Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 28 Apr 1993

Vol. 429 No. 7

Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs: Motion.

Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Spring)

I move:

(1) That a Select Committee of Dáil Éireann consisting of 25 members of Dáil Éireann, excluding the ex officio members of the Committee referred to in paragraph (7), be appointed to be joined with a Select Committee of Seanad Éireann to form the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs.

(2) That the Joint Committee shall have power to appoint sub-Committees and to delegate any matter comprehended by paragraphs (4), (8), (9) and (10) to a sub-Committee.

(3) That the Select Committee of Dáil Éireann shall consider the Estimates for Public Services submitted to Dáil Éireann in respect of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation and report thereon to Dáil Éireann and the Select Committee shall have power to appoint a sub-Committee for this purpose.

(4) That a Bill initiated by the Minister for Foreign Affairs or a Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs having passed its Second Stage may on motion made in Dáil Éireann by a Member of the Government or a Minister of State be referred, with the concurrence of Seanad Éireann, to the Joint Committee.

(5) That the report of the Joint Committee upon every Bill originating in Dáil Éireann which is referred to it shall be set down for Report Stage in Dáil Éireann.

(6) That in the case of a Bill originating in Seanad Éireann, the motion of referral in Dáil Éireann shall constitute a Second Reading of the Bill and the debate thereon shall be confined to the general principle of the Bill and where the Third Stage has been dealt with in the Joint Committee, the Bill shall on its receipt in Dáil Éireann after being passed by Seanad Éireann be set down for Report Stage, the First, Second and Third Stages being waived.

(7) That the Minister for Foreign Affairs shall be an ex officio member of a Committee or sub-Committee which is considering—

(i) a Bill referred to it, or

(ii) Estimates for Public Services,

and may nominate a Minister or Minister of State to be such ex officio member in his stead.

(8) That the Joint Committee shall consider the impact on equality of policy and legislation in respect of the Department of Foreign Affairs and report thereon to both Houses of the Oireachtas.

(9) That the Joint Committee shall consider such aspects of Ireland's international relations, including its cooperation with developing countries, and such matters arising from Ireland's membership of the European Communities and its adherence to the Treaty on European Union as the Joint Committee may select and report thereon to both Houses of the Oireachtas.

(10) That the Joint Committee shall, in particular, consider:

(i) such programmes and guidelines prepared by the Commission of the European Communities as a basis for possible legislative action and such drafts of regulations, directives, decisions, recommendations and opinions of the Council of Ministers proposed by the Commission,

(ii) such acts of the institutions of those Communities,

(iii) such regulations under the European Communities Acts, 1972 to 1993, and

(iv) such other instruments made under statute and necessitated by the obligations of membership of those Communities

as the Committee may select and shall report thereon to both Houses of the Oireachtas.

(11) That any consideration by the Joint Committee, the Select Committee or a sub-Committee of security issues relating to Northern Ireland shall be in private session.

(12) That Dáil Éireann may refer reports relevant to the Department of Foreign Affairs to the Joint Committee for discussion, observations and recommendations, and the Joint Committee shall report thereon to both Houses of the Oireachtas.

(13) That the Joint Committee shall make an annual report to both Houses of the Oireachtas which shall detail:

(i) the work carried out by the Committee,

(ii) the work in progress by the Committee,

(iii) the attendance and voting records at meetings of the Committee,

(iv) its future work programme, and

(v) such other matters as the Committee deems appropriate.

(14) That the Select Committee, the Joint Committee and each sub-Committee shall have power to send for persons, but information need not be provided to a Committee or a sub-Committee if a Member of the Government certifies in writing that such information is confidential or that its disclosure would be prejudicial to the State's international relations.

(15) That the Select Committee and the Joint Committee shall have power, subject to the consent of the Minister for Finance, to engage the services of persons with specialist or technical knowledge to assist them for the purpose of particular enquiries.

(16) That in the absence from a particular meeting of the Select Committee, of the Joint Committee or of a sub-Committee of a member who is a Member of Dáil Éireann, another Member of Dáil Éireann nominated by the Party or group within the meaning of Standing Order 89 to which the absent Member belongs may take part in the proceedings and vote in his or her stead; and that Members of Dáil Éireann, not being members of the Joint Committee, may attend meetings and take part in the proceedings of the Joint Committee and of its sub-committees without having a right to vote.

(17) That Members of the European Parliament elected from constituencies in Ireland (including Northern Ireland) may attend meetings of the Joint Committee and of its sub-Committees; and that other Members of the European Parliament may, at the invitation of the Joint Committee or of a sub-Committee, attend particular meetings. Members of the European Parliament attending on such occasions may take part in proceedings without having a right to vote or to table amendments to Bills referred to the Committee under paragraph (4).

(18) That the Select Committee, the Joint Committee and each sub-Committee previous to the commencement of business, shall elect one of its members to be Chairperson, who shall have only one vote.

(19) That all questions in the Select Committee, the Joint Committee and each sub-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.

(20) That every report which the Select Committee or the Joint Committee proposes to make shall, on adoption by the Committee, be laid before Dáil Éireann or, in the case of a report by the Joint Committee, both Houses of the Oireachtas forthwith, together with any document relating thereto which the Committee proposes to publish, whereupon the Committee shall be empowered to print and publish such report and the said document, or documents, as the case may be.

(21) That notwithstanding paragraph (20) where the Joint Committee has completed Committee Stage of a Bill, it shall be empowered to print and publish the said Bill as amended, where appropriate.

(22) That the quorum of the Joint Committee shall be 8, of whom at least one shall be a member of Dáil Éireann and at least one shall be a member of Seanad Éireann, the quorum of the Select Committee shall be 6 and the quorum of each sub-Committee shall be a number to be decided by the sub-Committee when such sub-Committee is appointed.

(23) That no document received by the Clerk to the Select Committee, the Joint Committee or a sub-Committee shall be withheld, withdrawn or altered without the knowledge and approval of such Committee."

The establishment of a Foreign Affairs Committee is a landmark. It is many years since the idea of such a committee was first proposed; I am particularly pleased that it falls to me as Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs to present the terms of reference of the committee for the approval of this House.

In the formulation of foreign policy, we confront issues of fundamental importance in our national life. Through the values we espouse, the choices we make and the balance we achieve between competing priorities, we define ourselves as a people. It is entirely right that an all-party forum should exist in which the full range of issues can be addressed and policy options weighed.

The expertise and advice that such a committee can provide has rarely been more necessary. I need hardly emphasise the pace of change in international life — accounts of the flashpoints and trouble spots around the world crowd our newspapers and television screens. If there ever were easy choices in the foreign policy area, they are no longer available to us. The slogans and clichés around which Cold War politics were built have become redundant but with East and West no longer able to define themselves in terms of opposition to the other, there is an urgent need for a new framework of reference within which international life can be structured.

Despite much heralding, it is still difficult to discern anything like the beginnings of a new world order. With an are of trouble spots around the world, the situation on our own continent gives little cause for reassurance. Eastern Europe is fractured by ethnic tension while a degree of self-doubt seems to have taken hold in the West. The situation in the former Yugoslavia is shamefully reminiscent of the darkest period in European history. The question as to whether more could and should have been done earlier to stop the spread of the poison is one that the international community — the EC, the UN, all of us — must confront.

The challenge is to define the values which should guide Irish foreign policy at this time of radical change in the international environment. There is no single formula which will serve for all situations, but we can at least seek to identify the central ingredients around which policy must be formed. As we launch the Foreign Affairs Committee, it is important to suggest at least some of these key elements. I will begin by identifying the following — knowledge, consistency and focus.

The first of these, a basis of knowledge, may seem almost too obvious to deserve mention. However, our credibility as a participant in discussion, in the European Community, the United Nations or elsewhere, rests on such a foundation. We are not absolved by pleading small country status; our ability to influence discussion rests not simply on the strength of our convictions but on our ability to demonstrate that we are informed and worthwhile interlocutors. The first hand information on which policy is based comes primarily from our network of 40 or so diplomatic missions around the world: supplementing that, however, is the experience gained through a variety of other sources, including our involvement with UN peacekeeping and the overseas aid work being done by so many Irish volunteers around the world.

I am conscious that many Members of the Dáil and Seanad have considerable foreign policy expertise, sometimes with a degree of specialisation in a particular area. Through an effective use of the sub-committee system, I hope that the Foreign Affairs Committee will lead to a pooling and broadening of knowledge which will substantially strengthen the basis for policy formation.

By "consistency" I do not mean a rigidity that effectively strait-jackets policy but it is legitimate and proper that the same questions are asked, and equivalent standards brought to bear, in differing situations around the world. Exploitation and terrorism wear an equally ugly face in whatever continent they manifest themselves. Historical and cultural contexts differ but the fundamental human rights are universally applicable and require universal respect. In Europe, Africa, the Middle East, Asia and South Africa, we can try to unravel the complexities of troubled situations by applying the same basic tests. Even if the categories of aggressor and victim are not always watertight, there is rarely an equivalence of moral responsibility in conflicts. Our instinctive concern must be with those whose rights are being violated, whatever the political orientation or international standing of those who seek to violate those rights.

I am confident that, in taking an overview of foreign policy, the Foreign Affairs Committee will share my concern to ensure that these important threads of consistency run through our responses to different situations.

In parallel with our examination of problems around the world, we should not refrain from holding the mirror up to ourselves. By international standards our human rights record is creditable but we should frankly admit that we have not always shown ourselves enthusiastic in our implementation of corrective measures on the few occasions when international human rights tribunals have found this country to be in breach of human rights agreements to which we are party. We are not immune from the illusion that international human rights norms apply only to others or from feelings of resentment at `outsiders' telling us that our laws or practices are in breach of international human rights standards. If the Foreign Affairs Committee feels it necessary to prod our conscience in this regard, I will certainly not discourage it.

The third quality, which I have described as focus, is a little more difficult to define than the previous two. We should not be — nor as members of the European Community can we be — selective in our knowledge or concern. But it is perhaps overly ambitious for a small country seeking an effective foreign policy role to attempt to be equally active on all issues on the international agenda. There are usually certain touchstone issues — in Irish foreign policy, for example, these have traditionally been disarmament, human rights and relations with the developing world. Some problems around the world will also select themselves for our attention, whether because of an historical affinity, a peace-keeping or aid involvement or a human rights aspect which engages us. Our contribution on these issues and problems will tend to establish the defining characteristics of our foreign policy.

The Foreign Affairs Committee will have an important role in providing a barometer of concern on the multiplicity of issues we confront. I do not suggest that political leaders should always follow where public concern leads; it is essential however, that policy formulators should fully appreciate when a particular issue or situation has struck a chord with Irish people. Conversely, it is important that politicians and the public should be aware when and why a particular issue may be felt to merit a special policy focus, even if it is not at the time dominating media attention.

As all Deputies are aware, Irish foreign policy is increasingly formulated in partnership with other members of the European Community; this process will of course accelerate with the advance towards a Common Foreign and Security Policy under the Maastricht Treaty. Fears have been expressed that the distinctive Irish voice may become muffled within the CFSP; on the contrary, our ability to influence external events can be strengthened by vigorous and principled participation in the framing of Community positions.

The architecture of the Common Foreign and Security Policy is established in the Maastricht Treaty; however, its vitality and effectiveness will be judged by its implementation in practice. In the attempt to give shape and direction to the CFSP, it is important that we are clear-sighted about potential risks and pitfalls. At one extreme, the attempt to define common positions could drift towards a lowest common denominator approach which would render Community policies anodyne and ineffective. At the other extreme, in seeking to avoid excessive dilution, there is a risk that the voices of some of the larger member states could predominate in establishing the tone and tenor of policy.

For our part, we want a dynamic CFSP that ensures a coherent, respected and effective Community voice in the world. We want to see our national values and priorities reflected in the common positions adopted, while at the same time being prepared to make the necessary adjustment to the requirements of partnership that is incumbent on all member states. The balance to be achieved will sometimes be a delicate one, requiring good judgment and a keen sense of perspective, and the advice and input of the Foreign Affairs Committee will be particularly important.

So far I have spoken about the political rather than the economic content of our foreign policy. But foreign policy is as much about our economic well-being as our political self-respect. Indeed, it is where the two are potentially in conflict that the advice of the Foreign Affairs Committee may prove most valuable.

Many of the issues we encounter at political level have a signficant economic dimension, and there is of course a large proportion of foreign affairs work which is essentially economic in character. Our membership of the EC, on which so much of our foreign policy focuses, conditions every aspect of the economic life of this country. The promotion of foreign earnings is a central preoccupation for almost all our overseas missions and a key consideration in establishing priorities for the further expansion of our diplomatic network.

It is clear that, in the economic area especially, the committee's overview and investigative brief will extend well beyond the limits of the work of the Department of Foreign Affairs; indeed, the effects of our European membership are so pervasive that there is hardly any Government Department which is not to some degree affected by EC activity. I am confident that the committee can count on the full co-operation of all Departments in its deliberations.

I would propose to turn now to some of the specific issues arising in the terms of reference of the Foreign Affairs Committee. Firstly, let me state briefly what I think is right about these terms of reference before I try to respond to what some Members of the House may feel is wrong with them. In my view, among the very positive features are — the comprehensive mandate of the committee, the fact that it will be a joint committee of the Dáil and Seanad, drawing on the experience and expertise which has been accumulated in both Houses, the scope for the establishment of sub-committees, the fact that all Members of both Houses will have the right to attend meetings and participate in deliberations, without having the right to vote, the important linkage with the European Parliament, with all Irish MEPs having the right to attend and participate and MEPs from other member states able to attend by invitation and the fact that the committee may produce such reports as it chooses, following its consideration of particular issues or policy areas.

The principal focus of criticism has been the fact that there will not be a separate European Communities committee and that the new committee will subsume the existing Joint Committee on Secondary Legislation of the European Communities. I acknowledge also the concerns expressed about the earlier proposal that discussion on political and security issues relating to Northern Ireland would be held in private. I would draw the attention of Deputies to the important amendment which has been made to the terms of reference in this latter respect.

On the first point, I must confess to having some difficulty in understanding the basis for the concerns expressed. It seems to me that two separate Committees on Foreign Affairs and European Affairs would almost inevitably lead to overlap and duplication; it would be wholly undesirable that the energies and attention of Oireachtas Members should be frittered away in artificial boundary disputes between a Foreign Affairs and a European Affairs Committee.

As I have tried to suggest earlier, practically the whole spectrum of foreign policy issues is increasingly seen through the prism of our European Community membership. To try to discuss our attitude to the Middle East, for example, in isolation from Community positions on the Middle East could hardly make sense. The same is true of practically any other issue in the international political arena. It is almost equally difficult to divorce discussion on economic issues from the wider context. Any serious debate on EC agricultural, industrial or trade policies, for example, involves consideration of EC relations with the US, the developing world, its role in GATT etc.

I understand there is also a concern that subsuming the existing Joint Committee on Secondary Legislation of the European Communities will overload the Foreign Affairs Committee with consideration of essentially technical issues. For my part, I would question such a dismissive attitude towards the very valuable work that has been done to date by the Joint Committee. However, I feel that any genuine concerns on this score can be met by setting up a sub-committee specifically to deal with work previously dealt with by the Joint Committee on Secondary Legislation of the European Communities. I would have thought that, with a total Committee membership of 30, there is ample scope for the intelligent use of sub-committees.

I referred a moment ago to concerns expressed about the earlier proposal that discussion of political and security issues relating to Northern Ireland would be in private. As Deputies will note from the revised terms of reference which have been circulated, these have been amended to provide that only security issues will now be dealt with in private.

I would like to make my position on this security exception unambiguously clear. Like others in this House, I share a belief in open government and a strong sense that, in principle, members of the public should have full access to discussions being conducted among their elected representatives. I believe, however, that there are circumstances in which a departure from this principle is justified.

It is hardly necessary to emphasise the sensitivity of discussion on security matters relating to Northern Ireland. Security issues can involve, quite literally, matters of life and death. We have an overriding duty — and I am sure that this is accepted by all Members of the House — to ensure that nothing in our proceedings or discussions can put at risk the personal safety of any individual or group. The caution that would necessarily and properly be induced by the presence of the public and the media would in my view inhibit meaningful discussion on security issues relating to Northern Ireland. I invite Deputies to consider, for example, the difficulties that would be involved for the Department of Justice in briefing Deputies on these matters in a public setting.

As I have said, it is now envisaged that the committee's discussions on political issues relating to Northern Ireland will be in public. In initially suggesting private discussion on political matters, I had thought to encourage a depth and openness in exchanges that, given the special circumstances of Northern Ireland, might not be attainable in public. On the other hand I fully recognise the importance of ensuring sustained public debate on the crucial political issues relating to Northern Ireland. Indeed, since coming into office I have done everything possible to initiate and encourage such debate. On balance, and having reflected carefully on the arguments advanced by various Deputies, I am prepared to accept that the value of having committee discussions take place in public is likely to outweigh any potential disadvantages. The terms of reference have been amended to reflect this.

Before concluding, I would like to underline again how much I am personally looking forward to working with the Foreign Affairs Committee, as also is the Minister of State at my Department, Deputy Tom Kitt. I hope there will be an opportunity to participate in an early meeting of the committee, perhaps for a discussion on departmental Estimates as envisaged in the terms of reference. I would emphasise also that this positive approach is fully shared by officials of the Department of Foreign Affairs, who welcome the opportunity for indepth discussion that the committee will provide.

We are all aware that there is no monopoly of wisdom on the complex issues which arise in the foreign policy area. To date the opportunities for serious debate on many of these issues have been limited. While Question Time in the House is an essential and valuable part of the parliamentary process, the format lends itself to an adversarial approach and does not necessarily encourage the most considered statements by questioners or the most forthcoming attitude on the part of respondents.

The Foreign Affairs Committee will provide an opportunity for consensus-building on a basis of shared knowledge and measured consideration of options. Inevitably, there will be situations and issues on which consensus does not emerge, and responsibility for decision-making ultimately of course rests with the Government; the fact that there are honest differences of opinion cannot be allowed to paralyse policy formulation. However, with a constructive approach all round, I am convinced that a considerable degree of agreement will prove possible; and even where it does not the committee discussion will be immensely valuable in helping to broaden perspectives, improve the flow of information and overall enhance the quality of decision making.

I thank the Government Chief Whip, the Assistant Whip and the Whips of the Fine Gael, the Progressive Democrat and Democratic Left Parties for their assistance and co-operation in formulating the terms of reference of this committee. I am sure similar co-operation on that committee will augur well for it.

Mr. Hogan

I wish to share my time with Deputy John Bruton.

Acting Chairman (Mr. T. Foxe)

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Hogan

I welcome the principle announced here today in regard to the establishment of a Foreign Affairs Committee. Many problems were experienced concerning the workings of the House during the past number of years because of the lack of an effective committee system to deal with particular issues. Instead, we have had to rely on plenary sessions of the Oireachtas to deal with such issues.

I do not intend to get involved in the nitty gritty details regarding the options open to the Foreign Affairs Committee. On behalf of Fine Gael I welcome the establishment of this committee.

However, due to the wide ground that this single committee must cover, there are a number of issues with which the Government and the Foreign Affairs Committee should deal in the next couple of months. The budget for this committee and its sub-committees should be put on a statutory footing, with a separate Vote to ensure that it can plan its own agenda and that its operation cannot be compromised by the Depeartment of Finance or by ministerial whim. I am dissatisfied that all sessions on Northern Ireland issues will be in camera; but I welcome the change, at the suggestion of Fine Gael, that political issues will be heard in public session. As the Minister stated, there should be openness in regard to issues pertaining to Northern Ireland as that will enhance the workings of the committee.

I look forward to the establishment of a standing sub-committee on European affairs with its own secretariat and research capabilities. There is widespread concern in the House at the fact that we do not have a separate European affairs committee. I hope that an autonomous European affairs sub-committee will be given the necessary resources, research capabilities and secretariat facilities to make it effective. As the Minister stated, Europe is intrinsically linked with many of the foreign affairs issues with which we deal. Indeed, how we deal with the business of Europe in this House has been highlighted by the recent High Court decision regarding EC directives. That shows how lax the Oireachtas has been in validating and scrutinising EC directives. Through ministerial regulation and order such directives have been implemented by way of legislation in this House without proper scrutiny. That creates a huge information deficit between what takes place in the European Parliament and the general public. A European affairs sub-committee would provide us with information in regard to directives introduced in Europe and their impact on the lives of ordinary people. Many examples of this have been aired in the media recently, not least the controversy in regard to a directive on food hygiene and standards which has been implemented by legislation here. In general people are not aware of the impact such EC directives will have until they are enforced. This difficulty has been experienced in regard to many Oireachtas committees in the past number of years. Discussions at Oireachtas committees meetings have been of an historical nature and we have not had an opportunity to discuss a policy position before making a decision. Committee members have not had an opportunity to influence those decisions. I hope the Foreign Affairs Committee and other new committees will change tack in that regard.

I am concerned to ensure full participation of Ireland's MEPs in the work of both the Foreign Affairs Committee and its sub-committees. There has been a huge information deficit in regard to the workings of the European Parliament and the contributions of members of that Parliament in regard to Ireland's case in Europe because of the holding of committee meetings during the week rather than at the beginning or towards the end of the week. I am aware that most of the work of these new committees will take place on Mondays and Fridays, which will facilitate members of the European Parliament, and I will be seeking to ensure that this measure is implemented as soon as possible. It is unfair also to members of the European Parliament that they do not have a link with the workings of the Oireachtas and directly to the people through this forum. The committee will also need to secure adequate provision for seating in a public gallery during open committee sessions and to ensure that there will be broadcast coverage facilities for the committee and its sub-committees. It is important that we get the message to those committees across to the general public through the widest possible coverage.

Fine Gael's priorities in regard to extra-European policy on this committee include a thoroughgoing review of Ireland's Overseas Development Assistance programme, including the possible linkage of aid with democratisation and respect for human rights in recipient countries. Irish Government policy on South East Asia, especially in regard to Cambodia and Vietnam, is not well known. In addition, following the recent visit by the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, to Sub-Saharan Africa, could we have a review of the developments in that region, especially the Sudan, Ethiopia and Somalia, with a view to initiating an EC-wide emergency response programme to deal with famine and disaster relief in that region? We would like to see a review of Ireland's commitment to the Rio Accords on the global environment and the implementation of recommendations for Ireland's compliance with the Rio final text. Those are important foreign policy areas which we have not had an opportunity to discuss in this House over the past number of months.

The lack of EC initiative has been brought home to us in regard to the position in Bosnia. That has demonstrated a type of impotence on the part of the European Community in reacting to political issues, such as those occurring at present in the former Yugoslavia. I hope negotiations will be possible at the first available opportunity. The position in the former Yugoslavia should be the first issue on which the Foreign Affairs Committee should make a policy decision, particularly in regard to Bosnia. I hope the Minister will submit a paper outlining the Government's position on this matter to the Foreign Affairs Committee at the first available opportunity.

As Fine Gael spokesperson on European affairs and regional development, I will seek to ensure appropriate coverage of European issues by the Oireachtas. With regard to European affairs, my immediate priority will be to ensure that a full scale analysis of our security policy is carried out, especially regarding our role in the common foreign and security policy area, as provided for in the Maastricht Treaty. I will also be seeking a review of our defence and security policies in preparation for the intergovernmental conference in 1996. I will also raise the question of the conflict in the former Yugoslavia.

I should like the committee at the earliest possible opportunity to monitor our national plan for the disbursement of EC Structural Funds. In accordance with the letter and spirit of the European Commission and Parliament, I am anxious to ensure that control of these funds and the projects which they support is exercised by local democratic institutions and not, as is at present the case, by civil servants in the Department of Finance and appointed boards of one sort or another. I am concerned that the Government has not yet articulated any strategic position in the event of a "No" vote in the Danish referendum on 18 May. It is imperative that we know the Government's position in the event of such an unfortunate result and are in a position to deal with it. Irish national interests are badly served by a Government who does not know or is unwilling to tell the public what it intends to do. I hope that the Foreign Affairs Committee will redress that information imbalance.

Mr. J. Bruton

I wish to say a few words on the major issues which should be looked at by the committee. The biggest issue is the shape of the new European treaty which will have to be drafted after 1996. One of the great deficiencies in the Maastricht Treaty is that it is essentially an administrative treaty; it is not a treaty which sets out fundamental rights of states, local authorities or European citizens; it is very much French-style administrative constitution building rather than fundamental rights style constitution building of the kind which exists in this country and the United States. If we are to influence the type of constitution building in Europe post-1996, we need a fundamental debate on whether we should have a new type of European constitution. There is no James Madison or Andrew Hamilton, great constitutional theorists, to advise the European electorate on the sort of constitution they should have; we have had a bureaucrat's treaty up to now and I hope the committee will be able to initiate a debate on the sort of treaty we should have.

It is very important that the new treaty addresses the issue of the democratic deficit in Europe, which is extremely serious. If we are to have economic and monetary union, this means that financial and taxation policies and the level of borrowing for each member state will be determined in Europe, not in the member states. It is unacceptable that this should be done by an unelected Commission. We need some form of European Government which is democratically accountable. This must be provided for in the new treaty. The issue of the democratic deficit in Europe will be at the very centre of the work of this committee.

We will also have to look at the real choices which have to be made and on which the Government has not, to date, taken a view. For example, if Britain cannot join economic and monetary union, is it possible for Ireland to join without it? Given the level of our trade with Britain and that it is the only English speaking market near us, is it possible for us to be inside while their currency is outside, going up and down and disrupting normal trade flows? This issue must be examined seriously, it has not been properly thought through, as the recent currency crisis showed all too clearly.

We also must look at the legal basis for peace enforcement. The CSCE, the body we are told is available for ensuring security in Europe, does not have an enforcement role. The European Community and NATO do not have an enforcement role and the same applies for the United Nations unless its military Articles are brought into effect. If we are to have European union there must be a means of peace enforcement as well as simply talking about it. This must have a constitutional and democratically accountable basis. If, because we find it embarrassing to talk about these issues, we fail to put a democratically accountable system of European defence into force we will have a system of European defence willy-nilly at the behest of other states which will not be democratically accountable, which will affect us in the decisions it makes and in which we will not have a say. This is not an issue which can be postponed indefinitely. I welcome the fact that the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs has been willing to raise the issue of peace enforcement and I hope in his reply to this debate he will clearly state whether the Government will amend the defence Acts to allow Ireland to take part in peace enforcement under the aegis of the UN.

This amendment proposes that the work of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe should be taken into account in the work of this committee and that its members should be entitled to attend the committee. The Council of Europe is now the only body representing all Europe on which Ireland is democratically a participant. The UN Commission on Europe is not a democratic body. The EC represents Western Europe only and is not likely to represent Eastern Europe until well into the next century. The only democratic body with a treaty base which represents Europe, East as well as West, is the Council of Europe. It is essential that the role of that body is enhanced. Qualified majority voting should be allowed in the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe so that it can make some decisions. As long as we rely on unanimity in the Council of Europe, it will be possible for Liechtenstein to hold up the other 40 states in Europe from doing something, if that is what it decides to do. Therefore, it is important to have some system of qualified majority voting in the Council of Europe to enable it to do its business.

It is also important to stress that the only body which has a mandate in Europe as far as human rights is concerned is the Council of Europe. The Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs rightly referred to the role of this committee in regard to human rights. The issue of human rights is not a European Community responsibility, it is a Council of Europe responsibility. Therefore, it is important that the Council of Europe is involved in this committee. This is another reason I put down my amendment.

In the concluding part of his speech the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs referred to the need to build consensus on foreign policy. I am all for consensus but not too much. It is important that there is argument and difference of opinion about this issue. We should not take the view, because people on this side of the House, or even the Government side of the House, differ from the Government on an issue of foreign policy that this is somehow inappropriate. There has to be lively argument, and I know there will be. In regard to Northern Ireland, it is very important that we do not take a tribal view, that we feel we have to speak for our tribe. As far as I am concerned, the issue of Northern Ireland is one in which both communities are of equal concern to us. I am not suggesting that the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs has said any of those things; I am simply stating my view on these issues.

Mr. Spring

I appreciate that.

Mr. J. Bruton

I wish to refer briefly to a few other issues which will be of particular importance to the committee. I believe emigration will become the major issue in the early part of the next century. It will not be possible for Western Europe to simultaneously keep East European goods and people out of Western Europe. We will have to let their goods or people in; we cannot keep both out, otherwise Eastern Europe will collapse. If we restrict emigration, very serious human rights issues will arise and if we restrict trade, quite serious human rights issues will arise. It is very important to recognise that Ireland will be one of the biggest losers from any opening-up of either trade or emigration from Eastern Europe. This issue cannot be dodged as it will cause a major problem for Ireland. Therefore, we need to have a considered position on it. The East European countries will revert to Fascism or authoritarianism of some kind if they are not allowed to trade freely with Western Europe within a foreseeable time frame. But that is a matter with which the Minister for Tourism and Trade is concerned.

Equally we have the issue of global indebtedness, a matter in which, through the International Monetary Fund, the Minister for Finance is involved. As far as immigration is concerned, that is a matter for the Minister for Justice. The Rio de Janeiro accords are a matter for the Minister for the Environment. It is most important that other Ministers, apart from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, should be capable of coming before this committee to explain how their policy impacts on foreign policy.

The first amendment I want to move concerns the reporting of the procedures of this committee. I move amendment No. 1:

In paragraph (5) after "House", to add the following:

and in order to ensure that the Report Stage debate is a fully informed one, both Houses will make arrangements for the full computerisation and timely indexation of the report of the Committee's proceedings",

I am availing of this opportunity to raise a matter of considerable importance in regard to the reporting of this House generally. The system of reporting the proceedings of the House is a disgrace. The latest indexed report available is for as far back as 1985, producing indexes of things that are said in this House. Obviously, the index is the most important element of any report in that it enables one to find a particular debate in which one is interested. Producing an index of the Official Report of this House seven years late is a waste of paper. In my view we should be producing the Official Report and an index to it within a month of debates taking place. That can be done if the reporting is computerised. I believe that savings in printing of up to 40 per cent could be made if the reporting of this House were computerised. At present people take down what takes place here; they go and dictate it to another person who types it, not into a computer but onto a typewriter; it is sent out to the printer in typed-up form, who then has to convert that into some form of print. There are three operations whereas, if one used desk-top publishing, one could have one operation only, one person taking the report, typing it in a form that can be printed. Huge savings could be made in this manner. We could have prompt reports and have reports indexed. If we had indexed reports the Official Report of the proceedings of this House would be of much greater interest to people outside because they would have easy access thereto.

It is for that reason I have moved my amendment which would require, at least in so far as the Joint Foreign Affairs Committee is concerned, that the reports of its work would be produced in a computerised and timely fashion.

If the House itself does not take a stand on this issue, in terms of the way its business is reported, we will continue with the present unsatisfactory position. I hope the Tánaiste will accept this amendment and, in so doing, give a signal that that should be the practice in regard to other committees and proceedings of this House. Equally I am hoping he will be willing to accept my second amendment which states:

In paragraph (17), to insert "and Members of the Irish delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe" after "(including Northern Ireland)" and after "European Parliament" where it thirdly occurs.

It seeks to add to Members of the European Parliament Members of the Irish delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe as persons who would be entitled to attend the committee from time to time when matters arise which are of relevance to their work.

Mr. M. McDowell

I join the two previous speakers in welcoming the timely establishment of a Joint Foreign Affairs Committee. It is something of a mystery to me how this House has functioned for so long without a committee in the foreign affairs area.

I welcome the changes made in the terms of reference of this committee since the time it was first adumbrated in this Dáil session. An earlier proposal that the committee be debarred from discussing matters on which Ireland was adopting a current international negotiating position was in my view untenable and made a bit of a nonsense of the committee. I am glad to note that that stipulation disappeared at an early age.

I am also glad the Tánaiste has seen fit to get Government agreement to the proposal that there should be liberty for the committee to discuss policy matters on Northern Ireland otherwise than in private. In relation to the security issue, I take on board the points the Tánaiste made as to circumstances arising in which security matters could not be properly discussed in public. Equally I make the point that, in Northern Ireland in particular, there is a very thin dividing line between policy and security. I might mention one historical issue which has arisen from time to time — the "shoot to kill" policy that has been alleged to exist on occasions — and which obviously has security and policy dimensions to it. All I will say in regard to privacy in relation to security matters is that it should be kept to the minimum, that a liberal view should be taken of the interplay and overlap between policy and security matters. I do not think that would in any way prejudice anybody's or the State's interest in the matter.

This committee could transform the debate on foreign policy matters very dramatically. The very fact that there is a group of people, even comprised of 25 Members of Dáil Éireann and five Members of Seanad Éireann, who have a special duty imposed on them by these Houses to be aware of foreign policy dimensions of what happens in Irish politics, and indeed in international politics, is itself a step forward.

The Tánaiste speaks in terms of developing an expertise and knowledge on which to base the affairs of the committee. I agree with what he said in relation thereto. He could go somewhat further at this stage. I suggest that the time has arrived for some university in Ireland to be the location for an institute of international affairs. It could be done at very little cost; doubtless there is the academic expertise in our various universities to operate such an institute. Apart from having politicians speaking on international affairs, there should be a corpus of academic and research activity going on. The absence of such an institution anywhere in Ireland, of which I am aware at any rate, holds back discussion of international affairs. Of course, there is an Institute of European Affairs very active in one facet of our international affairs. There is room for another institution, perhaps in one of our new or older universities, which could do for Irish international affairs debate what, for instance, the legal body based in Trinity College — founded in large measure on the initiative of our President — has done for discussion in the field of European law.

I take on board also what the Tánaiste has said about this committee being one which will not be simply an outward-looking body but also be an institution in which, on occasion, we actually hold up the mirror to ourselves. In that context it occurs to me that we have a habit in Ireland of being extremely smug in relation to preaching international standards, especially in relation to human rights issues, while not conforming to those standards ourselves. In that context three issues occur to me where Irish law and practice is very deficient indeed. One is in our treatment of aliens, on which our law is entirely antiquated and arbitrary in its nature, quite apart from its implementation. The second issue is in relation to our treatment of people claiming refugee status in this jurisdiction. The third is an area in which we are happy to preach to others standards we do not apply ourselves. For example, we sent observers to inquests in Gibraltar. We give out about rules in Northern Ireland relating to inquests but have here one of the most under-developed inquest systems which suffers from very grave infirmities. When we preach to others standards of accountability and human rights we should hold up the mirror to ourselves. The institution of a Joint Foreign Affairs committee will play a valuable role in doing that.

I welcome also the opportunity to discuss the European and security aspects of Irish foreign policy in circumstances which are not adversarial and on which people do not confine themselves simply to making unilateral statements of view but must contend with the views of others. It occurs to me on occasion, especially in relation to the neutrality issue, that we have never really addressed the substance of Ireland's historical policy on neutrality. I am always struck, on reading accounts of Irish politics in the thirties, forties and fifties, by the extent to which Irish neutrality policy was not cast in the moral terms it is today. Countless Irish people today speak in terms of neutrality as though it were handed down forever with the 1916 Proclamation. If one looks at the extent to which during the Second World War and in the immediate aftermath statesmen such as de Valera and MacBride were willing to contemplate exchanging our overtly neutral position for other political considerations——

Mr. Hogan

And Mr. Lemass.

Mr. M. McDowell

——one will find that the issue of neutrality is slightly more complex than is ever admitted. In the context of the debate on neutrality, what influence does Ireland propose to exert on processes such as peace-making operations, given, as has been pointed out in the House, that our own laws prevent us from taking part in operations other than policing operations whereby the armed element supplied by Ireland carries out a gendarme role? It seems — the Tánaiste hinted at this — that we must amend the Defence Act, 1954, and the subsequent amendments made in the early sixties to permit Ireland to participate fully in peace-making operations.

The Tánaiste dealt with the capacity of this committee to deal with the secondary legislation of the European Communities. I agree with him when he says that the numbers involved in the committee should permit a sub-committee to be established to fulfil a function in that respect. I made the point in the past that I do not see the reason the matters to which Deputy Hogan referred, matters such as food standards, fall to be considered by a committee established to deal with foreign affairs. While I accept the Tánaiste's analysis that the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities should be unified in one committee, I do not see the reason that technical matters, even if they are being imposed on us under our EC Treaty obligations, should carry some special badge whereby they can be investigated only by the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

The Committee on Foreign Affairs being established under this motion will require from its members a considerable degree of commitment. In giving them nominal control over the secondary legislation of the European Communities we are asking them to do too much. We have fallen down in our duty to examine carefully European regulations made by the Government. It is strange that we are speaking in a context where the mechanism has been struck down by a judge of the High Court. The State has appealed this decision to the Supreme Court. This House has a lot to make up for in terms of its role under the impugned legislation which is to be decided upon by the Supreme Court. I welcome the fact that we are to have a prospective role in examining draft directives and regulations, because there is no point in examining regulations made under EC legislation as a matter of history. It is about time this House put a mechanism in place to allow Members make some input at a time it might have some effect.

In regard to the European Community, Deputy Bruton was correct when he said that the political debate in Ireland must now focus on the post-Maastricht Treaty arrangements that will emerge. I listened to what he had to say about the emergence of a European government and accept what he had to say about the democratic deficit, but I have not yet heard any view clearly articulated on a set of institutions which might be appropriate in a further phase of development of the European Community.

Perhaps we do not have people who will write federalist papers for us, but we need a stronger debate on the emerging Europe, on whether federation and confederation mean different things and the extent to which when we use one term we mean the other. I do not believe the member states of the European Community have an appetite for the establishment of a single executive along American lines to govern Europe in the future; but on the other hand I accept completely what Deputy Bruton had to say: that if we are to have European security forces which could engage in peace-making and peace-keeping operations on a European basis, they would have to be accountable to somebody. I do not see to which institution they could be held accountable.

Ireland has now observer status at the Western European Union. While the Western European Union and NATO may not be the institutions at which European security policy in the future will be decided, Ireland must square up to its responsibility to take part fully in whatever security arrangements are made in parallel with those institutions to make some sense from an Irish perspective of decisions which are, effectively, made in our name and which effect our vital interests in a fundamental way.

The time has come for us to look at the constitutional role of the Council of Europe to establish a mechanism to uphold basic human rights. The time has also come for Ireland to see whether it supports the idea of integrating those human rights in a constitution which reflects our European Community identify. This committee should hold such a debate.

A multiplicity of views will be expressed from time to time at the Committee on Foreign Affairs. However, I hope people will not participate on the basis of a quick fix sound by participation or look for an opportunity to posture on the latest atrocity or exhibit populist interest on individual issues. We are great at seeing in foreign fields what we consider to be departures from human rights. For instance, many people in Ireland have concentrated attention on Central America, South Africa, South-East Asia and so on, but it is most important that the members of this committee should look on it as providing them with an opportunity to approach international affairs with a degree of uniformity and consistency. This may mean that it will be less exciting from the point of view of the media but it will be more constructive from a national point of view.

It occurs to me that some people think they are detached from foreign affairs, but they are fundamentally mistaken. Foreign affairs are not detached from ordinary people's lives in Ireland any more. The European Community is a clear example; and what happens in the Middle East and Yugoslavia will have a direct repercussion on our way of life, depending on what attitude we and our fellow member states adopt.

The Committee on Foreign Affairs also has a role to play in relation to the United Nations. It is about time that an annual report was submitted to this House on what Ireland has done in the United Nations and on what the United Nations has done on issues which affect Ireland. In the past we regarded our membership of the United Nations as something we read about in the newspapers, but a change is required.

The Tánaiste said that the Department of Foreign Affairs and the two Ministers will be enthusiastic supporters of this committee. I hope this will be the case because in the past there was a notion that foreign affairs were properly a matter for the professionals and that politicians, by definition, were transient amateurs who only got in the way in conducting Irish foreign policy. The original suggestion that the committee should not be entitled to consider matters on which Ireland was adopting a negotiation position at an international level reflected that attitude. I am glad to see that has evaporated and I take it on trust from the Tánaiste that a wholly different approach will characterise the formation and development of this committee.

We as Members of a Parliament have shortchanged ourselves very badly. We are unduly bound up with the Executive of the day and its affairs. We are completely dominated by the requirements of the Executive and we are not — by comparison with other parliaments — an institution that has established and vindicated its own separate and independent existence. I know we are not a congress on the American model and that parliamentary government requires an interplay between the executive and representative organs of government, but I believe that in this jurisdiction we have established a most unhealthy relationship between Parliament and the Executive. Parliament is totally dominated by the Executive even though its votes apply to it and it is denied resources for research which are appropriate to a proper, mature and hardworking parliament. Parliament acquiesces in being kept in what I would call a condition of almost permanent political pin down by the Executive in circumstances where that is wholly inappropriate.

We are entitled to adequate resources to discharge our functions. We are not obliged to accept that as being in the gift of the Department of Finance or of the Government of the day. This Joint Foreign Affairs Committee, as well as all the other committees, is entitled as of right to resources that are substantial enough to make it work effectively. The Executive, and in particular the public service which works under the Executive and is accountable to it, owes it to Parliament to give greater resources to the parliamentary process to make it independent of the Executive to a greater degree than obtains at present.

The final point I wish to make relates to ministerial accountability. In West-minister if something goes wrong in the field of foreign, defence, transport or economic policy, Ministers are called before a committee of the Westminster Parliament to explain what has happened. In this jurisdiction that does not happen. As the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs said we have a regime of parliamentary questions which is overly adversarial and is most uninformative. It has been pointed out on another occasion by a tribunal that is sitting at the instance of this House that if there had been an adequate committee system and Ministers had been adequately forthcoming in the parliamentary process, there would not have been all this time, money and resources wasted on that institution. The reason given to Deputy O'Malley by the Taoiseach for not making Ministers accountable to the committees this Dáil is about to appoint is that they are accountable to the Dáil as a whole and therefore not accountable to any committee of the Dáil. This is paper thin and is obviously not based on a very good constitutional analysis. Ministers already attend in the Seanad for questions. If they can answer questions in the Seanad, for which there is no constitutional provision, there is no reason that they should not on occasion answer questions before a committee of the Oireachtas.

Mr. Spring

No.

Mr. M. McDowell

They have in the past, perhaps the Tánaiste has not been present for such questions. If there can be ministerial question times in the Seanad there should certainly be an examination of Ministers by committees of this House.

Proinsias De Rossa

When this Government took up office I made it clear that in areas where I disagreed with it I would relentlessly oppose it but I would support any matter that came before the House which I felt was a progressive development. I therefore have no qualms whatever in welcoming the proposal before us and congratulating the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Spring, for bringing forward a proposal to establish a Joint Foreign Affairs Committee and for agreeing to some of the changes which those of us in Opposition sought to have implemented.

Clearly the committee does not give those in the Opposition parties everything we were looking for but nevertheless I believe it is a good day for this Dáil that we are proceeding to establish a Joint Foreign Affairs Committee. This is important for a variety of reasons. Clearly it is important that this House has the opportunity to address issues relating to international relationships in greater depth than it has traditionally dealt with them. For the ten or 11 years I have been a Member of this House, foreign affairs have been dealt with in a very superficial way. We have occasional statements made in this House when a crisis of some kind or other arises and we have restricted debates on the Estimates from time to time when we all get up and make set piece contributions. We in the Opposition will challenge the Government position and the Government will respond. The various parties on the Opposition benches will make individual points but there is rarely an opportunity for us to challenge each other's positions in any real way. I believe the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs will present that opportunity and I have no doubt that on some issues at least there will not be divisions by party. We will probably have a much more real discussion and expression of views on the best ways forward on any issue.

This House is changing and how we conduct our business is changing fundamentally. That is inevitable if we are to come to terms with the modern world that exists outside this House. Power in Irish society is not located in any one place and it is certainly not located in this House during the course of a debate. Certainly the Executive of the day has power and has control in certain areas and can set down its policy. One of the most important developments in recent years was the Programme for Economic and Social Progress, which was not negotiated in this House but by Government with the trade union and employer representatives. We debated it after the fact——

Mr. M. McDowell

——so did the Cabinet.

Proinsias De Rossa

——and we had an input at that level. This House has to reform itself if it is not only to be seen to be relevant but to act effectively. That is one reason I welcome the opportunity to participate in this committee.

The committee will have a very heavy agenda. Almost immediately there are issues that need to be debated urgently, and I propose to deal with a number of these in the course of my contribution. An important general point is that the committee will not be effective if it does not have the resources to deal with the job. When I talk about resources for the committee I am also talking about the need for resources for Deputies to do their job. I am not suggesting for a minute that there should be an open purse——

Mr. Spring

There is not.

Proinsias De Rossa

——into which we can dip to claim expenses, but Deputies, particularly backbench Deputies and those in smaller parties, do not have resources for research or to produce documentation to support a position presented at a committee. For example, in regard to the Employment Committee which met last year the making of an allocation to parties who participated to pursue areas of research was a worthwhile innovation. Perhaps such an allocation will be considered for all committees. I appreciate there is not an endless supply of cash but if genuine indepth discussion and consideration of issues is to take place those participating must be facilitated to present the best possible case. I ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs seriously to consider making available resources, perhaps not to individual Deputies or parties but for a research agency, which would be available to Deputies. The Library of this House does its best to provide as much assistance as possible to Deputies but it is grossly inadequate for the job required of committees, only one of which we are discussing today.

The agenda of the Foreign Affairs Committee is almost written by the current state of events in the world and, indeed, in Ireland. Deputy Shatter mentioned Bosnia and the need for the committee urgently to address that issue. The former Yugoslavia presents us all with a degree of concern and indeed confusion as to what precisely can be done. When discussing the appointment of observers to Yugoslavia about 12 months ago I made the point that those demanding the break up of Yugoslavia might rue the day because of the forces that would be unleashed. Unfortunately, that prediction has come to pass. A myriad of factions and groups with religious, nationalist and ethnic labels has emerged in former Yugoslavia and the demands and counter demands being made for territory will not be easily resolved. I have no magic solution, nor I am sure has the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the European Community. It could be simple to produce a scheme which on paper might work, but we all know from experience in Ireland that passions are released when national claims and counter claims are top of the agenda.

I am not claiming to have a solution to the problem. However, I caution against any escalation of military intervention by the United Nations. I am not saying this approach may not eventually be necessary but it is a step which should be taken only as a very last resort. We must try to ensure that the current sanctions — the earlier round of sanctions were half-heartedly implemented for a variety of reasons — will have some effect in deescalating the violence and the urge towards grabbing territory in that unfortunate land.

We should not sit back and assume that is the only problem that exists in this regard. There is potential throughout eastern Europe for similar problems. Unless the United Nations addresses the question of intervening at this point before the position in other areas descends to that in former Yugoslavia, unless it considers ways in which rights can be guaranteed to minorities, whether it would be advisable that UN forces move into areas where there is likely to be conflict in the future and try to mediate peaceful solutions, Europe generally will enter a period of severe crisis. In these circumstances the Maastricht Treaty with all its supposed benefits will be of little use; it will be just hot air.

It is important that we consider the operation of the United Nations and the contribution Ireland can make in proposing reform of the United Nations. This is an agency which is still by and large based on Cold War thinking and Cold War politics. The Security Council clearly needs to be reformed. I fear that to a significant extent that matter is being ignored, and that is not good enough. If we are to have an effective body that is concerned about the resolution of conflicts between states and even between conflicting ethnic minorities within states, the United Nations needs to be reformed.

This leads me to the question of Irish neutrality. On a number of occasions in this House I made a point in relation to Irish neutrality which is not in accordance with the traditional view held by some parties. I have long stated that traditional Irish neutrality is no longer a valid concept and that we will have to consider ways, particularly within the EC, as to how we can contribute to the development of a common security approach, based on disarmament in the first instance, certainly nuclear disarmament, on a peaceful reconciliation of differences and on ensuring that the people of Europe have a say in the development of Europe. These are major issues which I do not have time to deal with in detail now. I attempted during the Maastricht debate to present a position on that matter, which was to some extent distorted and misrepresented, but that is normal in referenda campaigns. The Foreign Affairs Committee has a very significant role to play in defining precisely what our position is in the world and how we relate to it.

I want to deal briefly with the question of Northern Ireland, a key issue with which this committee will have to deal. I welcome the Minister's acceptance of our proposal that at least the political aspects of Northern Ireland will not be dealt with behind closed doors.

I can understand reservations about security but I do not fully accept the argument. The question of security in Northern Ireland, in so far as it relates to day-to-day operations and operational matters, clearly entails risks but there is a need for us to openly debate the whole question of security and attitudes to the security forces, which is primarily a political concern. There are still parties in Northern Ireland who refuse to accept the legitimcy of the RUC as a police force in Northern Ireland, I am not referring to Sinn Féin. This is a question which we must consider dispassionately and we should not be afraid to acknowledge that we have to drop a lot of our traditional views on security.

In the recent debate on Northern Ireland in this House I made the point that if we are to seriously address the question of peace on this island, we must drop the pretence that it is either feasible or desirable to seek to eliminate the political border. That was a very deliberately crafted statement. I am not pretending to be trying to eliminate the division between the people on this island, I am talking about a political border and the constitutional status of Northern Ireland and the Republic. I agree with the Taoiseach that Articles 2 and 3 are not a formula for peace, but they represent a particular view of Northern Ireland and the relationship between this State, Northern Ireland and Britain which must be addressed. It is based on the pretence that we have a right to impose our sovereignty on Northern Ireland and its people.

What is most regrettable and what concerns me particularly about the current meetings between John Hume and Gerry Adams is that they stated they are seeking to establish an overall political strategy for Ireland. Given the position of the Provos, that is an extraordinary statement. It is a refusal, a failure to recognise the reality of the division between the people on this island and the need for compromise on national positions.

We all want peace. I am concerned that we are increasingly linking peace to words like "sustainable" and "with justice". We all want peace with justice which will last but if I could get peace tomorrow without a guarantee that it will be sustainable or with justice I would take it. I want peace. When we have peace we can proceed, politically and democratically, to reduce the fears that exist on all sides in Northern Ireland, and realisticly discuss the claims and counter claims about how we can live together, how both economies can be developed and how the poor on both sides of the island can be lifted from poverty. I appeal to people not to fall into the trap of saying that we do not want peace unless it is peace with justice and sustainable.

Mr. E. Ryan

I congratulate the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Government for introducing this motion. In doing so the Taoiseach is implementing a commitment of his last Government to change and reform Dáil procedure. As the Tánaiste suggested, a revamped committee system is essential to the efficiency and answerability of the Oireachtas. It is important that in all areas of public policy, not only should the detail be examined, but also the premise that underlies and informs policy direction. This is the only sensible way in which the Oireachtas can legislate in a complete, informed and responsible manner.

In terms of the proposal before the House, a Foreign Affairs Committee will enable the Oireachtas to establish and maintain a formal contact not only with the Civil Service, in this case, with the Department of Foreign Affairs, but also with those usually referred to as "interested parties": those involved in Third World development, famine relief, neutrality and disarmament, emigrant welfare and assistance and so forth. Such people, and the agencies whom they represent, are far more than "interested parties" to Irish foreign policy. They are very involved in the presentation and projection of Ireland overseas. One need only consider the trips made by the former Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy David Andrews, alone and with the President, and the trips made recently by the junior Minister, Deputy Tom Kitt, to Somalia and other places in Africa, to realise how huge problems have been highlighted throughout the world. I am sure the agencies who invited and encouraged them to go derived great support from those visits and they have gone a long way towards strengthening their role on the ground. I hope the proposed committee will call on their experience and observations, especially to highlight the human dimension of foreign policy.

It could be argued that in recent years Ireland has not developed the distinctive role within the United Nations charted by Frank Aiken, Freddie Boland and others. Instead, we have embraced EPC as if this was inconsistent with expanding our role at the UN. The two are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, given Ireland's traditional involvement in both the UN and the Third World, as well as our policy of military neutrality, such a balance between the UN and EPC is vital if Ireland is to avoid being perceived as simply a seat at the table.

However, over the past 20 years or so, we have moved from the UN, and the particular emphasis that this gave to our foreign policy. As Deputy De Rossa said, perhaps it is not our fault we have changed. Perhaps the UN, as he said, needs to be reformed. That issue can be raised at the committee.

One need only examine parliamentary replies to realise that our views on foreign policy issues often seem to be smothered by countries with an imperial past or a strong defence agenda. At times one is hard put to understand Ireland's position. The challenge this committee faces is the need to make informed decisions on world issues. As Deputy McDowell said, we have all been guilty of speaking without full information on popular issues throughout the world. The real challenge of the committee is to make sure that when we issue statements on events we should do so from a properly informed position.

In terms of their language and focus parliamentary replies often seem to be more concerned with Europe's political and strategic positions in international affairs than revealing how Ireland's unique role at the UN or in disarmament has qualified those positions, or heightened their human dimensions, as one would expect Ireland to do. For example, where was Ireland's qualification when Germany recognised Croatia, with all the implications this had for splitting up Yugoslavia? Why has it taken Ireland so long to speak out on the Bosnian atrocities when, on this issue above all else in recent years, we should have been giving a lead, not following the herd, and indulging the strategic interests of other Community countries?

The answer lies in the fascination that we have developed with EPC over the last number of years, to the exclusion of everyting else. Speaking out on Bosnia early and often is not inconsistent with being a "good European", about which we sometimes appear to have a hang-up. Indeed, speaking out on human rights issues whether in Bosnia, Tibet, Kampuchea or East Timor, to name but four areas of such concern, is as important for the Ireland of today as pushing for the dismantling of apartheid in Frank Aiken's heyday.

Debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.