[Mr. D. Ahern   ]
The most recent meeting of the General Affairs and External Relations Council, which I attended in Luxembourg on 3 October, welcomed the successful completion of the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and parts of the West Bank as a significant step towards implementation of the roadmap. The council also expressed grave concern at the ongoing expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and the continuing construction of the separation barrier in occupied Palestinian territory. The conclusions adopted specifically refer to the situation in and around east Jerusalem, which is having a detrimental effect on the lives of Palestinians and jeopardises a final status agreement on Jerusalem. The Government, and its partners in the EU, will continue to work closely with Israel and the Palestinian Authority in the period ahead to encourage them to build on the progress of disengagement, to meet their obligations under the quartet roadmap, and to renew efforts towards a lasting settlement based on the terms of the roadmap. Mr. M. Higgins: I visited in the past few weeks, for the second time this year, the area to which the questions nominated by me refer. I was referring specifically to the recently recognised town of Ma’ala Adumim, which was founded in 1975 and which has a population of 25,000. The conclusions of the meeting on 3 October to which the Minister referred make no reference to the illegality of the expansion of settlement in the general area of east Jerusalem. The issue is that 8,000 settlers were removed from Gaza and from four settlements in the northern part of the occupied West Bank. Some 35,000 housing permissions were given between September 2004 and September 2005 across 19 different occupied areas in the general area of east Jerusalem, the net effect of which is to cut off Bethlehem from Ramallah. I put it to the Minister that it endangers three fundamentals, namely, the final status of talks relating to Israel and Palestine, the viability of the Palestinian state and the future of east Jerusalem. The settlement policy of the Israeli authorities should be the central element of a European Union statement in which the illegality of the expansion of that settlement policy should be mentioned. I was in Ramallah just after the anniversary of the International Court of Justice ruling on the war. People asked what Europe is doing about the vindication of the decision of the International Court of Justice, which is just over a year old. Mr. D. Ahern: I agree with the Deputy. I said earlier that we believe continued expansion of the settlements is illegal and contrary to international law. We have said the same with regard to the wall. This is an extremely complex issue. Ultimately, the only way we can bring any stability to this area is through negotiation. Those negotiations are ongoing. Presidents Abbas and Sharon will meet later this week, which is welcome because there is some understanding. There are issues, for example, the continuing expansion and the construction of the wall. I saw the wall when I was there in July and I raised the matter with Foreign Minister Shalom. He said it was a temporary structure but what I saw did not look temporary. He said it was a structure that could be taken down when matters settled and his people were safe. I made the point to him that it looked extremely like a permanent structure. I assure the Deputy that we participate strongly and fully at European level with regard to this situation. The significant removal of settlements from Gaza must be welcomed. However, it should not be seen as an end, but as a first step towards the implementation of the roadmap. Mr. M. Higgins: When I left Ramallah, it was clear that the military orders had been made for the possession of what was regarded as state land. What is effectively being extended beyond east Jerusalem is half the size of Paris. The net effect will be to cut off on the north side of the south axis any possibility of a viable Palestinian state. There is no indication in any talks that Israel intends either to halt settlement activity or to remove settlements from occupied land. As an observer, I put it to the Minister that given the status of the talks, the issue of east Jerusalem is probably the most difficult. On the one hand Palestinians, in the absence of a plan for greater Jerusalem, have no housing permission and face the demolition and division of their houses, while on the other hand we have an open-ended expansion of what is referred to as “the thickening of settlements”. This is outrageous. There are two systems of law in operation, a military system of law for Palestinians on their land and Israeli law for occupied land that is illegally held and from which settlements are expanding. East Jerusalem and the expanded settlement policy must be put at the centre of discussions. I do not agree with the Minister that one should try to be optimistic, because there are few signs on the Israeli side of the suspension of this activity. Mr. D. Ahern: The Deputy has not put a question, but made a statement with which I cannot disagree. We can only work through international diplomacy on this issue. The quartet has actively condemned this and it would have much more influence in trying to get the Israelis to cease what they are doing, which is contrary to the tenets and principles laid down in the roadmap. Aengus Ó Snodaigh: I welcome the Minister’s stance so far, but we need a to take a harder line. How far must Israel go before Article 2 of the Euro-Med Association agreement with Israel is triggered? The issue does not have any link with the ability of the European Union to offer financial assistance to Palestinians as was stated previously. Has the Minister or a Government representative demonstrated their displeasure or had any communication with the Irish multinational, Cement Roadstone Holdings, in terms of its contribution to breaching international law? CRH is a flagship company in this State. Has the Minister made his displeasure felt or asked CRH to withdraw from any contract for the building of the wall which, at this stage, almost encircles Jerusalem. Mr. D. Ahern: It is probably incorrect to say that Cement Roadstone Holdings is involved in the construction of the separation barrier. It holds a minority shareholding of approximately 25% in the company involved, Nesher Cement. The Government has no power over such private companies. With regard to the Euro-Med Association agreement, Sinn Féin tried to get support from other parties at the Joint Oireachtas Committee on European Affairs to be even more critical with regard to the association agreement, which, if it were to be suspended, would require consensus within the European Union. From what I understand, it would not get that consensus. There is a strong argument that suspension would seriously undermine the strong role the Union has in this area. It has given and continues to give substantial financial and other support to the Palestinian Authority. If we were to suspend the association agreement, it would put that assistance in jeopardy. Mr. M. Higgins: Will the Minister agree to bring a proposal to the general council that an official of the European Union should be appointed to monitor the human rights clauses in the association agreement? Mr. D. Ahern: Is that to the general council of the European Union? Mr. M. Higgins: Yes, of Foreign Ministers. Mr. D. Ahern: That is something we could look at. We would, in the normal run, have to get consensus from the others. Colombian Peace Process. 8. Mr. Kenny asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if the European Union will issue a declaration on the Colombian peace process; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26903/05] Mr. D. Ahern: The General Affairs and External Relations Council adopted conclusions on Colombia at its meeting this Monday, 3 October 2005. Ireland was actively involved in the negotiation of these conclusions, which principally address the recently enacted Colombian justice and peace law. That law provides an overall legal framework for demobilisation, disarmament and reintegration of illegal armed groups into society. The law, which was adopted through a lengthy democratic political process, strikes a difficult balance between peace and justice. The overall assessment of the council was that, if implemented effectively and in a transparent manner, the law will have a positive effect on peace-building in Colombia. The conclusions also address the need for a negotiated peace settlement and call for illegal armed groups to demobilise. They also call on all parties to the conflict to respect human rights and international humanitarian law and commend the work of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in Colombia. The conclusions also confirm the readiness of the European Union and its member states to assist the Colombian Government and civil society in providing support for communities affected by the internal conflict, victims groups, local reconciliation activities and the reinsertion and demobilisation of child soldiers. In addition, the European Union welcomes the continued involvement of the Organisation of American States, OAS, in supporting the demobilisation of paramilitary groups. Ireland has committed €390,000 over a three-year period to the OAS peace and verification mission in Colombia. The OAS mission’s mandate is to provide comprehensive support to the Colombian peace process with a focus both on the demobilisation process and on the strengthening of institutions concerned with the rule of law. Our support was welcomed by the Foreign Minister of Colombia when I met her in New York on 19 September. In our discussions of the overall political situation in her country, she explained that her Government has found the Irish experience of similar issues very informative. Mr. Allen: Can the Minister elaborate on his discussions with the Colombian Foreign Minister? Were the activities of the Colombia three resurrected during the EU discussions earlier this week? Did the Minister have any discussions with the Colombian Foreign Minister about the damage done to Ireland’s reputation by the activities of the Colombia three? Was the question of possible discrimination against Irish citizens raised at any level? Irish citizens are the only people in the EU who have to apply for visas if they wish to travel to Colombia. They have to go to London for an interview if they wish to visit Colombia for reasons of business or pleasure. Visas are not required by the citizens of 44 non-EU countries if they wish to go to Colombia, but they are required by Irish citizens. Surely the Minister agrees that the visa requirement for Irish citizens is an indication of the damage that has been done to Ireland’s reputation as a member of the international community. Has the plight of our citizens, who have to travel to London in advance of any visit to Colombia, been raised at any level? What action does the Minister propose to take on this issue? Mr. D. Ahern: The issue of the Colombia three was not raised at EU level, at least not in my presence, during the discussion on the Colombian peace process last Monday. As I said earlier, it was raised during my meeting with the Colombian Foreign Minister, Ms Barco. During that meeting, I outlined the Government’s position on the issue, which has been enunciated clearly by the Taoiseach, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and I on many occasions. Deputy Allen also asked about the visa requirements for Irish citizens. It has been the case since November 2001, shortly after the arrest of the Colombia three, that all EU citizens other than Irish citizens can travel to Colombia for tourism and business purposes without a visa. I intend to raise the issue with the Colombian authorities. Colombia no longer has an honorary consul in situ in Ireland, unfortunately, although I understand that it intends to appoint a new honorary consul. In the meantime, it appears that Ireland citizens who want to go to Colombia have to travel to London in advance. I understand that we will revert to the previous arrangements after a new Colombian honorary consul has been appointed in Ireland. Mr. Allen: However, Irish citizens will continue to be required to apply for visas if they wish to go to Colombia. Mr. D. Ahern: Yes, they will. That requirement is an unfortunate consequence of what has happened.
EU Enlargement. 9. Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the situation with regard to EU enlargement and the Cyprus question; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27079/05] Mr. D. Ahern: The United Nations has the lead role in the search for a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem. The EU enlargement process provided the impetus for recent efforts to find a settlement, which were made by the UN Secretary General in the first half of 2004, during Ireland’s EU Presidency. At that time, Ireland maintained close contact with the relevant various parties to encourage their commitment to the negotiating process and the achievement of an agreed outcome. The accession to the EU of a united Cyprus was not possible on 1 May 2004, as a consequence of the results of the referendums in Cyprus on 24 April 2004. The Republic of Cyprus has been a member state of the EU since 1 May 2004. The application of EU’s laws and regulations to the northern part of the island has been suspended in the absence of a comprehensive settlement. In May 2004, the UN Secretary General, Mr. Kofi Annan, submitted a comprehensive report to the UN Security Council on his mission of good offices. He noted that the unsuccessful outcome of the referendum represented another missed opportunity to resolve the Cyprus problem. He concluded that there was no apparent basis for resuming the good offices effort while the stalemate continued. The process has remained under consideration in the Security Council. Following discussions with the Secretary General in May of this year, the President of Cyprus, Mr. Tassos Papadopoulos, sent an envoy to New York for preliminary and informal talks with senior officials in the UN secretariat. As a result of the discussions, the Secretary General asked the under-secretary general for political affairs, Mr. Kieran Prendergast, to travel to Cyprus, Athens and Ankara to listen to the views of all parties on the future of the mission of good offices on Cyprus. Mr. Prendergast reported to the Security Council in June that despite certain positive elements, the substantive gap between the stated positions of the parties appeared to be too wide. The Secretary General and the UN officials continue to monitor the situation closely. The Government has strongly supported the UN Secretary General, Mr. Annan, in his mission of good offices. I would like to discuss the EU enlargement process. As part of its preparations for the opening of accession negotiations and in accordance with the conclusions of the European Council meeting of December 2004, Turkey signed the Ankara agreement protocol on 29 July last to take account of the accession of the new member states, including the Republic of Cyprus. Turkey also issued a declaration stating that its signature, ratification and implementation of the protocol did not amount to the recognition of the Republic of Cyprus referred to in the protocol. In response, the EU agreed and issued a counter-declaration on 21 September last recalling the status of the Republic of Cyprus as a member state of the EU. The counter-declaration also noted that the recognition of all member states is a necessary part of the accession process. It underlined the importance the EU attaches to the normalisation of relations between Turkey and all member states as soon as possible. Additional information not given on the floor of the House. In the context of the counter-declaration, the EU member states agreed on the importance of supporting the efforts of the UN Secretary General. They agreed that a just and lasting settlement would contribute to peace, stability and harmonious relations in the region. The EU remains ready to accommodate a settlement of the Cyprus problem based on the Secretary General’s proposals and in line with the principles on which the Union is founded. The objective we all share is an agreed comprehensive settlement that will allow the people of Cyprus to live together as citizens of a united Cyprus in the European Union. Mr. Allen: Does the Minister agree that the accession talks involving Turkey are based on sand if agreement is not reached on the recognition of Cyprus? Was pressure brought to bear by Austria to link the opening of accession talks with Turkey with the opening of accession talks with Croatia? Was the UN war crimes prosecutor, Ms Del Ponte, asked for evidence of Croatia’s level of co-operation with the war crimes tribunal? Did she give any evidence to support her assertion that Croatia is now complying with the tribunal? Mr. D. Ahern: A task force, involving representatives of a number of EU member states, met Ms Del Ponte before the start of the discussions on Croatia’s accession to the EU. The EU Foreign Ministers made their decision on the basis of a report that was issued to the General Affairs and External Relations Council by Ms Del Ponte. To be fair, the issue of Croatia’s accession was not linked at any stage with the issue of Turkey’s accession. They were dealt with as two separate issues during the discussions. Ireland’s position on the recognition of the Republic of Cyprus, which was maintained throughout the EU discussions, is absolutely clear. We do not feel that the opening of negotiations on EU membership with Turkey should be conditional on that country’s recognition of the Republic of Cyprus. However, we continue to acknowledge the need to move towards the normalisation of relations between Turkey and the Republic of Cyprus as the accession talks develop. We anticipate that the accession talks will continue for a considerable length of time. The conclusions which were adopted indicate that Turkish accession cannot be countenanced until the acceptance of the next phase of financial perspectives, which will kick into place in 2014. It is recognised and understood that Turkey cannot accede to the EU until it recognises fully all states, including the Republic of Cyprus. Turkey’s accession to the EU presupposes, in effect, Turkey’s recognition of the Republic of Cyprus. Written answers follow Adjournment debate.
 Adjournment Debate Matters.
Acting Chairman (Mr. Glennon): I wish to advise the House of the following matters in respect of which notice has been given under Standing Order 21 and the name of the Member in each case: (1) Deputy Hogan — to ask the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to outline his views about the application made by Waterford City Council to extend its administrative boundary; (2) Deputy Gormley — to ask the Minister for Health and Children why the proposed alcohol products (control of advertising, sponsorship and marketing practices/sales promotions) Bill has been dropped from the Government’s legislation programme; (3) Deputy Catherine Murphy — to ask the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if the present model of local authority funding acts as a disincentive in the establishment of new recycling facilities; (4) Deputy Seán Ryan — to ask the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to comment on the implications of the recommendation of the greater Dublin strategic drainage study group that a waste water treatment plant with a capacity to cater for a population of 1 million people be located at Donabate, County Dublin; and (5) Deputy Gilmore — to ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to elaborate on the subject matter of Question No. 960 of 28 September last. The matters raised by Deputies Gormley, Gilmore, Hogan and Catherine Murphy have been selected for discussion and will be taken at the conclusion of business. Adjournment Debate. Proposed Legislation. Mr. Gormley: I thank the Chair for the opportunity to raise an extremely important health issue. When I discovered last week that the alcohol products (control of advertising, sponsorship and marketing practices/sales promotions) Bill had disappeared from the list of promised legislation, I raised the issue with the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste, neither of whom were concerned in the slightest that a major legislative plank of this country’s attempts to deal with alcohol abuse had been abandoned. It is strange that they could not have cared less — the same is true of large sections of the media and the main Opposition parties — given the extent of the well-documented problems associated with alcohol. In his indifferent response, the Taoiseach said that self-regulation often works best. The Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Seán Power, recently said on RTE that he is convinced the alcohol industry will act responsibly. If the vintners had been allowed to introduce the smoking ban in pubs on the basis of self-regulation, it would never have happened. The Government response is shameful and deeply corrupt. It has bowed to an industry which produces the most harmful drug, albeit a legal one, in Irish society. It is a drug responsible for violence and disorder, serious health problems, marriage breakdown, suicide and depression, absenteeism and major problems in our accident and emergency units. It costs the State millions of euro every year. Yet, the Government has decided to play ball with the producers of this drug. It is nauseating to watch Ministers make sanctimonious statements about drugs like hashish and cocaine, and get cheap publicity for doing so, while at the same time ignoring the main problem. They ignore their own reports, the Strategic Task Force on Alcohol’s recommendations and the statements from the previous Minister for Health and Children, who proposed introducing this legislation in 2003. All these recommendations are to be ignored at the behest of the alcohol industry, which the Taoiseach, Tánaiste and the Minister of State, Deputy Sean Power, tell us will act responsibly. What does “acting responsibly” mean? It means showing advertisements and encouraging people to drink while at the same time displaying a small piece of advice to “enjoy alcohol responsibly”. We cannot afford to be naive about this. The aim of the alcohol industry is to increase profits and to sell as much alcohol as possible. How is this aim compatible with the aims of the Government, which ought to be concerned first and foremost with the public good and protecting society and public health? However, as we have seen time and again with the Fianna Fáil-PD Administration, profits come before people. This latest U-turn is symptomatic of just how deep the Government has sunk into the corporate mire. No doubt Fianna Fáil and the PDs will benefit handsomely from the drinks industry for the way in which they have kowtowed to these vested interests. It all comes at the cost of society. The alcohol products (control of advertising, sponsorship and marketing practices/sales promotions) Bill was supposed to “protect children and adolescents from over-exposure to alcohol advertising”. The new laws were supposed to limit where alcohol advertisements could be placed and introduce a watershed for children on radio, television and cinema. The contents of advertisements were not to appeal to children in any way and there was to be a ban on sponsorship of activities involving young people. The members of the Joint Committee on Health and Children went much further. We said there should be a complete ban on alcohol advertisements, having heard all of the conclusive evidence. We considered the problem of alcohol in some detail and felt we were left with no alternative. The dropping of this legislation raises a fundamental question about the relevance of Parliament. If expert opinions and reports from a joint committee are to be totally ignored by the Government, why are we here? Who calls the shots? Who has the power? Is it the elected representatives or the powerful lobbyists on behalf of vested interests? Surely this is yet another example of why we need to know who is lobbying on behalf of whom, to whom they have spoken and the content of those negotiations. We need a register of lobbyists. The alcohol industry can claim a major victory. The loser is society and this Parliament. This is a sick and corrupt Government. The Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney, and her party, the Progressive Democrats, should hang their heads in shame. Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Mr. S. Power): The only person who should hang his head in shame is the Deputy for making such a contribution and abusing the position he is afforded in the House. However, it is welcome that the Deputy has raised the matter as it provides me with an opportunity to deal with the inaccuracies and nonsense spoken in recent days. The Department of Health and Children and the strategic task force on alcohol had concerns about alcohol advertisements, particularly in regard to content, placement and marketing practices. One of the recommendations of the task force was to reduce the exposure of young people to alcohol advertisements. The Department drafted the heads of a Bill to restrict, not ban, alcohol advertising. The heads were subsequently approved by Government. In parallel with this process, the Department approached representatives from the relevant industries — not the other way around. The representatives from the advertising, drinks, communications and media sectors were informed of the Department’s concerns and that legislation was being drafted. The industry acknowledged the concerns and asked for time to respond on an incremental basis. The first response was to establish Central Copy Clearance Ireland, CCCI. The function of this body is to vet the content of alcohol advertisements to ensure adherence to the Advertising Standards Authority for Ireland, ASAI, codes and the 1995 ministerial broadcast media code. Agreement has been reached with all media — television, radio, cinema etc. — that all alcohol advertisements must carry a CCCI stamp approval number before they will accept it for broadcast or display. The CCCl system has been in place since mid-2003 and has had a significant impact on the number of complaints upheld by the ASAI. In response to the Department’s concerns about placement, the industry proposes to introduce a system of audience profiling. It has been agreed that no advertising for alcohol will be booked by the drinks industry or placed by the broadcasters in any programming where more than 33% of the audience is under the age of 18 years. In addition, no advertising for alcohol will be placed in any programming specifically aimed at children or young people. This applies to television, radio and cinema. Some of the agreements reached in regard to outdoor advertising include a restriction that alcohol advertising will not be placed within 100 metres of schools and buses, and bus shelters will not contain wraparound alcohol advertisements. Mr. Gormley: Big deal. Mr. S. Power: An independently chaired monitoring body to oversee the code is currently being established. The Department is satisfied that the code will result in a significant reduction in the exposure of young people to alcohol advertisements, which is the aim of the recommendation of the task force. Consequently, it has been decided to delay the introduction of the Bill pending the outcome of the implementation of the voluntary code. If the monitoring body reports that the code is not effective, the Department retains the option of reactivating the Bill. If the code is not honoured, we will introduce the legislation. Mr. Gormley: What is the timescale? How long will it be? Mr. S. Power: The drinks industry, with the advertising industry, acted responsibly in this process. It is better to have them on board. It is part of the problem and it is also part of the solution.
|