Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 6 Mar 1990

Vol. 396 No. 6

Private Members' Business. - Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs: Motion.

Mr. Barry

I move:

(1) That it is expedient that a Committee of both Houses of the Oireachtas (which shall be called the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs) consisting of 13 Members of Dáil Éireann and four Members of Seanad Éireann be established.

(2) That the joint committee shall

(a) consider such aspects of the Government's Foreign Policy and, in particular, the Government's Official Development Assistance to developing countries as the joint committee may select; and

(b) oversee the activities and expenditure of the Department of Foreign Affairs

and shall report annually thereon to both Houses of the Oireachtas; and may make such other reports thereon from time to time as it thinks fit.

(3) That the joint committee shall have power to appoint sub-committees and to delegate any matter comprehended by paragraph (2) of this Resolution to a sub-committee.

(4) That every report which the joint committee proposes to name shall, on adoption by the joint committee, be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas forthwith, whereupon the joint committee shall be empowered to print and publish such report, together with such related documents as it thinks fit.

(5) That provision be made for the appointment of substitutes to act for members of the joint committee who are unable to attend particular meetings.

(6) That the joint committee, previous to the commencement of business, shall elect one of its members, who shall be a member of the Opposition, to be Chairman; and that the Chairman shall have only one vote.

(7) That all questions in the joint committee shall be determined by a majority of votes of the members present and voting and in the event of there being an equality of votes the question shall be decided in the negative.

(8) That the joint committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records and, subject to the consent of the Minister for Finance, shall have power to engage persons to advise it for the purpose of particular inquiries.

(9) That the Chairman shall, at the request in writing of a member of the Government or of not less than five members of the Joint Committee, summon the joint committee to meet specially.

(10) That six members of the joint committee shall form a quorum, of whom at least one shall be a Member of Dáil Éireann and at least one shall be a Member of Seanad Éireann.

I should like to draw the attention of the House to a printing error on the first line of paragraph (4) which states: "That every report which the Joint Committee proposes to name...". The word "name" should read "make". With the permission of the House, I should like to share my 40 minutes with Deputy Nora Owen.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Barry

The effectiveness and very notion of representation by this House is undermined by the fact that it is the least developed Legislature in the European Community. It is notable that Ireland is the only country in Europe which does not have a foreign affairs committee of its Legislature. When the Taoiseach was commenting to the House on his visit to Washington last week he said he had met with the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Houses of Congress. It is notable that we have no such committee despite the rapid and profound changes which are taking place throughout the world in Central America, Africa, the Far East, the Middle East and in central and eastern Europe where perhaps the most dramatic changes are taking place.

These changes require us to radically reassess our foreign policy and to identify new strategies and priorities. In many ways the changes taking place are like a massive wave hitting a wall and the wash from that wave will engulf us all if we do not look at how we can protect ourselves from what is happening, particularly in central and eastern Europe. There must be some mechanism through which discussion and policy formulation can be influenced. It is ironic that foreign policy can be discussed by almost every group, for example, debating societies in universities, county councils and at Árd Fheiseanna but it cannot be discussed by this House. At the Fine Gael Árd Fheis last weekend we had a lengthy debate on foreign affairs. This issue was also raised frequently during the questions and answers session conducted by the leader of our party, Deputy Alan Dukes. This issue is discussed at the Árd Fheiseanna of every party in this House. I am sure that the spokesmen on foreign affairs of all parties, people who have an interest in foreign affairs, the Minister, Deputy Collins and the Minister of State, Deputy Calleary, are frequently asked to debate matters of foreign policy in virtually every university from here to Moscow. Yet, it is ironic that we do not have any committee of this House through which we can debate such matters.

The committees of this House which operate at present are unsatisfactory. These committees are both understaffed and underfinanced. If we want to have a genuine Parliament we will have to totally restructure our committee system so that they are properly staffed and financed. I am chairman of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities. The number of staff allocated to run that committee is inadequate and the amount of money is paltry and totally insufficient to meet the needs of the committee, particularly at a time when Europe is looming larger for us. Because the committee system is so underdeveloped, the Dáil has to do business in plenary sessions which could more properly be dealt with at committee level.

We have not yet developed a means through which the Members of the European Parliament can report on developments in the European Community. A committee system could facilitate the reporting of these developments and also provide a forum for discussion between MEPs and TDs. A delegation from our committee went to Strasbourg and Brussels a fortnight ago and we hosted the corresponding committee from the House of Commons here. We also met many MEPs in Strasbourg and Brussels. All these people complained that an effective method of transferring knowledge from the European Parliament to the national Parliaments or having the views of the national Parliaments debated in the European Parliament had not been thought out or put in place in any part of the Community. I believe this is part of what has been referred to recently as the "democratic deficit". Contact at this level will be even more crucial and of greater importance when the integration of the Community takes place.

The setting up of a committee on foreign affairs is long overdue. I believe Fianna Fáil are most to blame in this respect. The Progressive Democrats, the Workers' Party, The Labour Party and Fine Gael are all in favour of such a committee. I was not an enthusiastic supporter of such a committee previously but because of the rapid rate of change during the past few years, and particularly within the past 12 months, I now believe it is essential that we in this House should be able to debate foreign affair matters with the Minister, or the Minister of State if the Minister is not available, in such a committee. If such a committee is not set up we will be sadly lacking in any effective overseeing role of foreign affairs.

The question is whether we are serious about our foreign policy, our representative democracy and whether we want to play a constructive and dynamic role in international relations. I think every Member of this House recognises the need for an effective mechanism through which we could discuss the fundamental changes taking place in the world. If we do not have such a mechanism we will be neither representative nor effective. The European Community will have to be restructured to accommodate the new situation in central and eastern Europe. We must be at the frontier of change in order to contribute to the peaceful and progressive development of Europe. There are many complex questions which need to be addressed in this regard: the form the unification of the two Germanys will take and how the European Community will deal with applications for membership from central European emergent democracies. We will need to have well thought out and distinct positions about these matters and not half-baked pious aspirations.

It is no use pretending the unification of Germany will have no effect on the Community. The Minister for Finance said rather naively this morning that he is going to insist on EC funding for Irish needs in the future. I am sure the Federal Republic of Germany has every intention of living up to its commitments to the European Community in the future as it has done in the past, but it would be silly to pretend that the elections on 18 March next — I believe the East German community will vote to join the West German community — will have no effect on the Community as a whole. There is bound to be a switch of emphasis. It will be a government of a much bigger Germany after the Federal elections at the end of the year. The opportunities for investment in eastern Europe and in particular East Germany, which will be available to West German business people and institutions may be far more attractive than opportunities in the present Community and the peripheral regions. We need to examine our position in order to ensure that our allocation from the Structural Funds will not diminish or that we will not have to contribute to an enlarged budget.

It appears to me at this stage that the two Germanys will unite and that the cost of that unification will be huge initially, but not exclusively, on the Federal Republic. I am not talking only about the cost in terms of the transfer of resources but the cost to the rest of the Community by the assault on the strongest currency in the European Community by imported inflation and the knock-on effect of that. I do not think any thought is being given to this question in this country. Obviously I am not privy to what is going on in Government but I do not believe any thought is being given to it by the ESRI, the Confederation of Irish Industry, the FUE and trade union councils. I would have expected them to be continually knocking at the door of Government demanding to know what contingency plans the Government have made in this regard and whether the danger of this is recognised. I am not talking about the danger of what some former war opponents of Germany may feel about the unification of Germany because I do not consider that a threat, even though I understand some former opponents in war might see that as a threat. Chancellor Kohl's statement today that the Polish border is not up for negotiation in any sense, nor is it to be bargained for in any sense, should allay some of those fears.

Unification, however, is a threat in the sense that strong nationalistic feeling among Germans is bound to influence the thinking of a Government in a united Germany. The necessity to transfer funds to emerging democracies in eastern Europe, such as Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia is a huge problem. All of these will need financial support and that must come from the existing budget or an enlarged budget will have to be contributed by us. I still believe that the importance of the Community, its magnificent success over the past 30 years and particularly in the past few years when it has fixed its mind on the Single European Act and bringing about an internal market by the end of 1992, was a major trigger to the emergence of democracy in eastern Europe. Those countries who are now rushing towards liberal democratic societies in eastern Europe saw clearly on their television screens the difference between the quality of life they had and the standard of living which was available to people in the European Community and that is what encouraged them to throw of the shackles of totalitarianism and to embrace democracy.

All this will have an effect on us. There is a document which indicates what the Group of 24 have in the last few months put into the emerging European Communities — food aid to Poland has totalled £320 million ECU; an initial sectoral programme for the protection of products worth up to 50 million ECU is under consideration by the Community's counterpart fund. The Community has granted to Hungary £1 billion medium-term structural adjustment loans. Operation implementation commended by the European Investment Bank is under way. The Community envisages making loans from the European Coal and Steel Community of two million ECUs to Poland and Hungary.

All these very necessary investments in eastern Europe will have another effect on the Community in as much as many of these countries are producers of agricultural goods, potatoes, vegetables, beef — all the products which are at present in surplus in the Community and which Ireland, in particular, is a producer of to a large degree and is at present exporting to the Community. Many of these products are subsidised by the Common Agricultural Policy. They will all be under threat from this new wave of imports, supported by EC funds, coming into a European Community that is already overloaded with some of these products. These things are bound to have an effect on the economy of this country but there does not appear to be any effort, in Government circles, to grapple with the problem.

The number of applicants for membership of the Community, leaving aside Austria, Turkey, Malta and Cyprus who are applicant countries, will increase if we think of the possibility that the EFTA countries may want to join, many because the world has changed in the last few months. If the Community cannot come to an agreement with EFTA, they will have all the economic benefits without any of the social obligations and that is a lesson that will be learned by members of the European Community. I do not know how this will be worked out, but it does appear possible that we will have Germany not part of NATO in the Community and there will be huge security problems for NATO. I do not think it is possible to have a neutral Germany. Therefore, there are many knock-on effects in the security field and whether we are a member of NATO or not they will have some effect on this country. Again, there has been no thought given to this. We will have Poland applying for membership, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Bulgaria. If Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania all vote for independence from the Soviet Union, if it is possible for them to politically cut their ties with the Soviet Union, will they apply for membership? Will Finland, Sweden, Norway, Iceland apply?

The institution of the Community cannot deal with that kind of influx even over a period of ten years. Again, to quote President Delors who first used the expression six months ago, the Community is not democratised in the proper way to handle these matters. The institutions cannot handle them. The Commission is itself a 17 member Commission which is not elected but appointed. The Council of Ministers is 12 at the moment; it could reach up to 13. A body like that cannot run the Community and I cannot see any attempt being made either by Government or in the Community to highlight these problems or, more important, to deal with them. Nothing that has been said in this House by members of the Government shows that they are even aware these problems exist. I am not privy to what is happening in Government, and maybe there is a whole team of experts working away in the Departments of Foreign Affairs, of the Taoiseach and of Finance dealing with all these matters.

If the Members of this House could be assured that such was happening, it would allay the fears of many here about what is actually being done to deal with the future of the European Community, to deal with the problems that have arisen in Central America with the change of Government in Nicaragua; about whether the Cambodian Agreement can be made to stick or whether the breakdown in talks there is only temporary and, as one Minister said, is about peripheral issues or whether it genuinely needs a push from the UN to get it going again; what is happening in the Middle East and whether the American and Egyptian Governments persuade the Israeli Government to come and talk with PLO members at the table. All of these questions, in a world that is changing faster than at any other time in its history, need to be discussed and without any sense of confrontation because foreign policy is largely a matter on which there is a common view in this House on all the major issues and on many of the minor ones. There may be a difference of emphasis but there is a common view among all the Members of this House on these matters.

We need a foreign affairs committee to deal with those and thrash them out. We need to know how the Government are thinking, even sometimes on a confidential basis, so that we can give help to the Government and not be continually trying to trip them up — and I am not saying we are doing this now. The Government need to know also what we in the Opposition Party think of what they are doing, of our perception of the dangers ahead and what help we can give them in bringing forward a foreign policy that is coherent, rational, reasonable and for the benefit of the country as a whole.

This motion tonight is not in any sense one-upmanship on the Government. It is put forward by us in the genuine belief that a committee of this House, of the composition I have laid out, dealing with foreign affairs would be of real benefit to the Government and would certainly be welcomed by the wider public. It would show that foreign policy was not something to be wrangled about internally on a party political basis and that there was a genuine consensus of opinion on both sides of the House. I wish to convey to the House in the strongest possible manner the need for a committee on foreign affairs. It is both urgent and essential to our contribution to the evolution of the political process in this State and to our effective contribution to international relations. I hope the Minister will accept this in the spirit in which it is offered, as help to Government and to democracy in the country.

Mrs. Owen

I would like first to thank Deputy Barry for sharing his time with me. I am very pleased to contribute on this debate which is a rarity in this House for exactly the reason this motion is down, that is, that there is no forum and there never has been in this Dáil, to raise issues and have debates. There is an opportunity here to raise questions and very often we have managed to get statements but what is missing is a facility for coherent debate, and for an exchange of views as Deputy Barry says, now and again in areas of consensus there has been no such forum for foreign affairs for Members of this House and of the Seanad. The structures in the Seanad over the years have allowed a little more flexibility in raising and debating issues of foreign affairs, although not satisfactorily. I am sure Deputy Higgins will outline that to the House. Nonetheless, Members have a slightly better chance in the Seanad of raising some of these issues.

To highlight how this House has been hampered in having any real debate, I refer to the statements here on 14 November when this House endeavoured to discuss the crucial issue of Ireland's role in the United Nations with regard to the situation in Cambodia and the continuing presence in the UN of a triumvirate containing the Khmer Rouge. Although the Minister agreed at that time to have the issue raised in this House, he would agree to have it raised only by way of statement, which meant there was no dialogue. He came into this House with a prepared script which he delivered at the end of a heartfelt debate from the Opposition side. It did not really matter what we said, the script was prepared and that was the way it was delivered, irrespective of the fact that there was consensus among all parties in Opposition and among his own backbenchers that this country should consider changing its vote at the UN. Sad to say, the Minister went as he came with his own opinion and did not listen to any expression of feeling from anybody else in this House. That is why I wholeheartedly support the motion here tonight.

Over the years there have been constant demands from various Members of this House — not just Members who are now in Opposition but from the Minister's side of the House, such as Deputy David Andrews, former Deputy Niall Andrews now an MEP, and Deputy Tom Kitt, all from Fianna Fáil — for this committee. I hope the Minister will listen to their cause and not feel threatened, as Deputy Barry says, by the setting up of such a committee. The existence of each committee will not be a threat to the Department's officials or to the Minister of the day. In the course of my work I have had the pleasure and honour of meeting many Deputies and Members of Parliament from Europe, including some from the Nordic countries, and from African countries. To my great embarrassment they all asked if I was there on behalf of the foreign affairs committee of my Parliament. I had to give a vague answer to the effect that I was the former chairperson of a committee of the House, but that that committee was no longer in existence. With some sense of shame, I have to admit that this House does not have a parliamentary committee on foreign affairs. I do not feel proud saying that. It is a disgrace that I have to do so considering the CVs of the Members of Parliament sitting on various committees. The first thing written in their CV is "Member of Foreign Affairs Committee", "Member of Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs" etc., but these words never appear against an Irish name. We have to hang our heads in shame.

The time has never been so ripe for this committee to be set up. In the last six months we have seen major changes throughout the world — in Eastern Europe, South Africa, Nicaragua recently and China — and these issues need to be discussed by Members of this House. It is not just for a few eccentric or way out Members of this House or of the Seanad to have to raise these issues. Since we do not have a foreign affairs committee very often those Members who dare to take an interest in these issues are maligned, belittled and considered to be out of touch with their constituents because they are dealing with issues outside Ireland. That is an insult to those Deputies and Senators who have tried to broaden the base on which we have been elected to this House and to educate the people that we are not here just to discuss the local telephone box, drains, sewers or whatever, but that we are have also to discuss Ireland's role in the wider world and the place we must take internationally. It is shameful that we have not such a committee.

In 1981 I had the pleasure and honour to be appointed and elected chairperson of the only committee in the history of this State set up by the Dáil and Seanad to deal with issues of foreign affairs outside Europe — the Joint Committee on Co-operation with Developing Countries. That committee was set up by Deputy Garret FitzGerald who had a very strong commitment to and interest in our relations with the developing world. The committee sat from 1981 until January 1987, when they were abolished by the incoming Fianna Fáil Government, again to their shame, showing their lack of concern and interest in this area. I acknowledge that they did not abolish the role of the Minister for Development Co-operation, and I am glad to see Deputy Sean Calleary here tonight in his role as Minister of State with responsibility for this area.

It is unbelievable that in 1987 the Government could have abolished the only forum that had been made available to Members of this House. It is widely recognised that that committee played a very dominant role in bringing to the forefront the relations this country has with the developing world. It was recognised that the committee were essential, that they raised the level of education and helped the non-governmental organisations and the Department officials to bring this issue to centre stage so that it would not always be considered the poor relation in the Department of Foreign Affairs.

Unfortunately, we have slipped back and my view is that the ODA programme has become once again the poor relation, in fact the forgotten relation. One only has to look at what happened in this year's budget. There was not a single line in the Minister's lengthy speech about our relations with developing countries, our ODA budget — nothing. Of course there was not a single line because he had not the courage to put one in. By stealth with one stroke of his pen he removed £1 million from our ODA budget. An Estimate was published in November 1989 providing an extra £1 million. Lo and behold, the Minister discovered he did not need that £1 million for the area it was intended. What did he do? He reabsorbed it into the Exchequer. Where did it go? We do not know. Was it given for the greyhounds or the horses? We still do not know. In a question to the Minister for Finance I could not elicit where that £1 million had gone, but one thing we do know, it was taken from the poorest people in the world. If we had a parliamentary committee on foreign affairs we would have been able to discuss such an issue, and perhaps put sufficient pressure on the Minister to restore that budget.

Since the abolition of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Development Co-operation we have seen the deterioration of this country's commitment to the Third World. It is interesting to note at this stage that in order to restore the ODA budget to the 1986 percentage of GNP, we would have to top it up by £23 million this year. That will show how much has been robbed from this Estimate and this budget. At the beginning of January that figure would have been £22 million but this £1 million which is being robbed in this year's budget brings the percentage down to the 0.25 per cent of GNP, the figure reached by Fine Gael-Labour Coalition in 1986. Instead we have seen the graph steadily falling. I quote what the then Deputy Michael O'Kennedy, Fianna Fáil spokesperson on Foreign Affairs said in Dáil Éireann in 1975, Official Report, column 1372, volume 278: "So far as this side of the House is concerned, we commit ourselves to ensuring that, irrespective of our budgetary or balance of payment problems, we shall set aside year after year the appropriate sum to ensure that we reach at least the target set by the Minister — 0.35 per cent of our GNP within five years", which would have been 1980. Here we are in 1990 and I defy anybody to say with any pride that aid as expressed as a percentage of GNP is 0.158 per cent. Shame on us all. Shame on every Member of this House that we were not able to convince the Government to bring that level up. Our level of aid is not in keeping with the views of people on the street. They give generously. Ireland was the highest donator to the Band Aid fund in 1985 for the people of Ethiopia. It is to our shame that our contribution stands lowest of all OECD countries.

Why can this issue not be raised more relevantly and more effectively in this House? The reason it cannot be raised is that the only mechanism open to me and others is through parliamentary questions where, with all due respects to the Chair, we get two or three minutes to ask the Minister supplementary questions. Then we have to move on to the next question. We have no committee on which we can tease out, coerce, cajole or seduce the Minister into recognising that there is unanimity on this issue in this House. I know the Minister of State opposite wants to see the budget increased but we have no forum on which to discuss it. When the committee I chaired for seven years were in existence we acted as a forum for all visiting dignitaries from outside the country. Many a day I got telephone calls from Members all over this House, from the now Government benches and the now Opposition benches asking me to call a meeting of the committee, albeit it informally, because some visiting dignitary or some leader of a country wished to talk to parliamentarians. The only way we could do it with pride was to call our committee together so that we were not meeting them for a cup of coffee in the bar. We were meeting them as elected politicians and we were able to discuss with them the issues that needed to be discussed. I was glad that committee were able to offer that kind of respect to this House. Shame on this Government for having abolished them.

I would like to stress another issue which follows on the motion before us. If a foreign affairs committee were set up I would like to see, as part of their standing orders, a statutory sub-committee to deal with our overseas development programme. I recognise that in the motion it is very specifically spelt out that we consider the Government's official development assistance to developing countries as well as other foreign policy issues. A separate overseas development committee is what I most wish for but I recognise that may not be practical and that there may be some advantages in combining our relations with the developing world with our relations in the wider world and drawing them together where there can be cohesiveness about both. However, having regard to the many foreign policy issues Members would wish to raise, I would like to ensure that any subcommittee set up would not just be for three or four months to deal with overseas development aid programme which would be pigeonholed and left there but that there would be a full-time sub-committee set up under the auspices of the main committee to ensure ongoing discussion.

In the course of the life of the last committee, we issued five reports, four of which I have been able to find: the Library could not locate the other. The first committee report that was issued was a full and frank resumé of our overseas development aid programme. I believe it is still being used in the Department of Foreign Affairs as a guide and reference document. I know it is also being used by many of the non-Governmental organisations and many of the voluntary groups working in this country to raise such issues. In my view it would have made an excellent White Paper which would have stamped a mark on our co-operation with developing countries. Unfortunately that report must simply remain in the Library as there is no forum in which it can be raised. We also carried out a study and issued a report on the effects of apartheid and of development in the southern African region, which is extremely topical at present in view of the changes that have commenced in South Africa and also of the effect of destabilisation in the southern African region. That was a very controversial report. In fact, this all-party committee made up of Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Labour and Independents recommended the introduction of sanctions on the importation of fruit and vegetables from South Africa and the then Government implemented that recommendation. We can at least see that the committee were not an empty, vacuous body sitting for the sake of sitting and chatting for the sake of chatting. They were doing relevant work.

We also prepared a report on the issue of development education because without education and without a foreign affairs committee of this House the issues relevant to foreign policy will remain as fringe issues in which only a small group will be interested. I say to the Minister that the small group are growing and one has only to recall the Minister for Foreign Affairs telling us that he received 600 letters on the Cambodian issue. The Minister will get many more letters and indeed he has received many letters on the Government policy on overseas development aid. He will recognise that the public take an interest in our relations with foreign countries, in our relations with countries outside England and Europe. I hope he will begin to take note of what the people are saying to him.

The area of human rights is one a foreign affairs committee could usefully look at. I think there would be general consensus on the issue of human rights, but again we have no forum in which to discuss the issue. Over and over again Deputies have to use Private Notice Questions or the Adjournment debate to raise issues of human rights infringements. Just this week I met someone from Peru who gave me a very disturbing report — indeed there were two UN reports as well on the infringement of human rights in Peru, a country that we do not hear that much about. However, I have no opportunity to debate this and all I can do is table a question asking the Minister for Foreign Affairs to raise this issue at some forum in Europe where he can do so behind closed doors and nobody else in this House will know what he says or what kind of answer he may get. The issue of human rights has to be discussed in this House.

The more sensitive issues of Ireland's policy on neutrality, of relations with countries who have carried out atrocities or of relations with the Middle East, cannot be discussed in ways other than the ways I have outlined. With no disrespect to the Minister of State, it is a shame that the Minister, Deputy Collins, is not here. I recognise that he has many calls on his time and I know that the Minister of State, Deputy Calleary, will convey to him the urgent call to recognise that we are lowering ourselves in the eyes of our European partners and of the wider world when we do not have the opportunity in this House to discuss issues of foreign affairs. As Deputy Barry said, no Minister in Government should see a foreign affairs committee as a threat, that rather they should see it as an assistance a back-up and a goading to take on board the wishes of the Irish people on foreign affairs issues. I do not believe the Minister for Foreign Affairs would have gone to the United Nations last November and voted on our behalf the way he did on the issue of Cambodia if there had been an all-party committee of this House which would have recommended to him that we should have voted against any motion that sought to give succour or support to the Khmer Rouge. He could have gone to the United Nations with strength and conviction knowing that he had the support of the country, of this House and the Seanad in the line he took. Instead he went with his own opinion, perhaps the opinion we have stuck with generally because he did not feel confident that he could go with our opinion.

I would like to see this committee set up with all speed. I believe the Taoiseach has given an indication in this House that he, too, would like to see such a committee set up. One only has to ask when. The Taoiseach has been saying that he would love to have a foreign affairs committee and that he has no problem with it, but not now, and he waves his hand in his usual cavalier fashion and says: "Pipe down, all of you shouting for this committee, I will let you have it some day", as if he were entitled to deny this House the right to have a foreign affairs committee. It seems to be a question of "Lord, make me holy but not now".

I hope this motion commends itself to the House and that the Minister will give us the good news that the Government will support the establishment of a foreign affairs committee.

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs (Mr. Calleary)

I thank Deputies Barry and Owen for their valuable contributions.

Foreign policy covers our bilateral relations with other states, issues pertaining to our membership of the European Community and our participation in European political co-operation. It is concerned with matters arising from our membership of the United Nations and our participation in the process of east-west co-operation within the framework of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) and in other multilateral fora. The promotion of foreign earnings, co-operation with developing countries and the welfare of Irish citizens abroad also constitute important elements coming within the broad scope of foreign policy.

Achievement of national objectives in these areas frequently entails complex and delicate negotiations, often on the basis of co-ordination with our EC partners and involving the reconciliation, by negotiation, of conflicting national and international interests. It is fair to say that many of these negotiations would stand little chance of success if conducted in the public eye.

The Government and the Minister for Foreign Affairs are answerable to the Oireachtas for their management of Ireland's international relations. Members of the Oireachtas and, through them, the public have a right to be well-informed and to express opinion on the State's foreign policy. Similarly they have the right to criticise Government decisions in this area if they consider such criticism to be justified.

Successive Governments have recognised that public understanding and debate of foreign policy issues is not only desirable but fundamental to success in this field. Without understanding of the essential aims of our foreign policy there can be little expectation of public support which is a crucial prerequisite of authority in all areas of public life.

It is for this reason that successive Governments and Ministers for Foreign Affairs have sought to ensure that adequate opportunities exist for Members of the Oireachtas to discuss and debate foreign policy issues. Such matters can be raised and are raised in both Houses of the Oireachtas, either in the form of special motions or on the Adjournment. The annual debates on the Estimates for Foreign Affairs and for international co-operation; the presentation of reports on developments in the European Community; reports on meetings of the European Council and Dáil Question Time all provide valuable opportunities for debate and discussion of our external relations, for example, over the past four months, foreign policy matters as diverse as Cambodia.

Mrs. Owen

Only a statement, not a debate.

Mr. Calleary

Eastern Europe, the Middle East, famine relief and emigration have been publicly discussed in one or both Houses of the Oireachtas. Over the same period an even wider range of issues and topics have been raised by Members of this House at Question Time. It is important for us to realise, and I make no apology for repeating, that all of these debates and discussions are open to all members of the respective Houses of the Oireachtas with the usual public reporting facilities. In the light of the above, I cannot understand the remarks by Deputy Barry and Deputy Owen that there are no facilities for discussion or debate on foreign policy affairs in this House.

The arrangement which Deputy Barry's motion seeks to establish would represent a significant departure from our existing and adequate procedures in this area. In essence it seeks to establish an institution with

—extensive powers

—a small and select membership

—and the responsibility of overseeing the activities and expenditure of the Department of Foreign Affairs.

With a mandate to discuss such aspects of foreign policy as it sees fit and to oversee the expenditure and operation of a Department of State and to send for persons, papers and records, there can be little doubt about the extensive and all-embracing nature of its proposed powers. The conduct of foreign policy is concerned with the achievement, by negotiation, of national objectives in the international arena. The stock-in-trade of negotiations is information, sometimes privileged information, and the political judgment of what is and is not attainable and acceptable, having regard to broad national interests. It is unlikely that many sensitive negotiations in the field of international relations could succeed if conducted in the public domain and on the basis of unrealistic and perhaps sectionally-inspired objectives. Sensitive or major negotiations must necessarily be conducted in confidence and with discretion. Our handling of communications with and information from other Governments, including our EC partners, must likewise be characterised by confidentiality and discretion. To do otherwise or to appear to do otherwise would be to impose upon ourselves a more serious handicap which would most certainly be to our disadvantage as an equal partner in the international community.

It is important to dispel any misunderstandings that may exist about the sensitivity of some aspects of our foreign relations and of related inter-Governmental discussions and negotiations and associated papers, records and communications. Sensitivity and confidentiality arise not because of a desire on the part of this or previous Governments to shroud the issues in mystery. The task of managing our foreign policy is already sufficiently demanding due to the growing complexity of international affairs. No one wishes to add unnecessarily to the complexity or to the growth of specialised bureaucracies. Sensitivity arises because we are dealing with other sovereign states either bilaterally or in multilateral fora and they, like us, have important national interests to defend or promote. Confidentiality of information and communications arises because we owe a duty of care to information provided in confidence to us.

It is perhaps in recognition of these concerns that the earlier version of Deputy Barry's motion provided that members of the Committee would be bound to secrecy when requested by the chairman or a member of the Government. It seems to me that this was a cumbersome and impracticable means of addressing the problem. It was also at odds with the fundamental objective of such a committee in the first place, which is to encourage public debate and understanding of the State's foreign policy and conduct of international relations.

Deputy Owen spoke about decisions being made in European fora behind closed doors on matters about which she could not find any answers. I think the same would apply to the first version of Deputy Barry's motion.

Mrs. Owen

With respect, we are not discussing the first draft.

Mr. Calleary

As I have already pointed out, current arrangements adequately facilitate public discussion of foreign policy matters by a committee of the whole of this House or of the other House. The motion before us seeks to establish a select grouping of Members of the Oireachtas, with a quorum of only six. I fail to see how such arrangements, even if they were workable, could be said to represent an improvement on our present arrangements. There are approximately 226 politicians in the two Houses of the Oireachtas. Out of those we have nine TDs and nine Senators on the Joint Services Committee, seven TDs and four Senators on the Joint Committee on Irish Language, 11 TDs and six Senators on the Joint Committee on Women's Affairs and seven TDs and four Senators on the Joint Committee on State-Sponsored Bodies, 18 TDs and seven Senators on the Joint Committee on Secondary Legislation of the EC and three TDs and three Senators on the Joint Committee on Standing Orders relative to Private Business. We also have the Committee of Public Accounts, the Committees on Procedure and Privileges for the Dáil and the Seanad and there are TDs and Senators who are members of the Council of Europe. Taking the 30 Ministers and Ministers of State, out of that number Deputies will see exactly what the situation is.

Mrs. Owen

What about the new Anglo-Irish body?

Mr. Barry

You forgot about the members on county councils.

Mr. Calleary

I would not talk too much about members of county councils being members of the Government, because you had it yourself, Deputy.

Mr. Barry

You are very sensitive this evening. I am sorry I opened my mouth.

(Interruptions.)

Mrs. Owen

You are very sensitive about county councils at the moment.

Mr. Calleary

I am not a bit sensitive but that gives the Deputies an idea of how things stand when the Deputies want two extra committees.

Mrs. Owen

I would like a sub-committee within the overall foreign affairs committee.

Mr. Connor

Are you suggesting that the other committees cannot work well?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Gabh mo leith scéal——

Mr. Calleary

I would like to answer Deputy Connor.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Aire, gabh mo leith scéal, this is not going to develop into a tête-à-tête. The Minister will make his contribution without interruption, as will everybody else. The Minister to continue.

Mr. Calleary

Deputy Barry spoke earlier about committees in the House and said that they were under funded and under staffed. That may be the answer to Deputy Connor.

Mr. Connor

You were rebuked already, Minister.

Mr. Calleary

Duplication could also arise in relation to the work of the Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities. As Deputies will be aware, this committee examines EC legislation together with domestic implementing measures and reports on them to both Houses of the Oireachtas. As I have already stated, the broad range of our foreign policy includes issues arising from our membership of the European Communities. The committee proposed in Deputy Barry's motion would have the power to discuss all aspects of foreign policy and to this extent its role could and would overlap those of the Joint Committee on Secondary Legislation.

Mrs. Owen

That is nonsense. You do not think we are going to operate them, doing that.

Mr. Calleary

The motion also proposes that development aid issues would be considered by the committee. I was very impressed with the work of the joint committee of which Deputy Owen was chairman in relation to development co-operation. As Deputy Owen said, the committee produced some excellent reports on a number of aspects of development assistance policy. The House will be happy to join with me in paying tribute to the committee's chairman and hard-working members some of whom, unfortunately, are no longer with us. However, I should also note that the absence of a committee in the subsequent Oireachtas has not hindered discussion and review of development assistance generally and of specific topical issues such as Ethiopia and Cambodia.

In relation to Cambodia, Ireland, together with all its partners in the EC, voted in favour of the resolution sponsored by ASEAN on Cambodia. We voted in favour of the resolution because the elements in the resolution seemed to us to be intrinsically valid. There can be no doubt of the deep abhorrence in which we hold the Khmer Rouge, as we explained in our explanation of the vote at the UN General Assembly. We have repeatedly said with our EC partners that there can never be a return to the policies and practices of the Khmer Rouge. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has been active most recently at the Community ASEAN Ministerial Meeting last month, in Malaysia in trying to exert our influence and the influence of the Twelve in reaching a solution monitored by the UN which would prevent a return to the horrors of the seventies. Many people appreciated the way in which we voted.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs and I had the privilege to respond to a number of debates and parliamentary questions. These have been sponsored by a very wide range of Deputies and Senators who have shown a deep interest and understanding of the issues.

Deputy Owen referred to the Minister for Finance not referring to the ODA reductions for 1990 in the Budget Statement. The £1 million cash reduction for the European Development Fund was included in the Principal Features of the Budget circulated to all Deputies, as is the normal practice for this type of change. I am sure Deputy Owen is aware that it was not the Minister, Deputy Collins, who made that reduction——

Mrs. Owen

It was Deputy Reynolds. It is the same. It is gone.

Mr. Calleary

Deputy Owen also raised the question of participation——

Mrs. Owen

I will try to explain that to the people in Ethiopia and in Africa.

Mr. Calleary

——and opportunity to discuss ODA. The Deputy has had more opportunity than just by way of parliamentary question. The Deputy had the opportunity of the Estimates debate and the debate on foreign affairs, on international co-operation, on Adjournment debates, in Opposition Private Members' time and many other opportunities.

In summary, the Government believe that the committee proposed in this motion would be inappropriate for the reasons stated and its establishment unlikely to serve the national interest. The amendments put down by Labour and The Workers' Party Deputies do nothing to alter this conclusion. I have outlined the opportunities that are open to Members of the Oireachtas to raise aspects of our foreign policy that are of interest or concern to them, and these are adequate.

In relation to both amendments, the Government are accountable to the Oireachtas, and through the Oireachtas to the people, on all aspects of foreign policy. One of the key aspects of that policy has been our long-standing adherence to military neutrality. We have always stood outside the military alliances, and now that the roles of the alliances are being redefined, our neutrality has acquired a new meaning and validity. New concepts of security are being evolved within the Conference on Security and Co-Operation in Europe where the Twelve and the neutral and non-aligned play a vital role. I am certain that the CSCE summit of Heads of Government of all 35 participating states which will meet late this year will help to bring about a just and lasting peaceful new order in Europe in which the security of all participating states will be fully guaranteed. Ireland's intrinsic national policy of neutrality will play its part in the redefinition of the European security concept in the context of the CSCE review of that process.

I have already outlined the opportunities Members have to raise aspects on foreign policy. I know the House will agree that the present time, when we have additional burdens arising from our EC Presidency, would not be suitable for initiatives of this kind, even if they were appropriate. As Deputy Owen said, unfortunately, the Minister for Foreign Affairs is not available here tonight although he could well be here tomorrow. That is an example of what can happen during the Presidency not only in relation to the Minister but in relation to me and officials of the Department of Foreign Affairs many of whom have extra burdens at this stage.

For their part the Government continue to have an open mind on the establishment of further Oireachtas committees and this question remains under consideration.

Mr. M. Higgins

I regard it as one of the great virtues of public life that people can change their minds. In that sense we hope that the Fine Gael Party will accept our amendment and that we can support their resolution.

Mrs. Owen

On a point of order, will the Deputy let us have a copy of the amendment?

Mr. M. Higgins

Deputy Barry can indicate his attitude to it as it will become clear as I go on. My interest in establishing this committee dates back a number of years. Indeed, I have irritated Members of the House — you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle and the Ceann Comhairle — in recent Dála by asking almost on a weekly basis whether it was the intention of the Taoiseach to set up discussions to establish such a committee. The answers were that it was "under consideration", "deep consideration" and so on.

The crucial debate took place in Seanad Éireann in December 1986. The summary of that debate is contained in volume 115, No. 6, of the Official Report of Wednesday, 10 December 1986 and in volume 115, No. 9, of 17 December 1986. On 10 December 1986 I proposed a resolution very similar to the one before us. I was told at that time that the Fianna Fáil Party supported the establishment of a committee but they were later instructed to withdraw their support and they abstained. A very interesting debate followed which was contributed to by one of the most distinguished Foreign Ministers we ever had, the then Senator Dooge.

The then Senator Dooge and Fine Gael Members of the Seanad spoke against my resolution. I and other Members of the Labour Party and University Senators spoke in favour. As the Official Report of 17 December shows, my resolution in 1986 to establish a Foreign Affairs Committee was defeated by 21 votes to 12. Since that time, in the Seanad and the Dáil, I have pressed for the establishment of this committee. I am not interested in comparisons but let me make one to show how many of the substantial matters before us this evening are so acceptable to me. Paragraph (3) of this evening's motion is identical to my paragraph (2) in 1986; paragraph (4) is identical to paragraph (9); paragraph (5) is identical to paragraph (3); paragraph (6) is identical to paragraph (4) and paragraph (7) is identical to paragraph (5). Paragraph (6) differs slightly and I will come back to it in a moment because it is very interesting.

Mr. Barry

They are standard paragraphs.

Mr. M. Higgins

They are, but they will enable me to point out the differences in reply to Deputy Calleary, which is terribly important.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Minister of State, Deputy Calleary.

Mr. M. Higgins

Yes, I am sorry. The interesting one is missing and we can discuss it later. That is why I was talking about how much we can agree with.

Mr. Barry

Deputy Higgins thinks it fell out by mistake?

Mr. M. Higgins

No. The amendment which the Labour Party propose was at the beginning of the resolution proposed in 1986 and it has appeared on the Order Paper which has been circulated in this and previous Dála. This is the Labour Party amendment to the motion proposed this evening. I move amendment No. 1: That is the principal — I accept the difference — difference between the motion proposed in December 1986 and this evening. It reads:

In view of the need to ensure the maximum public participation and political accountability on such issues as for example the maintenance of Ireland as a country whose foreign policy is independent and unconstrained by any military associations or alliances, and as a country whose neutrality is expressed in terms of its support for peace, demilitarisation and human rights throughout the world.

I want to turn to the manoeuvres behind the scenes in December 1986 and to put some straight questions to which, no doubt, the Minister for Foreign Affairs will reply when he comes back. Why is the Irish Parliament so unique that it alone, of all Parliaments of the Twelve, should be deprived of this committee? This evening we have listened to arguments which ranged from the existence of the restaurant committee to arguments that there would be breaches of confidentiality. Of course the truth is that as a background to this debate, which has gone on for years is a fundamental principle of democracy; it is that, in every other country in Europe—I speak of the Community and beyond — it is accepted that foreign policy is a matter that can be debated in Parliament and by its committees, that the public can engage in that debate and that one of the facilitating mechanism for that is a foreign policy committee.

It is equally accepted that there is a highly skilled professional activity that one may call diplomatic activity. What we have seen in the debate by people who were not elected to this House and who were not elected to it in 1986, is an obstructionist policy towards allowing the independent, political accountability of foreign policy as separate from the inherent — as we have heard it tonight in its coming out of the closet version — confidentiality or diplomatic activity. It is an insult to the House to suggest that we are not aware of the necessary subtlety, the necessary confidentiality, the necessary complexity of diplomatic activity. What is really being said is that the people engaged in these matters which I respect are the professionals and that you cannot trust the elected representatives to speak about foreign policy.

As I said, I had — and still have — a great respect for the former Senator Dooge. In column 778, volume 115, No. 6 of the Official Report of 10 December 1986 he said:

The matter was discussed at the Conference of European Speakers held in Copenhagen in 1984 and Dr. Steerkamp, who was a rapporteur on the relations between Parliament and foreign policy made the following remark in the introduction to his report and it is highly relevant to what we are discussing today.

Unfortunately, the then Senator Dooge chose the Danish Foreign Policy Committee. Foreign policy committees in Europe range across a wide spectrum. There is one in Britain which discusses now and again whether Canada might become a republic, it is the weakest part of the spectrum. At the other end of the spectrum the Danish Foreign Policy Committee have a great number of inhabitants in terms of their requirements for parliamentary accountability which might impede diplomatic activity.

There has been no attempt in the speech of the Minister of State to say whether he is against a committee, a Danish form of committee or a British form of committee. Is he simply against another committee that will be added to the restaurant and other committees of this House? We are witnessing a very interesting anti-democratic attitude. The public are interested in foreign policy, they elect us to this assembly and elect some Members to the Seanad. The public are entitled to have us discuss foreign policy.

Four years later, when we are in the glow of the European Presidency, we are told that elected representatives do not deserve this committee because we are Irish. The Dutch, the Danes, the British, the French, the Portuguese and the Spanish can have it; what is wrong with this Parliament that it cannot have such a committee? We do not differ in terms of the European attitude. It shows that there is a higher perception in regard to foreign policy issues in Ireland than in Britain, Spain, Portugal and the other countries I mentioned. Why then are we being denied this? What is so important in relation to what we are doing with such confidentiality, indeed I am sure with finesse and professionalism, that we cannot be trusted? How democratic is it to go on saying that you are to distrust your Parliament? We cannot develop that because the Minister of State did not use the argument that was put forward in 1986. He said, for example, there is a big difference in the evolution of thinking towards the Irish Presidency. Senator Sean Fallon of Fianna Fáil said in 1986 before they abstained that they might not be against an informative committee but the committee that I had proposed was an investigative committee. The big change in the evolution to the Presidency of 1990 is that they are against a committee altogether now. At the same time we are lecturing Eastern Europe, Latin America and elsewhere about being democratic. There is a unique disrespect for the parliamentary process. It is a view in relation to the hegemony of diplomacy over foreign policy that goes back to Talleyrand. It is a dated, old concept of diplomacy.

If any of us were serving on this committee, would people really think that Deputy Barry, Deputy Owen, I or any other Deputy would seek to disturb some sensitive diplomatic relations or some important negotiations? Why did the Minister state in his speech that we would represent sectional interests and so on? Is he really saying that we lack the integrity that members of parliament have in other assemblies in Europe, that we would not know what is in the interests of the country, what are the interests for Parliament and what is diplomatically sensitive and that we could not be trusted to observe that? I find that insulting but I do not blame the Minister of State for it because it is the tired old argument trotted out by people and the last thing they want is a dialogue about the nature for foreign policy.

This committee would not be just another committee in the Dáil. Many Deputies, some of whom are very brief periods in this House, become interested in particular aspects of foreign policy. Deputy Owen spoke on this matter. I was on the Joint Committee on Development Co-operation with Deputy Owen. Constituents tell Deputies, for example, they are interested in say, the issue of Cambodia. If a foreign policy committee existed the text of what we agreed could have been discussed around that time. The real answer we are being given is: "We understand drafts and texts but they do not and you just have to put up with it". Therefore the individual Deputies must go back to their constituents and say that Ireland has very subtle reasons for the position it took on Cambodia. The Government say: "We really understand it. You might not understand it because you are just one of those elected political scrubbers and your constituents will not understand it either, but we have very brainy people working on these drafts." That is what we are being told. It is disrespectful arrogance towards an elected assembly. It is, as I have said, rooted in the obsolete history of diplomacy, in every text written on diplomacy in the last ten years. I defy the Minister when replying to find one justification of these secretive principles. They are buried in the detritus of diplomatic history. Nobody practises them. People have matured in confidence to the point that they know what is or what is not sensitive, what it is important to respect, what it is important to be open about and so on. It has been part of the evolution of parliament. It is an old fashioned concept.

This secrecy that is being defended this evening has parallels in other Departments. When the Minister for Education was challenged a few months ago on the basis of the legality of some orders, she gave the stock response that they were doing this out of the principle of continuity, which the ordinary person can translate as "because we got away with it before for a long time we are going to continue getting away with it". There is another matter of foreign policy which no one in this House can recognise. Everyone welcomed Nelson Mandela's release. Why could we not deal with the ANC? It is an established principle that we do not deal with Oppositions. We could deal indirectly with the South African Government but we could not deal with the ANC. When was that principle established? It grew up among the people who know better than anyone who ever stands for election. Therefore if you stand for election in this country you disqualify yourself from certain kinds of competence in relation to international relations.

Many bodies are interested in this matter. The Royal Irish Academy held a seminar on aspects of United States foreign policy. It did not bother anybody that Henry Kissinger, out of office, swanned into the seminar and was met by officials of the Department of Foreign Affairs who listened to him. I suppose that is what you would call one of those subtle, sensitive and confidential discussions.

Deputy Owen made the point about the value of this committee. Perhaps the Deputy may be interested only in the whole question of food relief aid but that Deputy has the right to discuss this. You know, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, that the mechanism of Question Time and raising matters on the Adjournment is a totally insufficient one. Everybody in this House knows that. It is a nonsense to suggest that it is an adequate mechanism. There may be other Deputies who are interested in human rights and they might want to raise this at the committee at which there may be a visiting human rights person. We signed the Conventions on Human Rights recently, entering reservations on some of them, significant reservations to the one on communications and also the one on prisons. We would like to discuss why those reservations were entered in our name and in the name of the Irish people but we are not allowed to do that. We are told we can do it through Question Time.

The issue of diplomacy and foreign policy is being muddied. There have been good and distinguished Ministers and out of respect for one recent occupant of that office I will not give details of how exactly an aspect of foreign policy triumphed over a conservative diplomatic strategy. I am referring particularly to the decision of Ireland to vote at the United Nations in relation to the position being taken in Morocco versus the Sahara Arab Democratic Republic. It was widely reported in the paper and widely accepted, quickly followed by a Danish response on similar lines. Finland and many other countries took up the same position. I just throw this out as one minor example of where a significant foreign policy initiative can be superior to the drag of diplomatic conservatism.

There is a sense also in which this inclusion of parliamentarians is complemented by an exclusion of citizens. Not only is there no forum in this House to discuss these issues but in our educational system, due to a completely conservative attitude in relation to polical and social studies, there is no opportunity for discussing them in the schools. The response again of orthodoxy which we can leave indeterminate for the sake of propriety, was that there was too much emphasis on rights in the syllabus that was agreed and not enough on duties. Down went political and social studies which had a component on human rights and on development aid. Our children could have been learning about those matters. The same thinking that precludes us from having this committee precludes our children, who have a natural curiosity in all of those issues, from learning about them in our schools.

Then we come back to the pathos of the reasoning. Would we be too busy in the European Presidency for the Minister to actually attend? Do we really think we have too many committees? Would the establishment of such a committee dislodge the valuable work of, for example, the joint services committee or the restaurant committee? Does the House think that we might not have enough money to pay a clerk to attend? Then we get to the interesting reasons; the source about the opposition to the committee reveals itself in the Minister's speech. The Minister of State's speech contains a major inaccuracy and I suggest, out of respect to the House, the Minister should correct it when he addresses us tomorrow evening. The Minister of State in the course of his contribution said:

In essence it seeks to establish an institution with extensive powers——

Which committee in Europe is it closest to as it has been drafted by Deputy Barry? Where along the spectre of the committees from the British weak committee to the Danish strong committee does it lie? I suggest it can be found in a very medium position in relation to committees that exist in Europe.

Mr. Barry

It is the Netherlands.

Mr. M. Higgins

Yes, it is the Dutch committee which has been regarded by political scientists as the one that strikes a correct balance between, on the one hand, maximum diplomatic flexibility and maximum accountability to parliament. The Minister of State has thrown in to his speech in big capital letters the words "extensive powers" but he does not need to explain that phrase to elected representatives. I ask for the phrase, "a small and select membership", to be withdrawn by tomorrow evening because it is an insult.

Mrs. Owen

It is an insult to every other committee of the House.

Mr. M. Higgins

It is an insult to every Member of the House because in the terms of reference included in the motion it is suggested how the committee would be composed and how many shall constitute a quorum but to suggest a "small and select membership..."

Mr. Calleary

Six would constitute a quorum.

Mr. M. Higgins

I did not interrupt the Minister of State and he should not interrupt me.

Mr. Calleary

I am being misrepresented.

Mrs. Owen

The Minister of State is demeaning all the Members of the other committees of the House.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This is the third or fourth time Deputy Owen has interrupted. I am asking the House to listen to the Deputy in possession.

Mr. Barry

There are nine Members in the Chamber and I should like to know if that constitutes a small select committee.

Mr. M. Higgins

The Minister of State's reference to a small and select membership is inappropriate. It is for the Members of the Dáil to elect the Taoiseach, to approve his Cabinet who later receive their seals of office from the President. They are the people who have come out of the democratic process. We do not say they are a select group of people who have more or less grabbed something. We have accepted the democratic system. The motion contains a procedure for electing members, including members from the Government and the Opposition.

The Minister also used the phrase, "and the responsibility of overseeing the activities and expenditure of the Department of Foreign Affairs". Would it be a real outrage if the elected Members of Oireachtas Éireann had the responsibility of overseeing the activities and expenditure of the Department of Foreign Affairs? That is one of the democratic pillars we are recommending to eastern Europe and the rest of the world. Are we suggesting that the Department of Foreign Affairs, in relation to their activities and expenditure, should not under any circumstances be so degraded as to be put under the slightest scrutiny by the elected Members of the House? What nonsense, what arrogance and what a price the people pay for it.

Those of us who have worked outside the existing foreign affairs committee could comment on that. What is obvious after tonight is that we will continue with an ad hoc foreign affairs committee to which we will invite distinguished people from abroad. We have already received a number of people from abroad and we have requests to receive others. There will be a group in the Parliament which will meet visitors from abroad.

I worry about the attitude being adopted, particularly in relation to the amendment. Every now and again a debate breaks out, unrelated to this simple issue that is at the core of the amendment in the name of the Labour Party, on what is meant by neutrality. We have people beating their breasts and saying that Ireland is always neutral. However, when one examines their speeches one finds that they are saying that Ireland is neutral as long as the unification of Ireland is not at stake. Others say that Ireland is neutral but it is not ideologically neutral, that it is militarily neutral. Other people say we are neutral but that we might not be neutral in the future while others, like my party, believe in positive neutrality under which its external dimension is that one uses neutrality as a negotiating principle for building alliances in the area of human rights and so on, and internally it is used as an educative principle for building the case for peace, the morality of armaments expenditure and so on. It would be interesting if in a foreign affairs committee we could have a discussion on those issues but we are precluded from doing that.

The Minister of State made a statement in relation to significant initiatives that are taking place in relation to security. That was not included in his prepared text but I wonder what is the effect of such a statement that cannot be examined by a foreign affairs committee other than to set off a debate, much of it emotional ill-informed and in itself quite heated about whether Ireland's neutrality is at stake. Again and again on issues such as overseas development aid, the meaning of neutrality and events described by Deputy Barry in relation to Germany, eastern Europe, Cambodia and our relationship with the Latin world we called for debates in the House. Members are permitted to put two questions on such issues on the Order Paper and Foreign Affairs spokespersons, as in my case, are permitted to table one Priority Question. I am being told by the Minister in refusing to establish a foreign affairs committee that not only my rights but the rights of all fellow parliamentarians are to be restricted.

I believe very strongly in democracy and I admire the people who founded this State. I admire the people who created the space of democracy but I wonder did they make their efforts so that Members would be made impotent, so that the continual British secretive tradition of diplomacy could continue on from those who never agreed with our independence in their day and whose inheritors are going on to exclude us, the elected representatives, from a foreign affairs committee. I am sorry I have to be so direct about that issue. I must say that in the Department there are people of the finest calibre, intellectually and in every other respect. It was one of my great privileges to hear the many tributes paid to the present Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs, Noel Dorr, who has a reputation at the United Nations and around the world which is superb, not only for his intellectual ability but his subtlety and for the contribution he has made to the resolution of difficulties. Is it not very interesting that former incumbents of that office can give speeches to bodies that are not accountable in the House on aspects of Irish foreign policy expressing their opinion as to whether we should be neutral while we, the elected representatives have not got a foreign policy committee in which we can debate these issues? Not one single reason of substance has been advanced this evening. I appeal to all Deputies, particularly those on the Government side, to think very seriously about what not having a foreign policy committee does to their rights as well as our rights. What is at stake is not something partisan — it has nothing to do with Deputy Barry's party or even mine — but the integrity and the capacity of Parliament itself and our rights to give a proper service to a public that is very well informed and remarkably interested in aspects and issues of foreign policy.

Debate adjourned.