Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 30 May 1986

Vol. 367 No. 4

Estimates, 1986. - Vote 46: Foreign Affairs (Revised Estimate).

I move:

That a sum not exceeding £24,005,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1986, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and of certain services administered by that Office, including certain grants-in-aid.

I propose that the Vote for Foreign Affairs and the Vote for International Co-operation be debated together, as is customary.

The sum proposed for the Vote for Foreign Affairs is £24,005,000. Most of this provision is required for the salaries of staff at headquarters and at our 40 missions and offices. Provision is also included for travelling expenses and communications and Post Office services, for repatriation and maintenance of Irish citizens who get into difficulties abroad, for cultural and information services and for North-South and Anglo-Irish co-operation. In the course of my remarks I shall concentrate on five main areas of my Department's activities. I want to begin, however, by saying something about the concept of interdependence in international relations.

Interdependence, political and economic, is not just an academic theory, but an essential and unavoidable fact of life which has in many cases a direct and real impact on our lives. Some examples will illustrate this point:

A major outbreak of regional conflict in the Middle East could well have global repercussions of both a political and economic kind. On the political level, it could draw great powers into a direct and dangerous confrontation. In economic terms it could put at risk markets which are important for many countries, including this country, in an area which is the major source of the world's oil supply;

Every increase in East-West tensions tends to diminish the prospects for successful negotiations to control and reduce armaments. The accumulation and perfecting of modern weaponry diverts attention and resources from desperately needed efforts in the field of development. Essential development goals are neglected in favour of the acquisition of the latest and most sophisticated hardware. As well as this, the piling up of armaments makes our globe more insecure;

The failure of the South African authorities to tackle the evil of apartheid has repercussions which extend well beyond South Africa's frontiers — indeed, well beyond the African continent.

Like other smaller countries, be they neutral or members of military alliances, our interests can be directly affected by events happening very far from our shores, just as by events nearer home. It is out of no mere academic interest, therefore, that we join with our partners in European political co-operation in contributing to the search for a durable peace in the Middle East. Nor is there anything academic about our interest in seeing relations between the super powers conducted on a stable, predictable and co-operative basis, or about our interest in seeing the apartheid system dismantled in South Africa. It is in our direct national interest to work together with our European partners for a more stable and more secure order of international relations, for a safer and a saner world.

The second main area of my Department's work, which I shall be discussing in detail later, is our contribution to the work of the European Economic Community, itself the outstanding example of interdependence in play in international relations. The Community brings together States with very different levels of economic development, some among them net contributors to its budget, others, like Ireland, substantial net beneficiaries, but all of them benefit economically and politically from their participation in a common enterprise which is also a force for peace in the world.

In the third and fourth areas which I propose to deal with in more detail later, those of our foreign earnings and of our development assistance programme, the interdependence factor is also in play. We all know that a threat to oil supplies or a big drop in oil prices can have significant repercussions throughout the international economy. We know, too, that a secure and stable international environment is necessary if foreign trade is to flourish. We realise, moreover, a direct relationship between the efforts of industrialised countries to assist developing countries in raising their levels of economic development, and the possibilities for industrialised countries, including our own, to find new and enlarged markets in the Third World.

Earlier I made the point that our foreign policy is not developed in a vacuum unrelated to this country's political security. Neither is it pursued in a vacuum unrelated to the requirements of Irish industry and commerce. Our efforts to contribute to bringing about a more secure world are conducted in a recognition of the open nature of our economy, of our heavy independence on exports, and of the fact that trade requires a stable and secure international environment, for the economic interests of this small country are now far-flung. In 1970 over 60 per cent of our exports went to the United Kingdom. We now send almost 70 per cent of our exports to destinations other than the UK. In 1970 our exports to the Middle East were negligible. In 1985 our exports to that region were almost £400 million. In 1970 Ireland had no bilateral aid programme for developing countries. This year we shall spend almost £44 million on official development assistance.

The Anglo-Irish Agreement, the fifth area I propose to deal with in greater detail later, is also about interdependent relations, the relations between Britain and Ireland, the relations between the two parts of this island, and the relations between the two major Irish traditions. The agreement is designed to do more than facilitate the accommodation of the rights and identities of the two traditions in Northern Ireland. It also addresses the interdependent relationship between political security and economic security. For in seeking to promote peace and stability in Northern Ireland, in establishing new bonds of friendship and co-operation between Britain and Ireland, and in seeking to defeat the common scourge of terrorism through political means, the agreement is aimed at creating a climate in which business, investment, and tourism can again thrive in both parts of this island.

In the five areas I have mentioned, the real exercise of sovereignty and the real pursuit of our national interests require a realistic appreciation of the international environment in which we live. They require an awareness of the interdependence factor, a realisation that it is where we are successfully operating in concert with others that our foreign policy will best succeed in protecting and promoting our interests.

Having touched on the weight which we give to the factor of interdependence in our foreign policy, I now turn to details of five main areas of our foreign policy activity. The first of these is our participation in the work of European political co-operation, including our contribution to the work of the United Nations.

The phenomenon of international terrorism has been particularly marked during the past year, with frequent outrages being perpertrated especially against civilian aircraft and at international airports. Together with our partners in the Twelve we have been examining the political and operational possibilities of combating the scourge of terrorism with particular emphasis on State-sponsored terrorism. After an intensive round of meetings last month engendered by the crisis with Libya, the Twelve agreed on a range of political measures, including restrictions on the numbers and movements of Libyan diplomats. We also agreed to reinforce our security arrangments and initiate consultations with third countries so as to see how we can all co-operate in combating State-sponsored international terrorism in particular. We are nonetheless conscious that political solutions are necessary for political problems, some of them long standing. The Twelve are continuing their efforts to find possible avenues of progress towards a settlement in the Middle East, particularly as regards the Palestinian question.

We and our European partners remain concerned that the tragic divisions and persistent instabilities of the Middle East, whose tensions have radiated far beyond the immediate region, may yet have the capacity to draw others into a direct and dangerous confrontation.

Our concern and attention have also been focused sharply on the Middle East because of the disappearance and presumed kiddnapping in the Lebanon in April of an Irish citizen, Mr. Brendan Keenan. Following Mr. Keenan's failure to turn up for his work at the American University of Beirut on 11 April last, our Embassy began a long and detailed series of contacts with local representatives and others who might be able to help. Despite all our endeavours and the active assistance and goodwill of a number of parties in the Lebanon we have not so far been successful in securing Mr. Keenan's safe return. We continue to make every effort to do so. The Minister for Defence has, of course, availed of his recent visit to the Lebanon to raise our concerns about this case and to stress the importance we attach to Mr. Keenan's early release.

In the turmoil and the agony of the Lebanon, we see all too clearly and all too painfully the futility and folly and the desperate toll of violence and terrorism which have confounded the efforts of political leaders to rebuild their nation and to promote communal harmony. Ireland and its partners in the Community have encouraged the search for unity and reconciliation in that divided nation. We have supported calls for the restoration in full of the territorial integrity of the Lebanon. We have urged, and continue to urge, restraint on all concerned so that a peaceful solution and an end to the tragedy can be achieved.

In recent months, we also followed with concern the worsening crisis in US-Libyan relations which culminated on 15 April in the attack on Libya by the armed forces of the United States. Throughout that crisis we urged the need for restraint and emphasised the importance we in Ireland attach to the role of the United Nations and in particular the peaceful resolution of crises of this kind. I have made it clear that I very much regret that this attack took place and that civilians were killed; I regret also the terrorism that made the US Government believe it was necessary to launch this attack. For our part, we hold strongly to the view that terrorism, abroad or closer to home, can be defeated by political means.

The impact of recent events notwithstanding, the central issue in the Middle East region remains the unresolved conflict between Israel and its Arab neighbours. Underlying this central issue there exists a tragic conflict of rights; the right of Israel to live in peace within secure and recognised boundaries and the right of the Palestinian people to full self-determination. In accord with the Venice Declaration of 1980, we and our European Community partners have strongly supported a just, comprehensive and enduring settlement and have been active in encouraging this peaceful resolution. It is an undoubted disappointment that the hopes of progress towards a peaceful settlement which were raised by the Jordanian-Palestinian accord in February 1985 have not been fulfilled. It remains important that all concerned maintain their efforts to build on the beginning that was made over the past year, and that they seek to overcome the difficulties that have arisen.

In the case of the war between Iran and Iraq, now nearly six years old, the efforts of the UN to promote an agreed basis for a settlement, which have been supported by the Twelve, have so far proved unavailing. To restore peace and security in the region, it is important that both sides take advantage of the opportunities available to them to reach a settlement and that they co-operate with the efforts being made through the United Nations to achieve a just and honourable peace.

I have in the past drawn attention to the inadequacies of the UN system faced with a world dominated by superpower rivalries. This has had particular consequences for the ability of the Security Council, the body mandated by the Charter with primary responsibility for the preservation of international peace and security, to respond effectively to situations of crisis. If, as I hope, the period ahead sees a continuation and perhaps even a deepening of the superpower dialogue, I would strongly urge that the participants give attention to the possibilities of co-operating together to improve the functioning of this vital institution.

Our concern for the well-being of the UN system has been increased in recent months by the financial crisis which has engulfed the organisation. The origins of this crisis are quite simply the refusal of member states to pay their assessed contributions. In our view, the problems confronting the UN in the future cannot be adequately addressed until all those now withholding their contributions cease to do so.

Over the past year we maintained our involvement with the United Nations Truce Supervision Organisation, the UN Inspection Teams in Iran and Iraq, the United Nations Force in Cyprus and, of course, we continued our sizeable commitment to UNIFIL. In addition to expressing appreciation to the members of the Defence Forces for the discharge of their tasks in a manner which brought great credit to their country, I want to pay a particular tribute to Lieutenant-General Callaghan, who has recently relinquished his post as Force Commander of UNIFIL after a long and distinguished period of service in that taxing position. We wish him well in his new appointment as Chief of Staff of the Truce Supervision Organisation.

The conditions in which our UNIFIL contingent in southern Lebanon operate continue to be far from ideal. Unless there is a rapid improvement in the level of contributions to the UNIFIL fund the situation of troop contributors will become even more difficult than it is at present. The Government are actively pursuing with those concerned a resolution to the financial difficulties facing the force.

A necessary requirement for the success of a peace-keeping mission is the co-operation of the parties to the conflict. That co-operation continues to be withheld, particularly by those forces active in the area which depend on Israeli provisions and support. We have registered through the appropriate channels our concern at incidents of harassment which occurred during the year. The Government will continue to accord the highest priority to the safety of our personnel in this difficult and often dangerous situation. We will maintain our efforts both through the Secretary-General and in bilateral contacts to secure the full implementation of UNIFIL's mandate. We will also continue to highlight the need for the Security Council, as the authors of the mandate, actively to involve itself in this difficult issue. In considering our position on continued participation in the force beyond the expiry of the present three-month mandate in July, the Government will be giving very careful thought to developments in these areas as well as to the views of other troop contributors and of the Secretary-General.

An intense international spotlight has been directed to the many hundreds who have died in continuing civil unrest since the introduction of a new Constitution in South Africa in 1984. The origins of the problem, however, go much further back. They are rooted firmly in the odious system of apartheid under which the majority black community are systematically oppressed and denied any political outlet for their frustrations. The Government in South Africa, though promising reform have yet to demonstrate their will to make a fundamental alteration in the basic structure of the apartheid system. They still refuse to engage in any genuine political dialogue with the leaders of the black community.

South Africa continues to defy the United Nations by maintaining its control of Namibia. Elsewhere in the region, South Africa continues its policy of aggression and destabilisation of its neighbours. Last week its forces attacked targets in Botswana, Zambia and Zimbabwe. It intervenes militarily in Angola and supports the UNITA movement which is in arms against the Government there. In Mozambique the activities of anti-government forces continue with South African support to generate a serious situation despite the 1984 Nkomati accord under which South Africa undertook to curb its support for the rebel MNR movement. Other countries of the region, including Lesotho, have been the object of threats and pressures from South Africa. All of these events have led to a hardening of international opinion against South Africa and have prompted different countries and groups of countries including the Twelve to take stronger measures against South Africa. We welcome this. We have long advocated a stronger international line against South Africa.

The Government decided in March to impose restrictions on imports of South African fruit and vegetables. The Government will continue to work at the United Nations for the adoption of further mandatory measures against South Africa to supplement that already in force on the export of arms. Within the framework of European Political Co-operation, we shall continue to work for the adoption by the Twelve of a stronger policy towards South Africa.

In view of their role and responsibilities in preserving international peace and stability, it is essential that the two superpowers maintain a dialogue at all times. The Summit meeting between President Reagan and Secretary General Gorbachev in November gave new hope for an improvement in the conduct of East-West relations. I hope that the optimistic climate which prevailed during 1985 will in 1986 permit definite progress on outstanding issues, both in bilateral relations between the major powers and in the broader areas of East-West relations and disarmament. We take encouragement from the fact that the arms control talks on nuclear and space weapons between the United States and the Soviet Union are continuing at Geneva. Although we obviously do not take a stand on the negotiating positions of either party, we hope that it will be possible to build on aspects of the proposals put forward there so that much-needed arms control measures in these important areas can be adopted at an early date.

In those East-West negotiations in which Ireland is a participant, such as the CSCE, we continue to work with our partners in the Twelve for positive results which would help to foster understanding and co-operation with the countries of Eastern Europe and which would at the same time reflect the importance we attach to ensuring respect for all the principles of the Helsinki Final Act. We continue to contribute to the work of the CDE Conference at Stockholm which is aiming at agreement by this autumn on a set of confidence and security building measures to reduce the risk of military confrontation in Europe. At the third CSCE follow-up meeting which is due to open in Vienna this November, we look forward to a thorough review of progress in implementing the Helsinki Final Act provisions and we hope for agreement on a balanced set of new provisions concerning all aspects of the Final Act.

As strong advocates of arms control and disarmament in the nuclear field we are happy that the Irish delegation was able to make a significant contribution to a final document which the Third Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference succeeded in adopting by consensus last September.

There has been a general improvement in the political situation in Latin America in recent years. In several Latin American countries civilian governments have been restored. The civilian Governments of Argentina, Peru, Brazil and Uruguay come to mind. We express our support for them in their continuing efforts to improve the lot of their peoples.

A notable exception to this trend is Chile, where a form of government continues to operate which systematically violates human rights and basic civil liberties. The Twelve have publicly welcomed the September 1985 "National Accord for the Return to Democracy" which was subscribed to by a broad spectrum of Chilean opposition political opinion.

The situation in the Central American isthmus continues to be characterised by economic deprivation, human rights abuses, and armed conflict between Government forces and insurgents. Our policy and that of our European partners is that a lasting solution to the conflict in Central America can only emerge from within the region itself. Consequently, since its inception in 1983, the Twelve have fully supported the peace initiative of the Contadora Group of countries which comprises Colombia, Mexico, Panama and Venezuela, and with which a Support Group composed of Argentina, Brazil, Peru and Uruguay is now associated. Based on the principles of self-determination and the right of each country in the region to determine its own destiny free from outside interference, the Contadora process represents the best chance of a peaceful, global and verifiable solution. This applies, of course, to the specific case of Nicaragua, with whose Foreign Minister I had discussions in Dublin on 29 April.

I very much hope that the countries concerned can without undue delay reach agreement on the signing of a comprehensive peace agreement for the region. The Twelve have declared their willingness, if required, to furnish the appropriate aid in support of the Contadora process.

A heartening development in Asia in the last year has been the formation of a new Government in the Philippines by President Aquino. We wish President Aquino well in her task of promoting national reconciliation. Elsewhere in the region we support the continuing efforts of the UN Secretary-General to bring about a peaceful settlement in Afghanistan; we also support the efforts of ASEAN to resolve the conflict in Kampuchea.

There is an aspect of the work of the Department of Foreign Affairs which I deem it right to bring to the attention of Dáil Éireann on this the major annual occasion when I report on the activities of the Department.

I have, since the Estimates for the Department were last debated in this House, become aware that there have been for a number of years, probably since 1952, a substantial number of high-level military overflights of our sovereign air space which, although they have complied with our air traffic control requirements, have not complied with the diplomatic clearance procedures laid down in the Air Navigation (Foreign Military Aircraft) Order, 1952, which provides that no foreign military aircraft shall fly over or land in the State save on the express invitation or with the express permission of the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The unauthorised high-level overflights involved military aircraft mainly from the US but also from Canada. They were assumed by the relevant foreign authorities, and indeed by our own air traffic control authorities, not to require diplomatic clearance. Lowlevel overflying of our airspace or landings at our airports by foreign military aircraft appear to have complied fully with both our air traffic control and diplomatic procedures. The precise number of unauthorised high level overflights over the past 34 years is not possible to determine with accuracy at this stage but in 1985 it is estimated that about 3,000 such overflights may have taken place. I should emphasise that there was no attempt to conceal the flights from Irish air traffic controllers.

I should also emphasise that in the case of most of our international partners the requirements of our legislators has been punctiliously observed. The House will agree, however, that the neglect of compliance with these requirements by any country for whatever reason is clearly a state of affairs which could not be allowed to continue and the House will, I hope, also agree that it is appropriate that I should bring the matter to its attention at this stage and in this way. I have reminded all diplomatic missions in Dublin of the need to comply with the provisions of international and of domestic law regarding diplomatic clearance of military aircraft and I have now instituted new procedures to ensure in the case of those countries which overfly Ireland most frequently that they are fully alert to these requirements. I am satisfied that the arrangements now in force are such as to ensure full compliance with our legislation.

In investigating the authorised high-level overflights, informal consultations took place, inter alia, with the US authorities. In the course of these consultations it came to attention that among the recent unauthorised high-level overflights of Irish airspace were a small number involving US tanker aircraft in the days immediately preceding the recent US action against Libya. These were at the time bound for destinations in Europe and were not scheduled for the operation against Libya. I am satisfied that during this operation, there was no overflight of Ireland by aircraft involved in the US action.

The second area I wish to discuss today is the European Community. The past year has been an important one for the development of the European Community. Since the adoption of the Solemn Declaration on European Union at the Stuttgart Summit in June 1983, the member states had been committed to a relaunching of the Community. The report of the Dooge Committee, which identified a number of priority objectives for the Community and the means to their achievement, constituted the principal basis of discussions at the European Council in Milan. The European Parliament, inspired by the tireless work and imagination of the late Altiero Spinelli, adopted its own Draft Treaty on European Union and thereby clearly signalled its strong support for advancing the integration process. Furthermore, several budgetary and other problems which had for some time been preventing progress in the Community had in recent years been successfully confronted; and the enlargement negotiations with Spain and Portugal had been successfully completed. The European Council at Milan was therefore able, for the first time in many years, to devote its full attention to the functioning and future of the Community.

The Milan European Council decision to convene the intergovernmental conference came against the background of the increasingly urgent and widely recognised need for the Community to ensure that its industry was placed on a footing to compete effectively internationally, notably in the development of advanced technology. The clearly related need to improve the decision-making mechanisms of the Community in order to enable it to function effectively was also widely accepted.

It is noteworthy that Ireland, alone among the more recent member states, joined the original six Community partners in calling for the intergovernmental conference to be convened. Against the background which I have described, and especially in the light of the successful and unanimous outcome to the conference, I have no doubt that we were right to have supported the convening of the conference.

As far as the conduct of the conference is concerned, Ireland played a very active and, I think it is fair to say, constructive role. We broadly supported progress in all of the many areas under discussion. We sought, while ensuring that our own particular interests and concerns were met, to achieve substantial progress in the direction of European integration. We put forward specific proposals of our own, notably with a view to incorporating provisions on economic and social cohesion in the EC Treaty; and we supported as appropriate the proposals of others.

The outcome of the conference can be regarded as broadly satisfactory from Ireland's point of view and signifies some progress towards the goal of European Union. The Single European Act, which resulted from the conference, brings together in one document amendments to the European Community Treaties and provisions on co-operation in the sphere of foreign policy. The Act has been signed by all member states and is now subject to ratification by them in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements. The necessary legislation to permit ratification of the Act will be brought before the Oireachtas in the coming months. This will provide the opportunity for a full debate on the Single European Act and its implications. I would, however, like to avail myself of this opportunity to reiterate and expand on some points relating to the Act which the Taoiseach and myself have already made in this House.

No one would claim that the Single European Act represents the major leap forward towards European intergration which the European Parliament, among others, had called for. One the other hand, it represents a significant advance; it is a realistic blueprint for the next stage of the Community's development. Essentially it amounts to a compromise which is both imaginative and realistic, given the different points of view of the individual member states.

As far as the Treaties establishing the European Communities are concerned the Single European Act represents an advance on three fronts. First, it offers scope for significantly improving the functioning of the Community's institutions. It does this by considerably enhancing the role of the European Parliament in the Community decision-making process, by strengthening the Commission's management and implementing powers, by providing for increased recourse to voting by qualified majority in the Council, and by making minor treaty amendments to improve the functioning of the Court of Justice. These provisions, taken together, should contribute to a more efficient execution of Community business as well as to an important enhancement of the role and stature of the European Parliament. At the same time the existing inter-institutional balance is being broadly preserved.

Secondly, the Single European Act includes treaty provisions which will assist the achievement of two complementary goals which are fundamental to the nature of the Community and essential for its long term success. These goals are the completion of the internal market by a target date of 31 December 1992, which will be facilitated by the new provisions for qualified majority voting in the Council; and the reduction of the economic disparities between the various regions and the backwardness of the least favoured regions, which will be facilitated by the new treaty provisions on economic and social cohesion. Ireland has a considerable economic interest, as an export-dependent country, in the early achievement of a single internal market throughout the Community. The provisions on economic and social cohesion, representing as they do a greater Community commitment to reducing regional disparities, are obviously very much in Ireland's interests.

Lest any misunderstanding may persist about the implications of the new provisions for qualified majority voting, I would like to assure the House there is no question of the operation of the so-called "Luxembourg Compromise"— that is the entitlement of a member state to invoke a vital national interest and to veto a proposal in the Council — being affected by the provisions of the Single European Act.

Thirdly, the Single European Act includes specific Treaty provisions in a number of new areas which had not formerly been explicitly provided for in the Community Treaties. The monetary capacity of the Community is given Treaty status. New Treaty provisions on research and technological development should provide a boost to much greater Community activity in this area, thereby helping the Community to become more competitive vis-à-vis the United States and Japan. There should be corresponding opportunities here for small and medium sized Irish enterprises. A Community policy on protection of the environment is brought expressly within the Treaty, as is a provision for the adoption of minimum standards in respect of the working environment.

Title III of the Single European Act deals with Co-operation in the Sphere of Foreign Policy. The principal effect of these provisions will be to formalise existing practices and procedures in European Political Co-operation (EPC). This is the process which has been evolving gradually in the past 16 years, by which member states, operating on the basis of consensus, agree to adopt as far as possible common policy stances on issues of foreign policy which are of general concern.

Ill-founded claims have been made that the provisions on foreign policy somehow undermine our neutrality or compromise our sovereignty. I have made it abundantly clear on a number of occasions in this House and elsewhere that this is simply not the case. I would emphasise again that the foreign policy provisions of the Single European Act pose no threat to this country's sovereignty, to our neutrality or to our ability to take independent decisions on foreign policy matters. Provision is made in Title III for closer co-ordination on the political and economic aspects of security. This confirms the limits of what is appropriate to European Political Co-operation. It applies equally to another provision in Title III which speaks of maintaining the technological and industrial conditions necessary for security. These provisions do not involve us in questions of a military or defence nature. In order to take account of the fact that Ireland is not a member of any military alliance, it is specifically provided that those member states who wish to go further in their security co-operation, into military and defence questions, may do so in NATO and the Western European Union, organisations to which Ireland does not, of course, belong. Clearly, Ireland has no intention of participating in this further co-operation.

The Single European Act provides the Community, at least to an extent, with the institutional means with which to function effectively and to confront the challenges which face it. The Community, equally, requires the necessary financial means. There is as ever a need to provide the Community with adequate resources to function effectively and to develop its policies in future years. The demands on the structural funds are increasing as a result of the admission of Spain and Portugal and of the increased emphasis on economic and social cohesion. Furthermore, the Single European Act provides for the development of new policies in areas such as research and technological development and the environment. The budgetary problems facing the Community in the coming years are, moreover, exacerbated by the restrictive attitude of several of our partners towards Community expenditure. The Government are convinced that progress towards European union requires adequate financing. We shall continue to press with determination for the provision of adequate financing to permit both the development of existing Community policies and the implementation of new policies provided for in the Single European Act.

There are two major problems in relation to the Community budget which arise this year. First, the fall in the value of the US dollar against the ECU and other currencies has, in effect, meant cheaper US agricultural exports on the world market. This situation has resulted in increased demands on the Community budget to meet the cost of subsidies on exports of agricultural products to the world market. Latest estimates indicate that extra funding of well over a billion ECU will be required to cope with the effects of the fall in the dollar. Secondly, as regards the structural funds — that is the Regional and Social Funds and FEOGA Guidance — there is the problem of the so-called "cost of the past". Commitments entered into in previous years now have to be paid and the budget as it now stands is insufficient to meet these commitments. To meet these problems the Commission has indicated that a supplementary and amending budget of the order of 2,500 million ECU will be necessary. In conjunction with other member states we shall press to ensure that these budgetary problems are firmly tackled now and are not simply postponed until next year or later years.

The future development of the Common Agricultural Policy and the recently negotiated farm price package must also be seen against the background of the restrictive budgetary situation which I have described. Given the budgetary, production and market problems which exist at present, and the restrictive attitude towards Community expenditure of several of our partners, the recently agreed farm price package was, without doubt, the best which we could have achieved. The package has already been debated at some length by Dáil Éireann and I would not propose to enter on its details now. I would however recall that an outstanding issue of considerable importance from Ireland's viewpoint is the future operation of the beef intervention system. A decision on this matter is to be taken by 31 December 1986. The agreement to postpone discussion of the operation of intervention will allow discussion to take place more fruitfully when detached from the other issues in this year's package. Our immediate objective remains that the operation of the system should be guaranteed for the late summer-early autumn period when the bulk of Irish beef production comes on stream.

As one of the less prosperous member states of the Community, Ireland benefits substantially from the three structural funds — the Regional Fund, the Social Fund and the FEOGA Guidance Section. In 1985 we received some £273 million, as compared with £198 million in 1984. However, there is no room for complacency in relation to future developments, especially given the increasing demands on the funds' resources since the accession of Spain and Portugal and the difficult budgetary situation which I have described.

Minister, you have ten minutes.

I do not think I will manage it in that time.

I am prepared to give the Minister all the time he needs. He can finish what he has to say.

In the case of the Regional Fund we have received an assurance from the Commission that the level of aid received by the less prosperous member states in 1986 will at least equal their guaranteed share for 1985. However, the position in regard to the Social Fund is that member states have no guaranteed shares of the fund. We shall have to work very hard to maintain our excellent record of securing assistance from it. Our share of the Social Fund has steadily increased from 6.6 per cent in 1974 to 12.5 per cent in 1985. In money terms our receipts in 1985 were £141 million which was an increase of almost £57 million on the previous year. Quite frankly, it will be difficult for us to sustain this level of receipts without substantial increases in the real level of the resources available to the funds. Such increases will be necessary to allow the funds to become really effective instruments for the reduction of economic disparities within the Community, as they are intended to be. Only in this way can the less-developed countries of the Community be confident that their vital national programmes of regional development, dependent as they are on Community aid, can be maintained and indeed expanded.

Present and anticipated future demands on the resources of the structural funds point up the need for an early increase in the own resources of the Community. This is the system by which the Community is financed through VAT receipts, customs duties and agricultural levies made over by the member states.

The European Council at Fontainebleau in June 1984 envisaged a further increase in the own resources ceiling from 1.4 per cent to 1.6 per cent from 1 January 1988. We and others are pressing for the necessary preparatory work to be put in hand now so that procedures can be completed in time to permit this increase in own resources to take effect from January 1988.

There is no need for me to say that this country has benefited enormously from its membership of the Community. We benefit, for example, from access for our exports to a market of 320 million people, from the Common Agricultural Policy, from the structural funds and from the right to have our voice fully heard and our interests taken into account in the decisions which affect us. It is clear that, in order to protect our interests, there is no alternative for us to active and positive membership of the Community. The continued success of the Community itself is an important national interest for this country. This said, the Government will continue to negotiate firmly to ensure that this country's interests are protected and promoted within the Community. But, in the undoubtedly changing situation in the Community, there is a need, for us to review our whole approach and strategy. This is an exercise which the Government have undertaken.

I turn now to my third topic, our national export performance. Despite the constraints imposed by the difficult economic situation in 1985, our exports registered a 7 per cent increase in volume last year. We achieved an overall trade surplus of £312 million, the first such surplus in 40 years. My Department, in particular through their diplomatic and consular missions abroad, will continue their work of representing and promoting Ireland's economic interests abroad. Missions will, in conjunction with CTT and the other agencies involved in export promotion, continue to assist the Irish exporter on the ground in every way possible. Officials of my Department are available at all times at home and abroad to help Irish business obtain the maximum advantage from the international economy.

I would remind Deputies that Ireland has economic co-operation agreements with a number of Eastern European countries and with certain oil-rich states in the Middle East. These co-operation agreements, which are co-ordinated by my Department, are a virtual requirement if trade is to develop satisfactorily with the countries in question. One of the most important features of the co-operation agreements is the provision for regular meetings of joint commissions, that is, officials from the two sides, with the aim of reviewing progress, solving trade problems and identifying new forms of economic co-operation. Meetings of joint commissions are also used in a number of cases to facilitate the promotion by Irish businessmen of their goods and services in the context of trade missions organised by CTT.

Ireland has concluded co-operation agreements with the USSR, Poland, Saudi Arabia and Iraq and has a joint commission with Libya. Earlier this month, my colleague the Minister for Industry and Commerce signed a co-operation agreement with the People's Republic of China. Trade in goods and services between Ireland the China is expanding significantly and there is enormous potential for development. Last April the first meeting of the Irish-Saudi Joint Commission was held in Riyadh. At this meeting the Irish side was able to highlight the wide range of goods and services which Ireland is already exporting to Saudi Arabia and to propose a number of projects in which Irish enterprises are actively interested.

The task of maintaining our performance in exports, the main contributor to growth in the economy, is not an easy one. The sharp drop in oil prices may help the economy in some respects but it could also have some adverse effects. For example, the revenue of a number of oil-rich states will decline. It is important to remember, too, that our competitors will also be benefitting from the drop in oil prices. For these reasons it will be necessary to redouble our efforts to increase exports in the coming years and my Department will play their full part in this regard.

The fourth area I wish to deal with is our programme of official development assistance to developing countries. The provision for official development assistance in 1986 reflects the Government's continuing commitment, as set out in Building on Reality, to expand Ireland's assistance to the developing countries of the Third World. In accordance with Building on Reality, the allocation for Irish Official Development Assistance (ODA) is £43,961,000 in 1986 as compared with a provision of £38,357,000 in 1985. There is therefore an increase in 1986 of 15 per cent over the 1985 figure. It is planned that expenditure will rise to approximately £50 million in 1987. Expressed as a percentage of GNP, our ODA is set to increase from 0.23 per cent in 1984, 0.245 per cent in 1985, 0.26 per cent in 1986, to 0.275 per cent in 1987. The rate of expansion of Ireland's ODA allows for its orderly and steady increase over a four year period. The Government's awareness of the problems facing developing countries, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa, have led them to make the commitment to the expansion of Ireland's ODA as outlined in Building on Reality. I am pleased to reaffirm that commitment today.

In November 1985 Ireland joined the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). DAC brings together 18 industrialised countries in Western Europe and North America and the Commission of the European Communities. While we admittedly start from a low base, the rate of increase in Ireland's ODA in 1984 (the last year for which DAC figures are available) compares favourably with that of the other 17 DAC member countries. Eight DAC members have seen their ODA measured as a percentage of their GNP drop in 1984, eight have seen their ODA rise, and one country (the United States) has maintained its level of contributions. The Government accept that while we can be proud of the steady progress being made, particularly against the background of reduced public finances, there is a lot of ground to cover before Ireland can achieve the ultimate aim of reaching the United Nations target of 0.7 per cent of GNP as ODA.

It is opportune that the debate covering the Vote for International Co-operation takes place this week. Last Sunday the eyes of the world were fixed on many runners taking part in Sport Aid. Following the very successful Band Aid and Live Aid ventures, Sport Aid has again raised money for some of the poorest and least developed countries of the world. It has also raised awareness of their plight. One of the messages from Bob Geldof to the people of the world on Sunday last was "You can affect the world you live in". Contained in Mr. Geldof's message is an awareness of the fact that we live in one world. We in developed countries cannot ignore the plight of less developed countries. It is clear that the many units comprising our one world are interdependent.

Continued deprivation, especially at low absolute poverty levels, ultimately causes people, countries and regions to reject the system which permits such a situation to continue. Political instability in developing countries quickly involves developed countries. It is in all out interests, therefore, to reduce the wealth gap by helping the poorer countries to develop.

The global economy is characterised by a web of trading agreements highlighting the interdependence between developed and developing countries. We depend on developing countries for many of our stable raw materials. Any disruption of important raw materials supplies can cause severe dislocation in developed economies. Furthermore, if we want to develop export markets in these poorer countries we must open up our own markets to them. Only by earning foreign exchange can they afford to purchase our goods. Therefore, we must help them to develop and also liberalise trade as far as possible.

While the Government are well aware that it is in the interests of the developed countries to help the less developed, there is a more fundamental reason which underlies our development co-operation policy. We recognise a moral and humanitarian duty to help others less fortunate than ourselves, whenever we can.

What can a relatively small country like Ireland contribute to the development process? As a member of the European Community we strongly support the Community's development policy. To this end Ireland welcomes the Lomé Agreements as a realistic step forward. Furthermore, Ireland is supportive of the various Community development aid operations. We are proud that the so called "Dublin Plan" to send additional emergency food aid to Africa was adopted while we held the Presidency of the Council.

In the area of development aid, this country has a balanced approach. We will contribute over £24.5 million this year to various multilateral agencies who perform valuable development work. These agencies have expertise and experience gained over a long period. Multilateral aid allows us to be involved in certain large scale development activities which we could not undertake on our own.

The allocation for bilateral assistance this year is £18.8 million. Though small in money terms relative to other larger countries, Ireland can be proud of the quality of its aid. Our own recent development experience and our high educational standards give Ireland a pool of quality technical expertise which can be readily used by developing countries. Ireland's areas of particular expertise are reflected in the sectoral breakdown of the aid to priority countries last year — rural development, 32 per cent of expenditure; agriculture, 22 per cent, education and training, 22 per cent; industry, 9 per cent; infrastructure, 8 per cent; and health 6 per cent. There were 66 Irish experts employed at the end of last year on bilateral aid programme projects in Lesotho, Tanzania, Zambia and Sudan, which are the priority countries of our aid programme. In addition, many Irish public and private sector organisations act as technical consultants for bilateral aid programme projects. There is great variety among the projects run in the priority countries, from the handknitting project in Lesotho to the Kilosa district rural development programme in Tanzania, from the aid to the school of veterinary medicine at the University of Zambia to the Gezira dairy co-operative project in Sudan.

Behind the facts and figures lie a number of clear guidelines which mark our approach. Underlying our aid is a moral and humanitarian concern which targets our aid to the poorest sections of developing countries. Self-reliance is encouraged as projects are supported which address the needs of a target population which in turn should be able to respond positively. Irish involvement is seen as being only temporary, with indigeneous workers taking over the projects as soon as possible. Co-operation is an important principle for the bilateral aid programme. Projects are planned, implemented and sometimes co-financed in conjunction with the relevant authorities of the recipient countries. Our main concern is for the welfare of the people of developing countries. Our aid, therefore, is untied; it is free and not dependent on any favours to Ireland, economic or political. These principles are clearly evident in the various ways in which Irish development assistance is donated.

I shall turn now to my fifth, and final, topic — developments under the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Three-and-a-half years ago, when our Government took up office, we were faced with a critical situation in Northern Ireland. Nationalist alienation had become entrenched, successive British initiatives in the North had failed and constitutional nationalism itself was threatened. We had to act: we did so quickly. In 1983, for the first time in the history of the State, the representatives of constitutional nationalism — North and South — came together in the New Ireland Forum. The report of the New Ireland Forum, unanimously endorsed in May 1984, was the first result of our efforts.

The report of the New Ireland Forum is a far-reaching reassessment of Irish nationalism at present. Its analysis and conclusions provide a charter which will inspire nationalist action in this island well into the next century. In the short term the New Ireland Forum laid the basis for the Anglo-Irish negotiations; those in turn culminated last November in the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement at Hillsborough.

The Anglo-Irish Agreement is the second result of our effort. The agreement was the result of long and often difficult negotiation and required great effort. But the negotiation succeeded because it was in the joint interest of both Governments that the negotiation should succeed.

In the last six months, we have begun another major task — seeing that the agreement is implemented as planned. Both Governments stand by the agreement. It is in our joint interest to ensure progress over the whole range of the agenda in the agreement, progressively and in time, and that the promise of the agreement becomes reality. I use the words "progressively and in time" deliberately. The agreement has not set out to provide instant solutions to problems that go back to the Partition settlement of 65 years ago, but it provides the correct framework for solutions, progressively and in time.

The agreement provides also the machinery for implementation — the Intergovernmental Conference and the Joint Secretariat which services the conference on a continuing basis at Belfast. The two Governments have committed themselves to work together within the conference for the accommodation of the rights and identities of the two traditions in Northern Ireland; and peace, stability and prosperity throughout this island.

At the five ministerial meetings of the conference held so far we have begun the work of giving effect to this commitment. For an Irish Government, the accommodation of the rights and identities of Nationalists is a major concern. In the conference we have put forward views and proposals on such issues as a Bill of Rights, the use of flags and emblems, Irish language and culture, electoral arrangements, the role and composition of public bodies in Northern Ireland and discrimination in the economic and social areas. Details have been published in the joint statements issued after each of the meetings of the conference. We are in the process of a continuing negotiation through the conference and its secretariat at Belfast on all these matters. I might say that while we have put forward views and proposals with the principal aim of accommodating of Nationalist identities and rights, we have sought to recognise and respect both communities' identities and rights and we are very much aware that a number of changes we have proposed have cross-community support.

Our second commitment — peace, stability and prosperity throughout the island of Ireland — is in the interest of all the people of Ireland, Nationalists and Unionists alike. The agreement provides the political context in which peace and stability can be constructed. The conference deals with security policy, relations between the security forces and the community, the legal system and the administration of justice and with cross-Border security co-operation. Work has begun in all these areas. The conference also deals with cross-Border co-operation in economic, social and cultural matters: here also work has begun.

The Anglo-Irish Agreement aims at bringing about the conditions in which Nationalists can see the system of law and order in Northern Ireland as their system and also give it support. We are working in the conference for a programme of special measures to make the security forces more acceptable to Nationalists and for reform in the administration of justice. Both communities in the North stand to gain from a situation where they share confidence in the system and instruments of the law. That is the situation we want to work towards.

The Government are determined to do their utmost to combat violence and terror in this island. This is a shared duty of all of us, Northerners and Southerners. For our part we have taken action in the area of cross-Border security co-operation and extradition. Evil men from both Irish traditions are intent on bringing down the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Peace and reconciliation are not in their interests. They want to destroy rather than build. Since the agreement was signed, there has been the cold-blooded killing of members of the security forces in the North by the Provisional IRA, the attacks and intimidation by Loyalist mobs and paramilitaries against the RUC and the disturbing renewal of sectarian violence in recent weeks.

The latest outrages of the IRA show once again how the Provisional IRA have sought to impose tyranny through terror and intimidation with total disregard for democratic values and the values of civilised society. The "protection" which they pretend to offer Nationalists in the North is a cruel and cynical facade. Instead of protection they offer only fear. I repeat my condemnation of all that they stand for. The Government intend to fight violence and terror with all the means at our disposal with strength and determination. I also repeat my call to Unionist politicians, and especially to the leaders of the OUP and DUP, to cast the evil-doers in their own community from their midst. Our first duty as constitutional politicians is to pursue our aims by peaceful means and to ensure that those who would impose their will by violence do not succeed on either side. There can be no ambiguity in this.

I believe that Unionists will come to see the agreement as posing no threat to their rights and identity, but rather as providing a peaceful, stable and hopefully more prosperous society which they and their Nationalist neighbours can enjoy together.

Devolved government is strongly desired by the majority among both Nationalists and Unionists in Northern Ireland. We will continue to encourage the achievement of devolution on a basis of widespread acceptance as provided in the agreement. If the representatives of the constitutional parties from both traditions sit down without preconditions and come to an agreement on an acceptable form of devolution, then we will welcome such agreement. If devolution is achieved, the conference will continue its work in dealing with those matters not devolved as provided under the agreement. If devolved government is not sustained — and of course we and the British Government will be determined in our efforts to prevent such a failure — the matters devolved will again be dealt with by the conference in accordance with the agreement.

In the period ahead we will do our utmost to promote the aims of the agreement through the Intergovernmental Conference.

Does the next speaker speak for 45 minutes from now?

Deputy Collins has 45 minutes and after that each speaker has 20 minutes.

In an effort to facilitate Deputy De Rossa I shall try to curtail my remarks.

I dtosach ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh an Aire, an Teachta Peter Barry ar an ócáid phríobháideach bhliantúil seo. Is oth liom a rá gur mór an trua é nach bhfuil níos mó Teachtaí i láthair chun a bheith páirteach sa díospóireacht atá ar siúl.

I wish the Minister well, knowing as I do the tremendous responsibility resting on him and the many demands on his time. I avail of this opportunity to wish Deputy O'Keeffe every success in this new Department. His successor, Deputy Birmingham, will have my full help and support wherever possible, as had Deputy O'Keeffe.

In the three and a half years of this administration little of any note has been achieved for which the Minister's period in office will be remembered. Our whole position in the European Community has been eroded. On the international scene we have followed the policy of the low profile, keeping our heads down lest anyone might be offended. The Minister's public statements have very largely concentrated on Anglo-Irish relations and latterly the agreement. I propose first of all to consider that.

All of us in this House were prepared to await developments under the Anglo-Irish Agreement. There were constitutional aspects which we could not accept and to which we were opposed but on the basis that the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference would tackle the alienation of the Nationalist community we were not prepared to undermine its efforts in any way. Originally we had been led to expect that the Hillsborough Agreement would contain significant reforms. That hope was disappointed.

In the early heady days following Hillsborough people believed or were led to believe by the media that early progress would be made on a number of issues that have long been of deep concern in relation to the administration of justice and the operation of the security forces. That seemed to be the implication behind the items listed for discussion in the agreement. That hope has also so far been disappointed. The Minister has stated by way of excuse that problems that have been there for 60 years cannot be resolved overnight. But, with respect, many of the reforms sought concern issues that have arisen only in the last 15 years. Supergrass trials, plastic bullets and the Ulster Defence Regiment, for example, did not exist in 1930 or even in 1960.

The Minister admits to a lack of progress. In a speech to a Fine Gael meeting in Cavan-Monaghan on 15 May he said — and I quote—:

We are making progress in implementing the provisions in the agreement on security co-operation and on extradition policy; progress is needed also in the administration of justice and in the improvement of relations between the security forces and the Nationalist community.

The Minister is there admitting that progress has been one-sided, entirely related to British concerns, while Irish concerns have not been attended to.

The Taoiseach was very weak when asked in an RTE interview on 18 May: "What would you point to at this stage and say that has been achieved by the Anglo-Irish Agreement?" He mentioned two points. He alleged that: "there has been a significant change in terms of UDR patrols accompanied by the RUC ... although it still has a long way to go" and he also claimed to be hopeful that a statement by the British Attorney General on the subject of supergrasses might mean that "this particular problem will cease to be the kind of problem it has been". The Taoiseach was visibly clutching at straws.

Any impartial examination of the British Attorney General's statement in the House of Commons on 19 March would indicate that as far as he is concerned the supergrass system can continue as before. If there be any doubt about the matter, I have here a letter from the Northern Ireland Office dated 21 April 1986 and signed Valerie Scott which states:

The Government cannot agree with some of your other recommendations, however. The use of evidence from accomplices in criminal trials is well established ... The evidence of an accomplice is admissible against an accused person and may be accepted as sufficient for a conviction. But the courts in Northern Ireland are required to consider very carefully how far it is safe to rely upon such evidence in each particular case and to have regard to the danger of relying on such evidence unless it is corroborated. If this rule is followed, it is open to the court to decide, that, even in the absence of corroboration, it is satisfied that the evidence of the accomplice is true and sufficient.

Is it not obvious that the British Government intend supergrass trials to continue? Indeed, since the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed, 27 men have been convicted on the evidence of a supergrass and two men have been shot by an unaccompanied UDR patrol, not to mention a young man who has been killed by a plastic bullet. No doubt the Minister will have seen the report of the Northern Ireland Justice and Peace Commission on the Loyalist Day of Protest in early March which states that in Armagh, Down and Fermanagh for example the UDR misbehaved and erected and manned barricades throughout the day.

What is the position about the international financial aid for the Anglo-Irish Agreement about which we heard so much? Will it ever materialise? Six months have passed, and there is still no sign of it. Despite Government denials to the contrary, it seems to have become tied to the Extradition Treaty in Congress. It would appear that the British Government have turned down EC aid. The Canadians and the Australians are not interested. I would like to hear the Minister's views on that.

The agreement unfortunately has not so far made any contribution to peace, reconciliation and stability. Indeed, the North is more tense than it has been for some time. There is much talk of handling the agreement sensitively. It is hard to know what this sensitivity could consist of, given that the conference has refrained from producing any visible results whatever. The Unionists call for suspension of the agreement. But it is in fact already in suspension as far as doing anything positive is concerned. Is it not the case that the Government are caught in a trap of their own making? Having totally oversold the agreement, having presented it as something just short of joint authority, the Government can hardly turn round and tell the public the honest truth that they have exercised no authority, and little influence over the last six months, and that the British Government are carrying on exactly as before, the only difference being that they can now claim the full support of the Irish Government.

Before I leave the subject of Northern Ireland, I would have to say that I regard Mr. Tom King's remarks about Ireland becoming a European Cuba as patronising and insulting. In particular I object to the following sentence: "Behind the green Nationalism and the romance of a united Ireland is a Marxist revolutionary caucus determined to subvert these two countries to establish an offshore Cuba for Europe". This language makes no distinction between the commitment to a united Ireland of democratic nationalist parties and the IRA. Let me tell Mr. King that Irish democracy is strong and firmly established and will be subverted by no one. If one wanted to go looking for symptoms of revolution, Mr. King should look to his own island and ask what the Home Secretary is expecting that he has found it necessary to equip all police forces there recently with water cannon and plastic bullets.

I would like to turn to the international scene. The weak and ineffectual response of the Minister for Foreign Affairs to the aid raid on Tripoli, which killed innocent civilians was widely seen throughout the country as shameful and out of keeping with our foreign policy traditions. The Minister, in attempting to justify that act was certainly not speaking for the people of this country. The raid on Tripoli, which the Minister believed could be justified in international law has encouraged other states to take the law into their own hands. Prime Minister Botha justified his recent cross-border raids by reference to the raid on Tripoli. He said "We will fight international terrorism in precisely the same way as other Western countries".

Apropos of the Tripoli air raids, I am very concerned about what the Minister had to say about unauthorised military overflights. It is a clear implication of his remarks that while aircraft involved in the Tripoli bombing mission did not, as it happened, use Irish airspace, they could well have done so without permission having been sought.

I would like the Minister in his reply to state in more detail what exactly the current position is. Do I understand that permission is generally given for military overflights, if sought? Is this permission given to some countries; or to all countries without discrimination? Is information sought regarding the particular mission the aircraft might be on? Is information sought as to whether the aircraft in question is carrying bombs; and especially nuclear bombs? I think it is the Minister's duty on this matter to give as much information to the public as possible, either now or in the future, so that we can decide whether current practice, which has clearly become lax, is compatible with our policy of military neutrality.

I would like to hear in more detail what the European Community's response is to the growing conflict in southern Africa. The clear impression is that despite the appalling killings, which have become an everyday occurrence, despite the clear cut case against apartheid, some EC Governments are dragging their heels over sanctions. Do the Twelve have a vision of the long-term future in South Africa? I must draw the Minister's attention to a leading article in The Economist magazine of 10 May, which is opposed to breaking up South Africa into constituent tribal or geographical entities. It states: “the concept of one man, one vote in a unitary State is the only proper interpretation of democratic nationalism and is one to which black South Africans naturally aspire”. What a pity The Economist does not adopt the same approach to Ireland? But I hope the Minister will note their opinion that a unitary state is the only proper interpretation of democratic nationalism, because that is our view as well.

The highly successful Band-Aid and Sport-Aid events have highlighted the problem of famine in Africa, and have shown that there is a depth of public goodwill ready to support action to relieve starvation. The organisers and participants are to be congratulated. We must be proud that the organiser of these events internationally is one of our own, Bob Geldof. One of the purposes was to put pressure on Governments. I would like to know how our Government now proposes to respond to the enthusiasm and idealism of the Irish people and what changes in policy and increases in funding they now propose to make. Will the Government persist with the development aid cutbacks set out in Building on Reality? From the Minister's statement it is clear that the Government do not intend to do anything more than they are doing already. There will be a lot of disappointment at that attitude.

Fianna Fáil are totally dissatisfied with the Government's response to the nuclear menace, whether at Sellafield or Chernobyl. Over the last few years our feeble and timorous Government have been parroting the reassurances pumped out by the nuclear industry, and more recently wringing their hands, saying how little they can do.

Fianna Fáil have repeatedly called for the closure of Sellafield. The Taoiseach on RTE last Sunday week attacked this call and said: "That's politics, not diplomacy and no responsible Government goes around behaving like that and responsible oppositions don't suggest it". Is the Taoiseach calling the Austrian Government irresponsible, because they have called on the German Government not to proceed with a nuclear reprocessing plant at Wackersdorf in Bavaria? Is the Taoiseach calling the German Government irresponsible because it asked the Soviet Union to close down the twenty nuclear reactors of a type similar to Chernobyl and demanded compensation for damage incurred by German farmers? Is the Danish Parliament, both Government and Opposition, irresponsible in calling for the Swedish nuclear power station at Barseback across the Baltic Straits to be closed down?

Many countries on their own initiative are seriously considering closing down, phasing out or deferring nuclear plants in the light of recent events. Britain is one of the few countries left in the world still determined to plough ahead with its expansion plans. The Government here are not even seeking to influence the British decisions that would affect us. In my book the Irish Government are irresponsible, in neglecting their duty, in failing even to attempt to protect and defend the Irish people from the threat of wholesale contamination, and long term damage to life, health and the environment from dangerous nuclear plants sited close to our shores.

I wonder if the Government and the public are aware of the fact that the majority of British nuclear power stations, 26 of them, are sited on the west coast facing across to Ireland? This is not just a British phenomenon. There is a tendency across Europe to site nuclear power stations as close as possible to the borders of other countries. If nuclear energy were as safe as it is claimed to be, why are they not sited on the outskirts of large cities or in heavily populated areas, as other power stations are? The official statement after the 1957 accident at Windscale said euphemistically: "It is untrue that a large amount of radioactivity was released; the amount released was not hazardous to the public and what there was, was carried out to sea". We know from studies into Down's Syndrome babies in Dundalk and County Down what the consequences of that were.

It has not been proved.

The Tánaiste and the Minister of State, Deputy Collins, have repeatedly rejected the call for the closure of Sellafield. Indeed, the Tánaiste here on 11 March listed a whole lot of investment measures which are part of the Sellafield expansion plans. The Minister of State on 11 March 1986, claimed: `The second main thrust of the Irish Government's policy is that this is a matter of international concern and the most effective way it can be dealt with is through a European inspection force under the aegis of the Euratom Treaty".

On 7 May he went even further and stated: "We feel and the Government have been so advised by the Attorney General that the Commission under the Euratom Treaty have powers to inspect the safety of nuclear installations. As I have said, we have formally asked the Commission to exercise these powers". The Minister for Energy on 8 May said: "In various discussions we have had with the Commissioner it was stated that we were satisfied that the Commission has a central and vital role to play in the implementation of the Community's basic radiation supply standards under the Euratom Treaty.... The Commissioner has confirmed that the question of a Community inspection force is one which is being examined under the terms of the Euratom Treaty".

When Deputy Haughey, the Leader of the Fianna Fáil Party, visited Brussels a couple of weeks ago and had discussions with the Commission, he found what we had already suspected was confirmed. The Minister of Energy and his Minister of State have been misleading the House and the public in suggesting that there are any provisions for a safety inspectorate under the Euratom Treaty. There is no such inspectorate, nor do the powers exist under the Treaty, to set up such an inspectorate. On the contrary, the responsibility lies with the member states.

Article 33, in the chapter on Health and Safety of the Treaty states: "Each member state shall lay down the appropriate provisions, whether by legislation, regulation or administrative order, to ensure compliance with the basic standards which have been established". Article 34 states: "Any member state in whose territories particularly dangerous experiments are to take place shall take additional health and safety measures on which it shall first obtain the opinion of the Commission".

There is no article anywhere in the Treaty which suggests or allows inspections of nuclear power stations from the point of view of human health and safety. The only inspections allowed are safeguard inspections for the purposes of nuclear materials accountancy, to ensure that in non-nuclear weapon States, such as Germany, nuclear materials are not diverted into bomb making. It has nothing to do with what we are concerned with here. In all probability amendment of the Treaty would be required to allow a European safety inspectorate to operate. The EC Commission clearly do not accept the legal basis of this Government's case. The fact that they are sending experts to have discussions with the Attorney General's office, as stated by the Minister here yesterday, surely makes that clear to every Member of this House.

By a happy coincidence, the Dáil will shortly be discussing the draft European Act. The Euratom Treaty is largely ignored in this Act. We would certainly support the Government if, prior to ratification, they were to seek additional Treaty provisions that would allow the setting up of a European safety inspectorate for nuclear power stations. However desirable such inspections, inspection by itself will not make nuclear power stations more safe. Since Chernobyl, a whole string of incidents have been reported from nuclear power stations in Britain and France. Some of the stations have been proved by their record to be extremely unsafe.

Our monitoring facilities, our Civil Defence preparations were barely adequate to cope with the effects of a major nuclear accident 1,500 miles away. It is acknowledged even by the Government that they would be totally incapable of dealing with a similar emergency on the other side of the water. Chernobyl, happening only a few years after Three Mile Island, has shown beyond a shadow of doubt that major nuclear accidents can and will happen, not once in every 10,000 years as the nuclear experts assured us, but on average at least once every ten years. Since the inception of nuclear power in the fifties there have been four major accidents, two in the Soviet Union, one in the United States and one in Britain.

On that basis, it is unfortunately more than likely that a serious accident will occur before the end of the century somewhere in Western Europe, and perhaps in Britain. An official of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission has already said that such an accident is inevitable in the United States. If in Britain, let us remember that most nuclear power stations are located on the west coast facing across the Irish Sea. We must do everything in our power to try to lessen this risk. The first thing is to induce in people and in Governments a realisation that nuclear power stations are literally time bombs in our midst and to get them to act accordingly. Our Civil Defence should be trained to deal with such an emergency.

I would also like to raise briefly the question of nuclear submarine traffic in the Irish Sea. Quite apart from the danger to fishing vessels and their crews, there is also the danger of an accident to the nuclear reactor on a submarine which could have serious consequences. While most of the Irish Sea is in international waters, the Government would nevertheless be justified in making representations to the countries involved that nuclear submarines should, for exercise purposes, stay away as far as possible from coastal seas, especially when conventionally powered submarines can presumably patrol just as effectively in these types of waters.

I will deal first with the statement by the Minister, which I welcome as far as it goes, that the Government have decided to carry out a review of our whole approach and strategy in the Community. I certainly welcome it, but I am afraid it does not go far enough.

My party have for a considerable time now been asking that such a survey — and it would need to be a detailed and precise study — be carried out and the balance sheet of what the Irish economy has gained and what it has lost through membership of the European Communities be drawn up.

When Ireland voted overwhelmingly as it did in 1972 in favour of membership of the EC it was in the high belief that membership would be of great advantage to us, of advantage, not just in an economic way alone. There is far more to the European Communities than that. But I will deal here with economic issues at the present stage. We saw great advantages in the Common Agricultural Policy. We equally saw that there would be losses in other areas, but we believed that the advantages would more than outweigh the losses.

Agriculture certainly gained, especially in our early years of membership, but the agricultural sector, as is well known, is now labouring under severe adjustments to Community policy. We did not expect in 1972 that there would be a quarter of a million unemployed in the following decade. How much of the present serious economic difficulties which we now suffer are due to our European Community membership? How much has there been a shortfall in the aid we rightly expected from the Communities for the development of the Irish economy? Of course, we could not have hoped to escape unscathed the world economic recession following on the oil crisis of 1973. But there are questions to be answered about the extent to which the adjustments to European Community industrial conditions imposed on us an unfair burden, with the effects on our economy which we see.

I want to make it very clear that I wish the balance sheet to be drawn up in a neutral manner. Drawing it up in no way implies any change in this country's attitude as regards membership of the European Communities. Were there to be a vote on that issue again tomorrow, I have no doubt, indeed I am certain, that there would continue to be a strong vote for continuation of membership of the Community.

I would see the balance sheet as a first means to judge our economic situation. With that judgment and with our own ideas clear as to what actions are needed to put our economy on a sure road to recovery, we could go to our European partners and present our case to them. Our case would essentially be that a small and still under-developed economy on the extremity of Europe needs far more aid, especially in the way of regional and social aids, than is now being given to us. We will have to remind our partners in Europe very firmly that the aims and purposes of the Rome Treaty should not be forgotten and that Ireland presents a very good case for remembering these aims and purposes.

In the negotiations over the draft European Act the Government missed a golden opportunity to renegotiate our terms of membership of the EC. Instead, they have accepted the deterioration of our position as a fait accompli about which nothing can be done. When we return to Government, we shall not be adopting such a fatalistic approach.

Through the formation of a common market and the progressive approximation of the economic policies of the member states, the EC aim has been to promote throughout the Community the harmonious development of economic activities, a continuous and balanced expansion and increased stability. It has also set as one of its aims an accelerated raising of the standards of living and closer relations between member states.

The Treaty also provided for the establishment of a social fund to improve employment prospects for workers and to contribute to the raising of their standard of living. Despite the fact that total commitments from the European Social Fund during the period 1973 to 1985 amounted to £830.3 million, the unemployment rate in Ireland has persistently remained well above the EC average of 11.5 per cent. This figure relates to the EEC of the Nine, as figures for Greece, Spain and Portugal are not comparable.

The record of the Coalition Government in the creation of jobs for young people when compared with our EC partners is appalling. Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany and the Netherlands have all recorded a fall in the annual average of young people under 25 registered as unemployed in the period 1984-85. In 1984, youth unemployment among men in Ireland stood at over 42,000. By 1985 it has risen to 45,000. Unemployment among women under the age of 25 rose from 24,500 to 26,600 during the same period.

The European Social Fund is chiefly concerned with promoting youth employment. It has to be pointed out also that 75 per cent of the fund's total financial resources have been earmarked for that purpose. Despite the fact that Ireland's share of the European Social Fund in 1985 reached a record 12.5 per cent of the fund, compared with 11.4 per cent and 9.7 per cent in the previous two years, youth unemployment remains alarmingly high in Ireland.

The Coalition Government have shown a singular lack of ability to deal with the rampant unemployment crisis stalking our country. Their failure is taking its toll. Regrettably, many of our young people are now emigrating. I am convinced, however, that were it not for the existence of the European Social Fund, the situation of our young people would be even worse. We cannot ignore the failure of the present Government to act on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of unemployed people in Ireland.

We have entered a critical period in the affairs of the EC. Budgetary difficulties loom large. The cost of enlargement is substantial. Following the entry of Spain and Portugal into the EC, and following the failure of the European Community to provide adequate resources to take into account enlargement, Ireland's share of EC resources is threatened. Our share of the social fund will fall in 1986. The Government have had adequate warning about the precarious budgetary situation. EC Commissioner Sutherland is among those who have sounded the alarm bells.

On 10 April last Commissioner Sutherland stated that unless strong opposition to supplementary financing for the European Community could be overcome, grants from the social, regional and agricultural development funds could not be paid from September next. Will the Minister say what action the Government are taking in response to the warnings to avert this situation as outlined by Commissioner Sutherland?

More than half the cost of AnCO activities are met by the resources of the European Social Fund. If AnCO's major role in contributing to training in Ireland is not to be undermined, the Government must show that they are prepared to take all the necessary action to avert a major budgetary crisis. They must ensure that our partners in the European Community are made aware that any reduction in Ireland's share of EC funds will have serious consequences for our entire economy. Cutbacks are already taking place. The Minister should state frankly what the position is and what the Government are doing about this.

The same concerns apply to the European Regional Fund. Ireland has always been classified as a priority region. Spain and Portugal also have priority status. The Regional Fund has a major role to play in correcting regional imbalances in the Community and because of the inadequacy of the existing resources of the Regional Fund, and the Government's failure to fight for the necessary additional resources, the disparities already existing between the less-favoured and the most-favoured regions have not diminished.

Despite the fact that Ireland has received commitments in regional fund aid worth £604 million between 1975 and 1985, it must be recognised that major infrastructural problems remain. During the period 1975 to 1984 Ireland's share of the Regional Fund amounted to 6.2 per cent. When the ERDF regulation was amended in 1984 Ireland's share was to range from 5.64 per cent to 6.83 per cent. Following the entry of Span and Portugal into the Community our share now ranges from only 3.82 per cent to 4.61 per cent. If our share of the Regional Fund is to be restored the Government must call for a substantial increase in the EC's resources.

I cannot accept the Minister's statement about the farm price package as, "the best which we could have achieved". Our agricultural situation at present is fairly disastrous, and, regrettably, occupies a very low priority round the Cabinet table. I notice the Minister made no reference to the decision taken about milk. Here Ireland accepted and even voted for a 3 per cent cut in our milk quota and this despite the very clear understanding at the time when the super levy was agreed in 1984 that Ireland would now have its milk quota further reduced. The Government then rightly took a stand on milk production being for Ireland a vital national interest.

As the Minister says, this prices agreement was debated at some length in this House a few weeks ago, and I do not intend to go into detail here, but I must note the careful way in which ministerial statements have avoided meeting headon the very valid criticism of the Government's agreeing in 1986 to something which was of vital national interest in 1984.

It would be as well also at this point to say that while we would hope that a fair representation of our case to our partners in the Community would not fail to have special help given to us, we must, at the same time, look facts in the face and realise that the Community has allowed itself to become virtually bankrupt. By September next, at the present rate of progress, the Commission will have no money left to pay its bills. Why is this? It is because the Heads of State over the years have wrangled over the amounts of money needed to fund the Community and have been far more concerned with what are in relation to most of these members states comparatively minor sums of money. Heads of State have been involved in details of finances to an extent which has put out of their minds the fundamental purposes of the Community. I can recall that at the Dublin Summit the British Prime Minister continuously harangued her colleagues for three days demanding that she get her money back.

The Community was enlarged but the finances to look after the enlarged Community were not provided even though members of our party during a debate on the enlargement of the Community urged the Minister, and the Government, to take that matter on board immediately. As a result of this the moneys which Ireland receives under the regional fund are going to be considerably reduced. On the best estimates available at present there could be a significant percentage drop in allocations for Ireland in 1986 out of the Regional and Social Funds combined compared with what we would be expecting considering the moneys made available to us in the past.

Ireland out of enlargement has gained nothing. We certainly welcome the new members states to the Community. We look to the possibility of being able to sell more on their markets. The new member states have had benefits shared indeed by some of the older members under such major Commission activities as the Integrated Mediterranean programmes. Nothing in particular has been done about Ireland, the most isolated member of the Community. Instead, the funds available to us under the Regional and Social Funds have been reduced and the Common Agricultural Policy is no longer the vehicle to improving our agriculture than it was in the past.

Our Government have been far too silent in bringing to the notice of our partners in Europe the state in which this country finds itself and the neglect of our economy by our European partners. I am afraid we tend to be naively over enthusiastic about developments within the Community and I refer here in particular to the decisions of the Heads of State in bringing together the document known as the "Single Act" taken at the end of last year. It is very good to improve the Community Institutions so as to make them more efficient and suitable for a Community of Twelve or more members, but there is more to it than that. Why should we let go unmarked an occasion such as the setting up of the single market which will bring undoubted benefit to the rich central areas of the Community but leave in a worse position than before an isolated economy like that of Ireland? Without in any way allowing any thought about our allegiance to the Community to be involved, we should say very firmly to our European partners what we think their responsibilities are and what action they should be taking in regard to the Irish economy.

The European budget does not compare favourably with the sum of its national counterparts. According to EC Commission figures, it amounted to just 3 per cent of these in 1984. Finances directed towards welfare level convergence, such as the Regional Fund, the Social Fund and the guidance sector of the CAP accounted together in 1985 for a mere 15 per cent of the total. I do not believe the Government have been making the necessary effort to ensure acceptance by the richer countries that full convergence requires the promotion income transfers between member states on a much wider scale than is being practised at present. It is high time the Government took full advantage nevertheless of all the resources available to them.

In the 1986 budget, £1.142 million has been set aside for new integrated operations. The aid is for financing specific action in the framework of integrated development operations in areas of the Community affected by both exceptionally high levels of unemployment and an absence of basic social and economic infrastructure. Dublin is specifically mentioned. I call on the Minister to make a statement with regard to the Government's position on these particular EC funds.

Today, when Connacht Regional Airport is also being opened, we are reminded of the Government's appalling attitude towards funds earmarked by the EC for this project. Substantial EC funds are also available for regional studies. Can the Minister explain why so few studies have been assisted in Ireland? Are the Government afraid that the EC study would show up their failures? Is it that the Government would yet again be shown in a bad light and would turn down potential EC aid? In the UK, 55 regional studies have been carried out and 20 in Italy.

The value of the CAP is enormous. The guarantee section in 1985 alone was worth £835 million in approvals. The guidance section was worth £56 million. This latter figure, however, represents a fall of some £19.7 million on the 1983 figure and must be explained. The Coalition's failure to take up EC aid is underlined in a recent Oireachtas committee report on EC legislation where it states that in recent years a potential £42 million in FEOGA grants was not taken up for industrial development projects. Money has been lost on EC schemes such as the western package, the western drainage scheme and the farm modernisation scheme.

Can the Minister explain why 11 projects out of 273 due to be financed under EEC regulation No. 355/77 were in fact not carried out? The regulation relates to the improvement of the processing and marketing of agricultural and fishery projects. Answers are needed to these important questions and should be given. According to the Commission's 14th financial report, guidance section, dated 7 August 1985 out of 712 projects financed in Germany only six were not carried out.

I do not share the Minister's attitude to the protection of Irish neutrality in the draft European Act. The draft European Act has not yet come up for discussion in this House. It is interesting to note that a sentence, the inclusion of which Senator Dooge did not agree to when the Dooge report was being drawn up, has nevertheless found its way into the draft European Act approved by the Government. The Dooge report, section 2 on security and defence, paragraph 2(i).(v)., spoke of: "The will on the part of the Member States to create the technological and industrial conditions necessary for their security". The draft European Act states at paragraph 6 (b): "The High Contracting Parties are determined to maintain the technological and industrial conditions necessary for their security". I thought that little irony might be of some interest to the House.

It is obvious that our partners do not accept the Minister's restrictive interpretation. The Minister knows that himself. He came under pressure on 25 February when his EC colleagues began to discuss arms control negotiations in Geneva. I quote from a Cork Examiner report of 26 February 1986:

"Belgium Foreign Minister, Leo Tindemanns, and his German colleague, Hans Dietrich Genscher, have both made clear their view that security should from now on be discussed as a matter of course, as recent Treaty Reforms have officially incorporated political cooperation within the EEC Funding Treaty."

Then we have the Tokyo summit declaration which on the basis that it is supposed to be an economic summit is attended by representatives of the European Community. Statements were subscribed to on behalf of the Community, I believe for the first time, which related to military aspects of security. The summit also issued a pro-nuclear statement, which said: "Nuclear power is, and properly managed will continue to be, an increasingly widely used source of energy". It affirmed the full responsibility of each country for nuclear safety but said nothing about international safety inspections. The American raid on Tripoli was also endorsed by implication. We have heard no comment from the Minister for Foreign Affairs on the Tokyo summit communique. I recall in June 1980 the then Taoiseach, Deputy Haughey, specifically dissociated this country from a pro-nuclear statement by the Venice summit of the Seven.

Then recently we had the spectacle of the European Parliament, including Deputy McCartin of Fine Gael, voting for EC co-operation on security including co-operation with NATO on 15 May. Some of the MEPs in Strasbourg used the draft European Act as a justification of their position. It is obvious from all this that the draft European Act will place Irish neutrality under extreme pressure, because the language is so ambiguous. In particular, I have to ask why the Government did not at least make a declaration to be attached to the Final Act reasserting Ireland's neutrality. It is not too late to do this. I would venture to suggest that neutrality is of greater vital importance to us than the insurance industry.

I want to start by sending a message out from this debate to those people who order the business of this House to inform them that there are now many more Deputies who wish to participate in a debate on foreign affairs.

On the Order of Business, Deputy, when the order is made on this subject, is the time to make that point.

I am very disappointed that the amount of time allowed for this debate is such that it allows two and a quarter backbenchers to participate. I do not know who is going to be the one quarter backbencher today.

The area of foreign affairs has, perhaps, for far too long been confined in this House to Members' questions at particular times as to the welfare of Irish citizens in countries around the world, whether it be as a result of earthquakes or wars. Generally speaking, the interest taken by Members of this House has been minimal. This is highlighted today by the fact that the Minister, in his opening remarks, raised the issue of interdependence. If this House is to recognise what the Minister said, and the concept of interdependence, it is time we began to take more interest in what is happening around us. Therefore, I welcome the fact that there are more speakers offering today than there is time for people to participate. I very much welcome the fact that the Minister has recognised the interdependence of our country and the rest of the world. For too long successive Ministers have been too confined and too insular in their activities to realise that actions taken many thousands of miles away have an enormous effect on what happens here. We have a very full example of that in the recent disaster at Chernobyl and the ongoing problems in Sellafield.

A cloud of nuclear radiation coming across the world is not going to decide when it reaches Ireland that because we are a neutral country, it will not drop down on top of us and contaminate us. Therefore, what happens in Russia or elsewhere with regard to nuclear power and energy is very much a matter for the rest of the world to be concerned with. What we want are not pious calls for closing of plants which we know we cannot bring about, but world standards to be set which every country in the world will abide by. We will all, therefore, be better protected from each others' follies and accidents.

The time allowed here today does not allow me to go through a number of areas of the Department of Foreign Affairs Estimate which I would like to touch on. Therefore, I will confine myself to the area of the Estimate which refers to our development programme. Again, I will confine myself to two areas of that. I hope this House will get an opportunity shortly to have a wider debate on our development programme when the report of the Joint Committee on Co-operation with Developing Countries will be debated. First of all, I want to welcome the fact that the amount of money allocated this year to our ODA programme for development education has increased. This year, there will be a sum of £600,000. This is a big increase on previous years.

Part of that money will be used to fund the setting up of a development education support centre in St. Patrick's College in Drumcondra. This is the first consolidated development education project undertaken by the Department of Foreign Affairs. I welcome it as a first step in the area of broadening and mobilising public opinion so that in turn we, the politicians, can recognise that, if we are to meet our international commitments and responsibilities to the developing world, we need to be mobilised and assured that the people do wish us to continue to take up our commitments and responsibilities in the developing world, even if it means cut-backs in certain areas in our domestic budgets.

The development education support centre funded out of this Estimate is very welcome and will stretch its tentacles out into the first level, second level and third level colleges where it is needed and can be used to supplement and endorse a programme adopted by many of our NGOs over a large number of years when they mostly beavered away without much recognition or assistance from the public, the politicians or the Department. It is only in recent times that the recognition of the need for this development education has been highlighted as it should be. It is interesting to note that the Irish Bishops pastoral letter on development highlighted the need for development education and I quote:

The duty of helping these nations does not fall only on individuals and organisations; it is a duty which falls on the richer nations themselves and on their governments... it is our Christian duty as individuals to share our wealth and to help our needy brothers. It is equally our Christian duty to demand that the political authorities representing us act always with justice and responsibility towards less fortunate countries and be prepared to use all means necessary for this end.

In that pastoral and in many other statements issued about development education, there is an underlying message to us, as politicians, to the Minister and the Department of Foreign Affairs that not only do we have to fulfil our commitments through aid, but we also have to be prepared at times to take sensitive political stands.

This leads me to the second point I want to refer to briefly in this contribution. This is the question of Irish involvement at international level in mobilising and changing international opinion. We are particularly suited as a country, small and all as we are, to do that. I have just returned from a visit to some of our bilateral countries. It is extraordinary, despite the small amount of money in proportion to what other EC countries have to spend, the enormous input the Irish are making, not just in the projects they are doing but in the involvement they have in mobilising Governments and in involving themselves in the infrastructure of those countries. We should recognise this and realise that our Minister and those who speak for us in the international fora, whether at the United Nations or the EC, should be not afraid to stand up and be leaders on certain issues. I refer particularly to apartheid. The Government policy on it is very clear, but I am afraid we are slightly reticent in putting our point of view before the world on this issue. We must be prepared to take a lead.

I welcome very much the recent decision of the Government to impose a ban on fruit and vegetable imports from South Africa when it can be proved that prison labour was used. We have followed Sweden in doing this and that is a good indication that Ireland is beginning to take a stand. I urge the Minister to continue to work on this when he attends the Ministers' meeting next week. We can then hope that other countries will follow our stand. Our position is in accordance with the rules of GATT. Yesterday I met a group who told me there is a possibility that we can go further than we have without infringing GATT rules. I hope the Department will examine that so that we may be able to impose much more stringent action against the importation of produce from South Africa, whether prison labour was used in production or not. When I get certain information that I have requested I will let the Minister have it. In Denmark last week they passed legislation in this respect and I hope we may be able to set a lead in this respect.

I am disappointed that only 35 million ECUs were set aside to help the victims of apartheid. Sadly, shortly afterwards that figure was reduced to 10 million ECUs and I understand that only 5 million ECUs will be available this year and next year to help to assist the apartheid victims. The Department and the Minister must have the will to stand up against things like this. Let us try to get other European countries who have a much bigger trade involvement with South Africa — bludgeon them if necessary — into appreciating that you do not tinker with apartheid, you do not try to make it better: that you must dismantle it totally. It is not something you can titivate and try to make more acceptable to anybody. There are many people in Ireland who wish the nation to become a front runner.

I refute what Deputy Collins said, something which I regard as utter nonsense, when he accused the Minister because, he said — possibly to catch a headline — that nothing has been done that will make his period of office stand out in the world. Has the Deputy forgotten that under Deputy Barry's Presidency the EC produced policies which were supposed to be the most successful in the history of the Presidency? Has he forgotten the setting up of the New Ireland Forum and the achievement of the Anglo-Irish Agreement? Many of the senior officials we met in Zambia and Sudan were interested particularly in the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Therefore, to say that Deputy Barry will not leave a mark on the Department or the country is ludicrous. Apparently, what Deputy Collins is complaining about is that whether we like it or not the EC must review many of their policies, including the CAP. Up to recently Ireland was regarded as the poorest relation in the Club that is the EC. That can no longer be so with the entry of countries like Portugal and Greece. We cannot continue at the bottom of the list, hoping we will get the biggest handouts. Deputy Collins must have been complaining about the air of realism that has come into European Council meetings recently.

The morality of allowing food surpluses to be built up in Europe was highlighted by the African famine referred to by Deputy Collins. It was questioned by the whole world, particularly by our own Bob Geldof and I add my congratulations to him for doing in a short period what millions of people could not do: he mobilised the world in questioning the ethics of allowing food to rot while millions are starving. As I said, I support the Estimate and I hope that on the next occasion we will have more time for debate on it.

I agree entirely with Deputy Owen that we should have much more time to debate this Estimate, because foreign policy is the external representation of the national interest. As we become more and more involved externally in representing our economic interests and our stands on issues that have been stated emphatically during the years, it is vital that we demonstrate the maturity of this Parliament and nation by having a full debate on foreign policy.

I will confine myself to three or four matters in the hope that they will be developed. National interests are demonstrated in the foreign policies of such nations as the US, France, Britain and the USSR. Foreign policy is not something that operates in a detached way from the priority interests and principles at home. Therefore, it is time that we began to demonstrate in the interdependent world the Minister spoke about that Ireland will be in the vanguard not only in demonstrating our national interest but in making a positive contribution because of our background, history and common cause with so many other nations.

We must be concerned with helping developing countries. I will deal with our external obligations under three or four headings. First I will give my views on the role of the Department. A world economy recovery is under way. New markets are opening up around the world and a great opportunity is there for an open trading economy like Ireland to avail of every opportunity to use whatever strength we have to exploit markets that are waiting to be exploited. We can do that provided we have a national strategy for development — I do not say that in criticism of the Department or the Minister.

I will illustrate what I mean by referring to Denmark, which has demonstrated to the world that everything must be done in external promotion through one coordinating centre. We have been dissipating our resources for too long in promoting the economic interests of our nation abroad. We have many different agencies such as the IDA, CIT, SFADCo, Aer Lingus, CIE, CBF, the Milk Marketing Board and so on. We have many different agencies focusing on promotion of opportunities in markets abroad but we lack a co-ordinated approach and the personnel and resources to realise the potential that exists. There is no point in our distinguishing between the Milk Marketing Board, CBF and CTT in the work they do here. What counts is how they are perceived abroad.

We should follow the example set by Denmark. We should have an Ireland House, whether it be in Tokyo or any other place, promoting Ireland Incorporated, with every single contact being made through that centre. All the agencies I have mentioned should be co-ordinated under one roof. It is time we did this because it is the only way we can guarantee maximum impact from our limited resources. As the body that politically opens avenues for the various agencies, it is time our diplomatic services abroad led all these necessary developments. No longer can we afford to have embassies just for the sake of keeping us informed. I am not saying that is their only role: as Minister I appreciated the capacity of the people in the Department. I am saying that if we want to improve our impact and our market strategy abroad we have an obligation to co-ordinate the efforts of all under the aegis of the Department of Foreign Affairs in what should become more clearly a Department of foreign trade also. Other countries have shown us this is the way. It is time our foreign policy was more closely linked to export promotion and the national interest. Otherwise, it is simply a matter of academic interest, where we take positions in areas in which we are not directly involved. That is all very well but there is more to foreign policy than that without compromising our fundamental principles.

The Minister referred to this matter but that is not enough. I accept that criticism in this regard could also be levelled at his predecessors, including myself, but the matter is more urgent now than ever before. I have the highest regard for the personnel in the Department from my own experience there but I say that recruitment should be carried out in the knowledge of the necessity to have a much more sharp representation of the economic interests of the country. There is a case to be made in certain areas for appointing at the highest diplomatic level people with proven skills in promoting the interests of the nation. Other countries do that. There is no rule stating that the only way to achieve the highest status in representing Ireland abroad is through the established channel of recruitment at the age of 24 or 25 years. It is important that we consider that aspect.

The Minister said that the EC have been engaged in relaunching the Community and he went on to say that they have successfully confronted the budget problems of the Community. I have to take issue with those statements. Unfortunately, we are not engaged in relaunching the Community. What we are actually doing is burying the Community and the original principles and treaties. We are moving away from the Community we joined and we are launching something new instead of building on the Community we joined. I will give the House some examples to demonstrate my case.

Let us consider the Common Agricultural Policy for what it is worth. What has emerged recently from the Community has not been consistent with the principles of the CAP as enshrined in the original treaties to which we acceeded, such as the maintenance of family farms, the provision of guaranteed prices and the guarantee for farm income. Perhaps we could argue about the merits of the policy but the fact is it was the fundamental and only central policy of the Community. Instead, in recent times there has been a preoccupation with the budget and this has meant that policies are judged according to the funds the major countries in particular are prepared to contribute.

It is time that we in Ireland reminded all our colleagues in the Community, particularly the Federal Republic of Germany, Britain, Holland and France — this is no begging bowl stuff — that we do not come begging when we talk about adequate resources for policy developments. That is an obligation of the Community. Adequate resources to promote the policies of the Community are an essential balance in a Common Market that gives the major countries opportunities they can exploit much better than can the smaller countries. The Federal Republic of Germany, Britain and the other countries should never be allowed, either in argument or in presentation of their cases, to declare themselves the paymasters. The reality is that they gain more from the Common Market than any other country. For instance, in respect of the enlargement of the Community, they have the capacity to exploit trading opportunities that we do not have. The Common Market gives them these advantages which they quite rightly exploit but they should not be allowed to forget there is a Community dimension that says policies must be funded. It is vital that that be said loud and clear but I have not heard it said at all in the past two or three years. There has been much talk about the relaunching of the Community but what we have been doing is burying the Community. We have called down the god names, Schuman, Di Gasperi and Spaak, the great idealists, while departing fundamentally from their ideals. For the last five years we have had a Europe which contemplated its navel, reacting to internal problems, particularly those on the budget issue of the British Prime Minister almost exclusively, and the rest of us are expected to react. It is time we had policies for the development of small and medium sized industries, research and development, technology and an effective education policy built on the original treaty. This would make Europe relevant to all its people. That must be the way forward, but we have not been saying it. That does not mean that saying it would achieve that result, but we should keep saying it because it is vitally important.

I attended the European Council which launched the EMS. How long are we going to allow Britain to remain an external associate, contributing to the weighting of the ECUs while retaining certain rights. I remember the British Prime Minister at that time, Mr. Callaghan, saying that they would like to contribute to the weighting of the basket. He said this was a measure of their support for the EMS and their willingness to join the EMS at the appropriate time. We have waited eight years and instead of developing the stability of the EMS, Britain remains outside, posing many problems. We cannot force them to join but we can demonstrate that stable exchange rates — domestic European loans from the EIB and other agencies — should be a feature of our common effort to work together and any country which opts to stay out is not a fully effective member of the EC. It is time this was said.

I am not saying this just for the sake of knocking Britain because there are areas where our common interest must and should be promoted but this is very important. If we could arrange to borrow in ECUs we would be able to borrow a domestic European currency as distinct from other foreign currencies, such as the Japanese yen or the United States dollar, because we would be part of the system from which we were borrowing. It is time the Government fought much harder for this and demonstrated the positive effect it could have on our economy.

We had a special protocol when we joined the EC. Was it mere words? More and more that protocol is being ignored. This is an agreement and should have been called on in support of our case in terms of the impact that the cutbacks in milk production would have on our economy. That protocol guarantees that members of the EC would support the economic priorities of this or any other Government. We should have at least put it forward as an argument and if the EC ignored it, it would be seen that they were departing from that agreement.

I want to mention the Regional Fund and FEOGA guidance. It is clear that we are not availing of this fund. If we produce integrated programmes we can benefit to the tune of 20 per cent more than we are at present. We are merely presenting individual projects which come back to the Department of Finance and we do not see the additional funding at the end of the day. Before it is too late, we must produce integrated programmes for infrastructural development, be it, say, for Cork — and God knows it needs it — or the west of Ireland, in line with the proposed developments within the Commission. We have failed to do that over the last three or four years. Recently the director general of regional policy underlined this fact in a public address in the west of Ireland. It is time we utilised the funds to the maximum by productive integrated programmes.

The same applies to the development of agricultural structures and FEOGA guidance. Even in my own time as Commissioner, the take up from FEOGA guidance was deplorably poor. We have the capacity to develop the structure of agriculture, to improve the base of our agricultural production, to enhance our farm development programme, our meat and milk marketing, which are vitally important, the added value of food processing and so on, but our take up of the FEOGA grants is less than it might be. It is a question of maximising the benefit in a consistent and positive way. I hope the next time we address ourselves to these issues those of us who have a little experience and considerable interest will have more than 15 minutes to express our views.

It was agreed——

I appreciate that but it was not meant as a criticism of the Chair. I am addressing my comments to the other side who order business. I think you will agree we deserve a little more time.

This is not the time to raise this matter.

This is not a criticism of the Chair.

I thank you for the opportunity to say a few words on this subject, and I propose to divide my time with Deputy De Rossa. Before addressing the Anglo-Irish Agreement I would like to comment on the fact that the Minister Deputy Peter Barry and Deputy Nora Owen mentioned South Africa.

All civilised people deplore the régime in South Africa although there are hopeful signs that they are coming to terms with the problem, or at least recognising them. The Minister did not mention Afghanistan. I wonder why? Why do Irish people get uptight about South Africa and ignore the plight of the hapless people of Afghanistan who were bludgeoned into submission and raped by the might of the Soviet Union. Is it because we cannot see the atrocities in that country or in all the countries behind the Iron Curtain, that we do not comment? It is easier to speak about South Africa and ask that we do not buy their fruit but we continue to trade with the greatest threat the world has known, the Soviet Union and the satellite States. In my view, we should be as concerned with the plight of the oppressed people behind the Iron Curtain as we are with the wrong doings of the South African Government.

It is as a Border Deputy that I wish to say a few words. As a Border Deputy and a public representative, I have no reason to applaud the efforts of either the Taoiseach or the Minister for Foreign Affairs for their economic efforts in my neglected and deprived region, but I want to laud their efforts in producing the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I deny Britain the right to even a blade of grass in this country. They are the oppressors. For 65 years this country has been divided, and now the Taoiseach has reached a magnificent achievement in getting the British Government for the first time in 65 years of home rule and self-determination to acknowledge that they will some day vacate this country. That will ensure that the names of the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs will be written into the annals of Irish history. The task was not easy to achieve. It called for great diplomacy on the part of all concerned. As a public representative I encourage them not to be disheartened at the apparent lack of success in the Border region where the outrages that have been perpetrated over the last 20 years have reached into the heart of my constituency, my town, with devastating effects.

The Minister said that we need time to achieve significant improvements on behalf of the Catholic minority in the Six Counties, but it is not just the Catholic minority we have to be concerned with. The Protestant majority have paid a heavy price for the excesses of the IRA whom I describe as human animals who have cemented the partition of Ireland with blood by their excesses. The week before last eight people were butchered with appalling ferocity in the North. Just across the Border from where I live a young man whose family I know well was taken in his underpants from his sister's home and gunned down 20 yards from there. That is the background against which Fianna Fáil should come out of their ambivalence towards the IRA and the tragic partition of this country——

We have no ambivalence towards the IRA.

Deputy, please.

He has made an outrageous statement and I am entitled, on behalf of Fianna Fáil, to——

You are not entitled to interrupt.

I am asking you, Sir, if it is not in order to ask Deputy McGahon to consider what he says.

I know he did not mean it that way.

This arose on another occasion.

I reject any suggestion of ambivalence on our part towards the IRA.

The Deputy was in excess of his time and he will not allow Deputy McGahon to do what he is entitled to do.

I conclude by congratulating all concerned in the Anglo-Irish Agreement. It is an historic document which is in line with the plea of the Pope when he came to this country and said that peace cannot come in a climate of death. He identified clearly that murder cannot be called anything but murder. The Anglo-Irish Agreement is an historic document based on peace and justice for all concerned.

I thank Deputy McGahon for the few minutes he has given to me in this debate. I am sure that he will not take it amiss if I say that I do not agree entirely with his opening remarks in relation to where the threat to the world comes from. I would like to put on record once again this year that I am not at all satisfied with the time allocated to this debate. Two years ago the Minister promised that there would be an extended debate on foreign affairs and we still have not got that. The Minister should set about organising with the Government some extended time for debate of these very important issues. It is impossible for me or any Deputy to deal with foreign affairs in two or three minutes.

The Deputy should not waste his own time.

The point has to be made.

The point has to be made.

Really the point has to be made.

There was not a word about it this morning when this was made an Order of the House.

(Interruptions.)

You could have spoken on it for half an hour each.

In the minute or two that I have let me say that perhaps as a means of overcoming the problem the Minister should establish an Oireachtas committee on foreign affairs business. I know that the likelihood is that I would be excluded from such a committee, given the way these committees are formed, not because of my political view of foreign affairs.

I am sorry, Deputy De Rossa I am calling on the Minister to conclude.

I ask the Minister to consider that seriously. As a final point, he should keep in mind that our interdependence in this world in relation to foreign affairs applies as much to aid as to making our position known on different issues of terrorism and so forth. It is not good enough to say in relation to giving aid to other countries that we are not really concerned about what benefit we might get from it; we have a moral and humanitarian duty in that regard. We have a moral and humanitarian duty in relation to terrorism, whether it be from the US, the Soviet Union, Libya or any other country which may be involved in it.

It is very difficult to know where to start to reply in a quarter of an hour — I am complaining like the rest of the Deputies.

It seems to be bad economy to talk about not having enough time and then deciding to waste it.

I take your point. I am quite willing to have a day or two day debate in this House. The establishment of special committees is not the business of Ministers. These are matters for the House. The Minister responds to the wishes of the House if it decides to have a two day debate. If the House decides to set up a committee I am not sure what my role will be, but whatever the House wishes I will do. It is not a matter for me personally.

Deputy Collins asked about the overflights I referred to in my speech. Permission for foreign overflights and military overflights in Irish airspace is not lightly given. Our legislation requirements apply equally to all states. He wanted to know if it was selective. It is not. We examine each request on its merits. Our practice is to ensure in respect of overflight requests that the aircraft in question are unarmed and that they do not carry arms, ammunition or intelligence gathering equipment. Moreover, it is not our practice to accede to overflight requests where the granting of clearance would be prejudicial to the foreign policy or physical security of this State. Our practice is not to grant clearance flights which form an integral part of military exercises or military operations. That clears that technical point.

I want to refer briefly to Deputy O'Kennedy's contribution. I found it difficult to disagree with much of it. Certainly we should aim at the co-ordinated approach he refers to, but it presents difficulties when you think of the host countries with which we operate. For instance, a co-ordinated one office in Moscow or Saudi Arabia where the state buys would make sense, but you might be in danger of losing if you had a one house operation in New York where private enterprise is the main thing and they might prefer to see purchasing and promotion agents distanced from the Government of the country. Therefore, it is not all that simple but I agree with much of it. The Deputy is quite wrong in seeming to suggest that we have not been stating in the EC the necessity for balanced policies in the EC. We have been saying it very loudly and we have not been alone in voicing those concerns. Greece, Italy and Denmark have joined us in that. However, we must face the problem of over-supply. There is no doubt that more agricultural produce is produced in the Community than the Community is using, which was not the case in 1970-72. We must not pretend that we can wish that away or that the problem will go away or that the people will continue to fund the build-up of mountains of surplus produce. We must live in the real world as well as looking after our own interests in the EC.

Fianna Fáil policy in regard to the EC is quite difficult to understand. Although Deputy O'Kennedy did not refer to it, Deputy Haughey said in this House on a previous occasion that we should renegotiate our entry to the EC. Deputy Collins, the official spokesman, said that again this afternoon. I do not know whether that is the official Fianna Fáil policy because even though Deputy Haughey and Deputy Collins have said that in the House, when Deputy Haughey went to Strasbourg recently he said, on visiting the Parliament, that he was not calling for renegotiation but for an assessment of Ireland's position vis-à-vis the Community. That is a totally different thing. Deputy Haughey said, with great authority, in a slow voice and waving his hand, that we must renegotiate our terms of membership of the EC in the national interest but he had a very different thing to say in Strasbourg.

Deputy Collins and Deputy Haughey should get together, at home or abroad, and agree their position. Are they looking for renegotiation of our membership or an assessment of our position? The Government continually assess our interests in the Community and we will be very happy to give the House an assessment of the benefits of being a member of the EC. The transfer of resources from the Community to this country between 1973 and 1985 amounted to £4.7 billion. During the same period we received substantial aid from the Common Agricultural Policy, the social fund, the regional fund and the European Investment Bank. For example, in 1985 we received £836 million from the guarantee section of FEOGA which provides price supports for agricultural products.

The Community now comprises 12 members instead of ten when we joined it. There have also been two major disruptions and a recession as a result of oil crises and obviously that has caused changes. It would not be desirable if the Commission were set in cement and incapable of dealing with change. The net benefit to this country is dramatic and real and we should be careful when talking about renegotiation. The next time we have a debate on the EC or relating to it, I hope Fianna Fáil will outline their exact position.

Deputy Collins also said that unemployment here is above the European average. However, the point is that unemployment here started above the European average and I do not know of any other Government in Europe who have had to deal with the kind of problems we have had to deal with brought about by the ridiculous policies of the party opposite from 1977 to 1981. They were the cause of many of our problems.

I agree with Deputy Owen's remarks in relation to nuclear fallout. It is ridiculous for the Opposition to call for the closure of plants when they know that we will never achieve such closures. Deputy Collins must know that and Deputy O'Kennedy was wise enough not to repeat it. Deputy Collins is incorrect in claiming that the Minister for Energy misled the House on this issue. He argued the provision of the Euratom Treaty, in particular Chapter III, which provides a legal basis for the Commission to establish such an inspection force. However, the Commission, in acknowledging the formal request from the Government to establish such a force, indicated that the request is being studied. It is anticipated that this examination will be completed shortly, when the Commission will formally respond to our request.

I do not wish to deal to a great extent with the programme for aid because we will have an opportunity to discuss that matter in the future. However, I wish to correct what Deputy Collins said in referring to cut-backs in Building on Reality in relation to aid. I listed the increases, which are quite dramatic, in my speech, a 15 per cent increase in 1986 compared to 1985 and there will be further increases next year. For the past four years there has been an annual increase in the money we have provided for aid. While that is not unique, we are in a minority in providing such increases. The targets set in Building on Reality have all been achieved. It has been repeated here today that the provisions in the Single European Act regarding political co-operation in some way threaten our neutrality. They do not because it is quite clear that security in relation to political and economic policies is what is in question and does not in any way involve military or defence matters. These assertions can only be an attempt to muddy the water because any fair-minded reading of the Act would prove that what I said is correct. I wish to repeat that the Single European Act relates to political and economic security and not to anything else. Any other discussions on defence and security matters must be in other fora and not in the forum of political co-operation.

I wish to thank Deputy Owen and Deputy McGahon for their comments regarding the Anglo-Irish Agreement. It is an historic agreement and the work done on it is well appreciated by the Nationalist community in the North. They understand the difficulties of dismantling in a few short months what has been built up over 65 years. Deputy Collins questioned the period of 65 years and said it had only existed for 18 years. In a sense that is true, but the attitudes obtaining in the North and the sense of alienation felt by the Nationalists has existed since well before Partition. The agreement is addressing this and is trying to bring about a solution where the Nationalists can take part in the running of institutions in the North and feel just as nationalistic as they do now. We want to achieve this for the benefit of not just the Nationalists but also for the Unionists and to bring about an end to violence. We want to see reconciliation, peace, stability and prosperity for the two traditions.

Deputy Collins referred to the constitutional aspect of the agreement, to which he objects. I wish to say clearly to Deputy Haughey, Deputy Collins and Members of the Fianna Fáil Party — unfortunately, Deputy Barrett is the only one present — that, if they feel the agreement which was ratified by the House is not in keeping with the Constitution, they have an obligation to test it in the courts. The Taoiseach and I have said this on many occasions since 15 November. If they are not prepared to do that they should not refer to it any more. I ask Deputy Barrett to tell his leader and his spokesman for Foreign Affairs what I said. They should shut up or test the matter in the courts. It is not good enough to continually imply that the agreement is repugnant to the Constitution and at the same time do nothing about it.

It is proposed under the Anglo-Irish Agreement to set up an international fund sponsored by the British and Irish Governments. The United States Government very generously propose putting a Bill through Congress to contribute to such a fund. The Bill is going through at present and should be law within the next few months. An approach will then be made to the EC by the two Governments and an approach has already been made to the Australian, Canadian and other Governments. I am confident that they will mirror the generosity of the United States in contributing to this fund.

Vote put and agreed to.
Top
Share