Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 6 May 1992

Vol. 132 No. 8

Private Business. - Appointment of Joint Committee on Foreign Policy: Motion.

Mr. Norris

I move:

(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 commemcement 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 on each sub-committee shall have 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."

I welcome the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Andrews, to the House. It gave me particular pleasure when he was appointed to this important Government post, it is good to have a man of principle and honour and long standing commitment to the area of foreign affairs occupying this position and he has already given certain important commitments in the area.

I would not want it to be thought that this is a redundant motion, although this House has already debated it at least twice. In 1988 I put down virtually the same motion and it was previously discussed in 1986 in the name of the then Senator Michael D. Higgins. I do not think it is redundant because we have not yet entirely moved on, despite being slightly gazumped last weekend by a Government announcement that they intend to create a foreign affairs committee. I look forward with eager anticipation to the Minister giving us some details with regard to its establishment, its constitution and in particular whether there will be proper representation from this House. I would like the Minister also to give us a clear timetable. If, as I hope and anticipate, the Minister is able to be his usual clear, lucid, self and give factual information to the House on these matters, then I will be sufficiently tempted not to move my resolution to a vote, although I would regret not doing so because it is an expediency motion and if passed in this House would have certain consequences.

I will listen with great interest to what the Minister has to say because this announcement of intent was made also by the same Government under a different Taoiseach. The offer was subsequently withdrawn because of a wrangle between the Taoiseach and a former Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Lenihan, and was put on hold. Unless there is some clear and specific information with regard to a timescale, I will reluctantly have to put the motion to the House. I do not flatter myself that the intention of this gazumping manoeuvre was to gazump either myself or this motion in the Seanad; it was clearly aimed, as was the rest of that statement, at the Progressive Democrats and their annual conference in Waterford. As it apparently failed to derail them, so also has it failed to derail me.

In the aftermath of the previous debate on the establishment of a foreign affairs committee in 1988, I detected throughout the House general agreement that such a foreign affairs committee was an essential ingredient in the political life of a civilised State. Everybody recognised that Ireland was virtually the only European country that did not possess such a committee. Agreement was so general that I spoke with other Members of this House and of the other House, including Deputy Michael Higgins and the present Minister, and we established an ad hoc committee on foreign affairs. I am very glad to be able to remind the Minister that he attended the first couple of meetings of that committee, as did Deputy Kitt who is now Minister of State, but subsequently, with a degree of reluctance, withdrew from participation in that committee.

The committee performed a useful service as a ginger group, discussed a number of important matters and received delegations from various international bodies. I am sure the Minister's participation in our ad hoc committee will lend strength to his desire to have such a committee formally and properly established.

I refer to the fact that this is an expediency motion and it is important that it should be recognised that it was framed specifically on these lines for technical reasons. If it were passed by this House, a message would be sent to the Dáil and if they consented, that would lead to the automatic establishment of such a committee. On the other hand if it were passed in this House and the Dáil refused to accept the position of the Seanad and did not decide to join the Seanad in such a committee, it would then be within the remit of Seanad Éireann to establish a separate committee of this House alone to deal with foreign affairs. This is a salient reason it was formed as an expediency motion.

The matters under consideration are listed in the preamble to the motion, including the establishment and maintenance of good relations with countries with which Ireland has commercial and diplomatic dealings because one recognises the importance of commerce in international relations. I believe the Minister will agree that there is more to international relations than commercial considerations. I will return to this in dealing with certain specific instances, such as the troubled question of East Timor which is being greatly neglected and with which I know the Minister is familiar.

On occasions I raised issues of foreign affairs in this House and the Minister will know that this House has a particular regard for matters of foreign affairs; if you look at the Order Paper and the Supplementary Order Paper you will see again and again items dealing with foreign affairs.

When I raised the beef deals with Iraq I was told from the Government side that what I was suggesting might be a moral and principled position but a rhetorical question was left hanging in the air — could Ireland afford this position? If one telescopes those two phrases one comes up with the interesting question of whether Ireland can afford to take a moral and principled stand in foreign affairs? We can. One of the functions of this committee would be to determine the ideological or idealistic basis for our foreign policy. What are the principles that should guide the foreign policy of this small but influential country? I say with great respect to the Minister because I do not think it is a lesson he needs to learn, that often if one takes a long term view the principled stand is also the most economically beneficial one. There is a certain, wry smile on my face when I recall that debate on beef deals with Iraq when we did not choose to take a principled or idealistic stand because we regarded our commercial interest so highly, and yet now we are left with something like £161 million of export credit guarantee defaults. It has cost us dear not to take a principled foreign policy stand.

In our relations with Libya, it is humiliating that we did not issue stronger protests to Colonel Ghadaffi when we found that we were caught like a pawn in relations between Libya and Great Britain, when Colonel Ghadaffi in order to irritate, embarrass and prejudice the interest of Great Britain made large quantities of arms and explosives available to subversive organisations here. At that stage I suggested in this House that we break off diplomatic relations with Libya.

It is also interesting that we have apparently good diplomatic relations with Iran despite continuing human rights abuses in that country and elsewhere about which we appear to be relatively untroubled. I am not an admirer of Saddam Hussein but when I look at Kuwait I detect a suspicious perpendicularity about its borders which indicates to me that a line was drawn around the economic interests of western industrialised countries and a small State artificially established, within which there was no concern for human rights. Nor is there concern for human rights in Iraq which brings me to what should be an important foreign policy principle towards which we should move in fora such as United Nations. It has been clearly demonstrated throughout this century that it is not sufficient for international organisations merely to guarantee the rights of nations as established by treaty while ignoring human rights guarantees for individual citizens composing those states. We should make concern for fundamental human rights a directing notion of our foreign policy which I hope the Minister will accept.

Time is limited, so I will move on to a couple of points about the technical text of the motion. Paragraph 6 says "That the Joint Committee and each sub-committee shall have 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". I hope that the Minister will include such a paragraph in the establishment of a foreign affairs committee; it is important that a committee should have power to request or, if possible, to require persons to attend so that they may be made accountable and questions directed to them to establish if the principles I have enunciated underlie our foreign policy. This would not lead to the dangerous disclosure of sensitive diplomatic material.

With regard to accountability and responsibility, I was amazed to learn during the progress of the Goodman Beef Tribunal that whatever the impact of this on the other House of the Oireachtas, a private individual, Mr. Larry Goodman, was able to direct the Irish Ambassador in Baghdad with regard to what commercial policy he could take on board. I would like to believe that this House of elected representatives together with the other House would have at least as much impact on Irish foreign policy and the conduct of its ambassadorial staff as a private individual who happens to be a captain of industry. Accountability is a very important element.

East Timor was invaded on 7 December 1975, ten days after the Independent State of East Timor had been established and before that country could attain international diplomatic recognition through the United Nations, although ten countries did so recognise it. In 1975 on 22 December the UN Security Council unanimously called upon the State of Indonesia to withdraw. This chimes in clearly with what I have been saying about the principles and ideals which should underline foreign affairs policy. The cynical policy of the United Kingdom Government as disclosed in a leaked telegram from the British Ambassador in Djakarta to the Foreign Office in July 1975 indicates the dangers that prevail when principle goes out the window. The telegram reads:

The territory seems likely to become steadily more of a problem child and the arguments in favour of integration into Indonesia are all the stronger. Certainly as seen from here it is in Britain's interest that Indonesia should absorb the territory as soon and as unobtrusively as possible and that if it comes to the crunch and there is a row in the United Nations we should keep our heads down and avoid taking sides against the Indonesian Government.

I end by indicating the existence also of a message from the Australian Ambassador in Djakarta which goes as follows:

This Department might well have an interest in closing the present gap in the agreed sea border and this could be much more readily negotiated with Indonesia than with Portugal or Independent Portuguese Timor.

I know I am recommending a pragmatic rather than a principled stand, but that is what national interest and foreign policy is all about.

I know that this is not what the Minister believes it to be all about. Can I end by saying, it is a tragic irony that this situation is worsening day by day and was critically worsening just as the Gulf War adventure was being embarked upon by the western powers in the interest of their oil resources. Because of oil in East Timor, western powers were prepared to take a pragmatic rather than a principled stand while they dressed up their concern about the Gulf in all kinds of unbelievable statements about the defence of human rights.

Professor Murphy

I second the motion. The establishment of a joint foreign affairs committee has been long desired by many Deputies and Senators. There may be an element of playing games here but the aspiration is genuine. That is why we did form for a brief time an ad hoc committee which was obviously unsatisfactory but which Senator Norris said kept the interest alive.

I can understand why there should be vested interests against the establishment of a Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs. Every profession likes to mystify itself and diplomats and Iveagh House civil servants are no exception. There is a long standing tradition in this country according to which people are told in a patriarchal and authoritarian fashion: "This is a bit above your heads, you would not understand this, it is not for the likes of you to be bothering your head about." It is understandable that people should want to retain this closed and charmed circle and resistance to the establishment of this joint committee has been long and adamant. The last Taoiseach contemplated the establishment of such a committee only when, for a time, it looked as if the chairmanship would be an expedient way of rewarding services rendered. Like Senator Norris, I am glad the recent announcement has been made. I do not think it renders our motion superfluous, particularly with the Minister present to elaborate on what has been promised.

I know there are sensible reasons for opposing a foreign affairs committee. A stock objection is that foreign affairs are delicate matters and where negotiations of great and delicate importance are involved, it might not be desirable to have an open parliamentary committee discussing what could be better negotiated behind closed doors. There is something in that, but it does not weigh against the desirability for democratic accountability in this as in every other area.

In education, for example, we are beginning to have this democratic accountability in line with what I take to be the spirit of this Government and, at last, there may be Oireachtas responsibility in foreign affairs. If we had had an Oireachtas joint committee on foreign affairs in operation monitoring what was going on, that wretched Protocol, which is now such a headache to all of us and which was inserted through the hole and corner diplomacy which has been defended for so long in this country, would never have arisen because it would not have been accepted by a responsible Oireachtas joint committee. That is a good example of the advantages of such a committee.

I understood when the promise was made recently to set up the Joint Committee that it would subsume the existing Joint Committee on European Community Affairs, of which I am a member. I am not sure that that is a good idea because there is a world outside the European Community in which we have many interests. If the European Union becomes a fact, then a question mark must be raised about the need for diplomatic establishments in member states ultimately. Why, for example, should we have an ambassador in Spain, admirable person that he is — I experienced his hospitality the other week — if we are part of the same Union? If ambassadors are people who are sent abroad to lie for their country, then according to the theory and spirit of the European Union, Spain is not abroad anymore. Whether we should merge our European diplomatic interests with wider global interests is very questionable.

Many of us fear that our wider foreign affairs interests will be lost sight of in a close European Union. That fear stems from an unarticulated feeling that Ireland's interests are not confined to Europe, but extend to the wider world. Foreign affairs, as Senator Norris said, are not remote and arcane; frequently it is bread and butter and, above all, it is independence. Pandit Nehru said some time in the fifties, "Independence is foreign affairs" and that is what Robert Emmet had in mind when he spoke about his country taking its place among the nations of the earth. For all these reasons it may well be questioned whether we should merge European affairs with the wider interests which, I hope, we will continue to sustain.

The motion may be optimistic in hoping that the joint committee will comprise seven Members of Seanad Éireann and eight Members of Dáil Éireann. Relations between the two Houses may well be strained in the next few weeks for other reasons, and the Dáil may not be prepared to contemplate such a large Seanad representation. We live in hope. I ask the Minister to transcend the narrow interests of party politics and to recognise that there is considerable expertise in foreign affairs on the Independent benches; perhaps we may be represented on this committee. I hope the Minister will elaborate on the Government announcement and I am glad to see the Minister in that particular chair.

Mr. Fitzgerald

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following—

"Seanad Éireann welcomes the Government's support for the establishment of a Joint Oireachtas Committee on Foreign Affairs; and urges the early establishment of such a Committee on an agreed basis."

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Andrews)

I will not be able to do justice to the motion in 15 minutes but I will do my best.

Mr. Norris

May I make a suggestion? The Minister could elaborate further if the debate does not take the full two hours.

Mr. Andrews

I would like about 20 minutes.

Mr. Lanigan

I propose that the Minister gets as much time as he needs. He has stated he needs 20 minutes.

Mr. Norris

If each speaker gives one minute that will give the Minister 20 minutes. This is such an important matter and I would like to hear everything the Minister has to say.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Neville)

Is that agreed? Agreed. The Minister has 20 minutes.

Mr. Andrews

Senators may regret they gave me the extra time but I will do my best to justify the confidence they have placed in me. It is a pleasure for me to be back in the Seanad after so many years; I think the last time I was here was in a junior ministerial capacity in 1979. I appreciate the motion and the movers of the motion, Senators Norris and O'Toole; obviously Senator O'Toole is on other business and Senator Murphy took on his role.

I appreciate that in setting up any foreign affairs committee the wisdom and experience of Independent Senators should be availed of. In any Parliament, either Seanad or Dáil, Independent Members have a tremendous role to play and in my 27 years in the Lower House I have felt that they do not receive sufficient recognition in their roles as Senators in the House and on committees. They have not got a fair shake over the years. That is a personal opinion and personal opinions get Ministers into trouble.

As far as Senator Norris's reference to East Timor is concerned, I am well aware of the problem there. I addressed the Indonesian Ambassador on that subject when I invited him to my Department from London some time ago to express my deep concern about what was happening there. I expressed my views in a very trenchant fashion and left him in no doubt as to where we stood in relation to what we considered to be an attack on human rights there. The Senator can rest easy on that one. It is one thing to express concerns and another to take action but I am pursuing the matter.

As far as the possibility of the Seanad setting up a foreign affairs committee on its own is concerned, I do not think you will have to go through the procedural convulsions outlined. I do not say that in a disrespectful way. When they hear what I have to say, I think both Senators Norris and Senator Murphy will be quite happy that what has been called for since 1988 will become a reality in 1992. I am very keen to have a Foreign Affairs Committee and to spread the load of foreign policy throughout the Upper and Lower Houses of the Oireachtas. I feel very strongly about this. The Seanad will not have to wait too long for such a committee to be set up. The composition of the committee, as between Senators and Deputies, would be a matter for the Whips because it will be an Oireachtas joint committee.

I would like to say at the outset how pleased I am to address the Seanad for the first time in my capacity as Minister for Foreign Affairs. I am aware that many stimulating and thought provoking debates on foreign policy issues have taken place in this House over the years and I hope that this is the first of many opportunities I will have to contribute to your deliberations.

The case for the establishment of a Oireachtas Joint Foreign Affairs Committee has been persuasively made in a number of earlier Seanad debates. It is, therefore, particularly apt that I should come before you to confirm the commitment of the Government to the early establishment of such a committee. Consultations on the terms of reference of the proposed committee are proceeding and I hope that agreed terms of reference can be put before both Houses in the very near future.

Ireland is unique among the countries of the European Community in not having had a parliamentary committee dealing with foreign affairs. The absence of such a committee is related to our more general problem of developing structures to permit parliamentarians to have an adequate input into the formulation of public policy. This is something which the Government are determined to correct through the package of Oireachtas reform measures announced by the Taoiseach last week. I have been long convinced that foreign affairs is an obvious area for a parliamentary committee, particularly in view of the considerable degree of common ground that exists among members of both Houses on foreign policy issues. Such other mechanisms as currently exist for raising foreign policy issues — I am thinking in particular of parliamentary questions — do not always encourage the emergence of this common ground.

My hope is that, in a Foreign Affairs Committee, the issues with which Ireland is faced internationally can be fully debated in a calm and rational atmosphere with a view to establishing as broad an area of agreement as possible. Though legitimate differences of opinion are bound to emerge on certain issues, I am confident that, on most of the important issues that face us in the international arena, a considerable degree of consensus will exist. Where such a consensus cannot be found in the proposed Foreign Affairs Committee, it is likely to be on issues where it is useful that opposing points of view be fully explored and that the Government of the day should tread carefully before coming down on one side or another of the argument. I think that addresses in a fair way a concern expressed by Professor Murphy that there are areas in foreign affairs which would be confined specifically to the Government alone for reasons well known to everybody. In the main, my view is that when it comes to foreign affairs, as far as possible, everything should be on the table.

I believe that some of the controversies that have arisen in the foreign affairs area in the past have been at least partly due to lack of full information on both the substance of the issues and the constraints under which any Government must operate on matters which affect their relations with the outside world. A Foreign Affairs Committee provides an opportunity for a representative group of Members, drawn from both Houses, to develop an in-depth knowledge of the issues that arise for Ireland in the international arena; this in turn is bound to lead to a more informed debate on foreign policy issues in both Houses.

We already have experience of the useful work that can be done by committees in the foreign affairs area. As has been stated by Senators Norris and Murphy, the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities have, for many years, provided an indispensable service in examining, on behalf of the Oireachtas, the huge volume of secondary legislation emanating from the European Communities. The reports produced by the committee over the years have served to keep Members of both Houses, and the public at large, informed on significant issues arising for this country from implementation of European Community legislation.

In their seventh report, the committee expressed the view that their terms of reference were too restrictive and did not allow them to consider broader issues arising from Ireland's membership of the European Communities. The report, therefore, recommended that the joint committee be reconstituted as a European Affairs Committee with power to examine all proposals affecting the Community's development. This proposal was made before the issue of a Foreign Affairs Committee was seriously on the table. The issue of whether such a reconstituted committee could co-exist with a Foreign Affairs Committee without running the risk of extensive overlapping was, therefore, not considered in the report.

With the gradual expansion of the areas of competence of the European Community — formally marked by the Single European Act and now by the Treaty on European Union — most areas of what is traditionally regarded as foreign policy will now come within the scope of Twelve co-operation under the provisions relating to the common foreign and security policy. There is a commitment by all member states — a commitment which will be further strengthened under the terms of the Treaty on European Union — to try to reach common positions on all foreign policy issues, whether arising in relations with individual countries or within the United Nations or other international organisations. Thus, the Twelve have evolved joint policies in relation to issues as diverse as the Middle East conflict, Cambodia, and human rights questions arising in international fora and East Timor to which Senator Norris has quite properly referred.

These policies are being constantly refined and updated in the light of new developments in a process of intensive consultation between member states. This process gives Ireland an opportunity to contribute with our particular views and outlook to the development of a Common European Policy while, at the same time, requiring us to adhere to common policies once they have been agreed on.

In this situation, a broadly based European Community Affairs Committee with power to examine all proposals affecting the community's development would, in practice, have the power to examine most of the issues that a Foreign Affairs Committee at its widest would be expected to examine. Because of this and with a view to avoiding the possibility of extensive duplication of effort, the Government favour the establishment of a broadly based Foreign Affairs Committee which would subsume the expanded mandate which was proposed for a European Community Affairs Committee. The proposed committee would thus continue the vital work of overseeing EC secondary legislation while also being free to examine at their own pace broader policy issues related to Ireland's membership of the European Community and Irish foreign policy in general. It would be for the committee to decide how to organise their work so as to strike a balance between their detailed work on EC secondary legislation and their broader policy work.

As I stated already, it is my hope that there will be early agreement on the establishment and terms of reference of the committee so that it can get to work as soon as possible. I am sorry that, in response to Senator Norris's request, I cannot give him the terms of reference of the committee at this stage; however I can tell him that the terms of reference are with the Whips. That is the present position and they will be produced as soon as possible.

I think of how useful it would be if, for example, such a committee were already in existence and able to examine the implications for this country of the Maastricht Treaty. A report from a broadly based Oireachtas Foreign Affairs Committee on this issue would, I am sure, command respect and help to remove some of the misunderstandings that have bedevilled the debate on the Treaty up to now and solve the problem — which I will not mention — that Senators raised.

As to other areas which might usefully be examined by a Foreign Affairs Committee, I would suggest that this is a matter for further detailed consideration on an inter-party basis. However, one example which comes to mind — and one in which I am personally very interested — is that of Ireland's relationship with developing countries. Members of this House will not need to be reminded of the valuable work done by the Former Joint Committee on Co-operation with Developing Countries. I believe that the committee's work helped to develop a considerable measure of agreement on what Ireland's policy with developing countries should be and that reports were a valuable contribution to public debate on development co-operation issues. The work of the former committee, taken together with the continuing work of the EC secondary legislation committee, has established a standard against which the work of the proposed new foreign affairs committee will be judged.

Foreign policy formulation in today's circumstances poses perhaps a greater challenge than at any time in our past. Membership of the European Community has obliged us to take positions on issues which, in the years before we joined the Community, might have been dealt with by us in the United Nations at a very general level — if we dealt with them at all. The Community's deep involvement in the efforts to find a peaceful outcome to the Yugoslav crisis is a graphic illustration of the gradual extension of the scope of European Foreign policy. In this situation — as also in the case of the disintegration of the Soviet Union — the European Community and its member states have found themselves beaking new ground in terms of active involvement in a crisis and having to make decisions on very important issues, such as the recognition of new states, within a time frame largely dictated by outside events. The new possibilities for joint action in the foreign policy area set out in the Maastricht Treaty, and the major events happening on the Community's "back door" in Eastern Europe, all point to an expansion of this type of hands-on Community involvement.

It is absolutely crucial that the pressure of day-to-day events does not lead us to neglect the long term perspective which is essential in the foreign affairs area. I believe that the proposed Foreign Affairs Committee can play a very valuable role in putting day-to-day decisions in such a long term perspective, answering the basic question: what do these decisions, taken together, mean for Ireland's fundamental foreign policy interests? Do the decisions taken jointly with our partners in the European Community adequately reflect our national approach to international issues? Where, in any particular situation, should the balance be struck between adherence to important general principles and recognition of the compromises that the realities may seem to impose? In cases of conflict between the general principles we espouse — for example in relations with developing countries — and our narrow and more direct economic interest, how are we to evaluate the competing considerations?

That comes down to the fundamental point raised by Senators Norris and Murphy: whither Irish foreign policy? Where are we going? How do we state our position? How do we articulate it? I believe this committee will be of tremendous assistance in that regard. In the past there have been many complaints that we do not have a foreign policy. I would not agree with that. We do have a foreign policy; it is important that we tell people what it is and let them know in what direction that policy is going.

With regard to the suggestion that Iveagh House is a charmed place, let me say that it is populated by people of the highest calibre and character, people who know their business; representatives of countries taking on the Presidency of the European Community come to Iveagh House arising from the experience of our Presidency. We have people of the very highest quality there, people that Ireland can be justly proud of both at home and abroad.

In the final analysis, the operational decisions in the foreign policy area fall to be taken by the Government of the day. As Senator Murphy said, it would not be appropriate or acceptable for a Foreign Affairs committee to try to curtail the necessary freedom of action that a Government must enjoy in the foreign policy sphere if vital national interests are to be protected. It would be unrealistic, and indeed unwise, to expect that a Foreign Affairs Committee should operate without regard for this fundamental fact. However, to recognise that constraints exist is in no way to diminish the important role that a committee can play in bringing clarity and openness to the discussion of fundamental foreign policy issues and ensuring that the matters on which a decision must be taken are fully aired and that they are understood by public opinion.

In summary, I approach the establishment of a Foreign Affairs Committee in a very positive way. I am deeply conscious of the fact that it is through our foreign policy formulation that we define our position in the world and I look forward to drawing on the advice and experience of colleagues from both houses in making the difficult choices that are so often involved.

In the best interests of co-operation and the future emergence of a Foreign Policy Committee which is acceptable to all parties in both Houses I would deem it a great honour and privilege if Senator Norris would not push the matter to a vote.

Mr. Norris

Senator Murphy and I had already reached that conclusion.

Mr. Andrews

I appreciate that very much; I am deeply grateful.

Mr. McDonald

I extend a very warm welcome to the Minister, Deputy Andrews, on his first visit to the Seanad as Minister for Foreign Affairs. On behalf of the Fine Gael Party I welcome his statement and his commitment to the establishment of a Foreign Affairs Committee.

Over the past 19 years I have had the greatest admiration and respect for our diplomatic service and for the civil servants in the Department of Foreign Affairs. For the eight or nine years I served in the European Parliament their input was very visible. I agree with the Minister; we can rightly be proud of his Department. I wish him every success in the very onerous task he has undertaken.

A properly constituted Foreign Affairs Committee can make an important contribution to the policies of the European Community after European Union and the European Monetary Union become effective. This is of the greatest urgency and importance. We have, at present, the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Secondary Legislation, but the Minister recognises that, in the main, the vast majority of the work of that committee refers to regulations that have already been enacted. The committee do not have an opportunity of representing the views of the plain people of Ireland or of the membership of the Oireachtas in their policy statements. I would like to underline that by referring to the motion on today's Order Paper:

That Seanad Éireann takes note of the Reports: Developments in the European Communities — 32nd, 33rd, 34th, 35th, 36th (Irish Presidency of the European Communities, January-June 1990), 37th and 38th Reports.

The 32nd Report covers the first half of 1988. The 1972 European Act gave the House a right and a statutory obligation to discuss at six monthly intervals the activities, operations and developments of the European Community. Through the whole of the last four years during which there was so much movement, development, so many new policies and new trends in the European Community, we have had no opportunity to discuss those activities and developments. I welcome the expanding role Europe has undertaken. During the period of the Gulf War, there were huge changes in the Common Agricultural Policy and competition policy, and during the same period we had the second Russian Revolution.

During the Irish Presidency of the Commission, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Collins, travelled all over the world and did a great job for the EC but Oireachtas representatives had no opportunity to comment on what he was doing or to say whether the policies he espoused not just on behalf of the Community but on behalf of the Irish people, were of any great interest to the people of Ireland. The new committee will be a very important forum to which the Minister will make a significant contribution. He is a highly skilled and experienced public representative and I look forward to his taking a positive role on the international stage.

Ireland is one of the very few democracies represented entirely by civil servants at the General Assembly of the United Nations each autumn. That is not true of any of the EC states. We have representation in the Council of Europe and the IPU, but the Western European Union must also be of some interest to this country. There is also the Nordic Council. While we are not in that region, nevertheless, as an exporting State and economic entity, we should be conscious of the way they are thinking. I am aso looking very closely at the activities in the European Community. Members of the Oireachtas could make a useful contribution to the work of different councils in Europe but they would need to specialise. If we are to go to the expense of having such representation, there must be something in it for the country as a whole.

I would like to see a greater commercial role being played by our diplomatic service. I know that the Department, like every other Department, do not get enough cash. Senator Murphy asked whether we need diplomatic representation in each of the 11 member states, but there are still some countries where we need additional listening posts. I do not think it appropriate that we should have only one or two embassies in southern America; I doubt if that is sufficient. Having regard to the fact that the developing countries recognise our status in international affairs, we have a greater role to play there. Ireland's input to the Third World has been spiritual. I do not denigrate the great work of missionary or lay volunteers whose work continues.

It is a tragedy that at present there are famines in seven or eight African countries which do not warrant even a line in the newspapers. A Foreign Affairs Committee would be able to send out small delegations to those countries to highlight the problems. We are not even making progress towards the target of .07 per cent of GNP set for our contribution to the developing world. We need to have a greater grasp of the necessity to make a meaningful contribution to the Third World.

A Foreign Affairs Committee would be able to play a role in areas where human rights are violated, and excesses of cruelty or barbarity are carried out in the name of freedom. The oppressed do not care if they get a kick from a left jackboot or a right jackboot. I would like to see our country defending the basic human rights and freedoms of minorities across the world. We have the ability to do that. We should demonstrate our generosity by making a contribution to level the playing pitch. We should not be afraid to take on any Government, whether perceived as friend or foe. Wherever there is cruelty or brutality, we should be prepared to take a stand on human rights.

Mr. Lydon

I welcome the Minister to the House and congratulate him on the fine work he has done to date. We have had very good Foreign Ministers but this Minister must be commended on the magnificent impression he has made since taking office. He is welcomed by all sides and admired. He has a fairly rough task facing him but I am sure he will handle it admirably.

If the motion needs to be seconded, I will do so. I compliment the Government on taking this stand and agreeing to establish a Foreign Affairs Committee. The great advantage would be to permit an open and frank discussion of issues affecting our relations with other states or, as the Minister said, to explore and develop an in-depth knowledge of the issues that arise for Ireland in the international arena. I welcome the Minister's statement that everything would be on the table; I trust that would extend to our relations with our nearest neighbour.

The Joint Oireachtas Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Community have done tremendous work over the years and produced many reports. I have the impression, however, that sometimes these reports are a little late in coming forward. I hope that any new foreign affairs committee would have an active secretariat and once information was developed, it would come forward in report form fairly quickly because foreign affairs is a very dynamic area.

The Minister pointed out that if such a committee existed at the moment it would be a great help in examining the implications of the Maastricht Treaty; it might have helped the great debate. I believe we are being sidetracked to some extent by issues which are of national importance but which are peripheral to the great debate we should be having on becoming a part of a huge union which was established to prevent war. We have had peace in Europe since the end of the Second World War; people forget this.

Such a committee could examine Ireland's relationship with developing countries and eastern European countries, with whom we have just begun to establish relationships. The Hungarian Ambassador, Dr. Istvan Pataki and his second in command Dr. Gabor Foldvari have done fantastic work since they came here just over a year ago and they have endeared themselves to the Irish people. The new Polish Ambassador, Mr. Bryll has also done great work.

A Foreign Affairs Committee could discuss many issues, for example, our relations with smaller nations like the Republic of San Marino. We could meet with people like Lao-Sheng Huang who is the Taipei economic and cultural office representative, a marvellous man who has very warm feelings for Ireland. We could discuss our relations with the Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of Malta which exchanges ambassadors with 46 countries, though, unfortunately, not with Ireland. This organisation does tremendous charitable work. All these matters could be examined by the Foreign Affairs Committee.

I am particularly interested in the establishment of such a committee because, although many important foreign affairs issues are discussed by Government, other important issues, such as the Order of Malta which is a juridical body in its own right, are not. A Foreign Affairs Committee would have an important role to play in advising and informing as well as recommending and studying proposals for the establishment of relationships with such bodies. They could meet people whom, the Government for various reasons, might not be able to meet, for example, representatives from Northern Cyprus. There are problems in Cyprus at present which are not very different from the problems here. This committee could meet representatives from both sides and, perhaps, prepare a report for the Minister and the Government.

I accept that at the end of the day any committee is just a committee and while this committee could do useful work by producing reports, meeting people from foreign countries and, perhaps, visiting foreign countries, it remains for the Government to govern and the committee to do the work. The Minister said that in the final analysis the operational decisions in the area of foreign policy should be taken by the Government of the day. I would not disagree with that, irrespective of the work completed by a Foreign Affairs Committee.

I welcome the establishment of this committee, in particular, the warm approach of the Minister. He is the first Minister to contact us and say that his office will be available to help us in any way; he deserves great credit for this. I look forward to the establishment of this committee and I am glad that the Minister has included Members from both Houses. We have been pushing for this committee for a long time and at last our voices have been heard. I welcome the Minister, I welcome the proposal and I hope the establishment of this committee is not too far off.

Mr. Lanigan

I welcome the amendment and the motion because for many years I have been seeking a Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs. On many occasions, as Leader, I had to turn down motions to have this committee established. Nevertheless, at all times I was in favour of its establishment. It is particularly important that a country like Ireland which, though small, has an influence abroad, which we should not forget, an influence we gained because we are one of the few non-colonial countries in the European Community. It is of great significance when travelling to Third World countries and to countries outside Europe and the United States that we are accepted as a non-colonial country. It is important when we are trying to help, whether in peacekeeping missions, in the reduction of tension or in bringing conflicting parties together, that we show that we do not have an axe to grind; our aim is to create an atmosphere in which people can sit down and resolve their problems peacefully as we would like to see all problems resolved.

I welcome the establishment of this committee because a political input into foreign affairs is extremely important. I am not suggesting that there has not been a political input into foreign affairs in the past, but that input has been at Government and ministerial level, and, for the most part, there has been a professional input from Department officials. While they are well versed in the areas for which they have responsibility, nevertheless, they are not politicians, they are not perceived as politicians and the professional answer is not always the correct one; there has to be a political answer as well as a professional one. The input of politicians is extremely important in foreign affairs matters and in the establishment of relations with developing and developed countries. When travelling abroad, especially to developing and Third World countries, politicians are more respected than civil servants although the reverse may be true in certain areas. Public servants, here are more respected than politicians and in some cases, they have a better standing in society. Nevertheless, we must accept that politicians prefer to deal with other politicians.

When establishing commercial relations with foreign countries we should not forget that many business people prefer to deal with politicians than civil servants. The input of politicians in international trading policies will have to be taken into account if we are to succeed in developing our international trade. I am not denigrating the work that has been done by our ambassadors abroad in terms of international trade. Our excellent ambassadors work extremely hard. Although there has been criticism in this House, and in the other House, of various members of the diplomatic corps, we should not generalise. Ambassador McCabe who has been the subject of some criticism, did tremendous work at the time of the Gulf War, not alone in his ambassadorial capacity but in the help he gave to people who were caught up in the Iraq-Kuwait conflict. He assisted nurses, doctors and engineers from all over Ireland and, indeed, anybody who contacted him; his telephone line was open 24 hours of a day. That is only one indication of the work that can be done at that level. It has been brought home to me on many occasions when travelling abroad that the role of the Irish Parliament is important. At times people feel that the political aspects of international trade are ignored.

The committee will have to address the role of our foreign representatives and embassies

At a time when communications have changed so much in terms of faxes, telephone, satellite and air communications, the role of the ambassador as a diplomat has been lessened. The PR element has grown to such an extent that some of the diplomatic corps abroad are there only to react to situations on an ad hoc basis. They tend to socialise among the ambassadorial cliques and to take their political input from the diplomatic corps. Too often they do not know what is going on at street level, but they do know what is going on at diplomatic level. Diplomatic contact is not political contact and, therefore, is not relevant to some of the areas in which they have been involved.

Having regard to the imminent political integration of Europe it is important that we should have a strong Foreign Affairs Committee. The Foreign Affairs Committee should have a major input into the foreign policy of the new integrated Europe. As a small nation, we will have to use every resource so that our foreign policy is stressed in a political way at European level because our policy can sometimes be subsumed into the foreign policy proposals of other nations. It will be difficult for us, as a nation, to succeed in having a major input. I know the Minister is well versed in the need for such a committee. I have seen the work he has done in attempting to address the human rights violations which have occurred particularly in the Middle East.

One of the issues dealt with in the motion is the international dimension of the concept of human rights. President Bush recently said there was a new order in the world and that human rights will have to be taken aboard. Of course, President Bush and the Americans have not always adhered to the concept of human rights.

Mr. Norris

Hear, hear.

Mr. Lanigan

There are many areas where, every day, the terms of the Geneva Convention are broken. I hope the Minister will take that on board as his major objective in the next few months or years, that human rights issues will be addressed once and for all and that every resolution of the United Nations will be adhered to.

Mr. Cullen

I join other Members in welcoming the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Andrews, to the Seanad. I am particularly pleased to see him here this evening. He will be one of the outstanding Ministers in this Government and I am confident he will leave his mark and, indeed, serve with distinction. Senator Norris said he will not press the motion to a vote this evening. I welcome that. I do not want to speculate why he would do such a thing, but I imagine it coincides with my own view — that he believes the Minister. It is a great benefit to the Irish people that somebody of the Minister's calibre and undoubted ability is able to serve this country. He understands the frustrations of backbenchers, people who have ability and who want to make a contribution but lack the forum in which to do so; he also understands the necessity for this committee and I have no doubt he will ensure that they are given the widest possible terms of reference.

In common with many other Members, I have been seeking to have this committee established since I came into this House and the sooner that happens the better. The chairman of the committee will have a great bearing on how the committee will develop in the months and years ahead. I am just signalling at this stage the important role which the person leading that committee will have to play in ensuring that they get down to the business they should be about. That will lay the foundation for what I believe will be one of the most important committees ever established, and in time they will go from strength to strength when it comes to being of assistance to the Department of Foreign Affairs.

The committee should always play a very important part in the debate and political discussion on where this country should be heading in the international arena. The area of foreign policy is a developing one and it will continue to develop as the world develops. I have no doubt of the value of such a committee and I believe this Minister will listen carefully to what they have to say. There may be times when the committee will be able to say things that might be difficult for Ministers to say, and I sincerely hope they will have the courage and confidence to voice their opinions on all issues relating to foreign affairs.

Obviously, the immediate need for this committee has been referred to by the Minister in the context of the developing Europe. That is the obvious and most tangible area where this country is and has been directly involved, and, undoubtedly, will be involved to a greater degree in the years ahead. As more and faster integration occurs the need for further and more detailed discussion on all areas of foreign policy will be greater. It is regrettable that throughout our membership of the European Community we lacked the opportunity in both Houses to be of assistance and service and to tease out issues. I do not want to go into a long debate on our problems in relation to Maastricht but it highlights what could have been achieved by a foreign affairs committee.

There is another wide range of issues which directly affect our involvement in the European Community, many of them, unfortunately, misrepresented or misunderstood, on which a joint committee representing all political parties and independents, could give a very clear signal to the public what is required. The Irish people, by their nature, are conservative; they do not like change, particularly when the change process is under way and people do not understand what is happening. Fear becomes the norm and issues which are extraneous to the core value issues become talked about more than the fundamental issues themselves. I look forward to the establishment of this committee.

In relation to our involvement in Europe, I see this committee fulfilling a role in respect of our neutrality and common defence policies. As somebody pointed out recently, if an opinion poll was held and people were asked a simple question about maintaining Ireland's neutrality, 70 per cent would vote yes. However, if the word "neutrality" was omitted and people were asked if Ireland should be part of a common defence policy, 70 per cent of the people would also agree with that. Neutrality is not on the agenda for Maastricht and it should not be drawn into the debate on Maastricht. If a foreign affairs committee had been in existence, this issue could have been discussed and we could have looked at precisely what was involved. In future treaties the questions of a common defence and Ireland's neutrality, and what we mean by it, will be to the front of the debate. In advance of such a referendum, I look forward to the Committee on Foreign Affairs addressing such matters in a calm and cool manner.

Ireland's neutrality has a value and should be part of any discussions on defence. Because one wants to go into that forum for discussion, that does not in any way negate the value of one's neutrality. As a nation, we have an important contribution to make because of our long history of neutrality. I want to signal areas where the value of this Foreign Affairs Committee can be of great benefit. Hopefully this committee will not deal with the philosophical viewpoint and the intangibles, but will give a sense of real value to the ordinary people.

Other areas causing concern — more so in other countries — in the debate on Maastricht are migration, jobs and the movement of people within the European Community. Here, too, there is a practical role to be played by a Foreign Affairs committee. They could examine these issues, perhaps not the actual job creation but the movement of people. In this way, ordinary people, particularly our highly educated young people could have their questions answered before problems develop. We have some very able MEPs in Europe and it is amazing that we do not have a forum where they can discuss with us their role in Europe. I am not suggesting that they should be Members of this committee, but they should have some direct involvement and bring in their experience, expertise and knowledge of Europe to such a forum when we are dealing specifically with European matters. We must utilise all the talent available to us. It strikes me as nonsensical that we do not yet have a forum where our MEPs can discuss with us their role in Europe.

I hope I will have another opportunity to talk on this matter. I welcome the establishment of this committee and I have the utmost confidence in the leadership provided by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I have no doubt he will serve this Government with great distinction.

Mr. Hourigan

I welcome the Minister on his first visit to the House as Minister and congratulate him on his promotion to the Cabinet. I salute his magnificent efforts over the years in the area of foreign affairs while he was a backbencher in the Dáil. His work in Third World and other areas is well known and he is to be commanded for his magnificent contribution in the area of foreign affairs over the years. It is encouraging that a man of his calibre is now Minister for Foreign Affairs and I wish him well.

I wish to add my voice in support of the establishment of this Committee on Foreign Affairs, a committee that I and many others have advocated for many years. It is encouraging to get a positive and clear message from the Minister that this committee will be established at an early date. The committee's terms of reference should be established as a matter of urgency and the committee should be put in place as quickly as possible. I welcome the fact that this will be a joint committee. Excellent contributions will be made by members of both Houses to ensure the effective working of this committee.

The committee will have an important function to perform in the movement of people, referred to by the previous speaker, and in the promotion of trade and acting as an effective ambassador in conjunction with the Minister for Foreign Affairs on behalf of this country. As already indicated we are unique in that we are the only EC country without a Foreign Affairs Committee. With an expanding Europe it is vital that we have an effective body to liaise on behalf of Ireland with other countries, in conjunction with the good efforts of our Minister for Foreign Affairs and his Department. However there is a limit to what any Minister or Department can do. A Foreign Affairs Committee, representative of the two Houses will do great work to further our position in Europe, a Europe that is likely to get larger as the time passes. I am mindful of the fact that this committee will have functions beyond the European dimension. That is important because of the changes in Eastern Europe. A Foreign Affairs can do a magnificent job of work ensuring we fit into a proper niche in the context of this development.

With a population of 3.5 million, we account for approximately 1 per cent of the European Community population of 350 million people. That 1 per cent, small as it is, has made a very valuable contribution to the development of Europe, and with a greater development of Europe itself, it is going to become a lower percentage. Nevertheless, I believe we have further very valuable work to do and I am confident we can do it. I am certain that this new committee, which the Minister has assured us will be put in place at an early date, will contribute very substantially to that progress.

While Maastricht is not on the agenda for this evening's discussion, I believe it is not out of place to make the point that it is absolutely vital that we have a successful outcome to the 18 June referendum. It is difficult to imagine the difficulties a no vote result would create for this country. I am saisfied that had we a Foreign Affairs Committee in place many of the problems arising vis-a-vis Maastricht, and indeed other foreign affairs issues too, could have been avoided. For that reason I believe this Foreign Affairs Committee, properly established, properly managed and with the terms of reference it requires, can do a great job to make certain that mistakes that were made in the past — and, let us be frank, mistakes have been made in the area of foreign policy and related areas — will not be repeated.

We can be very proud of the influence we have had all over the world in various spheres; not in any particular area but right across the spectrum we have made a great impact and it is only appropriate that we should more harness those great resources and make them more effective in the future.

I warmly welcome the appointment of this Foreign Affairs Committee. I believe the work of this committee must not be restrained or constrained but must have the terms of reference that will allow them to do the sort of job that needs to be done. A committee hamstrung with red tape cannot be effective. I am satisfied, however, that the Minister, with the vision he displayed before he occupied his present position, will ensure that that does not happen and that this committee will have broad terms of reference, but that they will be narrow enough to ensure that it is an effective and meaningful body. I fully support the establishment of this committee and offer it my full support in the future.

Mrs. Honan

I warmly and sincerely welcome Minister Andrews. My delight at his becoming a member of the Cabinet is well known. My only sorrow was that he had to wait so long. I want to also say that the Minister has already made an impact nationwide. He seems to be at ease in his Ministry, which is important. It is easy to approach him and I wish him well.

Mr. Andrews

Thank you, Senator.

Mrs. Honan

He said something in his opening address this evening which rather amused me because I am sure he was not canvassing for a seat to this lower House.

Acting Chairman

Correction — Upper House.

Mrs. Honan

Upper House. He said he had not been here since 1979 and that he was delighted to be back. We are delighted he is here in his capacity as Minister, a position he should have held before now. The first Minister for Foreign Affairs — he was then called Minister for External Affairs — I had the honour to know well was the late Frank Aiken. It would be nice to think that Minister Andrews is following in Frank Aiken's footsteps.

The Government amendment before us is:

That Seanad Éireann welcomes the Government's support for the establishment of a Joint Oireachtas Committee on Foreign Affairs and urges the early establishment of such a Committee on an agreed basis.

As a long time Member of this House I have felt that this committee should be in place and I am glad that that is now being done. It is absolutely necessary. In his address the Minister told us that the formulation of foreign policy poses a greater challenge today than at any time in the past. Those were words well spoken, because even though there were tremendous challenges facing this nation, we still have great challenges facing us as legislators. I see this Foreign Affairs Committee as very important at this time.

During the Irish Presidency of the EC I saw a dreadful gap because this House, the Dáil and other elected people were not brought closer to Europe on a regular basis. I thought that was wrong; I said so at the time and I repeat it here tonight. During the Irish Presidency there should have been much closer liaison between Europe and the elected people at home. We meet the people every day. They depend on us for advice, never more so than now when we are facing the referendum on 18 June. It is to us they will turn for guidance on the way they should vote; and if we do not know the European scene, how can we inform them about it?

I would like also to pay a tribute to the Minister's predecessor in Foreign Affairs Deputy Gerry Collins. He was an excellent Minister and I know nobody would agree more with that statement than Minister Andrews himself.

Mr. Andrews

I agree with that.

Mrs. Honan

One of my colleagues said that there seems to be a gap between ourselves, the elected people, and the Department of Foreign Affairs. That perception should not be there. When I was Cathaoirleach of this House I saw how gracious and helpful were all of the personnel in Foreign Affairs, our ambassadors and the officials in the Department. They were able to give me extraordinary help at that time. When this committee is set up it will bring the personnel in the Department closer to us, the elected people. I think it is fitting this evening to pay a tribute to our Irish soldiers serving as peace keepers in other nations. I try to do this whenever I get the chance, and I know it will be accepted, even though it has nothing to do with the motion before us. The setting up of this committee was never more opportune. It should be set up as soon as possible, with terms of reference which would be definite and clear for those who will have the honour to serve on it.

Mr. O'Toole

I note that during the debate the Minister has been welcomed ad nauseam, and on a personal basis I wish to include myself in that welcome. I have been impressed by the initial impact of the new Minister for Foreign Affairs in the short time he has been in office and I look forward to hearing his views on issues as this Government continue their work. I would also like to welcome the very positive response he has made to this motion tonight. It is refreshing to have a Minister listen to the arguments, run with the ball and, more importantly, say on the record things which I heard him say many times before he became Minister. I think that is the essence of commitment and of knowing where one is going.

In dealing with the various issues that come up in foreign policy I think it ties in very clearly with the discussion on Maastricht and on neutrality. I was very pleased tonight that the Minister took the opportunity to mention little known places like East Timor. Over the last year Senator Norris, Senator Brendan Ryan and I have raised this matter at various places and have been horrified by the reports that have come from that tiny, neglected nation at the far end of the world. It is refreshing for me to hear that the Minister for Foreign Affairs has taken this issue on board already. I have seen at first hand the situation in South America and in Central America. I have been very closely involved in the debate on the Middle Eastern debacle.

It is important that a Minister for Foreign Affairs should get the support of both Houses of the Oireachtas. In supporting this motion to set up this committee, I want to say that it should never be in any way obstructionist but should be a resource to a Minister, it should be there in an advisory capacity as putting together the views of different groups.

In terms of where we are going in our foreign policy, I have listened very carefully to the comments the Minister has made on neutrality and on Maastricht over the last number of weeks, and I concur with much of what he said. In fact, I think I am probably closer to his point of view than any of the other commentators I have heard so far. That in a sense puts me in an awkward position, because many of those with whom I have shared views on neutrality and otherwise have I believe, distorted this debate on Maastricht. I think the people who are going to the extreme parameters of this debate, whether it is those who want us to join NATO or those who are threatening us with conscription, are doing us no favours in terms of where we are going.

In this century alone our official policy on neutrality had us standing back pure, virginal and uninvolved, while Hitler decided to wipe out a whole nation, while Stalin decided to exterminate 25 million people, while Pol Pot exterminated a nation. We have claimed neutrality and we are clean, we are unsoiled and unsullied. It is something that we can never explain to our grandchildren; it is something that we can never be proud of. Neither, can we be proud of the fact that the initiator of that policy, the founder of the Minister's party, did not do us any favours by proclaiming neutrality, once he was neutral on the right side, and rushing off to sign the book of condolences on Hitler's death.

One of the first things I would like to see coming out of a foreign affairs committee is a debate on neutrality. What does it mean? Those people who use the terms neutrality, sovereignty and pacifism as synonymous with each other, are no help to us either. There are many people who are not pacifists but who believe in the sovereignty of this nation and who have still not worked out what neutrality is. The problem is we do not have a model of a neutral nation at the moment. I have listened to all the arguments. Switzerland is trotted out as a neutral nation, a nation which is prepared to launder the money of every oppressor, dictator, mafiosa or criminal anywhere in the world, to look after their money and give them a clean bill of health. Sweden is the other neutral country. I have heard even members of the Government in the last two or three weeks justify neutrality by saying that Switzerland and Sweden are queueing up to join the Common Market. Sweden is neutral, but how is it neutral? The Swedes have grown fat on the money made from selling arms to both sides of any war, anywhere, and they have done that for many generations.

I do not know a model for neutrality and I do not have the answers, but I know it is different to sovereignty, and I know sovereignty is not necessarily inhibited by involving ourselves in other nations. I know that interdependence is not necessarily a loss of sovereignty. I know that involvement in a co-operative way is not an infringement of neutrality or sovereignty. I believe that neutrality can never be, has never been, and can never be taken to be a passive state; it is an active state.

Tonight's Evening Press carries on the strap on the top of the page a reference to the last army officer in Bosnia trying to work on behalf of the UN for peace. To me that is an involvement, that is sovereignty at its strongest, neutrality at its most active. That is, in the words of many Nobel peace prizewinners, the manifestation of the statement that peace will not come from words alone, that people have to work for it and be prepared to stand up and be counted.

To me the development of a foreign policy allows us to consider many of the areas of debated foreign policy which will pull people down from their ivory towers, those people who can stay in Ireland, look at the world and offer an easy solution to the Middle East — we heard them in this Chamber — or offer an easy solution when dealing with two power blocs, or offer an easy solution to disarmament. Anybody who has tried any of those things knows it is not easy. I want a forum where I can ask people what they mean by neutrality? What would they do in a dead end, or worse, scenario? Let us say that the Lion of the East, China, suddenly decided to follow a policy of expansion and decided to invade Ireland. What would we expect from the rest of Europe? That really is the question. What do I say to my friends with whom I would be closely aligned politically who would say that neutrality means keeping away from any involvement in Europe? I met some of them last weekend. I was arguing about this debate on neutrality and I found out that they were on their way back from commemorating the involvement of Irish people in the Spanish Civil War. How do people do this? How can you, on the one hand, say we will celebrate the 15th International Brigade and, on the other, say our sovereignty and neutrality mean that we do not get involved?

I am not saying I know the answers. I do know we need a forum; I know we need a place where we will force people to articulate their points of view, and I know that words become important before deeds and actions. I believe this is the way forward. I thank the Minister for his very positive response tonight and I look forward to the working of this committee. I also welcome his commitment to involving both Houses in a full Oireachtas committee.

Mr. Norris

As I anticipated, the Minister was very clear and gave a comprehensive exposition of the Foreign Affairs Committee as he envisages it. In view of the clarity and generosity of his response, I will be happy to support the Government's amendment on this occasion.

I would like to comment briefly on a few things the Minister said. First, I would like to say that his openness, frankness and honesty in immediately taking on board the point I raised with regard to East Timor is the kind of thing I would expect from the Foreign Minister, but it is deeply welcomed and appreciated. I had in the House with me as a guest the chairman of the group in Ireland who are fighting for the rights of people in East Timor and he was particularly gratified with the Minister's response.

I did not, as the Minister must have recognised, make a very detailed technical submission with regard to all the points of a Foreign Affairs Committee for a number of reasons which clearly the Minister took on board, the principal one being that we have had this debate twice already in the Seanad. On the last occasion, in 1988, I was the proposer of this motion and I dealt in a comprehensive way with a lot of the technical data. I am aware that it would be really teaching my grandmother to suck eggs if I attempted to give the Foreign Minister a lecture on these kinds of criteria. I thought it was redundant; in addition we now have half the time we had due to the Seanad reform.

I would like to raise one question about subsuming the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Secondary Legislation of the European Communities into this new committee. I say this because this arose in the 1986 debate and was dealt with by the then Senator Mary Robinson, who is now our President. She indicated the very considerable volume of work done in the statutory role of that committee in monitoring legislation. I worry a little that perhaps the duties of this aspect of the Foreign Affairs Committee would be so onerous that it would divert attention substantially from other issues of foreign affairs and could not properly be dealt with. If the Minister is satisfied that this problem can be obviated, then who am I to disagree with him?

I welcome the fact that he gave a clear commitment on Ireland's relationship with the developing countries. Again, I am not going to rehash arguments I made, and many other people have made, on numerous occasions in this House, but I hope that under this Minister — and I know it is a question of struggling within the constraints of budgets and so on — we will start moving towards rather than away from the United Nations' target of 0.7 per cent of gross national product for developing countries. It is very important that we attempt to reach this position.

In the few minutes remaining to me I would like to raise some other issues and develop a little some of the points I made earlier. A reference was made to the new world order. I have to say that when President Bush emitted that phrase I shuddered, because I remember the first time it was used in this century by Adolf Hitler, and the new order envisaged at that stage was one that would be morally and politically repulsive to every person in this House. I was glad that Senator Lanigan disarmingly, and with great honesty, acknowledged that the foreign policy conduct of the United States of America has not always been a humanitarian one and has not always been a principled one; we can look at Nicaragua, we can look at Kampuchea and at a whole series of countries where they have played the part of an evil empire. We have to recognise that.

With regard to our colleagues in Europe — the Gulf War, for example — I hope we will bring something new into the European Community when we do develop a coherent European foreign policy. It would not have given me any pleasure to be morally committed to the kind of behaviour of the individual countries at the time of the Gulf War when, for example, Germany, France and Britain had been previously arming Saddam Hussein with missiles. Britain built the parts of the super gun and the Germans and the French provided technical assistance in the creation of biological and chemical warfare. I think that is what happens when you have an unprincipled foreign policy, and I think it is deeply regrettable.

May I mention also the human rights situation? Senator Lydon and Senator Lanigan referred to the primacy of human rights considerations. I did attempt to suggest that guaranteeing the relations between nations is not enough unless you guarantee also human and individual rights, even at a very basic level, of the people inside those countries. May I mention Iran, with whom again we are attempting to develop friendly relations? That is what diplomacy is about, but if we wish to bring them into the community of civilised nations, we must be aware of reports of groups like Amnesty International, for example, which indicate that serious violations of fundamental human rights are continuing. Over the last year there have been 750 political executions; they are torturing 70 year old men; there are details of the way they are suspended in contorted positions where they are subjected to sensory deprivation, psychological torture and executed for crimes, such as conversion to Christianity, which in Iran is a crime. That to my mind is a violation of very basic human freedoms, particularly when one considers that our Constitution lays down that part of the basis of our own view of ourselves is that we are a Christian country and stesses the Christian and democratic nature of the State. That applies one test by which we must measure our foreign policy. How is that executed if we do not protest at the execution of the Reverend Hossein Soodman, who converted to Christianity, who was first tortured and then executed within the last couple of years.

I would like to refer to Tibet. My lead-in was provided once again by Senator Lydon. I was struck with admiration for the way he reeled off a list of ambassadorial names; he must be hoping to be on the invitation list of every embassy in this country, including a rather curious one — he referred to Taiwan and the industrial emissary from Taipeh. I would like to introduce a notion of comparability here because I think it is important that we treat Tibet in a similar way to Taiwan. The position of the Department of Foreign Affairs has wobbled from time to time with regard to Tibet. We did, in fact, recognise Tibet internationally.

We are in a strong moral position with the Chinese because it was we who, in 1979, sponsored the introduction of China to the United Nations. We maintained that all the territory of China was what was recognised, including Taiwan and Tibet. Yet we allow an industrial or commercial attaché to set up here and to issue visas and we have a reciprocal arrangement in Taipeh. Yet we were not able to meet the Dalai Lama officially. Thank God, the President did and that a Minister unofficially met the Dalai Lama. When you have a situation where there are human rights violations with regard to Tibet, where access is forbidden, where people are being killed, where people are being tortured, when the culture of a country is being devastated, surely as a friend of China we have the right to protest?

Reference was made also to the Maastricht Protocol. I am not going to be unpleasant. Almost universal admiration was expressed for Deputy Collins. Can I however comment on one part of his legacy, that is, Maastricht. That is a disaster and will haunt Deputy Collins. Deputy Collins' proposal, as Jane Austen might have described it, is a disaster and remains a disaster and is a disaster precisely because nobody was consulted. What kind of idiotic behaviour was it to go off to Maastricht looking for this derogation on the basis that we had to protect the integrity of the Irish Constitution? What about Fianna Fáil's core values? Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution were compromised first by the Treaty of Rome and are extinguished in international law by the signing of the Maastricht Treaty. If we are so worried and so delicate about our constitutional provisions, why were the core values of Fianna Fáil abandoned in favour of this quite irrelevant Protocol about abortion which has landed us in so much turmoil and difficulty?

I think under this Minister, and with the assistance of this Foreign Affairs Committee, which I greatly welcome, we will move more rapidly towards signing the remaining international Protocols and conventions. I am grateful to the Minister that on Good Friday in St. Patrick's Cathedral at a service organised by the Rescue Trust he gave a commitment to ratify the United Nations Convention on Torture.

Mr. Andrews

I look forward to meeting the Rescue Trust; they have not responded to my invitation to meet with them.

Mr. Norris

Senator O'Toole is also a sponsor and with the chairman we will happily take up the Minister's kind invitation of which he has reminded us this evening.

Mr. Andrews

Both Senators are welcome.

Mr. Norris

I would like to make two final points. If we had a Foreign Affairs Committee and respect for international conventions I would possibly not have to take a plane to Strasbourg again in order to try to coerce the Government into the tardy recognition of the judgment in my favour in the European Court of Human Rights. I am not going to press it because I am possibly more bored than anybody else with this subject. I welcome what the Minister has said.

There is a civilised, sophisticated political interest in foreign affairs, not just in both Houses of the Oireachtas, but among the Irish public. I watched as members in the Gallery listened in fascination to what was being said here this evening. Every time I raise issues such as East Timor, Tibet or Kampuchea, my mail bag is full of letters from private individuals. I recall one from a sergeant in the Gardaí when I protested about Tibet saying he was delighted that people were actually doing something about Tibet. The Irish people are interested in foreign affairs. We are in a unique situation not just because up to now we did not have a Foreign Affairs Committee but because we are the only European country to bear the scars of a colonial history and so can empathise with oppressed people all over the world. Under this Minister we can attain what we always ought to have had but never really had before, a fully principled foreign policy, based on ideals.

Mr. Andrews

I appreciate the manner in which the House debated this motion. I am deeply grateful to the sponsors for not pressing the matter to a vote which I see as a vote of confidence in my intention to set up this committee.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.

An Cathaoirleach

When is it proposed to sit again?

Professor Conroy

It is proposed to sit at 10.30 a.m. tomorrow.