Proinsias De Rossa MEP is in attendance. I do not know if the committee will get an opportunity in the near future to discuss the work of the convention but we will probably establish a system for regular briefings.
Ministerial Submission.
Proinsias De Rossa MEP
The committee should do that. At present, I am involved with a working group on national parliaments and their role in the architecture of the institutions of Europe. I have to leave here at 3 p.m. to catch a flight to Brussels for a meeting of the working group tomorrow morning. I sent the committee a copy of my submission to that working group. The group hopes to conclude its discussions next week. A report will be presented to the convention some time in September. That is the plan at present. However, I will talk to the Chairman, probably next week, about possible briefings on what is taking place there.
We received your letter which was circulated to members today.
Proinsias De Rossa
I apologise for having to leave at 3 p.m.
I welcome the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, and his officials. The new Government guidelines for the scrutiny of EU business states that Ministers will be available on request to offer oral briefings in advance of Council meetings to set out the Government's broad approach and hear the views of Oireachtas Members. I am pleased, therefore, to begin the process by welcoming the Minister, who offered to come to brief the select committee on the forthcoming general affairs meeting.
The agenda of the General Affairs Council for 22-23 July consists of three main areas - A items, horizontal issues and external issues. The A items are those which have already been discussed and agreed by officials of the 15 member states and which, at this stage, pose no problems for governments. In this regard, therefore, there will be no further debate on these items at the Council of Ministers and they will merely give them their formal approval. To date the Oireachtas has given little attention to these legislative proposals but that has been changed with the introduction of a new Government proposal on scrutiny for proposed EU legislation, which we have set up a sub-committee to deal with. That is reflected in the terms of reference of this select committee.
I do not propose to deal in detail with the A items in this agenda as it is too late to do so. We can refer to them and deal with members' questions on them. In future, however, we will have to deal with these at an earlier date. They will be dealt with before they are agreed and we will have an opportunity to be made aware of their progress even before they come to Council.
The horizontal issues appear mainly to concern presentations by the Danish Presidency of its programme for work for the next six months, together with an update on the enlargement negotiations and the follow up to the Seville Council and the terrorism action plan. I am sure the Minister will be anxious to comment on that. The Minister also wishes to make a presentation on external relations items, after which we will deal with members' questions on these and other matters. When the Minister completes his presentation, I propose to take the meeting in three sections: first, A items which should not detain us for long, second, horizontal issues and, third, external relations. Rather than take them together it would be more useful to deal with them in that way.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to meet the committee today to discuss the agenda for next week's meeting of the General Affairs and External Relations Council under the new scrutiny arrangements which are being put in place. I expect to be joined shortly by my colleague, Deputy Roche, Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, who accompanies me to the Council and will substitute for me there from time to time, as required.
As this is the first time I have come before the committee since its appointment, I wish you, Chairman, and the members every success with your important work. I am appearing before you today in the context of the new arrangements for Oireachtas scrutiny of EU business. The committee will clearly have a key role in this area. The Government is committed to an open, transparent and accountable system of parliamentary scrutiny and I look forward to working with the Chairman and the members of the committee to achieve this. The enhancement of democratic accountability as envisaged in the new improved arrangements also has the potential to play an important role in increasing public awareness of EU issues.
When I met the Joint Committee on European Affairs on 6 February last, I set out the Government's proposals for the new arrangements which are designed to ensure the sustained and systematic involvement of the Oireachtas in EU affairs, from the initial tabling of legislative proposals to their final consideration by the Council of Ministers. Since then a considerable amount of work has been done in Departments to prepare for the implementation of the system. Starting on 1 July 2002, the Department with lead responsibility will provide the committee with legislative proposals and Commission Green and White Papers, together with explanatory information notes, within four weeks of their being formally tabled by the Commission. It will be a matter for the committee to decide how it wishes to proceed. It may wish to consider the matter further, to discuss it with the relevant Minister and his or her officials or seek the views of other interested parties. The committee may report or recommend action on given issues and the Government would be required to take serious account of these views when formulating its negotiating position on draft EU legislation.
The effectiveness of the Oireachtas role will in no small measure depend on the spirit of openness and co-operation between committees and Ministers and Departments. I am convinced the new arrangements, if properly implemented, have the potential to place us at the top of the European league table in terms of parliamentary oversight of EU activities.
The Government's intention was that these arrangements would, at least initially, be introduced on a non-statutory basis and that the effectiveness of their operation could be reviewed after a period. However, we are open to considering putting these arrangements on a statutory footing and I have instructed that work should be done during the coming weeks to see how this can best be done. The new arrangements also envisage that Ministers should be available on request to offer an oral briefing in advance of Council meetings in order to set out the Government's broad approach and to hear the views of Oireachtas Members. This is the context in which I am appearing before the committee today and I am happy to be the first Minister to do so. I expect that in the future, when the other committees have been appointed, it will be possible to schedule joint meetings, for example, with the foreign affairs committee, in order to avoid unnecessary duplication.
I will now review the agenda of the General Affairs and External Relations Council and set out our general approach to the issues for consideration at next Monday's meeting. Members will appreciate that as this discussion is taking place at the same time as the meeting of the committee of permanent representatives in Brussels to prepare the Council, it is not possible to present the definitive view. The final agenda and documentation for the Council will not become available until tomorrow or Friday.
The first item on the agenda will be the work programme for the Presidency. Discussion on this is expected to be brief as the programme was already presented by the Danish Prime Minister to the European Parliament at the beginning of July and circulated to partners. The Danish Presidency's main priority is to conclude the enlargement negotiations with up to ten new countries by December. Other priorities have been grouped under the headings of freedom, security and justice, sustainable development, safe food and global responsibility.
The next item, the progress of work and other Council considerations, is a standard item at the General Affairs and External Relations Council given the Council's overall co-ordinating role. Traditionally, this has involved the Presidency informing the Council of decisions taken in other Council considerations and it is not normal for these issues to lead to discussion or debate at the Council, although delegations are free to raise matters should they wish to do so. This can be expected to change with the decisions taken at the Seville European Council to enhance the co-ordinating role of the newly named General Affairs and External Relations Council. In future, it will be possible to hold separate meetings with separate agendas, possibly on different days, to deal with the external relations and the horizontal aspects of the Council's work. These new arrangements will be implemented by the Danish Presidency, with two day meetings in October, November and December.
The next item on the agenda is enlargement. Since assuming the Presidency on 1 July, Denmark has stated on several occasions that concluding the enlargement negotiations with the ten most advanced candidates by the end of this year is its key priority, with a view to enabling these countries to become EU members in 2004. The Danes have also committed themselves to making progress in negotiations with those countries which will not be ready for membership until later, namely Bulgaria and Romania. In addition, relations with the EU's neighbours, new and old, will be strengthened. Denmark has been assured of Ireland's support in pursuing these ambitious but attainable goals during its Presidency.
The decisions taken at the European Council in Seville in relation to new Council formations and improved co-operation between Presidencies have been incorporated in revised rules of procedure of the Council which are expected to be agreed in COREPER today. If that is the case, they will be approved without debate, as an A point, at the Council.
The last of the horizontal items on the agenda is the follow-up to the action plan on terrorism. Deputies may recall that an extraordinary meeting of the European Council was held on 21 September last year at which a comprehensive action plan against terrorism was approved under the following headings: (i) enhancing police and judicial co-operation; (ii) developing international legal instruments; (iii) putting an end to the funding of terrorism; (iv) strengthening air security and (v) co-ordinating the European Union's overall action. Since 21 September a comprehensive range of measures has been adopted in implementation of the action plan. The Presidency regularly updates the General Affairs and External Relations Council on the most recent measures in recognition of the Council's general co-ordinating role.
On Monday the Council will focus in particular on common foreign and security policy action against terrorism and is expected to adopt conclusions in line with the Seville declaration on the contribution of the CFSP, including European security and defence policy, to the fight against terrorism. The intention is to focus political dialogue with third countries more sharply on specific terrorism related issues. In the context of implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1373, it is proposed to provide assistance to those third countries which require help in implementing their commitments under that resolution in consultation with the UN Counter-Terrorism Committee. It is also intended to seek to improve common assessment and understanding of the threats posed by terrorism, as well as consider appropriate arrangements for protection of populations and personnel engaged in EU crisis management operations.
Ministers may instruct the Political and Security Committee and COREPER to examine ways to enhance the efficiency and coherence of all the EU's action against terrorism and to keep the Council informed on progress with a view to providing a status report to the European Council in Copenhagen in December. Ireland supports these practical measures to further enhance the Union's role in the ongoing international fight against terrorism.
I will now turn to the external relations items on the agenda. The first of these deals with the EU's priorities in the area of conflict prevention. Conflict prevention issues are now debated at the outset of each new EU Presidency. That practice builds on the EU Programme for the Prevention of Violent Conflicts adopted under the Swedish Presidency in June 2001 and on useful work carried out since then under the subsequent Belgian and Spanish Presidencies. The Spanish Presidency saw particular progress on proposals for mainstreaming conflict prevention issues and, together with civilian and military crisis management, it forms a central aspect of European security and defence policy. The High Representative, Javier Solana, and Commissioner Patten will brief the Council on regional and thematic aspects of EU activities in the field of conflict prevention. Procedural conclusions will be adopted in order to guide future work. Links will be drawn with the separate agenda item concerning the role of the EU's common foreign and security policy against terrorism.
I intend to welcome these discussions as another significant step in implementation of the EU Programme for the Prevention of Violent Conflicts and to look forward to further progress in that regard. In particular, I will call for implementation of the proposals for mainstreaming conflict prevention, including through better coherence with development co-operation activities. Looking further ahead, I am due to travel to Sweden at the end of August for a high level conference on the role of European regional organisations in conflict prevention.
Turning now to the Middle East, Ministers will have an opportunity at the Council to exchange views on recent developments. Ireland favours convening an international conference to reach a comprehensive settlement in a reasonable time frame which deals with all dimensions of the crisis, including relations between Israel and the Arab world. We support Palestinian reform, but insist it is for the Palestinian people to choose their own leadership. The Quartet should continue to play a useful role and the international community should continue to press for an approach which encompasses all aspects of the situation in an effort to make progress towards a comprehensive final settlement.
The next item is the Western Balkans where I expect that Javier Solana will provide us with an update on recent developments. An issue of particular interest will be his assessment of the work of the Constitutional Commission which has been established by the National Assemblies of Serbia and Montenegro to draw up a new constitution for the new joint state of Serbia and Montenegro on the basis of the agreement he brokered last March. Other issues on which he may report include the current situation in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and prospects for free and fair elections to be held there on 15 September and the historic joint visit by the Presidents of Serbia and Croatia to Bosnia on 16 July. Important elections will be held in Bosnia, Serbia, Montenegro, Kosovo and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia this autumn. I expect that Ministers will confirm strong EU support for the OSCE election monitoring missions which are planned for those elections.
We will also focus at this meeting on the issue of the return of refugees and internally displaced persons. There are still a total of 1.2 million refugees or internally displaced people either in the Western Balkans or in other third countries. While progress is being made in establishing the conditions under which they can return, to date the success of the return programmes has for the most part been of refugees returning to places where they are the majority community. The return of minorities to their homes has been less successful and the issue is particularly acute in relation to minority Serb return to Kosovo where fewer than 400 Kosovo Serb refugees out of more than 250,000 have returned to their homes since the end of the conflict there in 1999. I expect that Ministers will condemn political obstruction to minority returns, particularly at local level, and emphasise the need for the Governments in the region to eliminate the obstacles to their return.
The Council will then turn to discuss the ongoing deteriorating political, economic and human rights situation in Zimbabwe and will consider the imposition of further measures against the Government of Zimbabwe. The Council may decide to expand the list of individuals affected by the targeted sanctions imposed by the General Affairs Council in February. Members of the committee may recall that those sanctions imposed a travel ban and asset freeze on most Ministers in the Zimbabwean Government.
The Council may also decide to grant a dispensation to the Zimbabwean Foreign Minister to attend the forthcoming EU-SADC ministerial meeting in Copenhagen in November. Despite the disastrous economic policies of the Government of Zimbabwe, the Council is expected to continue the EU's programme of humanitarian assistance to the millions of Zimbabweans who will be affected by the looming food crisis. To ensure that the EU's food aid is not used as a political tool by the Government of Zimbabwe, we will ask the Commission to draw up concrete guidelines for food distribution in Zimbabwe to ensure a strictly de-politicised distribution.
It is not clear at this stage if the steel dispute will be on the agenda for next Monday's meeting. In dealing with this matter, Ireland will want to see everything possible done to avoid any deterioration in EU-US trade relations. The Council will go on to consider preparations for the world summit on sustainable development, which is scheduled to take place in Johannesburg at the end of August and the beginning of September. Ireland believes a successful outcome to the Johannesburg summit is important for the credibility of the United Nations in facilitating international dialogue and political agreement on key issues of development, environment and globalisation. We hope also that the Friends of the Chair process will help to clarify minds and create the climate for a good negotiating atmosphere when we resume in Johannesburg on 26 August. We look forward to hearing the Presidency's assessment of last week's meeting in New York. In the coming week, it will be vital for the European Union to continue to work closely with the United Nations Secretary General, the South African President, Indonesia and the United States in an effort to overcome remaining differences.
The next item on the agenda is Afghanistan. On 2 July, the Government authorised the Minister for Defence to provide seven members of the Defence Forces for service with the International Security Assistance Force in Kabul for a period of one year and for this number to be increased to 12 should the Minister consider it desirable to do so. On 5 July, seven members of the Defence Forces were deployed to ISAF headquarters in Kabul where they serve under Turkish command. The Irish contingent consists of three NCOs working respectively in the office of the Chief of Staff and the intelligence and engineering sectors and four offices working in the personnel area and the operations, logistics and planning and future operations sectors. A resolution will be moved in Dáil Éireann approving the terms of our agreement on Ireland's participation in ISAF.
The last item on the agenda relates to the European Union follow on to the NATO operation Amber Fox. Approval will be sought for a concept paper which outlines a general scheme for a possible European Union take-over in the longer term from the NATO led force which currently provides security for European Union and other OSCE monitors in the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia. The imprimatur for this work has been given by the Barcelona and Seville European Councils and is wholly consistent with the Petersberg Task functions of the European security and defence policy.
The paper situates such an EU-led operation within the context of the overall European Union approach in FYROM and, in particular, the implementation of the stabilisation and association process for the region and of the August 2001 Ohrid Framework Agreement. Progress will be contingent, among other things, upon a breakthrough on the long-standing issue of European Union access to certain NATO crisis management assets and capabilities. The question of any Irish involvement in the European Union follow-on mission is a separate one and will require Government and Dáil approval as well as a European Union mandate. The EU-NATO dimension of the issue will be governed at all times by the well established principles of autonomous decision making by each organisation and non-discrimination against any member state.
The agenda for the Council will not be finalised until after today's meeting at COREPER. However, we expect that at today's meeting there will be agreement to add two additional items to the agenda. The Council is likely to consider the situation in Somalia and may adopt conclusions expressing the Union's support for the regional peace and reconciliation process, including support for efforts aimed at the early establishment of an all-inclusive, broadly based administration throughout Somalia. Once an all-inclusive broad based administration is established to succeed the current transitional government, the European Union will undertake to provide financial and technical support to the new administration, provided it meets basic criteria in terms of security, democracy, good governance, the fight against terrorism, human rights protection and the promotion of good relations with neighbouring countries. The Council is expected to reaffirm the Union's attachment to the peace dividend approach in Somalia, whereby areas and regions where basic standards of governance and security are ensured, will benefit from European Union co-operation.
The Council is also expected to consider the food crisis in southern Africa. We would expect the discussion in the Council to reflect concern that the political actions of some states in the southern African region have aggravated the already alarming humanitarian situation. We will urge the countries of the region to ensure that their policies contribute to the resolution of the humanitarian crisis rather than aggravating it. We welcome this discussion as we have done much to highlight the looming crisis at European level, and in our national capacity have already provided €5.2 million to respond to the food shortages.
That concludes the review of the items coming up at next week's Council meeting. The agenda is significant and wide ranging and I look forward to hearing the views of the committee on these issues.
We have only lately been informed of two items at the Council dealing with Somalia and Malawi. We should welcome their addition as they are very important issues. As we begin the process of scrutiny, it is clear that members of the committee should be well briefed on each area as it comes up for discussion. In that respect we will have to rely on Departments to provide the basic background information on each item we select. I hope we can depend on the Government to ensure that timely briefings on European Union issues will be provided to facilitate the work of the Oireachtas, which is designed to ensure that the transparency and accountability we promised the public will be forthcoming.
In addition to the briefing from the Departments, the committee will require a great deal of additional resources to assist the members if we are to undertake the type of scrutiny which the Government has outlined and which are provided for in the committee's terms of reference. While the Oireachtas is more than willing to give moneys and resources for this work, control of that funding is held by the Government pending the introduction of the Oireachtas Commission. Accordingly, I ask the Minister to assist the Oireachtas in calling on the Government to agree to the release of the necessary funding.
I prepared this speaking note before I heard the Minister. I welcome the tone and content of his remarks. I also welcome his proposal to consider putting the arrangement on a statutory footing and his instruction that work should commence in the coming weeks to see how this can best be done. The committee should be pleased with this development.
We will deal with the agenda of today's meeting in three sections. We will take the A issues first, followed by the horizontal issues, followed by the external relations issues. I am not sure if the list of A items has been concluded or circulated. However, I understand that one such item relates to resolutions, decisions and opinions adopted by the European Parliament, in this case at its part session in Strasbourg from 10 to 13 June 2002. Should the committee agree these proposals in the future and it is taken that we have endorsed something the European Parliament has done, I propose that no such endorsement of the agenda in the future will imply that the committee has endorsed anything done by the European Parliament. I do not wish to detract from the good work done by the Parliament, but we have a separate role.
Unless a member has something to say on the A list of items I propose to move to the horizontal issues, which deal with the work programme of the Presidency and the Commission, progress of work in other Council configurations, enlargement, the follow-up to the European Council in Seville and terrorism. I call Deputy O'Keeffe who will be followed by Deputy De Rossa.
This is an important day for democracy and parliamentary democracy. I was shocked at the Nice referendum result. However, every cloud has a silver lining and if a consequence of that defeat means our system of parliamentary scrutiny is improved, so much the better. My welcome to the Minister is tempered by what he might have noticed as my impatience and frustration at the delay - a year after the holding of the referendum - in putting procedures into place. These will be important in the years ahead.
I am in favour of the review operation and the proposal for a statutory underpinning. When I considered this matter last year, I suggested that the committee on European Affairs should be empowered to monitor the conciliation process between the Council and the European Parliament and, in particular, that when legislation is introduced, it should include the requirement that all future Government nominees to European institutions be vetted and approved by the committee. I had in mind the question of nominations to the European Commission, the Court of Auditors and the European Investment Bank. I will continue to raise this issue, especially in the context of any forthcoming legislation.
We will not have the opportunity to hold a decent debate on the extensive list of items outlined here. I take it that in the future the Minister will give us advance notice of any issues which he considers may be controversial or contentious in order that we can focus upon them.
There is one specific issue with which I wish to deal, namely, the follow-up action plan on terrorism. Is the Minister in a position to report on behalf of Ireland that we are at the head of the posse in relation to said action plan from the point of view of implementing domestic legislation and ratifying international covenants? I do not know if my second question relates to the same heading, but I suppose it does in terms of the reference in the five point plan to developing international legal instruments. Will discussions take place in respect of the EU's position, if any, on the International Criminal Court, the attitude of the United States thereto and how this may affect actions in the future, particularly as it appears the US may, through its position on the Security Council, veto forthcoming UN mandates? The latter would obviously limit the ability to deal with terrorism or engage in conflict prevention. Will that issue be on the agenda or does the Minister intend to raise it? This is an extremely important matter from our point of view, particularly in light of the requirements we have set ourselves in respect of our involvement in the rapid reaction force, etc.
I will take a round of questions on horizontal issues and perhaps the Minister will then deal with a number of them together.
Proinsias De Rossa MEP
I am present as a member of the European Parliament - I am no longer a Member of the Dáil - but I presume that the arrangements whereby MEPs are granted membership of this committee still stand.
I welcome the Minister's presence to take part in this important initiative. The need for transparency in how Government does its business in Europe is extremely important. Citizens are worried about the secrecy which, in many cases, surrounds how we do our business there. This applies not only to Ireland. Many other members states have the same difficulty.
Will the Minister, and the Chairman, indicate when the Labour Party's European Union Bill will be dealt with by the committee? I understand the Oireachtas has referred the Bill to the committee. Our party leader, Deputy Quinn, has received a letter from the Taoiseach indicating that in general he supports the approach taken in the Bill. I am not trying to make an issue of this, other than to state that we need to clarify the procedures for dealing with it. We need some legislative underpinning to the arrangements that are currently in place on a voluntary basis. A degree of clarity is needed in this area.
If this committee is to do its work properly, the documentation must be provided in advance. We will not be able to deal with the range of issues the Minister outlined in a serious manner if we are not supplied with documentation in advance. It would be helpful if the Minister circulated his statement, if possible, in advance and then simply made a number of brief introductory remarks in respect of it. This would give us more time to debate the issues on the agenda.
There is a need for this committee to be properly resourced. I welcome the fact that the Chairman has indicated that the Oireachtas is prepared to invest resources in this committee. Deputies also need to be provided with resources. I am not including MEPs in this because they are already well resourced. There is a need to move away from the situation where a Deputy is expected to be a legislator and has only the support of a poorly paid secretarial assistant. It is simply not possible to work under those conditions. I am sure it is true of all committees, but I believe Deputies on this committee need the assistance of a researcher to do their jobs properly. It is not possible to have effective democracy on the cheap. I strongly urge that we address this matter because citizens are no longer satisfied with a slipshod approach to these issues.
With regard to the specifics of the agenda items to which the Minister referred, will he clarify in respect of external relations the position regarding the Irish personnel who have been participating in Afghanistan since 5 July, particularly in view of the fact that the Dáil has not yet approved by resolution their involvement in that region? When will that resolution be taken? I appreciate that I am straying into matters relating to the other section but I must leave the meeting. Is it appropriate for such personnel to be involved without first dispensing with the formality of a resolution being carried by the Dáil? I welcome the engagement of Irish personnel in Afghanistan. However, if we are serious about having procedures in place to guarantee that there is proper parliamentary scrutiny and approval of these types of operations we must first comply with the procedures we have laid down.
With regard to the quartet relating to the Middle East, it is my impression that this quartet has been sidelined in the crisis in that region. The position taken by the United States regarding an international conference is quite negative at this stage, although it initially supported the idea. Will the Minister update Members on the current position in this regard in terms of seeking a breakthrough in that area?
I strongly urge that Ireland should be involved in the proposal that the European Union should take on the responsibilities of NATO in FYROM. This would be a valuable extension of Ireland's role as a peacekeeper and it would be a pity if Ireland's participation in FYROM was vetoed by the United States which does not want to give mandates to the United Nations in respect of peacekeeping operations. Given that our role in FYROM would be contingent on a UN mandate, will the Minister indicate how he believes this problem will be overcome in the coming months?
We should also support the engagement of Ireland in conflict prevention. I am aware that Mr. Patten and Mr. Solana both have proposals for developing the role of Europe in conflict prevention activities and that these would largely be civilian based. This would be another important development of Ireland's role and would allow the country to make a positive contribution to European and world affairs in terms of trying to bring about a situation of global peace.
Deputy De Rossa's contribution wandered into the area of external relations because, as indicated earlier to me, he is obliged to leave for Brussels at 3 p.m. However, I would ask other Members to concentrate on the horizontal issues - we can return later to external relations - in order that the Minister will not be obliged to answer too many questions at once.
With regard to the Labour Party Bill, we received a letter from Deputy Wall which will be dealt with under the heading of any other business later in the meeting. I accept that Mr. De Rossa will not be present at that stage, but the effect of it is that the Dáil must resubmit the Bill to the committee.
I also welcome the Minister and the Minister of State. Their attendance represents a move towards better and more transparent scrutiny of the work of the European Union. The Minister's statement was quite comprehensive in nature. While I welcome the presentation of a finely bound document with differently coloured labels and so on, it arrived as the meeting began and some of the documents I have only flicked through.
The Deputy is correct. I made that point before the meeting began.
There should be some method by which correspondence is made available earlier on the day of a meeting or on the preceding evening. Sometimes a great deal is hidden away in correspondence. There is one item about a statement from the Russian Duma on the Kaliningrad. It is not for the committee to discuss it but it is an example of what can be contained in correspondence.
On the follow-up action on terrorism, given the different legal regimes applied in different member states, what practical advance does the Minister believe has been made or we can propose in the areas mentioned in his paper such as enhancing police and judicial co-operation and developing international legal instruments? What progress has been made to end the funding of terrorism? We read a great deal about strengthening our security but I am not sure it is something which can be discussed here. Given the apparent difficulties in implementing actions across different legal regimes, I am anxious to know how the General Affairs Council proposes to instruct the Political and Security Committee and COREPER on increasing and enhancing efficiency in this area.
On the mechanism for scrutiny, Proinsias De Rossa referred to the European Union Bill the Labour Party has tabled. Perhaps the Minister might say whether there has been an agreement in principle to take this Bill prior to or during the Nice treaty discussions planned for September. What is the precise position?
Any decision regarding placing these arrangements on a statutory footing will have to be made quickly. There is not much sense in putting them on a statutory footing after the Nice treaty referendum. The public will want to know how serious we are about having a method of scrutiny which is statutorily underpinned. I would like the Minister to respond to that.
What the Minister has outlined in terms of scrutiny appears essentially to be a presentation by the lead Department to this committee with possible further information provided by a Minister, but it does not appear to envisage any direct involvement and participation by other relevant committees which might be equally concerned with the content of matters dealt with in the European context. Regardless of whether it is intended to put in place a mechanism which would automatically involve a relevant Department, such as social affairs in the Department of Social and Family Affairs or the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform in the area of dealing with terrorism, which is also partly the brief of the Minister, it appears that this committee will have the capacity for deciding whether the mechanism will involve other Members. Perhaps there should be a mechanism to involve other committees automatically at the earliest possible stage.
The major item on the agenda of the Danish Presidency is enlargement. It is intended that negotiations will be completed by December. We have had many conflicting statements about what enlargement can take place if the Nice treaty is in place or not. What is the Minister's opinion and that of his Department on what enlargement can take place if the Nice treaty is not in place in terms of some or all of ten applicant countries in advanced negotiations becoming members?
I welcome the Minister and the Minister of State and accept most of the procedural comments made by many of my colleagues.
I am glad to see the Government supports the overall priority of the Danish Presidency of putting enlargement to the top of the agenda. I would like more information on other headings which are among its priorities, such as freedom, security and justice and safe food. A little information on these would help.
It is important for us to have more information on the readiness of the ten new member states, the number of chapters they have closed and so on and how that stands. It is important because many people when speaking of enlargement are concerned to know how it will affect Ireland. One of the best ways we can know that is by being fully informed as to the status of negotiations with these various applicant countries. It is possible that an accession conference could be held this month. What is the status of that? Is it proposed that, if it takes place, certain negotiations will be concluded or is it an assessment to indicate where we are with the ten applicant countries and the various chapters they have closed?
In welcoming the Minister and Minister of State, I also welcome the fact that a Member of the European Parliament, Proinsias De Rossa, is present. It would be good if as many Members of the European Parliament as possible could be present at our meetings because it should be remembered that the European Parliament has important powers of consultation. I would like to have as many opportunities as possible for dialogue with Members of the European Parliament on all upcoming issues. In this regard, it would have been nice if it had been possible to brief us in advance of this meeting on the resolutions, decisions and opinions of the European Parliament which were adopted in the previous session. There should be a facility for one or two of us to attend important sessions of the European Parliament as observers to listen to important debates. It is only when Members of the Oireachtas and of the European Parliament are brought together in a cohesive circle that we will finally eradicate the democratic deficit about which we are concerned.
I welcome the fact that members raised the question of briefing and resources which I raised at the beginning of the meeting. Not everyone was present when it was raised and I am repeating what was said. Members of the committee and staff will meet senior officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs next week to talk about tutor briefing. This meeting came about quickly after the setting up of the committee and we had to proceed very quickly, but we will try to get the briefing situation in hand.
On the GAC and GAERC, which is the new formation, is it the Minister's intention to appear before each council meeting? Regarding the progress of work on other council configurations, will the Minister indicate what work will be considered on Monday and Tuesday? In relation to enlargement, will he speak about the difficulties relating to Cyprus and the concerns being expressed by Turkey over Cypriot accession? Will the CAP reform proposals affect enlargement? Is Poland on target? I saw negative comments about the recent Polish economy. On the matter of the modification of the Council's rules and procedures, it states there are some points from COREPER 2 requiring to be resolved. Can the Minister tell us what these are and how the new procedures affect transparency? On terrorism, it is envisaged that the EU will provide assistance to third countries which require help in implementing their commitments under UNSCR 1373. What sort of assistance is envisaged in this area?
These are many and varied questions but I will try to answer them as best I can. In relation to Deputy Jim O'Keeffe's comments, we are operating under guidelines for Oireachtas scrutiny of EU business as part of a wider reform programme which was agreed by all the Whips to begin in the new Parliament. It is important to recognise that the Whips have been doing much work on how we improve procedures in the Oireachtas. It is a comprehensive programme of reform and we are implementing the EU element, into which went a great deal of work. As we all know, the best time to implement reform is at the start of a new term rather ran awaiting new political configurations and further discussion which often results in nothing being done.
As I said in my speech, I am open to discussing with the committee the question of putting these arrangements on a legislative basis. I welcomed the Labour Party Bill as a positive contribution on the need to improve scrutiny arrangements and did not oppose it on First or Second Stage for that reason. We must find a balance between the need for efficient decision making and the proper accountability and participation by the legislature in considering proposals emanating from the EU at various levels, at different speeds and of varying importance. There should be both accountability and flexibility. We do not want a rigid set-up which would prevent us from carrying on our business as the Executive. We wish to recognise and respect the role of the Oireachtas in scrutinising what the Executive does, but we must not reverse roles, whereby the Legislature attempts to do the Executive's job while it attempts to second guess the Legislature. We want to find a workable method that is at the forefront of scrutiny compared to other national parliaments in the European Union. We will then show our good faith, not just with respect to the referendum on the Treaty of Nice, but because it something that ought to be done as it has not been updated since we established a committee on Secondary Legislation of the European Community in 1972. As I have said before at this committee, when I was a student studying European Union law, I spent much time examining that earlier committee, which was very effective.
Since then, the workload of European institutions and the Oireachtas has increased and the committee system has advanced. The latter was not in the systematic way we would have preferred but there have been many attempts at Dáil reform and to use the committee system to enhance the quality of our decision making. My basic point is that I and the Government are ad idem in terms of what we wish to achieve. As a Member of Government and Parliament, like the committee, I want to discuss and debate with colleagues in public discourse so as to ensure that people recognise the importance of what we do and say and of the decisions made here and elsewhere which affect the daily lives of our citizens. It is in all our interests to do that, and, as I said before, I am anxious to appear before any committee at any mutually convenient time, to discuss and debate matters which Members wish to raise, as I thrive on it. I am prepared to examine the agreed arrangements to decide what can be put on a legislative footing so as to give them that important status, but it must be done in a manner which avoids an unworkable system that does not meet our objectives.
From my discussions since the publication of that Bill, both formally in the Chamber and elsewhere, I know we are all open to any further thinking which may be developed by its sponsors, Government and others. We should approach this debate with an open mind. I hope to develop thinking on this not in months but in weeks, so that when we return for the next term we will be ready to proceed, subject to how the committee wants to organise its business. No one regards the Bill as perfect and it was not meant to be more than a contribution on the need to take seriously the matter of the public's understanding of these issues. We are prepared to go the necessary distance to confirm that there is no subterfuge but that we are open and available to debate and seek to come to common conclusions respecting the issues involved.
The Dáil will return early in September. The committee system will be reactivated as a matter of course and I will be available then. No one is sticking slavishly to what is currently on the table but we will use the agreed guidelines as the basis for getting the widest support for a legislative proposal which meets the objectives we seek. That is a fair and reasonable commitment from me, and I hope this clarifies the position of the Government and me.
Deputy Costello stated that it was important to do this before the referendum, but it is also important that we are seen to do it properly, seriously and well. If that can be done within the time frame, that will be good, but even if it is work in progress as we go into the referendum, I will be happy. It is the quality of the work rather than the time that matters. We do not want to produce something that will not work, appears to be rushed, or which suggests that having done that all is well. If it is done properly, it will not matter what happens at the referendum. People want to see that we are serious about putting the agreed areas of scrutiny on a legislative basis. The Whips have put a great deal of work into this and both I and the Government are committed to it.
I thank Prionsias De Rossa, MEP, for attending. I know he must leave so I will deal quickly with some of the issues he raised before returning to the arrangements as agreed by the Chairman. He spoke about the quartet being sidelined in relation to Nice. I cannot accept that. The quartet is the means by which the European Union can exert influence, not just in relation to Israeli and Palestinian policy but also to US policy, and with the benefit and assistance of the Russian Federation on many occasions. That was evident yesterday, when the quartet met in New York, by the fact that there is disagreement between the Russians, the European Union and the UN on the one hand and the United States on the other in relation to the question of setting as a pre-condition for progress an imposed change in the Palestinian leadership. There is not agreement on that question. Therefore, the quartet is not a mechanism where people need to be unanimous and anodyne about everything.
The question is how we use that mechanism. The quartet position that has substance is the statement of 12 May last in Madrid. That is the basis on which I have said at GAC meetings that we must continue our participation, under EU aegis, in the quartet mechanisms. We should hold to that position. If, in the present circumstances, we do not have unanimity on how to proceed or to activate what was set out as a common position on 12 May we must wait for or try and create the political circumstances and conditions where that can happen. That is the nature of the ongoing effort. We all know how difficult it is.
What was put forward by the quartet yesterday was the necessity to set out the requirements for the security of Israel as part of discussions that will lead to a conference that will have a comprehensive agenda. It will deal not only with the security track but the political and economic track. The quality of life for Palestinians and Israelis in this situation is deteriorating daily. Whether it is political or economic insecurity there is a comprehensive agenda that needs to be addressed in the interest of both Israel and Palestine. For that reason I disagree that the quartet is being sidelined. The quartet is the only show in town. We are involved in it on a partnership basis with the United States and we must use it to try and persuade elements of US administration policy who do not see it as we see it.
Other issues raised were the legislative issue here and scrutiny arrangements, FYROM and the question of the Defence Acts. In regard to the Afghanistan security arrangement we have complied with procedures. Under the Defence Acts we can deploy up to 12 peacekeepers without Dáil approval. The urgent requirement for deployment necessitated dispatch in July and that is the reason there was not a prior Dáil resolution in that case. Although it is not strictly a legal requirement we are committed to seeking Dáil approval and giving it an opportunity to pass the resolution.
In regard to the FYROM situation we are committed to the need to have a UN mandate in place. That is one of the triple lock requirements for activating our peacekeeping operation and we must proceed on that basis.
The issue of the ICC was raised. A compromise was reached last Friday after a great deal of wrangling. It may not be fully satisfactory to every party but we were prepared to join the consensus on that resolution. We took into account and were influenced by the views of the Secretary General of the United Nations that the text met his concerns about maintaining and protecting the integrity of the court and we joined the consensus on that basis. We know there is a difference of opinion between the European Union and the United States in relation to the International Criminal Court. On the positive side the agreement has lifted the threat of UN peacekeeping and in that respect the passing of the resolution provides us with the possibility of continuing our involvement. As Prionsias De Rossa, MEP, has said, that is our policy objective anyway. We were prepared to join the resolution on the basis of the Secretary General's acceptance of the text. We were not wildly enthusiastic about the issue but we dealt with it in a pragmatic way on his assurance.
The Cyprus issue came up here and also on the State visit to Greece. The political situation in Turkey is fluid given that elections have been called for 3 November and a new, as yet unnamed, party has been formed. From what I hear it has a great prospect of electoral success. Perhaps the moral of the story is to form a party without a name to get ahead. Clearly, it is unlikely that we will see much advance in terms of UN efforts to broker a settlement acceptable to both sides, Turkish and Greek Cypriots, pending the outcome of that election. The evidence is that Turkish Cypriots look to the Turkish Government for guidance and agreement on how to proceed with negotiations.
From the EU point of view the clear position as set out in Helsinki is that in terms of the accession of Cyprus the pre-condition of a settlement is not a prerequisite for its accession into the European Union. The ideal situation would be to resolve the issue before then but it is not a pre-condition. If Cyprus acceded the economic momentum that membership would bring to the country would be, perhaps, a driving force in trying to substantiate negotiations which at present are not reaching a satisfactory conclusion. It would emphasise the different standards of living in both parts of Cyprus and that would be an important factor in the eventual resolution of the problem. Talks are continuing on the issue.
The Security Council was briefed last week on the disappointing progress and it has been noted that the Turkish Cypriot side has been less than forthcoming. Renewed effort has been urged and the European Union has got the assistance of Turkey in encouraging progress. The EU goal remains the admission of a united Cyprus but the EU has expressed readiness to accept a Government controlled entity if talks fail.
The terrorism issue arose from UN Security Resolution 1373 in the aftermath of 11 September 2001. This question deals with the need to ensure that countries provide the necessary information and have the necessary wherewithal to gather information. Unfortunately, many countries do not have the good governance that others have nor do they have the capability or capacity to get the necessary information on what the banking arrangements were or whether there is evidence of banking systems being used for the movement of funds by international terrorists around the world. That is the sort of technical help being provided under the UN aegis for those countries who request it so they can prove their bona fides and willingness to comply in full with the spirit and letter of the resolution.
In answer to Deputy Carey's question, the general affairs council will consider the progress made on the action plan on terrorism across the range of the Union's areas of activity and in giving guidance for further work one of the particular areas of focus will be the Union's external relations policy. The aim will be, for example, to focus political dialogue with third countries more sharply on terrorist related issues. As Members know, the political security committee deals purely with the ESDP issues. It does not have an immediate role in terms of terrorism. It is more on the political dialogue front and the external relations area where Chris Patten will be expected to raise this issue and find out what advances are being made with those countries where we feel they should be making progress and giving it a high priority.
The remaining problems to be resolved in relation to the Council's rules of procedure mentioned by the Chairman are technical ones of no great substance and should be settled at COREPER today. The Seville European Council agreed important new steps towards opening key parts of the co-decision legislative process to the public from now. The further opening and simplification of the legislative process will also be considered at the Future of Europe convention. People recognise there is a need for improved transparency and increased awareness among the citizens of what is happening when co-decisions are invoked between the Council and the Parliament.
Regarding the accession conferences raised by Deputy Mulcahy, there are 12 individual accession conferences with each applicant state. It is expected that there will be a report in October when Commissioner Verheugen will indicate how many he feels are ready to take up the accession process. It is still expected there will be ten despite speculation about the preparedness of individual countries. There are still issues to be addressed including the outstanding chapters, regional policy, common agricultural policy and some finance issues which are being deferred to the last phase of the negotiation process. These are substantive negotiations that have to be concluded. One cannot assume the outcome, but the rate of progress to date and the political commitment made by these governments in effecting the transformations that have been taking place both in economic and political terms to prepare for full membership would indicate that still up to ten applicant countries will be ready should the Treaty of Nice be ratified following a referendum in Ireland. The accession documents would then be ready for the Copenhagen summit in December.
Regarding how it affects the CAP and enlargement, as Members will be aware, people should understand there is sufficient funding under the 2000 to 2006 Berlin perspective to continue with the level of CAP payments being made to Ireland and other member states up to the end of 2006 regardless of how many new countries join the European Union in the interim from 2004. Those who would have us believe we should turn our back on Europe recently suggested we should vote against it because there would not be sufficient moneys to pay farmers until 2006. There is no basis in fact for that. It is another mischievous attempt to influence the debate.
I thank the Minister. We move on to external relations. Proinsias De Rossa was allowed some leeway to ask questions on this. I have some questions and if other Members wish to ask questions they should indicate so to me.
The Minister mentioned the EU priorities in the area of conflict prevention. I note the same questions apply to the general concept of possible EU follow up on to NATO's Operation Amber Fox in FYROM. In the longer term, I note that the EU may possibly take over from NATO led forces in the FYROM. What does the longer term mean - months or years? Will this be work for the rapid reaction force? Is this a start to a process whereby the US withdraws its forces? In this morning's edition of The Irish Times, a former chief of staff writes that it is a mistake to tie us in to UN approved activities because they may become no more than those approved by the UN Security Council, including the US. That may tie our hands in the longer term. Perhaps the Minister might flesh that out for us.
The Minister has dealt with the question of who is elected and who represents whom in the Middle East. However, what steps has the GAC taken to look at the humanitarian aid needs of the Palestinians in particular? I presume that will be a matter for further discussion on Monday and Tuesday.
The western Balkans were mentioned. Does the council regularly keep abreast of progress in bringing to account perpetrators of genocide? I understand the Council may expand the list of individuals affected by the targeted sanctions on Zimbabwe. To whom will this be expanded? Are the sanctions working? What is the current situation there? I notice it says there will be possibly a US deal. Will that come up or not? If so will the decision on, what I might call, retaliatory measures be taken on the 22nd? Will consideration be given to recent US farm package proposals? Does that have any implications relating to the World Trade Organisation?
As Deputy Ó Snodaigh has not spoken yet, I call on him followed by Deputies Mulcahy and O'Keeffe. We are discussing external relations issues.
Although it is not one of the items flagged on the agenda, what is the Minister's opinion of the dispute between Spain and Morocco? Were there any prior indications that there would be an escalation in the dispute? What role is envisaged for the EU in resolving that? What implication would it have in the relationships, which have been developed between the EU and the north African countries?
As the Minister has been aware for some time, I strongly confirm my belief that we should not allow our foreign policy to be dictated by the veto of one of the permanent members of the Security Council. When speaking on that in the past, I always thought in terms of Russia or China using a veto. However, the Americans now appear to be manoeuvring themselves because of our commitment to the UN Security Council resolution. The Americans may have a veto, but we should not permit any permanent member of the Security Council to prevent us from participation in EU missions if we believe they are appropriate and necessary and in accordance with the general principles of the UN charter. However, that is an issue for another occasion.
Although it is not on the agenda - and I wonder why it is not - I wish to raise the issue of Iraq. There is evidence of a decision by the US, possibly supported by the UK, to topple Saddam Hussein. That seems to be gathering momentum and I noticed a recent arrangement with Jordan where aid from the US to Jordan was tripled. That was presumably to assure, at the least, its neutrality in such a situation. Is there a common EU position on Iraq? Have there been any recent discussions on Iraq, or is it intended that there will be? Something may happen there fairly soon. Will the European Union be taken by surprise if there is a concerted effort by the US to topple Saddam Hussein in Iraq, possibly supported by the UK and others?
In his statement, the Minister clearly supports the proposition that it is for the Palestinian people to choose their own leadership, whoever their leader might be. That is something that all present would agree with although recent comments by all kinds of politicians in the US seem to be at loggerheads with that principle. The Minister, in his address to the Dáil some weeks ago, spoke about the proposed conference sponsored by the quartet which will seek a long-term solution in the region. Is the issue of the leadership of Mr. Arafat holding up the convening of such a conference? Is it a serious problem for the quartet? If it is, is there room or would it be practical for the EU and the other members of the quartet to move ahead anyway on the issue, as it is not one that will go away? While the US position remains as it is, it is hard to see how progress is to be made.
The Minister referred to concerns about the very small numbers of the Serb minority returning to Kosovo. Is there any practical action that can be taken to remove what the Minister refers to as political obstruction? I understand that it is a volatile situation and that there is no point in being proscriptive at this distance. However, it would be worrying if that situation were to continue.
In relation to Zimbabwe, I did not see any value in the international community allowing Mr. Mugabe to attend the conference in Rome recently. Nothing was achieved in gaining enlightenment on Mr. Mugabe's position or thinking, or in getting much for his people. Similarly, I have reservations about the wisdom of granting a dispensation to the Zimbabwean Foreign Minister to attend a proposed conference in Copenhagen.
Does the Minister have a view as to how humanitarian aid can best be directed to the people of Zimbabwe? Will that be through NGOs and organisations such as Ireland Aid, if it is involved there? Is it possible to ensure that the humanitarian aid and food supplies are not diverted away from communities which need them and used for other purposes such as bribery and corruption?
I will do my best to answer the questions. The Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Kitt, will meet the Commission concerning the food crisis in southern Africa and he also intends to visit the region before the Johannesburg summit at the end of August. We have already made a massive contribution of €5.2 million. The Commission, specifically under Mr. Chris Patten, is the biggest donor of development aid in the world and that is a good reason for us to be seen to be associated with it. We will have an opportunity to decide on that shortly but the Commission can make arrangements and will set out codes of practice which seek to ensure that the Zimbabwean regime does not use aid for political purposes, or to look after those it wishes to look after while ignoring those with whom it disagrees. The Commission has been involved in development processes for a long time and has its own arrangements and its own personnel on the ground. If what is happening is not to its liking, the Commission will take whatever corrective action is necessary.
In relation to Mr. Arafat, it is important to point out that it is for every nation to decide on its leadership. It is also important - and Mr. Chris Patten among others, has been calling for this - that there is greater transparency in the financial arrangements of the Palestinian Authority. Without EU aid exclusively, the Palestinian Authority could not continue to exist, even in the very difficult political circumstances in which it operates. We welcome very much the commitment to reform which the Palestinian Authority has indicated will happen. That is important in itself and should not be seen as a pre-condition or as a concession to the other side. It is important in terms of maintaining the confidence of the Palestinian people in the effectiveness of the Palestinian Authority in representing the people and providing some semblance of quality of life for them, albeit that the political circumstances could not be more dire than they are at the minute.
We are trying to work politically with others who have leverage and influence to get the sides to a conference and to look at all the issues. There is a total breakdown in trust and confidence in the process among most Palestinians and Israelis. There is no point in getting into the blame game at this meeting but that is the situation. Therefore, the quartet mechanism must be used to try to create political conditions in which the main parties to this conflict, the Palestinians and the Israelis, come to the table with a preparedness to sit down and try to devise an alternative way of living together than that which obtains now. That will require a change of policy on all sides, dealing with the legitimate security needs of Israel while allowing for the legitimate democratic aspirations of the Palestinian people to set up their own state, and for that to be achieved within a timescale that can be set out in a realistic manner, rather than allowing talks to be used as a means to deter the attainment of that legitimate aspiration.
It is a very difficult political situation, an intractable problem that has bedevilled the best diplomats for many years. However, we must continue to work - and the European Union will work - on that basis within the quartet mechanism to try to create those conditions. People cannot be forced to the conference table and there will not be a peace process unless there is a willingness on all sides to recognise that it is in their own best interests to sit down and sort this out, and that no military solution is available. Unfortunately, that hard lesson has not yet been learned by everybody.
Iraq is not on the agenda so, presumably, it will not come up for discussion. The UK Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, was before a committee of the House of Commons only two days ago saying that no decision has been taken in relation to any imminent military attack on Iraq. The position that we have consistently taken is that we recognise the primacy of the UN and the need for Iraq to adhere to UN resolutions, and we will work to bring whatever leverage can be brought to bear on the situation. There has been a change in the sanctions regime so that the Iraqi regime can no longer seek to use its people as a propaganda tool. Previously, the regime did not even apply for the food and health requirements of its people and suggested that in some way these requirements were being blocked by the United Nations or by someone else.
One of the most constructive things I have ever done was to go to United Nations headquarters to speak to the man who is in charge of the sanctions regime. The committee members were there with him. We know that the regime is cynically using the impoverishment of its own people to try win a propaganda war in the world at its own people's expense. We have changed that sanctions regime to one in which everything goes in except for a small number of items which could have a dual use as military components.
We saw Saddam Hussein's 34th anniversary address to his people this morning on CNN. We are not looking at the greatest statesman we have ever seen. Let us be clear what we are dealing with - we are dealing with a dictator who has not the interests of his own people at heart, who is a threat to international peace and security, who is in charge of a pariah state and who is refusing to comply with the international legal order. We hope he does not take any pre-emptive steps to do any more than what many people think he is doing, which is trying to build his own chemical weapons capacity and other types of weaponry, having used chemical weapons before on his own people. I do not concur with the idea that Iraq cannot help to solve this problem. It could solve this problem if it would simply comply with the UN resolutions.
To return to the earlier point, it is not on the agenda, but members have my view. There is no indication of early action in respect of Iraq and there is no common EU position. We were with the majority of others who want differences resolved through diplomatic channels between the Secretary General of the UN and the Iraqi government.
Deputy Ó Snodaigh raised the issue of the islet between Morocco and Spain. Spain is going to Brussels this afternoon to brief partners on the action that has been taken by its forces. We await to hear what that is about. We hope that the immediate crisis has been diffused. We expect both countries concerned to confine themselves to diplomatic channels in seeking to resolve any outstanding difficulties. We confirm that we have had no advance warning from either Morocco or Spain regarding the actions that have been taken.
With regard to Zimbabwe and the options paper presented to ministers regarding which new individuals will be subject to targeted sanctions, we will have to choose between extending the sanctions to cabinet ministers not already on the sanctions list and all Politburo secretaries or, secondly, those plus all deputy ministers and all assistant secretaries of the Politburo, plus the wife of President Mugabe, or having no expansion of the said sanctions. Ireland can support an expansion of the targeted sanctions to include any or all of the categories of individuals referred to in the options paper. That is our position in respect of extending the sanctions.
I asked a couple of questions regarding the longer term on the FYROM and also the genocide in the western Balkans.
With regard to the western Balkans——
I asked if the US deal was on the agenda as well.
We support the efforts to bring to the Hague war criminals involved in the genocide in the western Balkans. The UN and the forces in Bosnia-Hertzegovina and elsewhere continue to seek out people whom the court wishes to have before it. We support all efforts in that respect.
Regarding the question of the US deal, the Commission is making a factual report to COREPER today. In light of this report and discussions at COREPER, a decision will be taken on whether the issue should be dealt with by the Council on Monday or deferred for some weeks. Ireland would like the matter to be dealt with in a way that avoids any further deterioration of EU trade relations.
The US farm package does not arise in this context and will not be dealt with on Monday. Regarding how that will play at the WTO discussions due to start in the spring of next year, the fact that the US farm Bill has been but in place changes the dynamic somewhat from the last occasion, when the US was lined up with the Cairns Group regarding tackling the position of support for agriculture, as per the CAP and the EU in the WTO talks. We now see that overt domestic help is being given by the US administration to its farmers. That, perhaps, takes some of the edge off the argument from the US perspective. However, as far as the EU is concerned, the level of subsidies is considered by other trade areas to be way in excess of what is fair in terms of free trade.
The anything-but-arms embargo which has been passed by the EU allows an increased amount of product from the developing world into the EU market. The enlargement process facilitates not just existing member countries but other areas of the world that want to trade in the EU. An enlarged Union provides some opportunities for those countries, although they are coming from a far lower production base that we do. Again, it is another argument why we should be very positively disposed to enlargement in terms of promoting a greater degree of fair trade. The WTO negotiations to be conducted by Commissioner Lamy on our behalf will take all those considerations into account.
Regarding FYROM it is likely that the EU will take over the present arrangement. It is a small operation of about 400 plus men. It is not likely that the Rapid Reaction Force will be established by the time in question. We are keen to participate in the mission in compliance with our own defence Acts and the UN mandate requirement. Now that we have found a solution to the ICC problem by way of an agreed resolution at the Security Council last week, we are in a position to continue our presence there. We hope it can continue.
I have no wish to delay the Minister or the committee much longer. There is not much to be said about the EU-Kazakhstan Co-operation Council and the EU-Kyrgyzstan Co-operation Council. Will the Minister mention briefly how the ASEM process is proceeding? I suppose it is now four or five years in existence.
It is an important initiative. It started well and we give particular priority to it. It is an important trade area for the EU. Many parts of it are emerging from recession, as the Deputy knows, although Japan still has some substantive restructuring to do. That economy is not growing as fast as one would like as a driver for increased trade opportunities in the Asia region. It ties in with our own Asia strategy, which is proceeding well. There will be a summit in Copenhagen in the autumn under the aegis of ASEM, at which issues including trade will be discussed. There are some political questions to be discussed there too pertaining to Indonesia and elsewhere.
We can conclude with that and note the Minister's comments and the comments of the members. I have no doubt the Minister will take into account the views and concerns expressed by the members. I thank the Minister for attending today. Earlier, I did not welcome Deputy Roche, Minister of State with special responsibility for European affairs, who joined us in the middle of the meeting. I thank him, the Minister and his officials.
I hope this can be the start of a process in which we will have good working relations. I endorse the Minister's view that we do not want to get into an inverted situation where we try to do the job of the Government or the Government the job of the Oireachtas. Certainly, that is the way I will approach the matter. I want the committee to do the work of the committee. We will get ourselves into deep water if we try to get involved in doing the business of Government. I certainly do not want to do that. I was at the other end, I have attended GAC meetings, I was there during Ireland's Presidency, and I know the difficulties that exist. We need a good working relationship.
For my part, as Chairman of the committee, I am anxious to ensure that we get off on a good footing and have a good working relationship because there is a great deal of very detailed work for the committee members to do as legislators without intruding into the work of the Government. I wish the Minister well at the GAC meeting. I presume there will be a standing arrangement for us to meet the Minister before GAC meetings or, if he is unable to attend, his Minister of State.
We are both available at any time to deal with specific issues or the general agenda format. In terms of reporting back, the Danes, who probably have the most stringent scrutiny arrangements - and we aim to be towards the top end of the league in this whole area - report on the prior meeting in preparation for the next one rather than 48 hours after the last meeting. I do not think that is what is intended. I take on board the practical point about reporting back on the previous meeting being one agenda item in the preparation for the next one. I also agree that a pre-circulated statement detailed to the members and a short introductory statement by me might help the proceedings along.
Before our meeting with the Minister's officials on Monday, perhaps they could look at the issues we have raised here today. We will try to start building up a working relationship so that we will get the statement.
I thank the Minister, the Minister of State and the officials. We note the exchange.
The committee went into private session at3.55 p.m. and adjourned at 3.57 p.m.