Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 21 Jul 1993

Vol. 433 No. 9

DÁIL SELECT COMMITTEES AND JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS: STATEMENTS (RESUMED). - Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Mr. Lenihan

I welcome this opportunity to report progress to the House on the work of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs. As the House is aware, the membership consists of 25 TDs and five Senators. In the brief time available to me I will summarise developments to date, our present work programme and future plans.

I wish first to thank the former Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities, which was so ably chaired by Deputies Peter Barry and Seán Barrett between 1989-92, for the work it carried out. That work illustrated how complex EC legislation could be examined and reported on by Members who had built up an expertise in those areas over the years. I am glad some former Members of that committee have been appointed to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs.

The joint committee held its first meeting on 19 May and has continued to meet on a weekly basis since. I will not give the House an undue amount of statistics, but there has been an average attendance of 70 per cent by Members to date. This reflects the dedication and interests of Members in the work of the committee. The meetings have lasted in excess of two hours and the level of participation by Members has been very encouraging.

At the first meeting of the committee I had the honour of being elected Chairman. I am glad the Members also elected Deputy Nora Owen as vice-chairperson of the joint committee. Deputy Owen has not only wide experience as the Fine Gael Front Bench spokesperson on foreign affairs but she also very ably chaired the former Joint Committee on Development Co-operation in the 1980s. I am glad that this area now falls within the remit of the joint commmittee.

At its first meeting the joint committee decided to place Bosnia-Hercegovina high on its priority list for obvious reasons. The tragic and deteriorating situation in the former Yugoslavia warranted immediate attention and has continued to do so to date. The joint committee sought briefing material from the Department of Foreign Affairs and has had detailed discussions with senior departmental officials over a number of meetings. I should like to place on record my thanks, and that of the joint committee, to the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs, his Minister of State, Deputy Tom Kitt, his departmental Secretary, Mr. Noel Dorr, and the staff of the Department of Foreign Affairs for their very positive attitude and input to the work of the joint committee since its establishment.

I should mention that the joint committee is assisted in its work, setting its agenda, etc., by a bureau of eight Members, including me, which is representative of each of the parties and the independent Senators. This system has worked very well. The bureau can deal with procedures and housekeeping issues, thus enabling the joint committee to function more effectively. Bureau Members can also meet individuals and organisations at short notice. Recently the committee met a visiting group from Africa who were in Dublin for one day.

On the question of Bosnia-Hercegovina, we not only heard the views of the Department of Foreign Affairs but we were also privileged to be fully briefed by their Excellencies the Ambassadors of Austria, Greece, Hungary, Italy and the Russian Federation. The joint committee agreed two resolutions on Bosnia-Hercegovina during June and July and these have been brought to the attention of the EC committees of the other member states and the European Parliament. Members have agreed that this important subject should continue to be placed on the committee's agenda for updating on an ongoing basis.

Before I deal in detail with the other topics discussed by the joint committee, I wish to remind the House that the terms of reference of the joint committee allow for attendance and participation at our meetings by the 18 Irish members of the European Parliament and the eight members of the Council of Europe. This is a very welcome innovation which I would like to see being developed in a structured way so as to enable greater attendance by these members at meetings. Their experience and network of contacts will be an invaluable asset to the joint committee, an asset which has not been fully utilised thus far.

Apart from Bosnia-Hercegovina, the joint committee has looked in varying degrees of depth at the following areas: enlargement of the European Community; development co-operation; the situation in East Timor; the foreign policy aspects of the recently passed Defence (Amendment) Act and the implications for participation by Irish troops in the UN mission in Somalia; the situation in Liberia and the current and future role of the United Nations, which we will investigate shortly. The joint committee has been very concerned about developments in East Timor, Liberia and Somalia and has agreed formal resolutions in all three cases.

One welcome and significant aspect of the joint committee's work is that it has provided an opportunity not only for departmental officials and non-governmental organisations to address members but it has also provided an opportunity for individuals to brief members on issues of importance. In that regard I might mention the presentations by the Portuguese Ambassador and Mr. Tom Hyland, Director of the East Timor-Ireland Solidarity Campaign and Sr. Anne Murray of the Sisters of St. Louis who spoke to us last week about Liberia. This is a healthy development — Deputy Bruton has advocated it for all committees — which will strengthen the general public's understanding of our democratic institutions. This is a two way process — we gain much from direct consultations with concerned individuals.

On the question of Somalia, the joint committee is grateful to the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs for agreeing to attend a meeting on 29 June which was devoted exclusively to consideration in advance of the foreign policy aspects of the then proposed Defence (Amendment) Bill, 1993. A very worth-while exchange of views took place at that meeting which enabled members to obtain responses on proposed changes in Ireland's role in UN missions in such areas as Somalia.

On 15 June the joint committee had a useful exchange of views with a visiting delegation from Sweden's parliamentary committee on EC matters, particularly on aspects of Sweden's application for EC membership and future co-operation with other member states on the periphery of Europe. On 18 June the select committee considered the 1993 Estimates for the Department of Foreign Affairs, including international co-operation, and reported accordingly to the Dáil.

After careful consideration of its terms of reference, work programme and priorities for future action the joint committee decided to set up two permanent or standing subcommittees on EC legislation and development co-operation. These subcommittees will deal with the two major elements of the task laid down for the joint committee by the Oireachtas. The subcommittee on EC legislation, under the chairmanship of Deputy Collins, will be responsible for those areas which fall within the remit of the former Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities. In addition, it is intended to establish a mechanism whereby this committee can examine and make recommendations on draft directives and regulations before their adoption in legislative form. The subcommittee on development co-operation will review Ireland's role in relation to aid for developing countries and will, no doubt, be involved closely with the international co-operation side of the Department of Foreign Affairs.

Apart from the two standing subcommittees the joint committee has also decided to set up another subcommittee on the United Nations. This subcommittee will be mandated to examine the role and structures of the United Nations and Ireland's current and future relationship with that organisation. This sub-committee will be dissolved as soon as it has reported back to the joint committee.

The major areas the joint committee will address in the immediate future are enlargement of the European Community and Northern Ireland. We have had an initial discussion with Professor Brigid Laffan of University College, Dublin about the possibility of her acting as a consultant on the issue of European Community enlargement. The joint committee is confident that with Professor Laffan's active involvement it can produce a timely and worth-while report on this issue. I expect that this important subject will occupy the time of the joint committee up to the end of the year.

While the joint committee has not addressed any specific issues in relation to Northern Ireland to date it is intended to devote close attention to the subject over the coming months. The joint committee realises the sensitivity of this issue and it will treat the matter with the degree of understanding and commitment it deserves. The Opsahl report and the urgency of political talks make it imperative for the committee to discuss this matter at an early stage when it resumes plenary hearings. The joint committee is very conscious of the good work already undertaken by the Government within the framework of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I welcome the excellent degree of co-operation and real progress that has been made through the British-Irish interparliamentary body. I hope to be able to report further progress on this issue on the next occasion I report to the House.

I will not detain the House unduly by referring to the resources of the joint committee: as Winston Churchill said: "Give us the tools and will complete the job". That is the objective of the joint committee. We have already made a number of submissions to the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Finance on the need to beefup the secretariat both at the lower and higher levels. I understand that the Department of Foreign Affairs will second a First Secretary to the joint committee on 3 August.

In conclusion, I thank the 25 Dáil Deputies and five Senators who participated so well in the work of the committee. The frank exchange of views between parliamentarians and officials in an open forum has added a new and constructive dimension to our knowledge and understanding of Irish foreign affairs policy. In the relatively short time we have been in existence, the joint committee has organised its work schedule effectively and dealt with a number of major topical issues in relation to which we will be reporting formally to both Houses of the Oireachtas. With the continued support and co-operation of my colleagues and adequate resources — I emphasise the latter aspect which we need to enhance our role — I am confident that the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs can undertake, on behalf of the Oireachtas, the very worth-while task it has been given.

Mrs. Owen

Now that the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs is up and running after probably the longest gestation of any organ of this Parliament, it is timely to reflect on the relevance of its workings in the formulation of Irish foreign policy. I welcome the fact that the chairman of the first Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs is making the first report on its workings.

Because of the improved methods of information dissemination — television and radio are available in almost every household — people are now more interested in international issues. I have noticed as I am sure other Deputies have, the increase in correspondence relating to what is happening outside Ireland. On almost a daily basis I receive correspondence on issues ranging from East Timor, Cambodia, Tibet and other places which, heretofore, people had to get out an atlas to find out where they were. Individuals and groups are increasingly concerned about what is happening in these places because they know it is relevant to their lives. Issues such as global environmental damage, saving the whale, protection of bats and a variety of similar issues are raised in correspondence to Deputies. There is ongoing concern among Irish people about the effects of natural disasters and famines in Africa and Asia and other parts of the world. Formerly, when Deputies and Senators received letters on these issues, they tended to put them into the dustbin or refer them to the relevant party spokesperson requesting him to reply. I am not blaming Deputies and Senators because the nature of their work did not allow them to be well enough informed to write a proper reply to their constituents. Thankfully, with the setting up of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs there will be a better informed body of Deputies and Senators who will be able to deal with international issues.

Already, in the few weeks of its existence the committee has performed a useful role. I know that I personally am better informed on a number of areas of foreign policy than I was before the committee was set up. I like to think I would have been well informed because I chaired the Committee on Overseas Development Aid for seven years which, in the absence of a Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, acted as a foreign affairs committee, we had daily requests to meet foreign dignitaries and visitors to discuss issues with them.

We will co-operate to try to reach policy decisions that will be good for Ireland and our people and which will raise our profile in the rest of the world. However, there may well be issues on which there will be differences of opinion, not only between parties but between individual members, we must have a mechanism to incorporate differing opinions in the reports of the committee. We will not always be in a position to agree unanimiously on a partiuclar policy. I hope the committee will be able to sustain those differences. For example, when we examine more deeply the changing role of the United Nations I can see differences arising and the strength of the committee will be judged by the way we tackle them.

Since the committee was set up on 19 May 1993 we have had weekly meetings which were very well attended. It is important that the elected members are diligent and attend because if members come to some meetings and do not attend others, there will be unnecessary duplication. However, it has been borne out that those selected are diligent and want to participate in the work of the committee. A number of motions has been passed unanimously and sent to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I urge him and his officials to take on board the work of this committee. I have no reason to say they are not doing so, indeed I know from discussions with civil servants that they welcome the setting up of this committee and will participate in its work when requested.

I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the officials of the Department of Foreign Affairs who have attended our many committee meetings. They have prepared excellent briefs for us. It is important that they are not sidelined from the work of the committee but it is equally important that our work is independent of the Department of Foreign Affairs because we may well give advice different from that given in the Department. It is important that they view our work as relevant to their own work.

I welcome the interest shown by the secretary of the Department, Mr. Noel Dorr. Our chairman, Deputy Lenihan, has already referred to the innovation of ambassadors being admitted to the committees. I suggested this at the bureau meeting and in fact it was never done in other EC foreign affairs committees. I hope we will continue to do this. While it is important to work closely with officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs it is essential to hear other points of view on the issues we are examining. For that reason I welcome the fact that ambassadors from Russia, Hungary, Austria, Greece and Portugal attended our meeting. Indeed, the Portuguese Ambassador spoke to us about East Timor. It is good to hear their points of view and I know that this initiative has been welcomed in their countries.

One of the main purposes of bringing in outside groups to talk to the committee is to get other views. It is possible to become insular in our work and we may not always be aware of the feelings of people who have already examined the topics we are examining. At times it may be uncomfortable to hear these views, but so be it. The discomfort we feel may mean that we are getting to the root of the issue.

The chairman referred to staff and resources, it is important to get sufficient resources, look at the work of the bureau and its modus operandi. I thought we had reached an agreement on the chairing of the overseas development subcommittee but that was not upheld by one section of the Government parties. I hope we will be able to reach an accommodation on the chairing of this and other subcommittees and that the work will be shared by all, including the Opposition parties. Without that kind of co-operation our work will not be relevant and indeed tensions may well build up which will not be good for the work of the committee. I hope we will be able to sort out that disagreement today.

There will be an understanding by both Government parties that this joint committee will work effectively once there is good co-operation, understanding and respect for the Opposition parties. One does not know when the Government parties may be in Opposition and they will want the same type of respect.

Mr. M. McDowell

There is something vaguely sepulchral about today's sitting of the Dáil. It is so much a question of the committees talking to themselves with nobody listening that it could be called a seance rather than a sitting.

Mrs. Owen

Does the Deputy wish Members to hold hands?

Mr. M. McDowell

Deputies could join hands and try to make contact with the living. I would like to echo some of the sentiments expressed in relation to the management of this joint committee. The Tánaiste's initiative in establishing the joint committee has been well justified. The chairmanship of it has been well executed by Deputy Lenihan. The committee is, fortunate to have a Chairman who takes such a liberal and constructive approach to its remit. The joint committee does not depend on the House for further orders as to what it can or cannot consider. It has taken the initiative in regard to how it operates, who it invites to attend its meetings and the methods by which it performs its business and that is welcome. Other committees could learn from the procedures of this joint committee.

I wish to speak on the Northern Ireland issue which is very important. As Deputy Lenihan stated the joint committee has not addressed the Northern Ireland issue and that is a matter which requires an urgent remedy. Such a failure demonstrates yet again the paralysis and apathy which has characterised Southern politicians on the Northern issue. I call today for the involvement of Southern politicians in the development and articulation of Ireland's input into the political situation in Northern Ireland. We cannot postpone any longer the consideration of the issues involved by Members of this House. It may be more convenient for some Members that the issue be avoided so that they can avoid expressing a view. However, collectively as a country and representatives of the people, we cannot avoid addressing the Northern issue in this House or in the joint committee appointed by this House to consider the issue. Northern Ireland should be firmly placed on the agenda.

In that context, I wish to mention recent events relating to Northern Ireland. It is a matter of considerable disquiet that a member of the British Parliament, Lord Tebbit, took the opportunity of the aptly named programme "Target" to express views which were wildly irresponsible and, no matter how qualified or explained, bore an obvious significance when delivered and were inflammatory. Those views constituted a possible incitement to people to do great damage to North-South and British-Irish relations. I am aware that Lord Tebbit has inspired controversy before. The programme he was speaking on reminds me of nothing more than hare coursing. Lord Tebbit and Austin Mitchell appear to get points for who is first to turn the words of the innocent victim. Nevertheless, it is a serious forum and is watched by many people. I know one of Lord Tebbit's opponents, in a less charitable humour on one occasion, called him a semi-house trained polecat or likened him to that. Lord Tebbit must remember that however tabloid that programme is and however strong the temptation is to produce a quick fix, a sound bite, look aggressive, worry or turn around the words of the person being interviewed, the words he spoke could do immense damage and act as a clear inspiration to people who need little inspiration to greatly damage the relations between the North and South and Britain and Ireland. As a member of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs I would like to underline my distress that any responsible politician, particularly one who has personal and intimate acquaintance with the consequences of terrorist activities and bombings, should lightly use words for ephemeral effect as Lord Tebbit did. I condemn in the strongest possible terms the words used and reject the explanation given for them in today's papers.

I am also concerned about the operation of the joint committee in relation to Bosnia. The Tánaiste is one of 12 EC Foreign Ministers who individually and collectively are responsible for EC policy through the EPC process, or the absence of it in relation to Bosnia. The record in Ireland and Europe in relation to Bosnia has been weak, gestural and compliant. Ireland has not made a clear and unambiguous stance on behalf of the Bosnian Muslims or on behalf of the innocent victims of genocidal violence in Yugoslavia. No matter how we characterise what has happened in Irish foreign policy it has not been courageous and has shown little commitment. The blame and shame of that failure falls on the Tánaiste. He has not demonstrated either courage or commitment on the issue. He has not articulated a clear policy line. As explained to our committee, the position adopted by Ireland has been effectively a rationalisation for inactivity by the European Community. As a country we have consistently expressed unrealistic, over-optimistic and fundamentally unclear platitudes on the situation in Bosnia. We have said nothing coherent or forceful even on a moral plane.

In my judgment, and that of the majority of the members of the committee we have rightly supported the arms embargo. However, we have done nothing to defend those whom we in Europe have collectively rendered defenceless. The no-fly zone and the safe areas are intellectual monuments to shameful indifferentism in the face of genocidal aggression, systematic rape and the destruction of human rights.

Our collective policy at European level has completely failed to address the dynamics of the situation, in particular, Serbian expansionism. Ireland, while lacking the resources to take positive measures in this regard, has failed to say anything worth while on this issue. Our Government, and the other EC states on the principle of collective EC responsibility, are morally and politically jointly responsibile for the situation. It was the EC states which recognised Bosnia, supported its entry into membership of the United Nations and by doing so created a circumstance in which that state was assailed from all sides. The EC states have a duty to take measures to protect those who they insist, through the arms embargo, should remain defenceless. The time has come to draw a line in relation to the continuous use of violence against the Bosnian Muslim people.

As Deputy Lenihan will verify, the joint committee has had the advantage of meeting people who have lived through the violence. Graphic accounts have been given, at bureau and committee level, of the violence and its effect on ordinary people. The cruelty, degradation, barbarity and the atrocities must be stopped. The fact that people consider it is sensible to bomb, mortar and snipe other people for political effect and that people must endure this situation is intolerable. Ireland must stand morally against this position if we cannot do much physically to stop it. We must try to push the EC into a more coherent line which will defend the rights of innocent people in Bosnia. What little influence we have should be exercised in defence of the defenceless victims of slaughter in Bosnia.

I wish to refer to the report by the chairman on the joint committee's proposal to consider, on a pre-emptive basis, draft EC regulations and directives. Such work will require that the committee networks effectively with the committees of the European Parliament working on similar matters. It will require a considerable amount of work. I reiterate the necessity to take our task seriously and for the Government, the Executive of the day, to make sufficient resources available to the joint committee, particularly to the subcommittee on European Community Legislation. That task must be undertaken thoroughly and competently. The joint committee should not bite off more than it can chew and leave its task half done. Whatever work it undertakes should be executed effectively and that will require a considerable deployment of resources in favour of the joint committee.

Under the Constitution and for moral and legal reasons the Dáil and Seanad are entitled to sufficient resources to carry out their duties. For too long we have been dependent on the Executive who will not provide essential help to this House to discharge is functions effectively. We have laboured long enough without resources in this Legislature and it is time that members of all parties collectively stood up to the Government and demanded what is rightfully ours — as Deputy Lenihan stated, the tools to carry out our tasks.

Proinsias De Rossa

It is important to acknowledge Deputy Lenihan's role in chairing the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs. There is no doubt that a different chairpersonship could have resulted in the committee being a rubber stamp for Government policy, but that has not been the case. However, I was taken aback by the committee's reaction to my proposal on Somalia which directly contradicted the Government's proposals. My proposal resulted in strong reaction, not only from Government members on that committee but also from Fine Gael members. I do not mind that, I am used to aggravation.

Mrs. Owen

The Deputy has a hard neck.

Proinsias De Rossa

I simply want to warn the committee that it should not see itself as providing a cosy consensus for whatever the Exeuctive decides as there will be times when there will not be consensus. It should not be our primary objective to achieve consensus at all times. Parties will have different perspectives and, therefore, there will be differences of opinion although there may be areas where we will agree and, as Deputies have stated already, motions have been carried by consensus because a compromise was reached. However, that does not mean they represent the views of all committee members.

An important innovation has been the creation of the bureau of the committee which has set itself the task of managing the agendas of committee meetings, visits by foreign guests and so on. Members of other committees should examine that measure as a means of rationalising their business. The terms of reference of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs are much more liberal than those of other committees, who are being done a disservice by the restrictive nature of their mandates. As I stated, there was a kneejerk reaction to my proposal on Somalia. It would be a mistake to accept that motions cannot be brought before the committee unless four day's notice is given. If the committee is to be relevant it must be able to respond quickly to current issues and events.

Within the past few weeks this House and the country generally made what is probably the most significant shift in foreign policy since we joined the European Community in 1972, yet there was virtually no public debate about its implications and only limited discussions in this House or at the foreign affairs committee. I accept that the Minister for Foreign Affairs appeared before the committee but it was on the afternoon of the day on which the legislation was being discussed and debate was crammed into one hour prior to the Order of Business. That was a new initiative but it did not satisfy the necessity to examine the details of the matter being proposed. I am referring, of course, to the amendment to the Defence Act which does not specify the type or operations in which our troops will be involved. The Defence Bill states that Irish troops may participate not alone in peacekeeping operations but in any international force or body established by the Security Council or the General Assembly of the United Nations. Effectively, the Government has been given a free hand to commit Irish troops to combat throughout the world. Obviously, a motion of approval by the Dáil will be necessary for each mission, but given that Governments by their nature have a majority — except in exceptional circumstances — when a Government decision is made it will be passed by this House. As the Defence Act shifted the focus from peacekeeping to peace enforcement operations, my main criticism is that when a decision is made by this House the nature and scale of the commitment of Irish troops internationally will be a day to day matter for the Government. There is provision for an annual review, but that is inadequate and the foreign affairs committee should address this matter.

Even since the legislation was passed the dangerous position Irish troops are being asked to face was highlighted by the developments in Somalia and the disarray and division within the United Nations operations there. There was a total breakdown in the relationship between the Italian component and the UN command because of the objections raised by the Italians to the militaristic approach of the forces of the United States in Somalia and their determination to pursue military operations, irrespective of the consequences in terms of civilian casualties or the humanitarian objectives of the UNOSOM II mission. The Government should continue to defer sending troops to Somalia until a review of the entire UN mission there is complete unless, as I argued in the debate on the defence legislation, it can be agreed with the United Nations that Irish troops will be engaged only in activities relating to peacekeeping. If the Irish Government insists on sending troops to the present confused and dangerous position in Somalia, the price may be very high, not only in the number of deaths of troops from participating countries but in the number of deaths of Somalis, and the direct responsibility will lie with us in this House.

The alteration of the Defence Act cannot be viewed in isolation from other major foreign policy departures in recent years. For example, the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty commits us to a common European policy in the foreign affairs and security areas and opens the way for the development of an EC defence policy with the possibility of a common defence policy. Ireland is already participating as an observer at meetings of the Western European Union, an organisation made up of nine members of NATO which has as a central feature of its strategy the possession and threat of the use of nuclear weapons. Under the Maastricht Agreement the EC is effectively subcontracting defence activities to the Western European Union pending further consideration of defence policy in 1996.

Our tradition of non-membership of military alliances and our constitutional commitment to the pacific settlement of international conflicts is being undermined. Major changes are being made in foreign policy without proper public debate. The Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs has a crucial role to play in addressing all those issues.

The committee is examining the question of the reform of the United Nations and is about to establish a subcommittee to address that matter in more detail. That cannot be addressed in isolation from the regional organisations such as the CSCE, the Western European Union and NATO. The question of disarmament must be examined also.

One of the most shocking figures presented to us by the Department when we were considering the question of the reform of the United Nations was that the five permanent members of the Security Council spend $625 billion annually on the military budget. Those countries make decisions in relation to peace enforcement and peacekeeping. We know for a fact that the arms being used in places such as the former Yugoslavia, Somalia and elsewhere are supplied by those states. The ratio of their contribution to peacekeeping as against their military spending is something in the order of 2,000:1. This area must be addressed.

Mr. Ferris

First, I want to express my satisfaction that at last a foreign affairs committee has been established. We were one of the last parliaments in Europe to have a foreign affairs committee and in that regard I pay tribute to the Government and the Tánaiste for agreeing to set it up. I wish to pay tribute also to the chairperson of the committee, Deputy Brian Lenihan, for the easy manner in which he has accommodated most of the views expressed on the committee. Indeed, this committee's terms of reference allow flexibility to its members, unlike other committees which are restricted to either consideration of Estimates or legislative programmes. This committee can and has addressed itself to many pressing problems worldwide in the area of international foreign affairs, whether it is Somalia, Bosnia-Hercegovina, EC affairs, overseas development, revision of UN policies, Northern Ireland or any of the other fringe areas of concern to members of the committee such as East Timor, Tibet and the Middle East, which we also intend to consider. The committee has an open brief and its members are dedicated to carrying out the mandate given to it by the Oireachtas.

I welcome the fact that we have made progress and dealt with a wide range of areas. Tributes were paid to the officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Noel Dorr and his team. As a member of the Labour Party on the committee I wish to join in those tributes. We welcome the fact that they are available at all times, both through the provision of briefing material and by attending the meeting in person to have a discussion with Members of the Oireachtas. This is a welcome change from the procedure in the past when all foreign affairs matters were confined to the Minister and his Department and there was little opportunity for Members of the Oireachtas to discuss such matters, apart from Question Time in the House.

The committee also has flexibility to deal with the Estimates of the Department and the ability to become a select committee of foreign affairs which would allow Members of the Dáil to discuss the Estimates in detail. It also has an opportunity to deal with resolutions which are effectively debated here as part of the legislation. I look forward to a continuation of the good working relationship between the various committees. I concur with the previous statements by various Members.

The bureau was set up on a recommendation of the committee to set the agenda and make recommendations for the committee. However, the bureau's decisions are not binding unless they are approved by the committee as a whole. The agreement reached by the bureau, referred to by Deputy Owen, was not ratified by the committee as a whole. The Labour Party members of the bureau and members of the committee are entitled to be consulted or at least have their wishes taken into account. We have views on issues such as the UN, ODA, the EC and so on but when the committee makes a decision we will abide by it.

I hope the composition of these committees will reflect the guidelines laid down for this House by the Journal Office which dictates, in a non-partisan way, how the committees or any of their subcommittees will be appointed, to take account of the representation in the Dáil. I hope that approach will be adopted by this committee. It was agreed by the Whips that in the formation of the committees the Journal Office, which is non-political, would decide the numbers of various representatives. All groups who do not have sufficient numbers to be considered a parliamentary party must have an opportunity to be represented on these committees.

Mr. Connor

How generous of the Deputy.

Mr. Durkan

That is very magnanimous of the Deputy considering his most recent stance.

Mr. Ferris

People must recognise that other parties in this House are entitled to representation on these committees. The representation is decided by the Journal Office based on the membership of the House which is the appropriate way for this to be done.

I hope this committee continues to reflect the views of people in this House and that its decisions will be unanimous. I join the chairman in his request for additional and adequate facilities, staffing and otherwise, to ensure that this committee can fulfil the role it has been given by this House, namely, to represent the views of the House in the area of foreign affairs.

Mr. Connor

I wish to contribute to the debate as a member of the foreign affairs committee and as a member of the subcommittee dealing with overseas development assistance. I also wish to respond to some of the comments made by Deputy Ferris. Last week the subcommittee on overseas development assistance, like the subcommittee on European affairs, met to elect chairpersons. The subcommittee on European affairs elected a chairperson as a result of an agreement on how the matter would be approached. There was an agreement also as to how the chair of the subcommittee on overseas development assistance should be filled but this agreement was, unfortunately, reneged on by Deputy Ferris and his party.

Mr. Ferris

There was no agreement by us.

Mr. Connor

It is all very well for Deputy Feris to interject and say there was no agreement, an agreement was made by the bureau at a meeting to which he was invited.

Mr. Ferris

I was not.

Mr. Connor

If he was not present at the meeting to put his point of view that is unfortunate but he should not say that because he was not there he was not part of the agreement.

Mr. Ferris

I was not invited.

Mr. Connor

That is not the way business is done.

The general principle operating is important. This foreign affairs committee must work on the basis of co-operation, as stated by the Tánaiste on the day it was set up. It has been said also by the chairperson of the committee who certainly promotes co-operation among members on the committee. The spirit of that co-operation should manifest itself in the Government parties agreeing to the participation of Opposition parties in the various subcommittees. The best way of expressing that co-operation is by allowing members of Opposition parties to chair these subcommittees. That is a well established principle, not just in this democracy but in mature democracies all over the world.

I had hoped that would have been our approach on this committee but if I understand Deputy Ferris correctly, because there was a tied vote between myself and Deputy Gallagher last week — and I certainly have no personal ill-feeling towards Deputy Gallagher on the issue because that is politics — and having regard to the resolution that there should be ten members on this and the ODA subcommittee — which is agreed — the solution to the problem may be that the Government parties will increase their membership by one to have their majority and appoint their candidate as chairperson of the subcommittee. That is a fundamentally undemocratic approach.

Mr. Ferris

That is done by the Deputy's party on county councils.

Mr. Connor

Let nobody say that the matter was not agreed. It was agreed between the parties that these subcommittees would consist of ten members. It seems we must now change the goalposts to allow certain people from the Government parties who form the majority to get their way. That is not acceptable.

As a member of the overseas development assistance subcommittee I welcome the way in which the work of this committee has developed in the few weeks of its existence. I wish to again pay tribute to the chairperson for the manner in which he has conducted this committee. He has given leadership. He certainly deserves the tributes that were paid to him.

In the future we should look in greater depth at issues in the Third World. Part of the work of the overseas development assistance subcommittee should be to draw more attention to the awful problems on the continent of Africa in which I have a great interest. At least one third of the African population lives in destitution and in serious danger of death from disease or famine. That is the lot of 200 million people in Africa. Average incomes in Africa since 1975 have fallen in real terms by about 25 per cent while the food producing capacity of the continent in ten years has fallen by 10 per cent and in the same period the population has risen by 16 per cent. These are fundamental problems afflicting one of the greatest land masses in the world. We have special relationships with many of the countries on that continent but we pay far too little attention to its terrible problems.

There is a responsibility on the developed world to reach out to Africa. What has been happening in 1992 and 1993 gives us hope. These people are making genuine efforts towards democratisation. Dictatorships have fallen in many countries although there are exceptions like Zaire and there is difficulty with Nigeria. There was great hope for Angola, for instance, but that hope was betrayed because the UN was not there to ensure that the agreements reached in Portugal were lived up to. There is great reason for hope in Malawi but the response of the developed world in helping countries that are having a rebirth of democracy, a very frail infant indeed, is not adequate. We have a duty to reach out to them and help them.

I have cited some of the enormous difficulties with the IMF and the World Bank. It is wrong for these western based financial institutions to insist on a country like Zambia abolishing food subsidies. We cannot ask a country with the levels of poverty evident in Zambia to abolish food subsidies and hope that these measures will turn around the economy and make it into a properly functioning enterprise economy on the western model. It simply does not happen, so great is the level of underdevelopment in terms of what we know as development in those countries. Last week we had a nun from a religious order talk to us about the situation in Liberia, a totally forgotten country where all government and all administration has disappeared. It is rather like Somalia, but it is perhaps even more horrible because it does not get any international attention worth talking about. We should examine and highlight that sort of thing. This would encourage a much wider response and a much wider recognition of the problems.

On a totally different subject, I agree with Deputy Michael McDowell regarding the remarks made on television by Mr. Norman Tebbit, a former British Government Minister. To say that only bombs in Dublin would make an Irish Government sit up and look at the problems in Northern Ireland, or words to that effect, amounted to incitement of the worst kind. Members of this House should be very forthright in condemning that kind of remark by someone who may not be very significant in the British political process at the moment, but who is a former cabinet Minister and was one of the closest associates of a former British Prime Minister. We know this man suffered at the hands of the IRA but it is unacceptable that that type of remark should come from a member of the British House of Lords. I am glad that protests about it have been made but it behoves all of us in this House to condemn this in the strongest possible terms.

Mr. Gallagher

(Laoighis-Offaly): I join Deputy Connor and previous speakers in condemning the remarks made by Norman Tebitt. If Norman Tebitt was of Irish nationality in Britain he would have been the subject of incitement investigations if not much more stringent investigations under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. I hope the representations made about this will impact on the British authorities and on Lord Tebitt although I do not have any illusions about him because in his career as a government Minister we saw how amenable he was to suggestions from other sides.

In reply to the points made about magnanimity on committees, as a member of a minority group on a local authority I know how magnanimous local authorities can be from time to time. I am a member of a local authority which at the moment is magnanimous in its operations but that is because I and non-Fianna Fáil and non-Fine Gael members became a group which after initial attention seeking managed to attract permanent attention. I do not need lessons on magnanimity from any quarter of the House.

I, too, pay tribute to Deputy Lenihan as chairperson of the committee. I also pay tribute to the Tánaiste and the departmental officials and to the bureau for their work in making this a productive first term for this committee, given that it took years to put the committee into action. The committee has made a very good start due to the level of openness and co-operation all around. I look forward to improved work and to the next end of term review.

We will be addressing overseas development. I understand that this evening the Government is launching a strategy plan for overseas development assistance. One area we should develop through the foreign affairs committee relates to further co-operation and learning from the experience of Irish people and Irish agencies who work in developing countries. Missionary orders worked overseas for decades and now we have our NGOs and organisations like Campaign Aid and APSO. It is important for the committee to review the strategic plan presented by the Tánaiste and to draw on the views which Irish people can give on the basis of their experience of working in other countries. The committee should move on then to address the question of how our experience in overseas development, our experience as a post colonial, recently developed country which in European terms is on the periphery, can act as a bridge, particularly in international fora between the developed world and the developing world. I am thinking, for example, of last year's UN conference on the environment, of GATT negotiations, of EC trade relations with developing countries. In those areas we can bring a unique perspective to Europe. I hope the committee will address this issue in its next term. I hope we will be able to use our experience to amend or enforce positions which Ireland adopts in international arenas.

Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2 p.m.