiabao released a joint statement establishing a strategic partnership for mutually beneficial co-operation between Ireland and China. This new strategic partnership will facilitate practical, effective and result-oriented co-operation so as to further develop the bilateral relationship. It covers several important sectors, including education, tourism, agriculture and food as well as science and technology. The two sides agreed to maintain the momentum of high-level exchanges and underlined the leading role of such exchanges for the development of bilateral relations.
The strategic partnership, which is a major step forward in bilateral relations, provides for a strengthened political and economic dialogue between China and Ireland and promotes closer consultation and co-operation between my Department and its Chinese counterpart. The strategic partnership reaffirms the commitment of Ireland and China to respecting and safeguarding human rights. As indicated in the joint statement, Ireland and China will conduct exchanges of expertise in governance and rule of law on the basis of equality and mutual respect.
We hope that, as China develops, it will be possible for further progress to be made in ensuring that individual rights are enjoyed by all of China's citizens. We will continue to address these matters in a frequent and regular dialogue, including the EU human rights dialogue and also bilaterally, in a spirit of mutual respect and co-operation.
It can be accepted on all sides that Fianna Fáil, in government, was involved over a number of years in working to develop effective relations between this country and the People's Republic of China, not least because of its significance as the second most significant economy in the world. In that context, I commend the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste on the work they have been doing. The adoption of the strategic partnership arrangement is a positive development.
As relations between our two nations are confirmed and as friendships are established, we find ourselves in a stronger position to be able to engage on the issue of human rights. While we are all conscious of the enormous importance of the economic relationships between us, would the Minister agree that we cannot just focus on these and that there are real and worrying issues of concern with regard to the human rights situation there? Does he accept Amnesty International's estimate that there currently half a million people in China enduring punitive detention without charge and that there are millions unable to access the legal system to vindicate their rights? Will the Minister give us some sense of how we will develop this parallel relationship of economic co-operation and at the same time have respectful engagement on the human rights issues?
The way in which our relations with China will develop will be in line with the strategic partnership that has been agreed during the course of the Taoiseach's recent visit to China. This is a significant development in our relationship and it sets down the framework for the contacts between the two countries on a range of political, economic and human dimension issues. Part and parcel of that agreement is a joint commitment with regard to respect for human rights and an understanding that there will be a continuing dialogue between China and Ireland on human rights issues, democracy and rule of law. That will be at a bilateral level.
In line with this, there is also dialogue between the European Union and China on human rights issues. I have had the opportunity of meeting a number of representatives of the Chinese Government here. The most significant of these meetings was the recent visit of the Vice-President of China. At all of these meetings, human rights issues are raised and discussed. There are also opportunities and arrangements whereby human rights issues, particularly individual cases, are raised at official level.
With regard to the Minister's response, did officials from his Department brief the Taoiseach on human rights issues before his departure for China? Will the Minister indicate which specific human rights issues were raised by the Taoiseach in the course of his four-day visit?
I can confirm that my Department briefed the Taoiseach on human rights issues as part of the Taoiseach's brief for going to China. With respect to the approach taken to human rights issues, the principal political agreement concluded between the Irish Government and China was the strategic partnership agreement. It is significant and important that human rights form part of that agreement and are specifically identified as one of the issues which will form and be a regular part of the discussion between Ireland and China. Obviously these discussions will be followed up and there will be a number of other ministerial visits this year. The Minister for Agriculture and Food will visit China next month and I intend to visit China later in the year as part of our trade work. In all of our discussions, the opportunity will be taken to raise and pursue the human rights issue.
5Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade his views on whether there is divergence of opinion across the EU on the issue of the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance, particularly within core countries such as Germany, France and the Netherlands; and, if so, his further views that this division could undermine efforts by the European Council to proceed with the treaty [17432/12]
Amharc ar fhreagraThe Taoiseach joined with the Heads of State or Government of 24 other EU Member States in signing the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union, subject to ratification, as recently as 2 March.
In signing the new treaty, the governments of the 25 contracting parties have indicated their support for the treaty as a demonstration of a shared commitment to sound and sustainable public finances and as a means to promote conditions for stronger economic growth in the EU. Each will now work to ensure ratification in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.
As our European partners respect our ratification procedures, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on what this might entail in the case of other contracting parties, nor would it be proper to comment on the internal politics of another member state. What is clear, however, is that while the new treaty is an important step in re-establishing confidence in economic and monetary union it will not, on its own, answer all the challenges faced by the euro area. A great deal has already been done in that regard, including through strengthening the Stability and Growth Pact, reforming banking and putting the EFSF and ESM in place.
The Government has consistently argued that Europe also needs measures to generate growth and to get people back to work, particularly young people, and I am pleased to announce there is now agreement on this balanced approach. This will be the most important and urgent issue facing the Union in the period ahead.
I refer to the Tánaiste's sister parties throughout Europe which have serious concerns about this treaty, most notably from the possible next president of France, François Hollande, who has expressed significant concerns about the treaty and its implications, its anti-jobs and growth agenda. He has stated he would seek to renegotiate it. This is a very interesting position. The Dutch Labour Party approach is that it does not believe this insane focus on targets without any real plan for recovery, jobs and growth. The social democrats in Germany and the European trade union confederation have expressed concerns. All the traditional brothers and sisters of the Tánaiste's party in the struggle for a social Europe are deeply alarmed at this treaty. I ask the Tánaiste in that context how he can have any passion or vigour when he is campaigning for this treaty in the time ahead. He will be out of kilter with the views of those who have worked with him over the years in Europe.
My sister parties in Europe respect the right of the Irish people to make our own decision in respect of ratification of this treaty, just as we respect the right of other countries to make their decision on ratification in accordance with their own constitutional provisions. This is fundamental. We all must understand that fundamental cornerstone of how Europe does its business, to respect the right of each country to make its own decision and to respect on this occasion the right of the Irish people in a referendum to make our decision.
This treaty is necessary in order to provide stability and security for the euro. Everybody in this country understands the importance of the euro and particularly in light of our experience in the latter part of 2011, understands the difficulties posed for our economy, for investment, for maintaining jobs and for creating new jobs, if there is uncertainty around the euro. That is the reason this treaty is necessary. Nobody is claiming this treaty is the be-all and end-all of what is required to make the European economy recover and that is why the Irish Government has pursued a strategy in our discussions, successfully, so the jobs and growth agenda form part of what is agreed at European Council level. Regarding the approach the Taoiseach took at the European Council meeting in January, the issue of jobs and growth has been firmly placed on the European agenda, particularly issues relating to the completion of the Single Market, problems of small and medium-sized enterprises and especially the issue of youth unemployment which is now at the top of the European agenda and of course it must form part of the discussions.
The Tánaiste also said at the initial stages of this debate that this treaty is merely a continuation of existing approaches at European level and I cite, for example, the six pack. I could read into the record of the House - I will not do so - what his own party colleagues, the three Labour MEPs, said in response to the six pack. They voted against most of the measures. The one measure they did not vote against was one containing a social clause and that social clause is not part of this treaty. Apparently the Tánaiste plans to lead this campaign with passion and vigour but he will be out of kilter with the Left, those in the social democracy movement across Europe, those who are deeply alarmed that this treaty will only strengthen the nature of the crisis. Ireland is being asked to insert the implications of this treaty into constitutional law when we do not see the full solution. We are told this is part of an overall strategy and solution but we are being asked to take such a draconian step without the full picture or any real indication of how we are to address the banking crisis with justice, with full disclosure of all the mess across all of Europe, how we are to address the sovereign debt crisis - the announcement today will certainly not do that for Ireland - and how we are to look at the issue of growth, of investment and how to tackle the European unemployment crisis.
The only uncertainty is what is Sinn Féin's prescription if the treaty is rejected. What is the Sinn Féin position on the euro? Does Sinn Féin support the euro? Is Sinn Féin in favour of the euro? Does it want Ireland to return to sterling? What is its position on the euro? If we want to have the euro, then the rules governing the euro must be implemented and enforced and that has been one of the difficulties which the euro has experienced in recent times. The treaty will provide for a repetition of those rules and the means by which they are enforced and enshrined. The only uncertainty is what happens to Ireland's access to funding if we reject this treaty. The policy of this Government is that hopefully with the policies we are pursuing and are succeeding with that we will be out of the programme and hopefully will not need to have access to the ESM. If at any stage in the future we needed access to the ESM, how does the Deputy intend we get the money? These are the unanswered questions that, frankly, on this occasion, the Deputy will have to provide the answers. The Government is arguing that the treaty be ratified because it provides security for the euro. If the euro is secure and stable, this will increase the confidence of investors to invest in Europe and increasingly in Ireland and that is part of what Ireland needs in order to bring about economic recovery.
