Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 8 Jun 1988

Vol. 120 No. 1

Foreign Policy Matters: Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

(1) That it is expedient in order to provide formal structures within the parliamentary framework for the discussion of foreign policy matters that a Joint Committee of both Houses of the Oireachtas (which shall be called the Joint Committee on Foreign Policy) consisting of seven Members of Seanad Éireann and eight Members of Dáil Éireann be appointed to review, examine and report to each House with its recommendations on all aspects of foreign policy of the State including—

(i) the establishment and maintenance of good relations with countries with which Ireland has commercial and diplomatic dealings,

(ii) the special relationship of Ireland with countries in the Developing World,

(iii) the welfare and rights of Irish citizens abroad,

(iv) the international dimensions of the concept of Human Rights,

(v) policy with regard to International trade,

(vi) policy positions adopted on behalf of the State in the United Nations General Assembly and other such International Assemblies,

(vii) Ireland's position with regard to neutrality and nonalignment.

(2) That the Joint Committee shall have power to appoint sub-committees and to refer to such sub-committees any matters comprehended by paragraph (1) of this resolution.

(3) That provision be made for the appointment of substitutes to act for members of the Joint Committee or each sub-committee who are unable to attend particular meetings.

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

(5) That all questions in the Joint Committee and in 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.

(6) That the Joint Committee and each sub-committee shall have the power to send for persons, papers and records and, subject to the consent of the Minister for Finance, to engage the services of persons with specialist or technical knowledge to assist it for the purpose of particular inquiries.

(7) That any Member of either House may attend and be heard in the proceedings of the Joint Committee or in each sub-committee without having a right to vote, subject to the prior consent of the Joint Committee or the sub-committee as the case may be.

(8) That the Joint Committee and each sub-committee shall have power to print and publish from time to time minutes of evidence taken before it together with such related documents as it thinks fit.

(9) That every report of the Joint Committee shall on adoption by the Joint Committee, be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas forthwith whereupon the Joint Committee shall be empowered to print and publish such report together with such related documents as it thinks fit.

(10) That no document relating to matters comprehended by paragraph (1) of this resolution received by the Clerk to the Joint Committee or to each sub-committee shall be withdrawn or altered without the knowledge and approval of the Joint Committee or the sub-committee as the case may be.

(11) That the quorum of the Joint Committee shall be four of whom at least one shall be a Member of Seanad Éireann and one shall be a Member of Dáil Éireann and that the quorum of each sub-committee shall be three at least one of whom shall be a Member of Seanad Éireann and one a Member of Dáil Éireann.

—(Senator Norris.)

Mr. Ross

I would like to commend the two Senators who put this motion down. I added my name only as an afterthought. The initiative came from my colleague, Senator Norris. While this motion has been debated before in some form or other, it is indicative of the sort of constructive suggestions which can emanate from the Seanad that such a committee should be set up.

I do not believe that such a committee should be confrontational in any way, that it should be party political in any sense, but that it should be there simply and solely to investigate, to recommend and to guide foreign policy. In the last analysis, it is, of course, the prerogative of the Government of the day to guide foreign policy but this sort of committee with certain teeth would be a great asset to the Seanad and to the Dáil.

The committee would be of some use only if it had some teeth. We have seen too many committees of the Oireachtas set up which proved to be utterly useless in their operation because their terms of reference gave them no powers to recommend, no powers to summons witnesses. If this committee is to mean anything it should have the power to call and to question witnesses and to make recommendations on an all-party basis.

It would be a great disappointment to the proposers of this motion if this committee was opposed by the Government. I can see no reason why this should be done. It would be a sensible, consensus type committee which would help the foreign policy of this country. One of the reasons why this committee should be set up is that the strand of thinking behind foreign policy in this country is very confused. It is very difficult to see any consistent thinking from the Department of Foreign Affairs or from any Governments in the last ten years about foreign policy.

It is very easy for us to say that our foreign policy is one of neutrality. It is much talked about from the rooftops that this doctrine which we preach is one which we have never properly analysed. It is a doctrine which we have inherited, it is a sacred cow, something which we spout about but do not really know what it means. We can say that we are neutral in the very strict sense in that we do not belong to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. We should examine whether this means that we are neutral in more important areas. Just not belonging to a military pact is not, to my mind, any definition of neutrality.

In other areas, it is important that we decide we are not neutral. Are we neutral, for instance, or pretend to be neutral in the area of human rights? It would be totally wrong were we neutral in that area. I hope we do not believe that we are. Why, for instance, have we not signed the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, something which has already been raised in this debate and to which I am sure the Minister will have an answer? That answer will not be adequate because it has been produced time and time again and nothing has been done about it.

Are we neutral on other issues? We pick, I suggest, easy targets for our neutrality, for our ideology and for our morality. We pick targets like South Africa about which it is very easy to preach a particularly upright morality because everybody in the western and eastern world now disapproves of the apartheid system in South Africa. It is very easy for those who sit in this House and in the other House to condemn apartheid and take a high moral attitude. South Africa, in fact, is a safe target.

I regret that this House took it on itself, in the last session, to condemn the hangings of the Sharpeville Six, which, thank God, still has not happened, while it was unable to repeal the legislation here which allows capital punishment. This is part of the double-think which attaches to our foreign affairs attitudes. It is easy to condemn something happening in South Africa, so we condemn it; it is not so easy to condemn something happening somewhere else so we do not condemn it. I think particularly of Iran where we have been deafeningly silent on the atrocities which have existed there. Why are we silent about Iran and loud about South Africa? There is an inconsistency about that. There is complete hypocritical neutrality about that.

I suggest that our neutrality on foreign affairs policy as pronounced, is one of ambiguity and ambivalence. It is not neutrality, it is ambivalent. It is difficult to see a consistency in condemning violence in one place but not condemning it in another. I should like, having spoken about Iran to say something about the Middle East and our policy towards the Middle East. Is it suggested by the Department of Foreign Affairs, by the Minister, that we are neutral as regards the everlasting conflicts in the Middle East?

I suggest that there is a suspicion growing in certain parts of the world that we are now no longer neutral but that we are leaning towards the Arab side in that conflict. I will back this up with one or two facts which I found very worrying in the recent past. The bias which many seem to have detected towards the Arab side in that conflict manifests itself most obviously in our attitudes to diplomatic representation in this country. Senator Norris will be dealing with this in his summing up speech.

I would like to ask, in regard to the double-think involved, whether it is acceptable that we allow an Iranian Embassy in Dublin while refusing the Israelis the right to resident diplomatic representation? Is this what we call neutrality? Is there any real reason behind it apart from yielding to the greatest pressure which in this case I suggest is trade? While we should retain our rightful and deep sympathy for the Palestinian refugees, we should not allow ourselves to be identified with the violence of the PLO. The confusion is very easy to make and has been made in the minds of many.

I have already gone on record as condemning the recent all-party visit to the Middle East by a group of TDs and Senators because it was funded by a terrorist organisation. Not only this, but the existence of a PLO funded information office in Dublin, while refusing Israel a similar outlet, lends weight to the suspicion that we are not neutral in this conflict. We cannot afford to be ambivalent on violence wherever it appears. I ask as well on the issue of Israel whether we have been loud enough in our condemnation of the refusnik situation in the Soviet Union and why we are not more closely identified with the denial of the human rights of the Jews in the Soviet Union.

It is something which we may have written letters about but Governments have not been happy to go openly and loudly on public record about it. If we are to be neutral, we must not be neutral to the point of being silent on this type of issue of human rights. Having spoken on the issue of Israel being denied an embassy in Dublin, I should like the Minister to reply and to say why we tolerate an Iranian Embassy in Dublin, why we tolerate an Ambassador and two diplomats in a large Iranian Embassy in Dublin while denying it to Israel. It is true that we have a trading relationship with Iran which is an important one but we should not sell out our principles for the sake of trade.

We have done this not only in the case of Iran but also in the case of Libya: we have, admittedly, non-resident diplomatic relations with Libya. We have refused to cut off diplomatic relations with Libya despite frequent provocations from Colonel Gadaffi, despite its being well known that he has supplied arms to the IRA and that is undeniable at this stage. We run our diplomatic relations with Libya from Rome while we run our diplomatic relations with Israel from Athens. The irony of this is quite simple. It is quite wrong that, diplomatically, Israel and Libya are on equal footing. Libya has deliberately tried to subvert the State here and Israel, for whom many have words of condemnation of its behaviour — I do too — is being put on the same footing diplomatically as a country which supports the terrorists amongst us.

That is ambiguity; it is inconsistency on foreign policy, but it is explained by one thing only, that is, by trade. If that is the explanation, we can throw our principles out the window. Trade can be king and principles and morality can be completely disposed of.

Having said that, we are frightened in the case of the refusniks to offend the Soviet Union. We are also frightened while shouting about neutrality to offend the United States. It is understandable that we have close links with the United States for historical reasons, for the reason that we have many emigrants there, for the reason that we have sympathy with their system. It is understandable that, because we are a western country, because we are a Christian country and because we are a capitalist country, like it or not, we have got an affinity with the United States and we are sympathetic towards the way they operate. Nevertheless, it does not mean that we should be a slave to their foreign policy.

I was very privileged to go out to visit Nicaragua on an all-party committee at the end of 1984. I can say that my eyes were opened by that visit. I was appalled by the fact that there was so much ignorance of what was happening in that country and that we had never once raised our voice in protest against United States policy in that country. Despite the fact that the all-party group came back from Nicaragua and made unanimous recommendations about what was happening and despite condemnations from Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Labour and myself as an Independent about what was happening in Nicaragua, there was no response from the Government. They continued to be silent in the face of deprivation of human rights there. They were a Coalition Government. I do not expect the Minister to reply on their behalf but I would be interested in what he has to say about the regime out there now.

We are saying that, while we lead on neutrality in a pious way, we are not giving any lead on human rights or on morality. While we do great work for the United Nations in Lebanon, we fail to be fair in our foreign policy towards the Middle East. I should like to see this Government and other Governments making the neutrality which they speak about mean something much more than stating that we are not a member of NATO.

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

May I first of all convey to Senator Norris and the other Senators the thanks of the Tánaiste for the good wishes expressed to him here last week and say that he expects to be back in action in the near future?

As the Leader of the House said when he spoke in this debate last week, the Government cannot agree to the motion. We understand the motives of the Senators who presented and spoke in support of the motion. In fact, I agree with much that has been said about the right of Members of the Oireachtas to information on foreign policy issues and to question the Government's approach to them. Several speakers have rightly said that foreign policy is an important area of the State's affairs.

Senators Norris, Manning and Murphy in their contributions to the debate mentioned the desirability of allowing representatives of the people to have more power and control over and to be able to direct foreign policy. In this connection it was said that the Constitution was intended to operate in such a way that the people would be masters. However, we need to take great care that the mechanisms we set up in order to ensure an appropriate role for the Oireachtas in the foreign policy area do in fact contribute to the best interests of the country.

Foreign policy includes in its broad scope our bilateral relations with other States, issues arising because of EC membership, our involvement in European Political Co-operation, our participation in the United Nations and in the process of East-West co-operation in the framework of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, CSCE, and in other multilateral fora, the promotion of trade and other sources of foreign earnings, co-operation with developing countries and the welfare of our citizens abroad. Many of the issues with which Ministers for Foreign Affairs have to deal involve the reconciliation of conflicting interests. States have not only to reconcile national interests between one another but also often to strike a balance between conflicting national interests. These situations require the exercise of political judgment in a responsible, clearheaded and balanced manner on the basis of the fullest information available.

Such information, the stock-in-trade of diplomatic activity, is often privileged. It includes confidential communications with other Governments, especially those of our European partners. The flow of information to the Department of Foreign Affairs and our missions abroad would soon dry up it it found its way into the public domain, as it surely would if the motion before us were adopted and a committee were empowered "to send for persons, papers and records" and to publish reports and minutes of evidence taken before it "together with such related documents as it thinks fit". That obviously would be a major handicap to any Government and would be contrary to the national interest.

The purpose of this motion is to appoint a committee to make recommendations to each House of the Oireachtas, the quorum for meetings of which could be as low as four which, in its turn, can appoint sub-committees with a quorum as low as three. That the terms in which major issues are posed, in important negotiations for example, could be decided by such a committee would, in my view, be undesirable inasmuch as there would be no certainty that the country's best interests would be taken into account. Unlike individual Members of the Oireachtas, Governments cannot allow themselves to be swayed by sectional interests but must take all factors into consideration in deciding on the pursuit of foreign policy objectives. It is in the public interest that the Government of the day be directed by broad considerations in carrying out this often sensitive task.

The Government and the Minister for Foreign Affairs are answerable to the Oireachtas for the way they manage foreign policy. It is for the Oireachtas so to arrange its business that the Government are called upon regularly to give information and to explain their positions on foreign policy matters. I agree entirely with Senators who say that they and, through them, the public, have a right to be well-informed, to express their opinions on aspects of foreign policy and, if they think it is justified, to criticise Government and Government decisions. That is the essence of our democratic system.

Issues should be fully debated in Parliament and outside it before decisions are taken. In a free and open society Governments have to take account of all significant shades of political opinion. This Government certainly do so. But what we cannot do is to change the established mechanisms in an ill-considered manner at the risk of prejudicing the national interest by opening the way to the adoption of positions based on partial considerations and to the publication of foreign policy documents and papers at the behest of as few as three Members of the Oireachtas.

Members of the Oireachtas have many opportunities to review policy. The Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities have a wide remit and their reports are debated. There is justification for such a committee because of the need to examine draft Community legislation before it is given statutory effect in this State. Then there are regular occurrences, such as the annual debate on the Estimates. The presentation of six-monthly reports on developments in the European Communities and, two or three times a year, of reports on meetings of the European Council. Finally, there are Dáil questions.

With increasing frequency, foreign policy issues are raised in both Houses, either in the form of special motions, for example the debate on the situation in Ethiopia which we had here on 25 May, or on the Adjournment, like the debate in the Dáil on 26 May about the territories occupied by Israel. The fact that we are debating this motion shows that Members of this House are able to raise foreign policy matters of interest to them without great difficulty.

I would like to refer to some of the comments made on particular issues during this debate. Our policy of neutrality was raised by Senators Norris, Murphy, Manning and Ross. We had a very thorough national debate on that policy in the course of the referendum campaign on ratification of the Single European Act last year. The vast majority of our people and, I dare say, of Members of this House, support that policy. We are not a member of a military alliance. Defence and military aspects of security are not part of the European Political Co-operation process and we are not "fooling ourselves", in Senator Manning's words, when we ensure that this position is maintained.

We have a position in international affairs which we value and our non-involvement in a military alliance is part of that position. It enables us to take a well-defined position on the international arms race and to set firmly as objectives for the international community as a whole, general and complete disarmament and total abolition of nuclear weapons. The strength of the Government's conviction of the rightness of this approach was manifested by the Taoiseach at the Third Special Session on Disarmament of the UN General Assembly in New York last week.

Senator Norris and Senator Ross referred to Government policy on South Africa. The long-standing strong opposition to apartheid of successive Irish Governments is a matter of public record. This country has an established and principled policy of minimal contact with South Africa. We have no diplomatic relations, no offficial cultural or sporting links and give no governmental assistance for trade with that country. Cultural or sporting organisations having links with or events receiving participants representing South Africa lose official grants and subventions. We adhere fully to the UN embargo on arms exports to South Africa and to the measures being applied by all the EC members states. We continue to press our partners in the Twelve to adopt further restrictive measures, such as a ban on coal or fruit and vegetable imports from South Africa.

Let me refer now to Senator Norris' contribution when he spoke of the need for foreign policy to undertake, inform and to consult the other member states on foreign policy matters of general interest, not just a common interest, to ensure that the combined influences of the State are exercised as effectively as possible through the co-ordination and convergence of their position. We do that a lot in the European Community and that is one of the reasons why we will continue to press our Community partners to take more effective sanctions on South Africa.

Certain countries have recently adopted stronger measures while Ireland remains among those few with the strongest anti-apartheid polices. Our policy of seeking graduated selective mandatory sanctions in no way implies that we favour "A type of creeping sanction" as Senator Ross said. We consider that only measures fully and universally applied can bring the desired pressure to bear on South Africa and are convinced that the best hope of achieving this is through graduated sanctions. Whatever the motives which may have led the previous Government to introduce a ban on the import of fruit and vegetables, Fianna Fáil fully supported it and since coming into office we have urged our partners in the Twelve to adopt a similar measure.

Another matter raised by Senator Norris and Senator Ross was our position with regard to international human rights instruments. The Government are committed to the earliest possible ratification of the United Nations Covenants, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In accordance with the practice of successive Governments of ensuring that our domestic legislation is in conformity with international instruments prior to ratification, a careful examination of our domestic legislation in the areas concerned, carried out by a committee under the chairmanship of the Attorney General, has now been completed. I am hopeful that it will be possible within a reasonably short period to bring forward the necessary legislation, including legislation on the advocacy of racial hatred, which will enable the ratification of the two United Nations covenants to proceed. Legislation on the advocacy of racial hatred will also facilitate the process of ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which Ireland has signed but not ratified, pending completion of a detailed scrutiny of the legislative and other implications of ratifiation which is at present under way.

Senator Manning suggested that pressure should be brought on the Government to do more for emigrants. I would refer him to the very full debate on the matter which took place in this House one month ago. He suggested that perhaps a foreign policy committee would be of considerable assistance. I remain to be convinced that such a committee would serve any useful purpose. Far more compelling will be the actions taken by the Taoiseach and the Government since coming to office which were fully debated here some time ago.

Senator Murphy in the course of his contribution said foreign policy is really how other people see us, the face we present to them and the way we behave in the community of nations. That is indeed a very crucial part of our behaviour. I agree with what Senator Murphy said. I do not honestly think that the formation of a committee would improve in any way how other people see us.

Senator Murphy also said that decisions on the international sphere are taken without the knowledge of the people and outside their power. He said the whole point of the motion as he put his name to it is to make foreign policy representative, responsible and a matter of popular control. I again cannot see how a foreign policy committee, three members of which would have the right to make suggestions to Government, could possibly put foreign policy into control of the people.

Senator Manning said that it is an appalling comment that he and his colleagues should have to ask from the Government as a favour what should be an established right in this House. He said that what they are asking for is no more and no less than that this House and all parts of this House should have the right to scrutinise our foreign policy on a regular basis and in detailed discussion, with full access to the information to review our foreign policy. I agree with most of what Senator Manning said except that the problem I mentioned earlier of full access to information could have a serious and detrimental effect on the information that is received in confidence from other Governments.

Senator Manning and Senator Robb spoke about the Leader of the House reflecting the Fianna Fáil role attitude to parliamentary reform, parliamentary committees and the whole question of a vigorous participation by all members of the party in both Houses. The Dáil committee system and the Oireachtas committee system are still in operation. There are approximately five joint committees, two Seanad Committees, three Dáil committees and one Dáil special committee. As one who served on a number of committees, I often found myuself having to wait until such time as a quorum could be got together so that the work of the committee could go on. I would prefer to see a committee working properly rather than the way the committees were set up during the last Dáil. Senator Manning also said the last experiment was not fully successful. I agree wholeheartedly with him.

We had a disagreement between Senator Manning and Senator Norris in relation to the motion. Senator Manning felt that the committee which was in operation in the last Oireachtas should still be constituted rather than having it part and parcel of the foreign affairs committee as suggested by Senator Norris in his motion.

I would like to refer to the comments made by Senators on the Irish diplomatic service. Senator Manning stated:

They are probably among the best in the world. Our Department of Foreign Affairs for its size and resources is superb.

I would reiterate that and say that I am glad that, despite the very trenchant views expressed by many Senators, throughout all of them came a recognition of the enormous and tremendous job being done by the Department of Foreign Affairs.

I do not see how international trade could be helped by the participation of a parlimanetary committee. I disagree totally with Senator Manning in that regard.

I cannot support the motion for the reasons I have stated. I am a little surprised by Senator Ross's contribution, because, according to him, we are afraid of the United States, we are afraid of the Soviet Union and he almost has us as quiet as church mice.

In summary, the Government believe that the existing arrangements for the review of foreign policy by the Oireachtas are satisfactory. I have outlined the many opportunities that are open to Members to raise matters of concern or interest to them. We are, therefore, opposed to the motion for the reason that I have given essentially that the national interest could be served by such a committee.

Mrs. Fennell

I am very pleased that this motion has been put down and I commend the Senators for their commitment in bringing it before the House. The motion is important in parliamentary terms and deserves the support of all. I believed initially that it would have all-party support. I regret that that now seems not to be the case.

Senator Lanigan in his contribution was obviously not in accord with the motion and indeed has inferred many times in the recent past that Senators should be doing more with their time than discussing this motion. I regret this, as it smacks a bit of the mé féin concept. Do we not need to look abroad or be concerned about our foreign policy? Can we say that as parliamentarians we are sufficiently informed and aware of important issues in the international arena?

It was indeed a good day when the system of joint committees was agreed and set up in, I think, 1983. It was part of overall Dáil and Seanad reform. In the time the committees have been working they have exceeded the expectation of those who initiated them. I could not agree with the Minister in his comments about the committees. Sometimes, of course, there is difficulty in getting everybody together at the same time to start the work of the committee. Taking an overview, the work of almost all the committees has been commendable and very worthwhile. Committee work for backbenchers makes it possible to influence policy-making and to examine and research rationally issues relating to specific sectors in a climate of agreement and co-operation.

For my part since I became a Senator I have been a member of the All-Party Committee on Women's Rights and I have had great insights into issues of importance to women and the family through work on that committee. It has been concentrated work and it is notable that in committee debate the concern is specifically with issues and disagreement based on party position is very rare.

There are very good reasons why we should bring questions of foreign policy into such a tolerant environment. We need a forum where we can discuss issues and influence decisions. The motion is broad and suggests structures for a diverse range of foreign affairs issues. It does not concentrate on what could be called the sensitive zones. All six paragraphs of the motion are relevant.

I would like to refer first to subparagraph (ii) dealing with the special relationship of Ireland with countries in the developing world. We had a committee for development aid in the last Oireachtas, chaired by former Deputy Nora Owen. It created a level of consciousness and informed public opinion in a way that we have not seen previously. It very largely took responsibility for monitoring our contributions to the developing countries. Ideally, as Senator Manning said in his contribution, there should again be a separate committee for development aid. But the matter should have a niche in our parliamentary work anyway.

The developing countries were well served in the last administration, having as well as a committee a Minister of State, Deputy Jim O'Keeffe, who did splendid work during his time in office keeping in contact with Irish-funded projects abroad and being an important advocate for development workers here, as well as playing a very positive and energetic role in the area of the developing countries.

The cuts in development aid are serious and very damaging. I would like to read an open letter which was written to the Taoiseach, Deputy Charles Haughey, by four Church leaders. They appealed to him to think again about the cut of 26 per cent proposed in the official development assistance programme. The letter is signed by Archbishop Eames, Dr. Fleming, Mr. Hamilton, president of the Methodist Church in Ireland and Cardinal Tomás Ó Fiach.

It states:

Therefore, as Church leaders and as heads of our respective development agencies, we note with dismay the Government's recent decision to implement very substantial cuts in Irish Official Development Assistance. While we all recognise the need for overall cuts in Government expenditure, we nonetheless believe that these cuts should not affect the weakest in the community. These cuts are particularly dismaying given the time at which they are occurring, when disturbing reports of impending hunger continue to reach us, and particularly because Irish discretionary aid is directed towards the poorest of the world's poor.

The chairperson of APSO, David Rowe, had this to say in their annual report for 1986:

The unpredictability of the resources with which we have to work continues, and has its effect on the quality of work as well as the numbers funded and trained. In addition, the economic situation at home and the increasing constraints in the public sector made for fewer enquiries and completed offers of service. The outlook for 1988 seems more threatening still. One can only say that if bilateral assistance were to be very substantially cut back or even abandoned, Ireland would forfeit a position of leadership amongst developed countries in this important area of modern foreign policy, and a hard-won range of sound projects in many developing countries would be endangered.

In truth one can reflect on what David Rowe has said. We have in recent years built up quite a reputation for being generous, caring and concerned for those striving with very extreme poverty in the Third World and it is regrettable that the cutbacks have been so severe.

Some time ago in the Seanad we had a very emotional debate on the Sharpeville Six. This is another area which would be of interest to a foreign affairs committee. At a time of great crisis the voices of condemnation and appeal which were world wide had an effect and averted the execution of the six condemned men. A foreign affairs committee would have maximised our effect in an area like this.

In this context we surely need a committee to monitor Ireland's role in the UN. I think this is another area that is overlooked. We are involved in debates and voting on an on-going basis in different sectors in the UN, but nobody knows what we do or say or how we vote. Our UN involvement gets no priority whatsoever. This matter is clearly documented in a survey by Brigid Laffan of our Government's policy in the eighties in the UN which calls for a foreign affairs committee.

Another area that concerns me is our obligation in developing legislation which is required under our ratification of UN conventions. I refer specifically to the UN declaration on the ratification of a convention against all forms of discrimination against women. This was ratified here in 1985, long after ratification by other countries. It was only done because of the focus of attention on women's year in 1985. There were a number of exceptions in our ratification and at that time we gave a commitment to initiate legislation in relation to a couple of important articles in that convention. One of them requires us to bring in legislation to give equal treatment to men and women. This has not been done and I am concerned that there seems to be no focus of attention and no interest. If the Minister has any information on this he might give it to me in his reply or at the end of the debate.

These are important matters. I cannot agree with the Minister that there is no need for a central committee to deal with issues of foreign affairs. He referred to the various Departments which would have a role in discussing and analysing specific issues relating to trade or Third World development. There is very clear evidence that we need a committee which can inform us as politicians and create an awareness and an understanding publicly. I appeal to him again to give consideration to this motion and enable one more committee which would be positive and effective to be set up in this area.

Mr. Ferris

I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs to the debate tonight and compliment him on the actions he has taken since assuming office. I have heard quite a lot of excellent reports of the quiet diplomatic way in which he has approached a very sensitive position in the area of foreign affairs. It is always refreshing to be able to talk to him on a person to person basis in matters relating to foreign affairs, particularly the Middle East in which I have a special interest. I am very concerned about the funding of UNRA, the agency which deals with the Palestinian problem, which is under threat following the uprising of the ordinary people in Palestine. I have found the Minister open and frank in listening to the problems of those people and his Department have in the past been extremely generous. Due to cutbacks in recent years this funding is under threat and I have asked the Minister particularly to look at it. I hope he will respond in a positive way to that request.

The Government are taking an unusually conservative attitude to the request from the signatories of this motion for the formation of an all-party policy committee on foreign policy. The concern that the Government might have is not justified. Any Oireachtas joint committee would naturally have a Government majority on it because all these committees are formed having due regard to the representation of the Government party in both Houses of the Oireachtas. Any policy-forming committee would in the normal course of events, if members turn up at the meetings, have a majority of Government supporters. The Minister expressed concern about the difficulties, and I have experienced some of those difficulties myself in subcommittees of the House. It is not always easy to get a quorum.

This whole area of foreign policy is one which does influence Irish Members of the Oireachtas. We are a very small neutral nation, but a very powerful one when it comes to expressing views that are not normally accepted by the aligned states. That is why our role at the United Nations has been such an important one. We are speaking from a position of weakness as regards armaments, but we are speaking from a position of strength because we are non-aligned to the superpowers and have a stance of our own on neutrality. We also have tremendous influence with other countries in the developing world, the Middle East, the Third World and Central America.

The Labour Party are totally supportive of this concept of an all-party committee on foreign policy. We as a party have over a numbr of years produced policy documents covering the whole area of foreign policy. I have had an opportunity to discuss these policies with the Leader of the House on numerous occasions. Even when he was the Leader of the Opposition when another Government were in power he expressed the positive view that he was in favour of the concept of an all-party Oireachtas committee. On the basis of his international standing particularly with regard to the Middle East, he is aware that we are one of the few democratic nations which does not have an all-party foreign affairs committee.

Any Government which does not tap into the resources of independent views and views from other political parties within the country is losing out on an opportunity to help formulate foreign policy. This committee would not of course, dictate to the Government at any time with regard to what it should do in the area of confidential consultations with other Governments in the national interest or in international politics. Certainly any Government could benefit from the expertise and the interest among Members on both sides of the Oireachtas who have an interest in the affairs of the world around them, whether in South Africa, the Middle East, Nicaragua, Central America or in other areas.

That is why our party in particular have developed over the years policy documents which involve all these areas. We have a document on Ireland as a neutral nation, a policy document on disarmament, a policy document on human rights, a policy document on international development and co-operation, a document on the European Community, on European political co-operation, on eastern Europe, on the Middle East, on South Africa and on Latin America. We have debated these at administrative council level, at parliamentary party level and at annual conference level. All these documents, which we are prepared to stand over, are published and are available as a help and an insight to any Government who might want to have a considered opinion on our stance in any of these areas.

We do that from a position of strength because the Labour Party are associated with and part of the Socialist group in the European Community, which is the biggest and most influential group. We are also associated with the Socialist International which has the only political ideology that can command membership from most of the democratic countries throughout the world. I am talking about real socialists. I am not talking about eastern bloc socialists who can only command support through their own dictatorships. I am talking about social democratic parties which are part of the Socialist International. As such, we have addressed all these issues and, in consultation with our colleagues, we have ensured that our view is expressed vehemently and vociferously at all the forums in which the Labour Party participate. Through the European Community we ensured that in the manifesto published by the socialists contesting European elections, Ireland's neutrality not alone was respected but was written down as part of a grand charter for any socialists who might take part in the European Community and the Council of Europe.

We have set up a specific policy committee to deal with these matters through an international affairs committee which reports on a monthly basis to us. There are everyday occurrences to which this Government is expected to respond diplomatically and at various meetings throughout Europe, at the United Nations, and, indeed, at other conventions whether in Geneva or elsewhere. We would like to have an input and to say how we feel something should be done. Admittedly, the Government of the day could reject our views out of hand but at least there is a consensus on what all of us stand for in this area which no Government should disregard when they are looking for expertise. That is the commitment of my party to the Government in the area of foreign policy.

The Government should not be concerned about whether they have a majority because that will be built incidentally into it. The process of dialogue between the Houses of the Oireachtas and the Government in the area of foreign policy is essential if we are to continue to command the international respect all of us have managed to achieve. This Government at the United Nations and in other arenas have followed the line of the consensus in politics in this area. The Government should welcome this opportunity to have a basis for dialogue between us. I see nothing wrong with it. It is part of the democratic process that all parties who represent various constituents should have an input into helping Government not to dictate policy but to formulate it.

One can argue as to how the numbers from the Oireachtas should be made up but, in spite of what the Minister and the Leader of the House have said, they should accept this principle of an all-party committee. We would like to participate at that level and would contribute constructively to it as a result of our long experience in the whole field of international affairs. We have contacts throughout the world and we would be prepared to make these available to the Government at that level. This is a gesture of goodwill in the area of foreign policy. On the basis of previous statements made from all sides of the House, in and out of Government, there should be a welcome in principle for the motion moved by our colleagues in the Independent group. It is fairly specific in that there are a lot of areas that need to be covered.

These are all subject to argument or agreement by the Government because if this resolution is accepted a similar resolution, or a newly worded one by the Government, will have to pass through the other House of the Oireachtas. This House would then discuss the actual motion setting up the procedure. This is not a matter for the Committee on Procedure and Privileges who have no function in this area. It is a matter for the Oireachtas and we as Members of one House of the Oireachtas call on the Government seriously to consider the cogent reasons for agreeing to this fundamental policy committee on foreign affairs.

The motion deals with our contribution to the Third World about which the previous speaker has spoken. There has been condemnation of the level of contribution we have made to the Third World and of the percentage of GNP it represents. There is a never-ending demand and when this is related to restriction by the Department of Finance, it makes the Minister's task almost impossible. The Minister could have already discussed these matters with an all-party Oireachtas committee and in some way he would have had a consensus on what is required in this whole area of foreign policy in international affairs.

Mr. Harte

I do not propose to keep the House too long. The speakers have confined themselves quite well. I am a little disappointed to hear the Minister say that the Government would not be interested in hearing the views or recommendations of such a committee.

First, we are a member of the EC. The EC has been quite rightly called the lifeblood of apartheid. That is due to the fact that over half of the foreign investment in South Africa comes from EC countries, the EC takes nearly half of the South African exports and provides a similar proportion of imports.

A committee would be in a neutral position in the sense that it would be able to examine our attitude to the South African Government in a more effective and detached way than the Government. The Government are locked into the EC position. The comments, report and recommendations of a committee such as this would be a very effective way to deal with the question of attitudes towards South Africa. The motion speaks about the human factor. For example, the standards laid down by the EC for European firms operating in South Africa under the title "Code of Conduct" seem to us in the Labour Party to be irrelevant. Neither the EC Commission nor the European Parliament have any means of enforcing the code and there are no penalties for violating it. Despite all the claims made to the contrary, the code never attempted to make any inroads into the apartheid system, let alone undermine it from within. This is a problem since Ireland is a member of the EC and the Government must be circumspect in many ways. The views of an all-party committee could be more detailed and more detached and would support the Government. I think the Government's hands are tied.

The US Congress went overboard on their focus on South Africa. They did this through the media. In fact, they went so far that in 1985 Senator Edward Kennedy visited South Africa and Bishop Tutu made a well-publicised visit to Washington. Generally speaking, there was a good interchange and much was done. The House of Representatives voted in support of a Bill on 15 June calling for immediate economic sanctions against South Africa. The Republican Party, who tried to water it down, were beaten on the vote.

The EC had asked that there be no investment in South Africa. This Bill also called for a ban on bank loans to and investment in South Africa. It forbids the sale of computers, nuclear fuel and technology to South Africa. It bans the import of gold krugerrands to the United States. There has been some slippage on this and the measures in that Bill have not really come into effect. This Bill was dealt with by Congress, with no actual recommendations from any unbiased source. There is a vested interest when one country is dealing with another. If it has broad support, that vested interest can be looked after in a much better way. An all-party committee would carry out a much more extensive examination and would have the opportunity of consulting with more people. Therefore, a better attitude would emerge from it. We are talking not only of the human factor but also of trading with South Africa and the best way to effect the sanctions.

We have soldiers in service with UNIFIL. We should be in a position to make effective observations on the strategic interests in the Middle East. We should be able to talk to our friends in America — because of their traditional links with Israel — about our attitudes towards the Palestinian people and Lebanon. We should be more influential. I think that influence would need to come from an all-party foreign policy committee. After all, we supply troops to UNIFIL and whereas the Americans are not a member of UNIFIL they contribute substantially to it. That is another area we can think about. There are five or six different factions in Lebanon. That needs more detailed consideration and takes time, time which a busy Government who have a lot to handle cannot afford. We must question our attitude, question what our policy should be and the type of pressures we can use on our friends, the Americans, in this whole matter.

There are many external factors affecting Lebanon, not only the presence of Israelis but also of the Syrians. Again, we are dealing with a very complex situation which could be investigated better by a committee which would make reports and recommendations. For example, in Lebanon there are groups such as the Maronites, the Orthodox, the Moslems, the Druze and the Shíites — a whole mixum-gatherum. The foreign policy committee, which would deal with the economic and the human factors, could study the situation in a more detailed and effective way and produce a report with recommendations. The Government would then be in the best possible position in that they would not be bound by the recommendations of the report but they could get the valued thinking of this committee, who would have the power to call in people to provide them with information, etc.

There are many local conflicts in Central America. Our Government send out delegations from time to time. Each delegation comes back with their perception of what went on, depending on whether they are in Opposition or in Government — it is like looking at an accident, you form your own perception of it. This needs more than a short visit by a delegation. The committee should have the power to send for people, even, say, resident Nicaraguans representing the consul, in order to get a broader spectrum of views. The same applies to Guatemala and El Salvador. There is no decline in the number of murders and disappearances in El Salvador. Human rights in that country continue to be a problem of international concern. While the situation is kept under review by the United Nations it would be nice to know that a neutral country such as Ireland could make a much more lively contribution to a debate on foreign affairs. Somebody standing up here in general debate and using the safety of generality would make a very broad contribution; however a committee could investigate the problem, which would be dealt with in a report, and make recommendations. As I have said the Government are not bound by the report, but I am sorry to say that they are not in a position to accept this motion.

Whether we like it or not, we are a neutral nation. I have certain views about neutrality which I have expressed in this House, but I will not go into detail on them. I have always maintained that the more one gets from people, the more one owes then and the more obligated one is to them. Therefore, neutrality is a dangerous line to go down, because I believe that we go a little overboard on it and I doubt if we will be able to argue our neutrality for more than another decade or so before we are roped in to some sort of position. However, while we have influence, which was used very effectively in the United Nations at an earlier stage by Frank Aiken, our efforts could be much more effective in promoting peace and reconciliation if we set up a joint committee. We could get to know more about Colombia, Mexico, Panama, Venezuela and so on by having an investigative attitude on such a committee.

We are not involved in the conflict between Iran and Iraq which has been going on since 1980, but nevertheless there are many sides to the story. We know that the United States are on poor terms with Iran. It may be possible that we might be a little more effective than we are at present. We are strictly neutral in this conflict. We have regularly stated our desire to see a ceasefire and that both countries would withdraw to recognised frontiers etc. We want to be friends with both belligerents. If we set up this foreign affairs committee we can get much more information about the situation and, again, make a better contribution towards being friends with both belligerants. We could, through a foreign affairs committee, play a bigger role than at present as we will be contributing to the role of Europe as a whole.

We go to conferences, for example, on security and co-operation bringing our own thinking to the table. Our delegations are not very well equipped. We would be better equipped if we had heard a report on a recommendation debated in the Seanad or the Dáil. We would be much more effectively armed to make a contribution to the question of security and co-operation in Europe.

The question of extradition might have been more fully understood and might have been approached in a better way if we had had a foreign policy committee. Again, we could have used the influence of our international friends to have examined the very important area of discrimination in the North, which we talk so very much about, but never have been able to do anything effective about. Although the Anglo-Irish Agreement is working in that direction, a foreign affairs committee could, I think, be an influence on Britain.

I am a little surprised that the Government, who have been very receptive to many suggestions, will not accept this one, which I think would serve them to good purpose.

Mr. Norris

I thank the Minister of State for his courteous speech, although I did find it a little thin on content. I would like particularly to deplore the apparent absence of any serious contribution whatever from the Government benches in the debate. I cannot possibly take what the Leader of the House said with any seriousness because I have actually read the debate of less than 18 months ago in which he made it perfectly clear that he vigorously supported the establishment of a foreign policy committee. This makes the whole debate a little ludicrous.

Mr. Ross

It will not cause him any difficulty.

Mr. Calleary

Others have also changed their mind.

Mr. Norris

Indeed, but this is the most spectacular somersault. There are U-turns: but to do a kind of loop-the-loop, as the impressive Senator did last week, is really quite startling.

Ireland has a special role in foreign affairs because she is virtually unique among European countries in having had the experience of being a colony, a situation that lasted well into the present century. This is a very important point because so many of the emerging nations of the world have experienced the colonial situation, particularly the neutral and non-aligned countries with which we would find our own natural allies. I believe that Ireland can operate as a bridge between various power blocks, particularly linking in with the non-aligned countries, who recognise our very special position by virtue of our history. In addition, this country has, I am glad to say, established an honourable tradition in terms of the peacekeeping force which we have maintained throughout the world. We have also got the proud record of never having been involved in international military conflicts, and this is something that I applaud and I hope will continue.

As was made abundantly clear during this important debate on foreign policy, all shades of political opinion rightly place a special emphasis upon neutrality. These circumstances place Ireland in a position where, by virtue of moral rather than military authority, a very important influence can be exercised, particularly, among other neutral and non-aligned states. I am convinced that this influence would be maximised by the establishment of an Oireachtas joint committee on foreign affairs.

I was somewhat surprised, as I have said already, at the tone adopted by the Leader of the House in his speech last week. U-turns have become something of a commonplace in Irish political life, and it is a regrettable fact that violent alterations of policy frequently occur when a political party make the transition from Opposition to Government. But Senator Lanigan's somersault on the issue of foreign affairs was so spectacular that it deserves comment. I sincerely hope that the Government's position on this important matter has been clarified since last week and that they will be able to support moves towards the establishment of an Oireachtas joint committee on foreign affairs with the same enthusiasm and vigour that they displayed in Opposition.

I would draw the Minister's attention to the fact that there is virtually nobody here on the Government side, and this has characterised the entire debate. Very few people were prepared to speak. However, I have spoken privately to a number of people in Fianna Fáil and I know perfectly well that they are in favour of this committee and that there is a majority on the Government benches who are in support of a foreign policy committee of both Houses of the Oireachtas.

Mr. W. Ryan

That is not correct.

Mr. Norris

That is my understanding having spoken privately to people. They are good boys. They do not have the luxury of independence and they have been nicely whipped into place. The Government's nervousness and the extraordinary territoriality of the Department of Foreign Affairs are quite unnecessary.

Mr. Calleary

I can assure the Senator that I have never used a whip in my life.

Mr. Norris

I am sure that the Minister would be above that kind of procedure but I have no doubt that whips are around the place from time to time. I cannot understand, for example, the argument advanced by the Minister where he says that the stock-in-trade of diplomatic activity is often privilege. Of course it is. We all accept and understand that. The Minister said that it includes confidential communications with other Governments especially those of our European partners, that the flow of information to the Department of Foreign Affairs and our missions abroad would soon dry up if it found its way into the public domain, as it surely would if the motion before us were adopted and the committee were empowered to send for persons, papers and records and to publish reports of minutes of evidence taken before it, and so on.

With the greatest respect, that is nonsense. Every other country in Europe has such a committee and the flow of information to their foreign affairs departments has not shown any sign of drying up. What is so special about Leinster House? What is so special about the conduct of foreign affairs in this country by this Government that makes it unique in Europe? Why should we be so extraordinarily nervous?

Mr. Calleary

Because we are unique.

Mr. Norris

There are some ways in which it is not always an advantage to be unique and it is not an advantage to be uniquely nervous and paranoid particularly in foreign affairs where one should have maturity and control.

Mr. Calleary

We have.

Mr. Norris

I am glad to be reassured by the Minister on that matter. I want to make one point with regard to this notion of confidentiality. I should say that in introducing the motion I made it perfectly clear that it was worded in such a way that, unlike most of the other European foreign affairs committees, we do not have the power to subponea. We can send for the Minister but he does not have to turn up. I know that the Minister would, of course, be so courteous as to make himself available but that has not always been the practice of all Ministers. I indicated last week that this was weaker than I would like but it is specifically worded in such a way as to cater for the nervousness of the Department of Foreign Affairs.

I would like to take up another very important point which emerged during the debate last week which I believe calls for very serious concern. This is the statement by Senator John Robb that, under a previous Government, at least two attempts were made by senior civil servants in the Department of Foreign Affairs to persuade him to remove from the Order Paper items which, in their wisdom, the servants of the State had decided were too controversial or too prejudicial to the interests of international relations to have debated in the Irish Parliament. I regard this as a most dangerous, unwarranted and controversial intervention in the democratic process of the State and I look for an assurance from the Minister that such events will not be allowed to occur in the future. It is essential that the independence and freedom of debate should be maintained in both Houses of the Oireachtas.

Mr. Calleary

I wonder did Senator Robb actually say that. The Senator should check the Official Report.

Mr. Norris

I will be very happy to do that. I have it here with me and on the record it was stated quite clearly by Senator Robb that he was in fact contacted by the Department of Foreign Affairs and asked to remove items from the Order Paper. As reported at column 1795 of the Official Report of 1 June 1988 he said:

I was telephoned, however, to suggest that I should take that motion off the Order Paper. Similarly I had a motion down dealing with the need for Ireland to ratify the UN Covenants on Human Rights.

He was also contacted about that.

Mr. Calleary

By whom?

Mr. Norris

The Minister will have to read the whole debate, but Senator Robb made it perfectly clear that he was telephoned by civil servants. I am quite sure that, were he here, he would substantiate that. It is something that I believe in all fairness the Minister should look into.

During my introduction of the motion last week I attempted to outline certain principles which I felt should govern the conduct of foreign policy and instanced certain specific examples. In elaborating this theme I would like to press the Minister with regard to the extraordinary fact that, despite the presence here of certain controversial diplomatic missions, such as the representatives of the Iranian regime, the State of Israel has still not been allowed to establish a permanent diplomatic presence in Dublin in clear violation of the terms of the Vienna Convention. Once more this delicate matter is a good example of an area in which the operation of an Oireachtas joint committee on foreign affairs would help the smooth functioning of the State.

I say this with particular emphasis because the Middle East is an area of the world which I know very well. I regard myself as a friend of the State of Israel which is a democratic country, but I have great reservations about what is going on there at the moment. I would like to be placed in a position where I could make informed and trenchant criticism of certain developments in Israel but I am absolutely loath and reluctant to do so as long as the representative of the Israeli Government is fighting here with his hands tied behind his back. Like most Irish people I believe in the principle of fair play. I would like the Minister to consider commenting on this issue, although I regard it as a matter of some delicacy. As I said, the Iranian Embassy is here and there is no reciprocity involved there so the argument about expense in terms of opening an embassy in Tel Aviv is quite redundant.

In addition to that I know that arguments are sometimes made that we nearly opened up the situation and then the position became more difficult because of military and other developments. I put it to the Minister that it is precisely during these kinds of periods of difficulty that a channel of communication is most valuable. I am optimistic that this debate will lead to the establishment of the committee that we recommended. We shall be calling for a vote on the matter this evening.

However, should the Government equivocate in the matter and force a defeat of the motion, it is the intention of the Independent group to establish an ad hoc committee on foreign affairs, the membership of which will initially be open to Members of both Houses of the Oireachtas and representatives of all the political groupings will be invited to participate in its proceedings. It is hoped that the establishment of such a group, which all parties have welcomed in the past will, even if it is unofficial to begin with, lead to the proper establishment of a permanent official and authoritative committee.

I understand that I may have a little bit of injury time because the Minister did helpfully intervene. I would like to refer to a few issues that I raised last week and develop them slightly. The first is the question of Ireland's bilateral aid. I would like to quote the Minister because he not only speaks but writes very well and I would like to applaud the sentiments the Minister of State expressed during the course of last year when he said that the Government consider development co-operation with the countries of the Third World to be an important aspect of our foreign policy. He went on to say that Irish people are, on average, at least ten times better off than people in the four priority countries for the Irish bilateral aid programme.

I would like to ask the Minister in the context of those remarks: why is it that the cutback in overseas aid for 1988 will take us back to 1981-82, in comparative terms? I would like to ask why it is that we are continually cutting back in this area, that aid is cut by £11 million and that the marvellous contribution of the Irish people through Bob Geldof's Live Aid is just simply wiped out with the stroke of a pen, and this all during a period when the Estimate for the Department of Foreign Affairs has actually gone up by 3 per cent. Our development aid and our commitment to people to whom we should have an obligation, because of our experience of the Famine in the last century, has actually been cut back.

I would like to refer again also to the question of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge and to ask the Government if they will not consider giving some significant aid to the suffering people of Kampuchea. I would remind the Minister that the Department of Foreign Affairs refused to meet a delegation from Kampuchea on the grounds that it was an illegal regime, despite the fact that the European Commission received them. Apparently, we are whiter than even the European Commission.

I would like to make two final points. The kind of area that I would very much welcome the Minister allowing to be opened up through an Oireachtas Joint Committee is, for example, the growing and much welcomed perestroika and glasnost in Russia. I believe we have a very honourable tradition. I would like to see this Government — I would ask the Minister to take this suggestion to the Cabinet — conferring the benefit of honourary citizenship of Ireland on the most courageous and wonderful man of the 20th century — Raoul Wallenberg who is probably still alive, probably in a Soviet jail. I believe the only people who can to help liberate him are a neutral Government and the courageous and determined Mr. Gorbachev of the Soviet Union. I hope he may manage to persuade the Government to open up this area.

Question put.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 15; Níl, 21.

Tá

• Bradford, Paul.
• Connor, John.
• Cregan, Denis.
• Fennel, Nuala.
• Ferris, Michael.
• Harte, John.
• Hogan, Philip.
• Kelleher, Peter.
• McCormack, Padraic.
• McDonald, Charlie.
• McMahon, Larry.
• Manning, Maurice.
• Norris, David.
• O'Shea, Brian.
• Ross, Shane.

Níl

• Bohan, Edward Joseph.
• Byrne, Seán.
• Cassidy, Donie.
• Cullimore, Séamus.
• Doherty, Michael.
• Fallon, Seán.
• Fitzgerald, Tom.
• Fitzsimons, Jack.
• Haughey, Seán F.
• Hillery, Brian.
• Hussey, Thomas.
• Kiely, Rory.
• Lanigan, Mick.
• Lydon, Donal.
• McEllistrim, Tom.
• McGowan, Patrick.
• McKenna, Tony.
• O' Connell, John.
• Ó Conchubhair, Nioclás.
• Ryan, William.
• Wallace, Mary.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Norris and Harte; Níl, Senators W. Ryan and S. Haughey.

Question declared lost.