I condemn without reservation the appalling attack near the city of Hebron in which four Israeli civilians were murdered.

I wish to offer my condolences to their families.

This deplorable attack is aimed solely at undermining the prospects of peace between the Israeli and Palestinian peoples.

Its perpetrators must not be allowed to succeed.

As the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority Salaam Fayyad has pointed out, the attack is detrimental to the genuine interests of the Palestinian people. I echo his call on all Palestinian citizens to remain committed to peaceful resistance to the Israeli occupation.

On the eve of the opening of the Washington talks tomorrow (2nd September), I urge both sides to enter into the negotiations with a determination to move closer to a just, lasting and comprehensive peace in the entire region.
 

The European Commission announced today that it is referring Ireland to the European Court of Justice for failing to enact the 2005 EU directive on asylum procedures into Irish law by the December 2007 deadline.

It is a matter of national shame that the EU needs to take legal action against the Government to get it to protect unaccompanied children seeking asylum in Ireland, in line with an EU directive which Michael McDowell as Minister for Justice agreed five years ago.

We know that, in the past ten years, over 500 children have gone missing from HSE care having arrived in Ireland as unaccompanied children seeking asylum here. This figure shows carelessness and the appalling inadequacy of the accommodation provided for these children. In most cases they were put into hostels without any adequate adult supervision, particularly during the night-time – and were thus extremely vulnerable to exploitation or abuse.

The EU law accepted by the Minister for Justice Michael McDowell TD in 2005, provides that 'specific procedural guarantees' for unaccompanied minors should be laid down and, in this context, the best interests of the child should be a primary consideration of the Government.

The Commission says that while the Government has implemented some of its provisions over the past three years, the directive has not been implemented in full. Specifically, the Commission says the Government has yet to implement requirements regarding guarantees for unaccompanied minors, amongst others.

It should also be borne in mind that MEPs and the European Council for Refugees and Exiles were extremely critical of the 'minimum standards' set down in this legislation when it was being adopted five years ago by EU Justice Ministers.

In early May, the Commission issued proposals for an EU Action Plan to increase the protection of unaccompanied children entering the EU. EU statistics released last Friday indicate that 12,200 applications for asylum were made by such unaccompanied minors across the EU last year.

The Government must immediately comply with its obligations to care and protect children who are in this jurisdiction, regardless of where they come from and commit to playing a full role in the new EU Action Plan on unaccompanied children.

The conservative dominated EU governments have been disastrously slow in their reaction to the Euro-zone crisis, which actually stemmed from an economic crisis engendered by their neoliberal faith in unfettered markets.

The current crisis has made it clear that we need a common social and economic strategy and the means to tackle the macroeconomic imbalances which have exacerbated our problems.

Yet, instead of making bold moves to secure the long term sustainability of the Euro and the European Social Model, the EU's conservative governments remain fixated on choking growth, slashing and privatising public services and cutting welfare, while jealously guarding national economic governance prerogatives that we need to pool to survive the crisis.

We need to deal with the deficits, but the idea that we can stimulate growth amidst the worst crisis since the Great Depression with every country slashing public spending is disastrously wrong and forces the citizens to bear the unsustainable burden of saving a financial sector that brought our economies to the brink of disaster and is now gambling against the survival of our economies.

The EU governments must push for a global financial transaction tax at the G20 summit in Toronto, and set the example by implementing it at EU level immediately. The same goes for strict regulation of hedge funds and private equity. The banks and financial gamblers must pay for this crisis.

We must set up a European Monetary Fund that enables EU governments to raise funds to restructure their economies without harmful conditions.

The Europe 2020 strategy goals will meet the same fate as the failed Lisbon strategy if we allow the conservatives to carry on with the same methodology. If Europe 2020 is to be taken seriously, it needs to be coordinated with the EU and national budgets and incorporate strong social targets.

The European Stability and Growth Pact as we know it is totally at odds with Europe 2020. To pretend that we can attain the Europe 2020 flagship goals while sticking to this SGP is either schizophrenic or intellectually dishonest.

What we need instead is a European Employment and Social Progress Pact. We need more solidarity and more Europe, not less.

Next Tuesday, in Strasbourg, I will vote to reject a European Commission's proposal to permanently exclude self-employed lorry and coach drivers from EU working time regulations. This controversial European Commission proposal to change EU working time rules threatens the safety of all road users, and drivers' health, and could put many small hauliers in Ireland out of business.

Driver fatigue is widely accepted to be a factor in 20% of road accidents. According to a US study, fatigue was a factor in 52% of accidents involving Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) while in other studies, 50% of professional drivers have admitted falling asleep at the wheel.

In addition to driving, these drivers must also load and unload goods, help passengers, and maintain their vehicle. All of these are labour-intensive and contribute as much to fatigue as driving. It is estimated that drivers spend 70% of their working day driving and 30% on these complementary tasks.

Europe already has legislation limiting overall driving time and working time in this sector but self-employed drivers had a temporary exclusion until last year from the working hour rules. Next week's proposal would make this exemption permanent.

I have already received correspondence from drivers forced by their employers to become 'self-employed' to get around the working time rules that apply to employees. These drivers are in reality still tied to their employers and are forced to accept appalling and unsafe conditions that pose a threat to all road users and to their own health.

If the proposal is passed, the dangerous situation of one regime for employed drivers but a much weaker one for self-employed drivers will be entrenched. Small hauliers will increasingly face unfair competition from larger hauliers exploiting 'false' self-employed drivers and many responsible operators in Ireland will simply be unable to compete. We will end up with more and more fatigued drivers on our roads from all over Europe.

In the interests of road safety, fair competition, and drivers' health I will vote against this irresponsible proposal. It will be a tight vote in which every vote will count - how Irish MEPs vote could tip the balance one way or the other. I call on them all to bury this proposal in the interest of the safety of our citizens and the health of drivers.
 

The first meeting this morning has been delayed slightly at the request of the Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor, a member of Likud, who considers himself to be a liberal.

We went by bus from our Hotel in the Western part of the city, having moved from the Hotel Ambassador in the East the night before, where we had stayed since our arrival on monday. We had refused to meet Israeli government or Knesset members in East jerusalem because it is EU policy not to recognise Israeli annexation of the Eastern part of the city. There had been a political tussle before we left, as Israel had sought to dictate to the Parliament that we could not meet any Palestinian officials in East Jerusalem nor could we go to Gaza. The Delegation had rejected these demands and proceeded to make our own arrangements.

The meeting with the Deputy Prime Minister was over a working breakfast in the King David Hotel, which the right-wing Jewish paramilitary organisation, the Irgun, had blown up before independence in 1946 causing the death of 91 and injuring 46. It was then the headquarters of the British Mandatory Authorities.

The Deputy Prime Minister began by pointing out that there had been a massive sea change in Israeli public attitudes and that now 80% supported a two state solution. But, he asked, where is the Palestinian leadership? There is he felt a lack of willingness to make tough decisions such as on refugees. Fayadd and Abbas, he thought, were «nice people» and there is «no terrorism now» but Hamas was still saying NO and Abbas seemed to be taking his line from the the Arab League. Israel wants an agreement but can Abbas and Hamas deliver, he asked?

Neither side would gain from delaying and he was keen to get past the proximity talks and into direct talks. This, he said, was not a zero sum game.

He was questioned about the proposed law on NGO funding, which seeks to prevent human rights NGOs from accepting money from abroad, including the EU which, it is alleged, is disloyal to Israel. He replied that he hoped it would be defeated and that he had voted against it. He noted the strong views expressed by Hans Gert Poettering that labelling people with legitimate criticisms of Israeli government policy as « anti-Israel » was not acceptable, that all of us present and the EP as a whole strongly supported the security of Israel but insisted on the rights of Palestinians. The conditions under which they are living are intolerable.

The Deputy PM was pleased that there had been 8% growth in the West Bank and claimed this had been due to the dismantling of road blocks by the Israelis (at the urgings of Tony Blair, on behalf of the Quartet). There are still over 600 road blocks remaing out of 650 and, according to the World Bank and the EU's analysis, most of the growth is due to the money being pumped in by the EU and the efforts of the Palestinian Authority to encourage small businesses, and the growth is very precarious due to the ongoing road blocks and the division of the territory into three zones. Essentially, the P.A. only have full control over 40% of the West Bank.) That said, where they do have control, such as in Ramallah city, there have been transformations with major building work going on, such as apartments and hotels, and the policing situation has been dramatically improved.

He also made a strong plea for sanctions against Iran. If, he said Iran «wins» then all bets are off. He then suddenly left without accepting the small gift we had for him, which is normal protocol on such occasions.

Traveling through the West Bank countryside on our way to Nablus, we see the stunning landscape. To us, it looks wild but, as our guide points out, it has been cultivated for four and a half thousand years. We see clusters of houses on hills and in valleys with roads winding around this apparently idyllic setting.

What WE see is not true. What the settlers see from their hilltop enclave is a broad highway to Tel Aviv. What the Palestinians see from their valley is a barrier, as they are not allowed to drive, walk or cycle on that nice new settler road which cuts through their farm land. They cannot even cross it with their animals. We are told how the construction of new homes for ten thousand palestinians by a private developer is held up because Israel, which controls everything to do with palestinian daily life, will not approve the major road development needed to serve the new housing.

More to follow.
 

Tuesday 25th.

First full day we cross at Qalandia Crossing, one of four crossings from West Bank into East Jerusalem. I catch site of a new piece of wall graffitti: 'One Wall Two Prisons'. The wall has been sold to the world as a security wall to keep Palestinians out of Israel.

But here's a curiosity: the Green Line, which is the Armistice line agreed in 1949, is 310km long. The wall, when complete, will be twice that length. In other words, it snakes in and out of the Palestinian West Bank, taking 10% of Palestinian land and leaving thousands of Palestinians in no mans land, trapped on Israel's side of the wall, between the wall and the israeli border, cut off from their families and their land. They need a permit from Israel to go to work their land or vist their family, or for their children to go to school.

One small example of what the slogan means. Our day started at 7.30am and finishes at 10,30pm. Our first call is to the Israeli Knesset where we are regaled with how democratic Israel is how this has been confirmed by its recent acceptance into the OECD. Frank discussions followed. We had some long meetings with Israeli and palestinian NGOs, All of which expressed serious concern at the increased pressure by the israeli authorities seeking to delegitimise their human rights work as anti-Israeli.

Then onto the bus for a sandwich lunch as we travel to Ramallah for meetings with the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) and a briefing by OCHA, the EU humanitarian aid branch. Eventually back to the hotel for a shower and on to a working dinner with PLC members, officials and some NGOs.

At my table we have a long discussion on the refugee issue, the role of 'memory' in nation building. The Fatah PLC member, a jerusalemite whose parents were expelled from their homes at the foundation of the stste of Israel, at my table, says that we must find a solution now or it will be too late for Palestinians and israelis and that the EU must up its political role. This we have heard from virtually everyone today - time is running out, fast. If Israel walks away from the talks, the Palestinian moderates will be pushed aside by the extremists, and he said "God help us all then".

On Wednesday, I invited former Taoiseach (Irish Prime Minister) and former EU Ambassador to the USA John Bruton to speak to a joint meeting of the EP Delegation for relations with the Palestinian Legislative Council and the Delegation for relations with the Israeli Knesset. We had asked him to draw on his first-hand experience with the peace process in Northern Ireland (as well as his more recent exposure to the workings of the American political system) and share with us some of his insights as they might relate to the Palestine - Israel Peace Process.

In both conflicts, he identified as common denominators the deep-seated feelings of dispossession afflicting whole communities and the predicament posed by what he called unrecognised violence (in other words, terrorism), how to respond to it and how to engage, if at all, with those who resort to it.

He reminded us of the contradictory content of the 1993 Downing Street declaration, a foundational document agreed between the Irish and British governments about the way forward. This declaration recognised the Unionist/Loyalist determination to remain part of the UK and the Nationalist/Republican desire for a united Ireland. The point was not 'adopt' either position but rather to grant both sides recognition.

Subsequently, in the face of the IRA's refusal at that time to lay down arms and renounce violence, which prevented negotiations, the solution adapted to the impasse was to agree to talk to representatives elected from all sides that had been elected in a popular vote to a special negotiating body. They then went on to construct a twin-track process whereby constitutional and power-sharing discussions were held in parallel with disarmament talks.

The opposite approach, I said, was taken by Israel and the USA/EU (against behind-the-doors advice of diplomats) when Hamas won the elections in the Palestinian territories, which ultimately led to the internal division of the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

Between 1937 and 1998, he also recalled, the Irish Constitution did not accept the legitimate existence of Northern Ireland, a stance that was abandoned by the Republic of Ireland, not as a precondition but as an outcome of the peace process.

Again, in my view, we seem paralysed in the Middle East by Hamas' stance on the state of Israel, even though there are abundant signals of their coming to terms with the reality on the ground, despite the rhetoric, the same way as the IRA realised that it could not get away with violence and murder.

Israel has to be persuaded that a greater Israel is not going to become reality and Palestinians have to understand that, likewise, a greater Palestine is out of the question. But with Israelis obsessing over security and Palestinians struggling with dispossession and hopelessness, a strong incentive to find a way out of this self-perpetuating cycle has to come from the outside.

In the words of the International Crisis Group, the US has done little to prevent the siege of Gaza and much to prevent Fatah-Hamas reconciliation in Palestine. Some pro-Israeli lobby groups, such as AIPAC, vigorously steer Congress's opinion on the Middle-East, although there is now a new group, known as J Street, which take a much stronger position in support of a two-state solution.

If all congressional politics in the US is local, and extremely sensitive to assertive lobbying from within each District, then President Obama's lead is desperately needed to bring a sustainable solution to the conflict. Hopefully, the increasing realisation in Washington that this is in line with the fundamental interests of the US will generate momentum.
 

This afternoon, I spoke before the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs, where I called for the suspension of the EU-Israel Association Agreement.

In my view, the findings of the Goldstone Report should lead to a suspension of the EU's Association Agreement with Israel. The Goldstone inquiry found evidence of breaches of human rights by both sides in Israel’s last major offensive against Gaza but predominantly by Israel, no doubt due to its overwhelming firepower. The most damning of all its findings is paragraph 1886 of its conclusions: 

In this respect, the Mission recognizes that not all deaths constitute violations of international humanitarian law. The principle of proportionality acknowledges that, under certain strict conditions, actions resulting in the loss of civilian life may not be unlawful. What makes the application and assessment of proportionality difficult in respect of many of the events investigated by the Mission is that deeds by the Israeli armed forces and words of military and political leaders prior to and during the operations indicate that, as a whole, they were premised on a deliberate policy of disproportionate force aimed not at the enemy but at the “supporting infrastructure.” In practice, this appears to have meant the civilian population.

Yet despite this conclusion by a reputable international team, we find that instead of at least putting on hold any extensions of the EU-Israel relations, the 22 March EU Foreign Affairs Council, attended by Minister Micheal Martin TD, actually indicated its approval for a new protocol further enhancing EU-Israeli trade cooperation*.

This issue has already landed on the desk of the EP's International Trade Committee for consideration. With the new provisions of the Lisbon Treaty now in force, the consent of the European Parliament is required before this protocol can take effect. The EP may refer it back to Council pending an inquiry into breaches of the Association Agreement, give our consent or reject it outright as we did with the recent proposed EU-US agreement on the transfer of financial information. The Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs can, of course, also take a position on this Protocol.

I am on record as praising Minister Martin for his insistence in going to see the awful consequences of the Israeli army’s assault on the people of Gaza. In an article he subsequently wrote for the New York Times, he stated that he viewed "the current conditions prevailing for the ordinary population (of Gaza) as inhumane and utterly unacceptable, in terms of accepted international standards of human rights" and that he felt the EU and the international community "simply must do more to increase the pressure for the ending of the blockade and the opening of the border crossings to normal commercial and humanitarian traffic".

In light of that statement, it is utterly incomprehensible that Minister Martin would vote last week for improved relations with Israel.

As Justice Richard Goldstone said at the publication of his mission's report in Geneva on 29 September 2009: "Now is the time for action. A culture of impunity in the region has existed for too long. The lack of accountability for war crimes and possible crimes against humanity has reached a crisis point; the ongoing lack of justice is undermining any hope for a successful peace process and reinforcing an environment that fosters violence. Time and again, experience has taught us that overlooking justice only leads to increased conflict and violence."

The EU-Israel Association Agreement must now be suspended.

* Com(2009)0559 - EC/Israel Agreement: Conformity Assessment and Acceptance of Industrial Products (ACAA). Additional Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement 
 

The last mini-plenary week in the European Parliament was a particularly active one for meetings on the peace process in the Middle East.

On Tuesday, I invited Agnes Bertrand-Sanz, from Development NGO APRODEV, which is a sub-committee of the World Council of Churches, to speak to the European Parliament Delegation for Relations with Palestine (DPLC). She shed light on the Israeli government's conceptions of international legality and its consequences for its relations with the European Union. It seems that compliance with international law is considered incompatible with Israel's security and fundamental values. Europe's calls for the country to respect international norms are met with silence and inaction, as they are deemed irrelevant and naïve.

This, in my view, directly breaches the European Union-Israel Association Agreement, which requires compliance with human rights and one wonders if those who negotiated the agreement in the first place knew this?

In line, apparently, with the principle of mutual reliance and recognition of each other’s laws in international law, one state party to an international treaty will normally rely on the other's domestic legal provisions for implementation. However, in view of the above, and as Israel's laws recognise as legal the settlement colonies in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, which are regarded as illegal under International law, surely this agreement should never have been made in the first place?

Some progress has now been made following the decision of the ECJ in the BRITA case (no. C-386/08), which has established that goods from the illegal settlements cannot be passed off as ‘Israeli’ goods and therefore do not qualify for preferential treatment by the EU. Israel must now provide, and Member States must insist upon, documentation from Israel establishing that the goods being imported into Europe do not originate in the Settlement Colonies.

This, however, is only part of the Story. Israel’s general disregard of Human rights in its treatment of Palestinians in the West bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip requires that the Association Agreement be suspended until Israel changes its policies. This would not prevent Israel from exporting to Europe, but it would eliminate the special preferences they currently enjoy on the €13bn worth of exports sold into Europe’s Member States (€100m into Ireland).

We also need bring out into the open the ongoing negotiations between Europol and Israel towards a cooperation agreement, particularly in light of the virtual certainty that Israel’s Mossad was responsible for the theft of Irish, British, French and German identities, while engaged in the conspiracy to murder the Hamas militant in Dubai. Parliament's consent to this Europol agreement will be required. If we do not learn the lesson and fail to secure real safeguards during these negotiations, leaving the details to be ironed out afterwards, we will again leave the door open to serious breaches of international and EU law, and member state sovereignty.

On Wednesday, availing of the presence in Brussels of the Chair of the Fateh Group in the Palestinian Legislative Council, Mr. Azzam Al-Ahmad, I invited him to share his views on the current state of the peace process with the DPLC. In his contribution, he regretted that the Obama administration backed down from the demand for Israel to halt construction of settlements. P.M. Netanyahu also refused point–blank the US proposed confidence-building measures such as the release of some of the 8000-odd Palestinian prisoners; the easing of checkpoints and restrictions on the movement of Palestinians; to permit desperately needed construction materials into Gaza; to transfer some parts of the West Bank currently controlled by the IDF to Palestinian Authority control, and to end the daily incursions into Palestinian Authority controlled territory.

A critical question, he said, remains unanswered by the US. What action will be taken if there is no progress after months of talks? In the meeting I had the night before with President Abbas, in the company of the President of the EP, he also pointed out that they are too familiar with, and weary of, years of empty cycles of talks that lead nowhere, and they have no wish to get on that merry-go-round again. 

Finally, later in the day, I spoke in the Parliament’s debate on the EP response to the Goldstone report. In my speech I deplored Israel's contempt for the EU when she denies MEPs their democratic right to meet members of the Palestinian Legislative Council in Gaza, the theft of European Citizens’ identity in their murder of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, and the ongoing collective punishment of 1.5m Gazans contrary to the Geneva Conventions.

The European Court of Justice has ruled that goods produced in the illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank cannot be considered Israeli and therefore cannot benefit from trade privileges and should be subject to import duty.

Brita, the German-based international drinks company, wanted to declare produce imported from the West Bank as suitable for preferential EU duties treatment. A similar German court ruling on the origin of these goods, had been appealed by Brita through the European Court, which handed down its extensive ruling yesterday.

The Court also noted that, under the EU-Israel Agreement, Israeli authorities are obliged to provide sufficient information to allow the real origin of products to be determined. Wine, cosmetics and computer products are also produced in West Bank settlements.

The ruling means that goods produced in West Bank settlements and East Jerusalem cannot be used by Israeli companies to benefit from EU-Israeli trade agreements.

The European Court of Justice has maintained a clear legal distinction beween Israel and the Palestinian territories. This clarity is welcome and the court's ruling is binding on all 27 member states.

On foot of this decision, Ireland must now insist that all goods imported into Ireland from Israel are supported by documentation which clarifies their origin - even where goods may only have been partly produced in an illegal settlement. In 2008, there were 579 companies exporting from Israel to Ireland, including machinery and electrical goods. The exports were valued at $100 million.

The Palestinians have long argued that Israeli goods, made in the so-called settlements, should not receive trade privileges from the EU. This ruling is a vindication of their argument and one which, as chair of the European Parliament delegation to Palestine, I welcome.

On wednesday I took part in a meeting with Israeli and Palestinian human rights organisations who came to the European Parliament to discuss the follow up to the Goldstone report on human rights violations during the Israeli military assault on Gaza.

It has been more than a year now since the attack on Gaza by Israel, and the Israeli government have so far failed to establish an independent investigation on human rights violations as recommended by the Goldstone report. The military themselves have undertaken limited internal operational debriefings aimed at assessing the achievement of military objectives. If during such debriefings they find that there are grounds for criminal investigation, the matter is referred to the military police and eventually to the military attorney general.

As the Israeli NGOs point out, major problems arise from this practice. The first is that the military institutions are investigating and adjudicating their own actions. Consequently, any decisions emanating from the top brass that may have resulted in human rights violations will remain free from scrutiny, as they fall beyond the scope of the inquiries being carried out. The cases under investigation relate to instances of disobedience to orders, the orders themselves are not being put in question or scrutinised by this process, nor is the policy handed down by the Minister for Defence on which the orders are based.

So far, around 150 ‘debriefings’ were initiated, of which 36 were referred to the military police for criminal investigation. Only one such case has resulted from the war on Gaza. A soldier has been charged and convicted by the military authorities for the stealing of a credit card. Two senior officers have also been reprimanded. These procedures are, not of course, carried out in public.

One of the most revealing points made by one of the lawyers with the NGOs referred to the declaration in 2007 that Gaza is an ‘Enemy Entity’. This, she pointed out, is claimed by the Israeli legal authorities as enabling them to treat all the people living in Gaza as combatants, and therefore legitimate targets. The lawyer pointed out, however, that International law does not support this Israeli contention. But it does help explain the total war launched against the people of Gaza last year.

Equally, the abuses committed by Hamas have to be accounted for. Both Hamas authorities in Gaza and the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah have announced that they will initiate investigations. These too must be independent and transparent if they are to be credible.

When the UN endorsed the Goldstone report in November last year, it called on the parties involved to undertake "independent, credible investigations" within three months. Today the UN considered the submissions by both parties so far incomplete. Europe, including the European Parliament must respond vigorously on behalf of the people of Gaza to ensure the truth comes out and those responsible for the death of innocent civilians and deliberate destruction of civil infrastructure are tried in open court.
 

I have attended three Commissioner-designate hearings so far. Madam Jeleva's hearing was very disappointing. She came across as arrogant and incompetent, and failed to adequately address the serious questions raised regarding her business interests. This issue is now being referred to the EP legal services for examination. I would have no confidence that the very important area of Humanitarian Aid would be adequately managed under her stewardship. At one point, when she found herself unable to answer policy questions she pleaded that she was not going for the job of Secretary General. When asked about what she would do about the appalling humanitarian situation in Gaza she waffled. This begs the question: How can she hope to give political direction to the work of her office if she is going to defer to her SG on important questions?

I also attended the hearing of Mr. Andor, who is seeking the post of Social Affairs Commissioner. Unlike Madame Jeleva he came across as competent with a good grasp of the brief, although to the frustration of all present, his presentation was lacklustre. This led to questions, including from myself, if he would fight for the principles and policies he was outlining, given that he would most certainly meet opposition in the Commission and the Council.He confirmed that he would and hoped to have the backing of the European Parliament in doing so. I asked him also, with regard to the external dimension of EU social policy, if he would ensure that implementation of the ILO Core Labour Standards as well as regulation on Corporate Social Responsibility would be on his agenda. He confirmed that they would indeed be high up the agenda. These issues are extremely important if we are to achieve decent work in Europe and tackle poverty in the rest of the world.

The other hearing I attended was that of Maire Geoghhan Quinn, the Irish nominee for Innovation and Research. I have known Maire Geoghan Quinn from domestic Irish politics over many years. As I expected she put in a powerful performance, using all her well honed political expertise to persuade the members present of her suitability for the job. She certainly demonstrated a very good grasp of the brief. Although she and I have many political differences on domestic Irish politics, unlike Charlie McCreevey, she is not a Eurosceptic. She would I believe be a breath of fresh air in the Commission, will not be dogmatic and will not be bullied by anyone.

On my return from a mission to Palestine in December, which I led in my capacity as chairperson of the European Parliament Delegation for relations with the Palestinian Legislative Council, I held a public briefing in Dublin to report on the meetings we had with elected members of the Legislative council and with NGOs in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (more on that meeting here).

The interest generated and the excellent attendance motivated me to organise and host a follow-up public meeting to discuss the potential for peace in the Middle East.

It will take place on Friday, 15 January, from 6h30 to 8h pm, in Europa House, Dawson St. Dublin 2.

Dr Colin Irwin, professor from the Institute of Irish Studies in the University of Liverpool, will speak on the importance of involving public opinion in the Middle East peace process.

Dr Irwin carried out extensive poll research in Northern Ireland ten years ago to establish what the people living through the conflict believe the core problems were and sought to identify where the common ground was between the two sides in that conflict. Peace polls of this kind also show where he gaps are between the two sides and can provide a measure of the gap.

Significantly it found that while individual proposals would be unacceptable to one side or the other, that when presented as a balanced package of proposals they could be acceptable.

Dr Irwin has done similar polling in Kashmir, Kosovo, Cyprus and Serbia and he is confident that the views of the public were crucial in guiding peacemakers in their difficult negotiations in those places.

Dr Irwin has carried out preliminary polling in Israel and Palestine and is encouraged by those findings. With more polls he says that it is possible to "assess the prospects for a successful outcome" in the Middle East. Dr Irwin believes that motivating public opinion is essential to the success in any peace process, as people then become stake holders and have a real interest in driving peace when they are involved. He adds that it is important that such polling is non-partisan and that the results they offer must be publicised so that all sides know what is being said.

To register for this event you may email proinsias.derossa@europarl.europa.eu