That does not happen. Again, that is very different to the position in other EU member states in that they have to come forward and update members on some of the progression. At the moment, after the Foreign Affairs Council meets once a month, the Minister comes in and talks about what will happen at the next meeting as opposed to what happened the last time. It is different. I know this poses some practical difficulties for the committee in terms of time, and there would be a lot more meetings. For example, there are more committee meetings in this Dáil term than ever before, which poses a problem, although nothing that cannot be looked at.

The other proposal which I believe should be prioritised is engaging ambassador-designates. This is a new idea but it is standard practice in many other democracies. For example, the committee spoke earlier about the way there has been no US ambassador to Ireland. Of course, in the United States, when an ambassador is appointed to a country, that person has to appear before the foreign affairs committee of the United States Senate to be confirmed. It is a good accountability mechanism and, in general, most people are confirmed without particular problems. There may be some diplomats in Iveagh House who would choke at this idea of having their ambassadors appear before this committee before they are appointed, but I point out that this idea is not dissimilar to current Government policy where chairpersons-designate of State boards and public bodies appear before the respective sectoral committees. It is not so much a confirmation process but an exchange of viewpoints before the person takes up his or her position.

It is something the committee could explore. Again, there are practical issues. Ireland has some 50 embassies, seven or eight consulates and a number of delegations to international institutions. Obviously, it is not practical to have an exchange of views with every single one in public session, but there could be a starting point here for selecting a few important international institutions, like the EU and the UN, or some important trading partners that Ireland has close ties with, like the United Kingdom and the United States, in order to start the process. It is nothing unusual and it might ruffle a few feathers, if anything.

The next point I will make is in regard to committee resources. Over time, committee resources have generally increased. In other member states there are some parliamentary committees that have resources to back them up that are as powerful as the Departments they oversee. We all know this is not the case for the Oireachtas and, of course, the comparability of the Oireachtas is quite weak in all sectoral areas for oversight and scrutiny of the Government. Things have changed, however. There is the Oireachtas Library and Research Service, which does excellent work and is well placed to support the committees in the work they do. Of course, there was a time when there was no permanent committee secretariat, and this has changed for the better. However, recent Government initiatives such as longer Dáil sitting hours, combined with a reduction in the overall number of staff working in the Oireachtas, can hamper the work, and, of course, the current financial circumstances do not permit additional resources to be given to any committee at this time. However, that will not always be the case. I know there might be a case for administrative officers joining the Houses of the Oireachtas next year and, of course, when more financial resources are available over the next period of the White Paper, the committee should look at attaining further resources to complement the work the existing committee staff do.

While it is not coming immediately, there is likely to be treaty change in the future. The Lisbon treaty has been in place for some four years and the European Council has not even put together an intergovernmental conference to look at new treaty change to replace the Treaty of Lisbon. However, when such a move does take place, this will have implications for foreign policy, both in the European Union and for Ireland. Before the Lisbon treaty, there was the constitutional treaty that was defeated in referendums in France and the Netherlands in 2005, which ultimately postponed the referendum in Ireland. Foreign policy was to have substantially changed under that treaty. However, when it was reformulated into the Lisbon treaty, a lot of the foreign policy elements were watered down, which gave us the new role of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy which, of course, also has the double-hatted role of also being Vice President of the European Commission. This watering down is likely to re-emerge when the next treaty comes forward in the sense that there is more than likely going to be a push by some member states to move this role of High Representative all the way up to a Union foreign minister, to have something comparable to the US Secretary of State. That empowering of the position in the future is something this committee should take account of, including in regard to the implications it will have for the abilities of the Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade to be an actor throughout the world.

Much has been achieved in terms of oversight and the committee is doing more than it has ever done. However, member states of comparative size do it a lot better. This review of foreign policy and external relations is a great opportunity for the committee to seize. I take it the committee will be putting together a submission and, indeed, it made one in 1996. While I do not have that submission to hand, I am sure it fed very well into some of the Chapter 16 proposals that were contained within that White Paper.

I would love to continue on some of the other elements but I have included them in my paper. I thank the committee once again for the invitation and I look forward to the questions.