Skip to main content
Normal View

Select Committee on Foreign Affairs debate -
Wednesday, 23 Apr 1997

Estimates 1997.

Vote 38 — Foreign Affairs (Revised).
Vote 39 — International Co-operation (Revised).

This is a meeting of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, which is confined to Members of the Dáil. We are meeting to consider the Revised Estimates for 1997 in respect of Vote 38 — Foreign Affairs — and Vote 39 — International Co-operation — which amount to £59.77 million and £100.138 million, respectively. I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Burton, and her officials. The Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Spring, will be joining us at 5 p.m. The meeting is scheduled to conclude at 7.10 p.m. The Minister of State will deal with Vote 39, with the exception of subheads A and B which, in addition to Vote 38, fall within the Tánaiste's remit. Is the timetable agreed? Agreed. Is the schedule circulated to Members which sets out time allocations for participants agreed? Agreed.

Briefing material on the Revised Estimates supplied by the Department of Foreign Affairs was circulated to Members. This provides useful details on the individual subheads for ease of reference. I ask that Members address the individual items as they arise. It is probably unnecessary to advise Members that our role is to consider the Estimates; we cannot make any recommendations as to increases or decreases. On conclusion of our discussion I will ask the Select Committee for its agreement to so report to the Dáil. The Minister of State will now make her opening statement.

I welcome the opportunity to discuss the Estimates for Ireland's official development assistance. Ireland's development co-operation budget this year amounts to £122 million, by far the highest ever total. Recent years have been exciting ones for Irish aid and Irish people can be proud of our country's continuing commitment to the value and importance of development co-operation. This policy and this commitment will continue. It is naturally a matter of considerable personal satisfaction to me to have been associated with the rapid and substantial increase in the budgetary allocation for aid. That increase has been significant by any standards. The allocation has increased from £40 million — 0.16 per cent of GNP — in 1992 to £122 million — 0.31 per cent of GNP — this year.

People are sceptical about money spent on development but it is important to bear in mind that life expectancy in developing countries has risen from 41 to 62 years. Adult literacy in these countries has also risen from less than 50 per cent to 66 per cent of the population. Ireland's development co-operation policy is specifically concentrated on trying to assist poor people. It is important that Irish people should share some of our prosperity to assist more disadvantaged countries. It is essential that developing countries obtain assistance from developed countries rather than developed countries turning inward and pretending that unacceptable human suffering and misery do not exist. This would be an indictment of our own values and our sense of morality.

Poverty around the world remains the greatest challenge to achieving true and lasting international peace. The peoples of developing countries have a right to expect a fair standard of living and of justice. A system of global apartheid between half of the world with plenty and the other half struggling for a decent standard of living is immoral and wrong. Our development co-operation policy includes, at the bilateral level, direct support for development projects in developing countries, the provision of technical assistance, co-operation with non-governmental organisations, support for the activities of international development organisations and co-financing with a number of international agencies. At the multilateral level, it involves our contribution, through the European Development Fund, to the aid programmes of the European Union and our contributions to the UN development agencies.

The White Paper on Foreign Policy committed Irish aid to address poverty by focusing our bilateral programmes on the basic needs of poor people — primary health care, basic education, safe water supply and income generating opportunities. It also placed a strong emphasis on capacity building to ensure that development activities can be continued and expanded by the relevant communities and authorities in partner countries. Irish aid will in the future continue to emphasise poverty reduction and human development capacity as its core objectives. We will seek to focus — both bilaterally and in multilateral institutions — on clear policy goals that will provide the foundation for our development programme. This will include capacity development, strengthening the role of women, human rights and democratisation, environment and development, humanitarian relief and measures to support conflict prevention.

The concept of participatory development must be at the heart of Irish aid policy and involve co-operation on a basis of genuine partnership not only with governments of partner countries but also with local communities in addressing such basic needs as clean water supplies, health care and primary education.

With regard to the Irish aid programme, the Government recognises that in addition to classic development assistance interventions, meaningful support is also required for policies which will allow the economies of developing countries to grow. These include improved access to markets for products from developing countries and a greater role for the poorer countries in issues of world trade. Internationally, development co-operation must involve all flows, not just aid flows, and must particularly include trade, investment and technology flows.

The Government is committed to a particular emphasis on key policy concerns including giving priority to investing in human and social development. This means that a core test to be applied to any proposed new Irish aid projects will focus on their effectiveness in fighting poverty. Equally important is that beneficiaries of our development activities should be involved in all stages of the process, from problem identification to programme design and implementation and eventual evaluation. This applies to beneficiary communities and not just to governmental authorities acting on their behalf. The Irish Aid programme must also be capable of being sustained in the local environment, taking account of local economic and social circumstances in the years after the outside assistance has ceased.

At the multilateral level, Ireland will work actively bringing the experiences of our bilateral programme to the international arena. The expansion in Irish aid has given Ireland a stronger voice in the multilateral development arena — this stronger voice brings with it a responsibility that we use it well.

Ireland will play a full and active part in seeking to ensure that the United Nations and its agencies are given a new vigour in their economic and social activities. In the course of Ireland's Presidency of the European Union, the EU for the first time agreed a package of reform proposals for the UN in this area. I put those forward last November and December to the Secretary General, Kofi Annan. We now wish to see the process of reform advanced to ensure that the UN fulfils its role as the driving force behind a new internationalism as we approach the new millennium.

I welcome the interim reform measures announced by the new Secretary General — they are substantial and far reaching, coinciding with many of the points raised by Ireland as President of the EU and, if implemented, can pave the way for a rebirth of confidence in the United Nations and the multilateral system generally.

Ireland can continue to press for positive reform of the UN and for the organisation to be accorded its rightful place of leadership in the international community only if we continue to play an active and constructive role. The coming years will see this policy of active multilateralism translated into real actions. At the beginning of this year Ireland took a seat on the Executive Committee of the UN High Commission for Refugees and on the Executive Committee of the WHO. Next year Ireland will begin a two year term on the board of the UNDP and, as indicated in the White Paper, we will seek election to the UN Security Council in the year 2000.

This willingness to support the work of the UN system, through the commitment of financial and other resources, can only strengthen Ireland's position as an advocate of global sustainable development. Within the European Union Ireland will continue to play an active role in the formulation of EU policy towards developing countries. Ireland's Presidency of the EU Council of Ministers at the end of last year provided an opportunity for us to activate a higher profile in the formulation of EU development policy. We will now work to retain that position through participating at all levels in discussions on how to continue to improve the efficiency of the Community's aid programme, in particular, by seeking to improve the complementarity of the Community's aid policies to those of the member states and increasing the coherence of the Community's policies towards the developing world in all areas.

The most important development issue facing the EU in coming years is the future of the European Union's relations with the developing countries of Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific — the ACP states. Relations with these countries are conducted under the Lomé IV Convention which will expire in the year 2000. The debate on a successor relationship is now under way. This debate will touch on all aspects of EU-ACP relations, including aid, trade and political co-operation and Ireland will participate fully in all aspects of it. A particular concern for Ireland will be to ensure that the Union's special relationship with the countries of Sub-Saharan Africa is maintained. EU aid should be particularly oriented to poverty alleviation and reduction.

The Estimates for 1997 contain provisions of £6 million for emergency humanitarian assistance and £4 million for rehabilitation assistance. These provisions enable Ireland to play its part in international humanitarian operations in response to emergency situations, such as the current one in Eastern Zaire, and to assist countries such as Rwanda to undertake recovery programmes in the aftermath of major emergencies. The main thrust of the Irish Aid programme, in the priority countries and elsewhere, is also relevant in this context in that it addresses the root causes of poverty and instability and so helps to prevent the emergence of a major crisis. I have spoken on many occasions to the committee about the crisis in the Great Lakes region, and it is again at a critical juncture in the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, but Irish Aid will remain committed to assisting the humanitarian emergency and rehabilitation there.

Irish Aid enjoys a particularly close and fruitful partnership with the development non-governmental organisations, such as Concern, Christian Aid and Trócaire. I pay formal tribute here to the work of those organisations. The part of the Irish Aid budget channelled through NGOs has been increasing both in absolute terms and as a percentage of the increasing aid budget. Between 1992 and 1995, NGO funding increased from £3.3 million, 8.4 per cent of total aid, to £11.6 million or 12 per cent of total aid. This increase is a reflection of the positive collaboration between Irish Aid and NGOs. We normally mention Trócaire and GOAL as NGOs but the committee will be aware that Irish Aid also helps 300 missionaries every year on small scale projects, such as an extra room for a school. Their work is as important as that of the larger NGOs. Members have brought individuals working in different parts of the world to my attention and we have been able to help them.

I will discuss the various allocations under the subheads C to J of the Vote for International Co-operation.

I welcome the Minister, the Minister of State and the officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs. I agree with the Minister of State on the role of the NGOs, missionaries and aid workers of all organisations. They have worked on our behalf all over the world through the generations, bringing great pride and honour to the nation. They have worked everywhere there is want on behalf of those who are less well off. We owe them a great debt. They are helped by our non-colonial background and by not being seen as belonging to any military bloc.

The level of aid has increased in real terms from 1994 to 1997 but this Government has not met the targets it laid down in 1995 or 1996. It would be very interesting to hear from the Minister of State why this has not been done at a time of growth. The priorities have not been what we would have liked. My party will be fully committed in Government to increasing the level of overseas development aid to between 0.4 per cent and 0.5 per cent during the period of the next Administration. Assuming growth patterns increase, we will do even better than that.

The Minister of State said that our Presidency of the EU Council of Ministers at the end of the last year "provided an opportunity for us to achieve a higher profile in the formulation of EU development policy". She further stated that "a particular concern for Ireland will be to ensure that the Union's special relationship with the countries of sub-Saharan Africa is maintained". This is crass hypocrisy because the reality is that, while we have a professed commitment to overseas development and humanitarian aid, during Ireland's EU Presidency we allowed a net reduction in EU overseas development funding and a diversion of funding from the poorest regions of sub-Saharan Africa to the more strategically important areas such as the Mediterranean area and the former Soviet Union. The Minister of State has told us the Government is concerned about sub-Saharan Africa and that we are leading donors within the EU, but during our EU Presidency there was a major diversion of funds from what the Minister of State has just told us is her priority area. We allowed this disgraceful situation to develop during our Presidency. That should not have been allowed to happen.

We have an important role within the EU and UN which we must be seen to fulfil. It is not sufficient to give verbal commitments. I accept the Minister of State's intentions are honourable and positive. However, her performance as President of the Council of Ministers was less than glittering.

This committee has discussed the situation in Rwanda on many occasions and we have asked for action there. The Minister of State has made many high profile visits to Rwanda. However, the EU and UN -in which Ireland must play its part — have allowed a farcical situation to develop in relation to the activities of the war crimes court. That should have been addressed by the Government. It is not sufficient to make a speech about it — something must be done about it within the confines of the EU Council. However, obviously nothing has happened.

In regard to aid, trade and political co-operation, I agree we must work, particularly in the next Lomé agreement, to ensure those with the greatest needs are helped. We must also ensure there is a human rights aspect in trade agreements into which the EU enters. We must take action on countries which abuse their own citizens and whose human rights records do not stand up to examination. There is an argument, which was made by Mrs. Thatcher in relation to South Africa, that sanctions damage the people — although at that time the ANC wanted sanctions. However, we should have a trade policy of not being afraid to take action against regimes whose human rights record does not stand up to examination. We should not be afraid to stand up for what we believe is right.

The refugee situation in Rwanda is a scandal. The world decided, when it saw the picture of refugees streaming back across the bridge, not to send military missions. There are up to 250,000 people missing in those forests without aid or food.

The Minister of State is busy patting herself on the back. However, let us judge what she has done rather than what she says she is doing.

In the absence of Deputy O'Malley, we will move on. I welcome the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs who is joining us to deal with the Foreign Affairs Estimate. There will be an opportunity for a question and answer session with the Minister for State at a later stage of the meeting.

I welcome this opportunity to address the committee this afternoon on the work of my Department. It is, indeed, the first opportunity to meet with the committee since the end of Ireland's Presidency of the European Union. I believe we can take pride in the way Ireland met the challenge of the Presidency.

We are considering the entirety of Votes 38 and 39 at today's session. My colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Burton, has already addressed issues relating to subheads C to I of Vote 39. I will confine my introductory comments to Vote 38 — Foreign Affairs and subheads A and B of Vote 39 which deal with contributions to international organisations.

The Estimate for Vote 38 amounts to £59,770,000. Of this, £8,417,000 is dedicated to programmes in support of Irish citizens abroad, furthering cultural relations with other countries and promoting peace and reconciliation within Ireland. The remainder of the Vote, which amounts to £51,723,000, comprises the administrative budget of the Department, which covers the cost of running the Department in Ireland and overseas. Members of the committee will have noted that most subheads under the administrative budget are reduced this year following the conclusion of the Presidency.

When I appeared before the committee last year we were in the final stages of preparing for the Presidency of the European Union. As our term in the Troika draws to an end, we can take stock of the achievements of the past year and look to the challenges ahead. The overriding objective of our Presidency was to deal with the issues facing the European Union in an efficient and effective manner. I believe this objective was achieved.

Among the major achievements of the Irish Presidency was the agreement at the European Council on 13 and 14 December on the principles and main elements of the Stability and Growth Pact setting out rules and procedures for achieving budgetary discipline in stage three of European Monetary Union.

The December European Council also adopted the Dublin Declaration on Employment thereby underlining its commitment to the Essen strategy and calling on member states to secure maximum benefit in employment terms from anticipated economic growth. Another area where the Irish Presidency achieved noteworthy results was in Justice and Home Affairs where agreement was reached on a range of actions.

The Dutch Presidency is now engaged in formalising, in resolutions and regulations, the agreement on budgetary discipline reached under our Presidency. It remains for member states to maintain their best efforts to meet the criteria. As far as Ireland is concerned, we have met the criteria for the past several years. We are determined to do so again in 1997 and, thus, qualify for entry to the third stage of European Monetary Union and the single currency in the first wave.

The Presidency required an understanding of the vital national interests of other partners. We needed also to ensure that the wider European interest was recognised and promoted. As we move away from the Presidency it is inevitable that we will adjust our focus. We will be putting much greater emphasis on those issues which are of particular national concern. It is important, however, that we retain the sense of the broader perspective and continue to follow the broad policy approach set out in the White Paper. The key challenge which remains is how we can ensure that the values which have inspired Irish foreign policy for many years will continue to inspire our policy in changing circumstances, not only at the European level but also globally.

One of the more immediate challenges facing the Union is the successful conclusion of the Intergovernmental Conference. The Irish Presidency had the task of chairing the Intergovernmental Conference and produced an outline draft treaty which was welcomed and accepted by the European Council as providing a good basis for the work which lay ahead. There are now two months left until the Amsterdam European Council when the Intergovernmental Conference is scheduled to conclude.

I would like to give a brief outline of the state of play on some of the issues being addressed at the conference. The fact that draft texts exist on most issues — either in the Irish Presidency's outline draft treaty or as a result of the work done since January under the Dutch Presidency — means that the conference is now focusing on the shape of the final treaty.

One of the main institutional issues under discussion, and one that is of central concern to Ireland, is the size and composition of the Commission. Some member states feel the Commission is too large and membership should be reduced. Ireland believes strongly and will continue to argue that it is necessary for each member state to be able to nominate at least one member of the Commission. We think this is necessary in order to ensure the continuing effectiveness and the public acceptability of the Commission in all member states.

There are other important and complex issues — for example, strengthening the justice and home affairs provisions of the treaty and introducing a clearly defined principle of flexibility or enhanced co-operation into the treaty. I am confident that solutions to these issues will be found and that these solutions will be acceptable to the member states.

It is essential that the Intergovernmental Conference should enhance the ability of the Union to play a more effective international role commensurate with its economic strength. The Union must also respond more effectively to the new and complex security challenges which we face. The Intergovernmental Conference discussions have made considerable progress towards the goal of strengthening the Union's capacity in crisis management and peace support in furtherance of the objectives of the United Nations and the OSCE. I am confident that the final outcome of the negotiations will be fully consonant with the Government's approach as set out in the White Paper.

Enlargement will shift the EU's geographical centre and will require careful preparation. The Commission, which is preparing its Opinions on enlargement, will also prepare proposals on how enlargement of the Union will be financed and on the Structural Funds and the Common Agricultural Policy in the context of enlargement. We in Ireland will have to work harder than ever before to maximise the benefits of EU membership while, at the same time, helping to build a more effective and dynamic Union equipped to meet the demands of the 21st century. All these developments will require appropriate and effective policy responses which will impose new demands on the Irish Administration and the Department of Foreign Affairs.

I wish to address briefly a number of issues which have been at the forefront of international attention — China, the Middle East peace process, Iran, developments in the Balkans, especially Albania and former Yugoslavia, and Zaire and the Great Lakes region.

We regret the outcome of the UN Commission on Human Rights' deliberations on China of which the committee will be aware. Since 1989 the EU has sponsored a draft resolution on human rights in China at the annual session of the UN Commission on Human Rights. Apart from 1995, China has managed to avoid the introduction of the draft by a procedural "no action" motion. Despite the efforts by the Presidency to secure agreement on an EU draft resolution, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Greece decided not to co-sponsor the resolution on China this year. Denmark, with the remaining nine EU partners, including Ireland, as co-sponsors, proceeded with the tabling of the draft resolution. The other co-sponsors were the US, Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein and Switzerland.

On 15 April the Chinese tabled a "no action" motion, which is a procedural mechanism whereby the CHR is prevented from discussing the human rights situation in a particular country. As in previous years, this motion succeeded. The final vote on the motion was 27 in favour, nine abstentions and 17 against. All our EU partners voted against the motion, with Bulgaria, Canada, the Czech Republic, El Salvador, Japan, Nicaragua and South Africa.

Ireland is engaged in efforts to bring peace to the Middle East. The UNIFIL peacekeeping contingent represents Ireland's largest tangible contribution to peace in the region. In addition, Ireland provides development assistance to the Palestinian people. In 1997 our assistance programme in support of the Middle East peace process and the Palestinian people will amount to approximately $2.1 million.

One of the key objectives of our Presidency was to assist in the restoration of momentum to the Middle East peace process. I visited the region on two occasions. During our Presidency, the Union appointed an EU special envoy to the region as a further concrete demonstration of its commitment to promoting peace. As a member of the Troika, Ireland continues to maintain an active involvement in support of the peace process.

Recent events — in particular the Israeli decision on the first phase redeployment from the West Bank and the construction of a new settlement in East Jerusalem — have seriously undermined the confidence of the Arab parties in the future of negotiations. The EU, through its special envoy and its contacts with the main parties to the peace process, is involved in efforts to relaunch the process. It would be tragic to return to the cycle of terrorism, violence and oppression. Ireland will continue to encourage both parties to maintain their commitment to the peace process in accordance with the agreements already reached.

Relations with Iran — both bilateral and at EU level — are important but they are also complex. EU political relations with Iran are within the context of the critical dialogue which was instituted at the Edinburgh European Council in 1992. This has provided a formal framework within which the EU can discuss matters of concern with Iran, in particular human rights. In recent days European Union member states, including Ireland, have recalled their Ambassadors from Iran for co-ordinated consultations following the findings of the Berlin Superior Court of Justice concerning Iranian involvement in the Mykonos killings.

The European Union has serious concerns about the human rights situation in Iran. Ireland has in recent years — with our EU partners — co-sponsored the UN Commission on Human Rights and the UN General Assembly resolutions on the Human Rights situation in Iran. The Irish Government, in concert with our partners in the EU, continues to take up with Iran the issue of the fatwa against Mr. Salman Rushdie whom I met in Dublin last December.

The recent crisis in Albania has been to the forefront of recent discussions in both the European Union and the OSCE. The EU will actively support the efforts of the OSCE to assist the return of democracy and law and order to Albania, with the objective of holding parliamentary elections there in June. Albania, as the poorest country in Europe, clearly needs both short and long-term assistance to develop its economy. The EU is already providing structural aid under the PHARE programme and will seek ways to increase and diversify economic assistance. The EU has made a substantial provision for humanitarian assistance to meet the needs of the Albanian population most severely affected by the recent crisis. We welcome the initiative of certain countries to provide a multinational protection force for the safe delivery of humanitarian assistance.

Ireland supports the EU commitment to helping Albania. It is necessary, however, that Albanians themselves accept responsibility for rebuilding their country and society, with appropriate assistance being provided by the international community.

Former Yugoslavia remains a priority for the Government, our objective being to ensure the continued implementation of the Dayton Agreement. Some progress has been made over the past year but major issues remain to be tackled, such as the organisation of municipal elections in September. Ireland will make a significant contribution to the international effort in this regard in the form of financial support and the provision of election observers.

Ireland, in common with our European partners, is greatly concerned at the ongoing conflict in Zaire. We are committed to supporting the humanitarian relief effort in the region. Recently we allocated a further £550,000 in support of the UN agencies operating there, bringing the Government's total assistance to the Great Lakes region since 1994 to over £12 million. If lasting peace and stability are to be achieved, a political and democratic solution must be found. We support the work of Ambassador Mohammed Sahnoun, the Joint Special Representative of the UN and the OAU in the Great Lakes region in his current efforts. The EU Special Envoy, Mr. Aldo Ajello, is working closely with Ambassador Sahnoun and regional leaders in bringing forward a five-point peace plan, adopted unanimously by the UN Security Council in Resolution 1097 of 18 February. The European Union is urging all parties to the conflict to engage fully in these efforts to attain an early political solution. It is the Government's strong wish that this in turn should lead to the convening of an international conference on peace, security and development in the Great Lakes region to address the root causes of conflict and thus bring about a peaceful, durable and comprehensive resolution of the crisis.

As the White Paper indicates, it would not be possible to address our foreign policy interests adequately without reflecting our trade and investment concerns. Diplomatic missions continue to give priority to promoting Ireland's economic interests. In this regard they work closely with other Departments and the relevant semi-State agencies. The most developed form of co-operation abroad is the "Ireland House" concept whereby Irish diplomatic missions and state agencies share premises and co-ordinate their efforts. I am particularly pleased that a new Ireland House will shortly become operational in Madrid.

The deteriorating situation in Northern Ireland is deeply worrying, particularly the resurgence of nakedly sectarian animosities. I wholly and unreservedly condemn those who intensify polarisation and mutual antipathy between the communities in the North, whether directly by cowardly and brutal acts or indirectly by words calculated to inflame. Sectarian violence is worse than a zero-sum game as sooner or later everyone ends up a loser.

It is vital that an accommodation be found over the deeply contentious parades issue. Local dialogue and compromise between the two sets of rights, and two sets of deeply held convictions, is much the best way forward and I urge all those who have any influence to do their utmost in that direction. The motto must be to "talk over", not "walk over". It is imperative that the outstanding and key recommendations of the North Report be enacted into legislation as soon as possible and I offer to the newly appointed Parades Commission my best wishes for its success in its difficult mission.

The Government continues to play a full part in the search for lasting peace and agreement in Northern Ireland. Our approach remains fully based on the principles and analyses set out jointly with the British Government in the Anglo-Irish Agreement, the Joint Declaration, the Framework Document and other agreed positions.

Our strategy has been to seek a comprehensive settlement through meaningful negotiations inclusive of all parties committed to advancing their objectives by peaceful and democratic means alone. With the British Government we have put in place a carefully balanced negotiating structure which has the capacity to generate and sustain real engagement on the substantive issues if the parties are prepared to use it for those ends. As co-sponsor of the negotiations, we bear our share of their cost for which continuing provision is made in the Estimates.

Progress in the negotiations to date has been depressingly slow. This is due to a number of factors, but especially the lack of a climate of trust between those taking part. Moreover, the IRA's cynical and reckless campaign of violence — rightly characterised by Cardinal Daly as "completely irrational"— is a continuing source of fear and suspicion which fuels the arguments of those who, whether from conviction or tactics, question the very concept of inclusive negotiations.

The Government wants Sinn Féin to join us at the negotiating table but Sinn Féin must know that until a definitive halt is called to the bombing, shooting and other manifestations of political violence there is no way they can or will become generally accepted partners in the political process. Not only that, but the longer it takes before a complete and unequivocal renewal of the ceasefire is declared, the harder it will be to convince even people of goodwill of its credibility and durability.

Many, both in Ireland and abroad, who abhor the actions of the IRA have taken risks in an effort to encourage the republican movement away from its self-imposed isolation and to facilitate Sinn Féin's participation in talks. Republicans should not make the mistake of assuming that this patience and interest on the part of others is impervious to constant rebuff.

Just as the Government wants to bring about Sinn Féin's involvement in the negotiations, we also wish to see the continued participation of the loyalist parties. Regrettably, in spite of constructive statements by the leadership of the loyalist parties, there has been a significant recent increase in the number of violent incidents linked to loyalists, including the deplorable murder of John Slane. I would appeal to loyalists to listen to their political leaders and not be lured back into a new spiral of violence and, consequently, political isolation. The future lies in negotiations and there can be no place in the negotiations for ambivalence between democratic politics and violence.

The Government will be looking to ensure that the negotiations are pursued with greater purpose when they resume on 3 June. It is essential that we quickly complete the work of the opening plenary on that basis and move on to substantive negotiations in the three strands. For our part, we will not allow the self-imposed absence of any party to stand in the way of the energetic pursuit of the fullest measure of progress we can achieve in dialogue between the Governments and the parties at the table.

Success in the form of a lasting and stable agreement will require far-reaching compromise on the part of all those involved. This will serve as a particular challenge to those, particularly on the Unionist side, who imagine compromise as a potentially lethal threat to their identity. In reality, Unionists should have nothing to fear. They have the security not only of their numbers and of their geography but of the acceptance by the great bulk of Irish Nationalists of the principle of consent and its implications for future constitutional arrangements on this island. Moreover, both Governments are committed to put the outcome of the negotiations before the people, in both Northern Ireland and the Republic, for their approval.

In our inevitable focus on the formal political dimensions of the problem we must not lose sight of the truly invaluable contribution made by so many individuals and groups to the process of mutual understanding and reconciliation. The Estimates contain provision for financial support for a number of these organisations. The peace programme is now progressing well and, with the IFI, is making a valuable contribution to the promotion of peace and reconciliation as well as cross-Border co-operation in the region.

My colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Burton, has already outlined our proposals for expenditure on Development Co-operation in 1997. The International Co-operation Vote comprises the greater proportion of Government spending on official development assistance. In 1997 the total Irish aid budget will amount to £122 million or 0.31 per cent of estimated GNP, by far the highest ever total. The continuation of increases in the ODA budget reaffirms that our relations with developing countries form an integral part of our foreign policy. Irish Aid is a practical expression of Ireland's foreign policy commitment to peace and justice in the world. Our aim is to help countries overcome barriers of exclusion and to build up capacity so that people can help themselves. The White Paper on Foreign Policy, published last year, confirmed that the priority of Irish Aid over the coming years will be to reduce poverty and to address the basic needs of people in some of the poorest countries.

The Department of Foreign Affairs is participating actively in the process of change which has been under way throughout the Civil Service. The Department recently published its strategy statement which sets out how the policy goals in the White Paper are to be pursued over the coming three years. The White Paper on Foreign Policy made clear that the foreign service must be adequately resourced and that these resources must be used to best effect. The strategy statement aims at improving the ways in which the Department organises its work and manages its resources so as to provide a better service to the public and better value for the taxpayers' money. A fundamentally important resource is the staff of the Department. I have already acknowledged publicly to them, and wish to reiterate here, my appreciation for their dedication and commitment.

I thank the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs for his contribution. I will now ask Deputy Ray Burke to respond.

I join with you, Chairman, in welcoming the Tánaiste to the committee. We value the opportunity to discuss his Department's Estimates. I congratulate the Tánaiste, the Secretary of the Department and other staff for the efficient manner in which the work of the EU Presidency was carried out. That has been the tradition of our various EU Presidencies over the years, and has brought pride to the nation. I share in that pride to the extent of extending my congratulations to all concerned. It is a difficult time for the personnel of a relatively small Department. Small numbers of people put in phenomenal hours of work, not just during the six months of the EU Presidency but in the 12 months preceding it and the six months afterwards during the Troika period.

The Tánaiste said the Minister for Finance, Deputy Quinn, had signed up to the stability and Growth pact. I congratulate him for doing a good job but he was being knifed at the same time in relation to Partnership 2000 when he was doing this excellent work on behalf of the EU. However, that is for another day. For the last few years we have met the criteria relating to European Monetary Union. It is vitally important that we should have control of public finances but at the moment, we do not have such control. Every pressure group that knocks on the door prompts the Government to fritter away money on its pet projects. This is totally unfair to the taxpayer and to the next generation who will have to repay these debts. At a time of increasing Government revenues we should be doing better than we are. All we need is a slight downturn in current growth rates and we will miss the European Monetary Union targets, which would be a national scandal.

The important sentence in the Tánaiste's statement is that the key remaining challenge is how we ensure that the values which have inspired Irish foreign policy for many years will continue to inspire our policy in challenging circumstances not only at the European level but also globally. This should be the way forward. Everything we do must be on the basis of the lessons we have learned and the things which have identified us as a people and made us strong within Europe and the UN.

The Tánaiste did not even mention neutrality. He talked about future security arrangements. We are not now, nor have we ever been, isolationist. We want to participate fully in humanitarian missions as we have done with the UN and we also wish to see this done within the EU. Our role should be in strengthening the OSCE rather than building new Maginot lines along the borders with Russia. The extension of NATO through Partnership For Peace is wrong. It will create more instability as we have seen in history. We must learn from history but unfortunately, people do not seem to be doing so. I wish to see a strengthening of the OSCE. Any change in Irish neutrality should be put to the people. It should not be done by sleight of hand.

The size and composition of the Commission are fundamental. Each country must retain the right to nominate a Commissioner. The problem with the Maastricht Treaty was that people did not feel involved. We are in serious trouble if the new treaty does not give each country the right to nominate a Commissioner. I strongly support enlargement and it is important that this process advances. France has been leading the calls for a change in the size of the Commission, yet the French Government has more members than the Commission. Its position is totally illogical.

One of the objectives of the treaty will be the establishment of a common foreign policy linked to a common security policy. A common foreign policy is a nonsense as was shown in the last few weeks by the vote on China. The EU was divided. France, Germany and some of the other major players went one way while some of the smaller countries went in the opposite direction. We will need years of hard work before achieving a common foreign policy. The rhetoric in the British general election does not augur well for the development of such a policy which I would welcome. The Tánaiste mentioned the participation of the OSCE in Albania. This is a good example of how these matters should and can be handled.

I support the Ireland House concept with regards to diplomatic missions and it is important that we expand it. It is essential that every Minister, in particular the Ministers for Enterprise and Employment and Tourism and Trade, use their muscle to ensure that the semi-State bodies under their control co-operate in developing this concept. Some of these missions are like little empires who do not wish to be polluted by proximity to fellow Irishmen working abroad. It is all right to meet them on a Friday evening but do not ask them to meet them between Monday and Friday. They must work together as well as socialise.

I join in the condemnation of the activities of the IRA and loyalist organisations. How could any organisation claim to be working and speaking on behalf of the Irish people while cowardly shooting a female police officer in the back in Derry a week ago? I condemn them in the strongest terms for what they have done. Equally, I condemn loyalists for the killing of John Slane. It is vitally important that we proceed with all inclusive talks. We should be encouraging the paramilitaries to lay down their weapons and call an unequivocal ceasefire to allow talks proceed. There should be no delay in starting those talks if we have an unequivocal ceasefire. The tragedy is that we lost an 18 month opportunity. The lack of trust since then is frightening and there have been a number of deaths in Britain and Ireland. We have to work for peace and not be afraid of it. We must encourage the paramilitaries to lay down their weapons and get into talks.

The Tánaiste quoted the Framework Document as being an essential part of our negotiating strategy. I remind the committee that, on the day the document was signed, the Taoiseach came into the Dáil and presented it as the work of the two Governments. It was actually the work of the previous Irish Government. In the same statement the Taoiseach diluted the importance of the document and highlighted the difficulties Unionists would have with it. There are difficulties. However, that was an opportunity to speak positively and to sell the document rather than rubbishing it on the day of its publication.

This attitude has prevailed within the Government. I want to be fair to the Tánaiste and the Department who have a different attitude on this issue. Unfortunately, the Taoiseach and the Minister for Social Welfare have been pulling in a different direction to the Department of Foreign Affairs. That is evident in the lost opportunities for peace. We cannot allow the Taoiseach and the Minister Deputy De Rossa, to delay the process further. We cannot allow the men of violence to take advantage of this division. We must have a united voice for peace.

The Tánaiste stated that progress at the talks has been depressingly slow. This is a strong phrase but it is a euphemism for what has happened in the North. It is important to have a lasting and stable agreement so that everyone on this and the adjoining island can live in peace and harmony without the disruption of British election campaigns, the loss of life in Britain and disruptions such as that which occurred at Aintree on the day of the Grand National, which was done in the name of a united Ireland and peace.

I welcome the Tánaiste here today. I would like to raise other issues with him but I will do so on another occasion.

Unfortunately, in the ten minutes available to me I will only be able to briefly mention a couple of points. However, it should not be taken that I do not regard the other issues as important because I do.

I congratulate all concerned on the excellent way the Presidency was organised, particularly by the Department of Foreign Affairs. We owe a special vote of thanks to Mr. Dorr for his efforts in drafting what must be one of the most difficult documents to draft — a revision of the Treaties of the European Union. This is extraordinarily complex and I hope it will be agreed in Amsterdam in June. We cannot be certain of that or confident it will be concluded because there are many major issues at stake, not alone for the 15 existing member states but for the five, six or seven other countries which I would like to become members of the European Union over the next five years.

As regards European developments, the most important matter from our point of view is European Monetary Union and the single currency. Whether we like it or not, our fortunes in that regard are bound up with whatever decisions the British make. My instinct and that of my party is that we should go the whole way with all 15 member states. We understand if some have reservations and want to stand back from it. However, we must remember that if the British distance themselves from these developments, particularly those relating to the single currency, our difficulties will be immense. The official view is that, notwithstanding that, we should go on. We need to seriously think about that because business people, particularly those who trade internationally, are beginning to recognise the difficulties and the potential damage to our economy, especially if we decide to cut ourselves off from Britain and the North. They, not us, will be cutting themselves off from the rest of Europe.

The tone of the general election debate in Britain is depressing. Parties and candidates are seeking to gain electoral support by vying with one another in expressing their almost contempt for Europe and their unwillingness to agree with the proposals which will be put forward in Amsterdam in June or to abide by the timetable proposed for European Monetary Union. The British election is important from our point of view in terms of the ultimate decisions of the European Union. It is also important in the context of Northern Ireland.

My comments must be made against the background of two extremely distressing developments in Northern Ireland in recent months. We have become so used to the difficult situation there over the past year that perhaps we underestimate the significance of their horror. There has been a further upsurge in the frequency and intensity of punishment beatings and shootings carried out by both sides; republicans carry out two-thirds of such punishments while loyalists carry out one-third. These activities are totally uncivilised but they are not condemned by Sinn Féin, the political wing of the IRA.

A new horror is the consistent burning of churches, especially Catholic churches. I heard an interview in the past day or two with the parish priest of a large Catholic church in Randalstown — which had a capacity of 1,500 people — which was burned to the ground during the past week. The only thing standing is the bell tower, but the parish priest said he was advised it would have to be knocked down because it is unsafe. Three Catholic churches were burned in one week. Churches of various Protestant denominations were also burned, although the damage was not as extensive. However, I presume that was not the wish of those who perpetrated the acts.

If churches or places of worship are burned in an area such as the Balkans or in parts of the Middle East, as happened from time to time, it is condemned universally because it is a sign of a breakdown in civilisation. However, this is taking place in parts of this island not between people of religions which are different from one another but between those who owe their allegiance to different denominations of the Christian faith. It seems we do not fully realise how horrendous that is.

Against that background it is not unreasonable for a member of this committee or this House or anyone in the Republic who feels deeply about the welfare of people on this island, especially in the North, to ask that votes are cast in the Northern Ireland election in favour of moderation rather than further polarisation. I do not know if my voice is of much value but I plead for support for moderation in Northern Ireland because it was never more necessary given the background against which people are living there. I make no apology for saying that I would like the SDLP to do well in the election. I would also like to see moderation in other parties. I do not deny that I would like the Alliance Party in Northern Ireland, which is perhaps the most moderate of all, to do well.

Unfortunately, the electoral system used in Northern Ireland for Westminster elections, as opposed to that used in other Northern Ireland elections, is clearly unsuited to Northern Ireland as it may bring about bizarre results and the election of people who are supported by a relatively small minority of the people in a given constituency. Having changed the electoral system in respect of all other forms of election, the UK authorities should change it in respect of the Westminster elections in Northern Ireland because there may be bizarre results which are unrepresentative of the views of the majority of people in as many as four or five constituencies, or even more, in Northern Ireland. If encouragement is given in these elections to people who consistently support and refuse to condemn violence, they will talk of their mandate being strengthened and they will become even more intransigent and impossible than they are already.

I am deeply ashamed as an Irishman that the British people have been subjected to the activities of the past number of weeks. It is a great mark of their patience that they have been able to shrug off these things and get on with their lives.

In conclusion, I want to make a brief point about a difficulty I have had with the Minister for Foreign Affairs recently. I received a lengthy letter from him within the last hour. I asked Parliamentary Question No. 94 on 26 March 1997, which is nearly a month ago, and I received a reply which is seriously erroneous in a number of respects. I wrote to the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs pointing this out. He wrote back agreeing that it was wrong and stating that he would avail of an early opportunity to correct the record. I was grateful for that. I expected that would happen but it has not happened.

Other aspects of the same matter arose today at Question Time with the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Deputy Yates, who told me that the matter had been dealt with by the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs who had made a personal statement to the House. I find that is not the case. Perhaps the opportunity will be taken in the House to correct what were very serious misstatements in the reply given to me.

It is the tradition of this House that if a Minister gives wrong information through no fault of his own he avails of the earliest opportunity to correct it. The system is simply not going to work if there is no public correction of serious errors almost one month later. I am not blaming the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs personally. I understand that the information concerned came from the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry and that Department has given incorrect information on this particular topic or matters related to it to either the Dáil or the Committee of Public Accounts on several occasions; it has happened frequently. This matter relates to the actions of an ambassador abroad and the information in the reply was erroneous.

I have no objection to the Estimate for the Department of Foreign Affairs. The country gets good value for what is a relatively modest amount of money be comparison with many other countries. The calibre of the staff is, by and large, very high. The work done and the amount of ground which must be covered by a relatively small number of people is commendable.

A question and answer session will now follow.

On a point of order, are all the questions to be answered together or will the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs answer each question as it is put?

We will begin by letting a Deputy put a question and allowing the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs to respond. If there is a series of questions on related topics, we may take them together. Let us see how it works. It is a question and answer session and I am anxious that it does not turn into a series of speeches. Let us deal with it in a way the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs can respond to the questions raised.

It is important in considering the Estimate that we look at the contributions made and not just sit here like zombies and listen to Deputy Burke saying that Ireland's development aid budget has not increased in real or percentage terms. I am sure the Minister will respond to that comment because Ireland's development aid budget is now larger in money and percentage terms than ever before.

It is a pity Deputy Burke has left, although I know he apologised, because he went on to say that there is no control over public expenditure. One must be realistic if one wants more spending and greater public control over expenditure. I listen to comments every evening on Adjournment Debates and Private Members' Business which all seek increased expenditure.

That is only done in Opposition.

It is a neat trick that a Deputy can speak with forked tongue in Opposition when he or she wants something done and then seek control of expenditure.

I thank the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and his officials for coming here. I thank him, in particular, on behalf of the Joint Committee on European Affairs for the assistance he and his staff, at home and in the embassies, have given all of us.

With regard to subhead A6, are there plans to purchase other property which is already occupied by Irish ambassadors abroad in prestigious parts of some of the world's capitals? These wonderful buildings are costing the State a great deal of money in rent and it would be cheaper to purchase them over a period.

There is an item listed for purchase which was mentioned in the preamble to the Estimate. Are there any other plans in that regard? I do not want to embarrass any Ambassador and suggest which buildings should be purchased but they are well known to the secretary of the Department and Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs.

I was not here, unfortunately, for the remarks about development aid but both Administrations over the past four years have made a particular effort to increase overseas spending. We have done so successfully and I am proud of the fact that the section of the Department involved, under Minister of State, Deputy Burton, has been making a serious effort in recent years.

With regard to the purchase of property, the possibility of purchasing more official premises is one which we have under constant review. As a matter of principle, I am in favour of purchasing rather than renting where it is possible. In December 1996, as the Deputy will be aware, the building which houses both the embassy and the permanent representation in Brussels was purchased by the Office of Public Works. In March 1997 the Ambassador's residence in Buenos Aires was purchased by the Department. There are now 21 official premises abroad which are owned by the State. There is always the question of the capital outlay. It is like a person's domestic situation, getting the initial money together as a deposit, although the context is different.

I do not like the idea of Government renting buildings even in this city. In recent years we have sold property which we should not have sold; it should have been used for public purposes. From the point of view of value for money, I would be encouraging my efficient officials, who have been lauded publicly today, to see if we can purchase more properties on behalf of the State where possible.

What efforts are being made while we are still in the Troika to get Holland to do something about their drug culture with criminals from Ireland taking refuge there? The Tánaiste is aware of public concern about this problem. I have also tabled this matter on the Adjournment to stress its importance.

We welcome the number of refugees who have come to Ireland. Is the Tánaiste aware of the concerns being expressed by the health boards about the number of people entering Ireland illegally and who have not been medically tested? This could create a problem for us if they have diseases. Are any measures being taken to address this matter?

Can we be updated on what is happening regarding our representations on the issue of landmines? We made representations on this matter and while the fuss tends to die down it is still an issue to the forefront of our minds. Are representations being continuously being made on this matter?

I also wish to raise the issue of our colleagues in the EU who are shipping vast quantities of arms, particularly to Africa. The President of Zaire has accumulated billions of pounds in Swiss banks. We are giving considerable amounts of money, up to £12 million, to Zaire and nobody begrudges this. Surely the UN can have some say in telling the Swiss authorities to release these embezzled funds which the World Bank loaned and countries have donated to help a suffering people? Has any movement been made on this issue?

I recognise that drugs is a crucial problem. The campaign against drugs and trafficking has to be a co-operative effort between all member states. I have attended EU meetings for some time as leader of my party and at Government level and there is a new attitude within the EU towards drugs. Four or five years ago when drugs were mentioned the attitude was that the problem ought to be addressed by somebody but, for the past two years, there has been a determined and hardened attitude in Europe towards the problem and an acceptance of the importance of co-operation. We are working closely with our EU partners. In the structured dialogue with leaders of the central and east European countries, for example, we discussed the threat of drugs from the east, and similarly in relation to the Caribbean countries and the US.

The Department of Justice is posting drugs liaison officers in The Hague and Madrid who will work in the Irish Embassies. We will be cooperating daily with the Department of Justice. This is a high priority in all countries in the context of the threat to society.

The matter of illegal immigrants has received attention in recent days. I had a brief discussion with the Minister for Justice on the matter. She is preparing an assessment for the Government. The issue will require Government action because of the scale of illegal immigration which is resulting in enormous financial, accommodation and health pressures. There are also medical aspects which need to be considered.

I assure the Deputy that we are keeping up pressure on the issue of land mines, in which we took a lead role. We are organising a conference on the issue which will take place in the near future. We will not reduce pressure on this matter.

The situation in Zaire is appalling. What is most important in the Great Lakes region is the convening of a conference under the auspices of the UN and with the co-operation of the EU, the Organisation of African Unity, the US and other interested parties, to put together a five year strategy for the region. Otherwise we will see more Zaire type situations. The issues of political stability and economic reconstruction will have to be discussed within such a conference. The idea of a conference has been mooted for some time but the component parts are not in place. However, we will continue to press for it.

My question related to President Mobutu hoarding money in Swiss banks. The president, who has billions of pounds, is misappropriating money while the EU is providing as much as it can in aid. Are we trying to bring this matter to the UN in association with other EU Ministers?

I am not aware of any co-ordinated effort relating to whatever money has been hoarded.

Will the Minister start such an effort?

We can certainly examine that possibility.

My question relates to subhead C — support for Irish emigrant groups abroad. I tabled a Dáil question for reply yesterday and I was disappointed that the Tánaiste could not tell me that additional funding will be made available for the Irish emigrant centre in Boston. Is this related to the reduction of 8 per cent in funding for emigrant groups? Some of those who spoke to me from Boston regarding the problems of Irish emigrants also referred to proposed changes in legislation and emigrant welfare. Is there any proposal to make funding, which is crucially important, available? There are also changes emanating from the US Congress which may affect immigrants.

At a subcommittee meeting we discussed the initiative for the heavily indebted poor countries — HIPC. It appears that there is a proposal to defer this initiative for up to two years. Can the Tánaiste say if there will be an earlier implementation of this initiative? We also proposed that the IMF should sell 10 per cent of its gold reserve to fund this initiative.

I know of Deputy Kitt's ongoing interest in these matters. I welcome his interest in emigrants. Regarding funding, the groups in the US received £150,000 in grants in each year from 1993 to 1996. In 1996 we also provided £30,000 for groups in Australia following discussion with them. This year we are proposing an allocation of £15,000 to groups in Australia out of a total amount of £165,000. I have consulted with all the groups, including those in Boston and New York, regarding the money available.

The Deputy may be correct in saying there has been a reduction of 8 per cent. All Departments were levied to pay for the additional money following settlement of the nurses' dispute. I was obliged to find money in my Department to do that: we did manage to get an extra £100,000 which I transferred to the Department of Enterprise and Employment for the DÍON committee in the UK. The committee felt aggrieved that the £500,000 figure had remained static for many years and I have had close consultation with them over recent years on this issue.

There is anxiety about legislation in the US. That is a matter about which we are in constant consultation with the US Administration through the embassy in Washington. We will continue to do that in order to ensure that conditions for Irish emigrants do not worsen. We will monitor the situation closely.

My other question related to debt and the initiative which was to be taken, following a decision last autumn in the World Bank and IMF, to assist the poorest countries. Uganda was identified as one of the first countries which would be assisted. That initiative seems to have been postponed for two years.

We have outlined our position on this issue in a very forthright manner. We support an extensive debt reduction programme. Unfortunately, not all the countries involved in the debt relief packages are in agreement on this issue. There have been some difficulties about the details of support to be given by France, for example. We will continue to support moves to reduce debt and this is very much part of the discussions which are taking place in the context of the next Lomé agreement. This is very significant support and is part of an ongoing relationship between Europe and developing countries. We have suggested that by the year 2000 there should be a major initiative in place in relation to debt reduction. It is worth pointing out that this initiative has been slow, particularly in relation to Uganda. Uganda initially made enormous strides in this area but for some reason has reached a standstill. The Ugandan President is visiting the European Union today and tomorrow and I expect he will resume negotiations on behalf of Uganda. Ireland has supported Uganda's case and that of other countries on the HIPC.

It is interesting to note that Canada, which represents us at the World Bank, is not supporting the immediate debt relief initiative to Uganda.

We can only accept responsibility for Irish foreign policy.

(Laoighis-Offaly): This issue arose in the debate on the International Development Association (Amendments) Bill, 1997, today which comes under the auspices of the Department of Finance. I asked the Minister of State at the Department of Finance whether Ireland could assist in discussions with the Canadians at the spring meeting of the international financial institutions. I think that falls within the remit of the Minister for Finance, but perhaps the Minister for Foreign Affairs could also assist in this. One of the reasons for the delay in implementing this financial package for developing countries is that many developed countries are dragging their heals as to when this should commence. The Canadians represent us in so far as the executive director for our constituency is Canadian and they are pushing for the implementation of this initiative next year rather than this one. I asked the Minister of State at the Department of Finance to request the Canadians to push for its immediate implementation. We would appreciate it if the Minister for Foreign Affairs or the Minister of State could assist in diplomatic contact with the Canadians.

I share the Tánaiste's view that Irish foreign policy is sufficiently complex; I do not think we can write Canadian foreign policy here today. The Minister may want to respond to that issue at a later stage.

I wish to raise two items, one of which relates to diplomatic services and the other to UN funding.

I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Ambassador and the staff of our London Embassy for the tremendous assistance they have provided to Oireachtas Members who had occasion to visit prisoners in England throughout the past year. I want to put our thanks to them on record. Prisoners themselves have asked us to extend their thanks to the embassy staff.

The Tánaiste will be aware that for the past three or four years I have raised the possibility of diplomatic relations being opened with Cuba and appointing an ambassador there. The committee welcomes the fact that, for the past two years, Ireland has voted in favour of the resolution calling for the lifting of the US embargo on Cuba at the UN General Assembly. That is viewed as a positive step. However, Ireland remains the only EU country without full diplomatic relations with Cuba. I am aware there are difficulties with this in terms of financial restraints and in terms of appointing a full-time residential ambassador. Perhaps the Tánaiste would consider appointing a non-residential ambassador or consul to Cuba after the election. It is important that we improve our relations with Cuba in the future.

I understand we are owed in the region of £10 million by the UN for carrying out peacekeeping services on its behalf. I am aware there is a financial crisis within the UN organisation which has debts of the order of $2 billion. I gather that one of the major difficulties is that the US Government owes $1.5 billion to the UN and is apparently refusing to pay its contribution. In turn, the UN is incapable of providing money to smaller countries like Ireland who are carrying out peacekeeping work. Can the Tánaiste inform the committee what is the exact figure and what steps we could take to put pressure on the US to fulfil the agreement they entered into on joining the UN? The US has an obligation to ensure this funding is provided for peacekeeping projects.

We are owed in the region of $12 million by the UN. This is not a new development; we have addressed it over successive years. Each time I am obliged to get Government consent to send a UNIFIL troop abroad I am reminded by the Minister for Finance that we should be seeking payment of this money. We did receive £2 million recently from the UN which is making a serious effort in difficult financial circumstances. Though we are very proud of our involvement in the UN, this is a severe financial burden for us to carry. I have had discussions with the former Secretary General of the UN on three or four occasions about this issue and I have also raised the matter with the US Administration as to their obligations. Members will be aware there are very serious difficulties in Washington at the moment. We will persevere in seeking to have this money paid as we want to continue to make a contribution in this area.

I would like to see a number of embassies opened in various locations but this is not always possible given the constraints on the public purse. We need to expand our foreign service. Deputy O'Malley stated that we get very good value for money from a very small diplomatic corps. We are looking at a number of locations but all these matters are ultimately subject to available finance. I am not passing the buck in relation to this. We have operated well in recent years and we could certainly look at the Cuban situation. However, this would have to be done in the context of the availability of public finances.

Perhaps we could appoint the Ceann Comhairle as an honorary consul there when he retires from his present position.

(Laoighis-Offaly): With regard to the action we are taking internationally on the debt burden, which is being suffered mainly be sub-Saharan African countries, although the mainline Ministry is the Department of Finance, perhaps the Minster and his Department will take up with the Canadian authorities the question of the full support by Canada in its capacity as our representatives through the executive directors of the World Bank and the IMF. The White Paper aims for consistency in our policy across Departments. It may be in order for us to approach the Canadians at diplomatic level on this issue to ensure that they, as our representatives at the highest levels of the IMF and the World Bank, will ensure that the special initiative for the heavily indebted poorer countries goes ahead. It is dreadful that countries such as Uganda, who have taken the prescription and the medicine, find that while the door will not be slammed there is a reluctance to open it to them.

As members of the joint committee, and especially as members of the Subcommittee on Development Co-operation, we appreciate the support we received from the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Burton, and her officials in the development co-operation division for our efforts last year to have the Government rethink its position on contributing to one of the structural adjustment funds run by the IMF. We were concerned that the Government might propose to the Oireachtas a contribution to this fund, which is not an appropriate way of assisting in debt relief. I am delighted that, in consultation with the Minister for Finance, the Government's position was reviewed and that it stated that it will not introduce proposals to contribute to that fund in advance of implementation on the ground of the type of debt relief strategy that we seek. Without the intervention of the Minister of State and her Department it would have been much more difficult to get the Government position adjusted favourably on that issue.

I am delighted that the aid budget has been increased again. Deputy Burke referred to actions speaking louder than words. The actions of this and the previous Administration have spoken louder than words in delivering a much bigger aid budget. It stands at the highest level ever both in monetary and percentage terms. All members of this committee wish to see us reaching the target of 0.7 per cent as quickly as possible. It is a mark of the growth of the economy that, while our absolute monetary contribution has tripled since 1992, in GNP terms it has only doubled. While we can compliment ourselves on that, it is not acceptable as a valid excuse. I would like to see the amount increasing further. However, the worst thing would be to put too much in too quickly because capacity and quality must be considered. These are being addressed at present.

We could double and triple contributions to the UN agencies and many of the multilateral funds immediately, but it is the wish of the members of the committee that as much of our funding as possible goes in a bilateral fashion, through the priority countries, the NGO co-financing scheme, to which the Tánaiste referred, where we support organisations such as Trócaire, and the small projects — the individual aid worker and missionary in South America, Africa and Asia. This is where the committee would like to see expansion occur.

It is not credible to belittle this progress or to suggest that it is not a question of actions following words. The record of the Governments between 1987 and 1992 in this regard bears no scrutiny. I am delighted that this and the previous Administration have more than redressed the damage done during that period. I look forward to the allocation increasing steadily to reach the target figure. I know it will be done in a sensitive way which will ensure that we continue to have quality programmes and that the aid we deliver is respected for the difference it makes at ground level.

I compliment the Tánaiste, the Minister of State and their officials for the work done, which I and other members of the committee have been able to see at first hand. As Members of the Oireachtas we can assure the public that that money is being used in a very effective fashion. We have an obligation to ensure that public support for this type of expenditure continues, which we can do by ensuring that it is spent in a way it would wish.

Before the Tánaiste concludes, I join with other members of the committee in congratulating him, the Minister of State and their officials on the extraordinary work they did during the EU Presidency. I also join with other members in paying tribute to our embassy staffs. In the important trips we have made we encountered very good officials, ambassadors and others working in our embassies who have made the work of this committee much easier. They have facilitated our meetings with people and have engaged in work for the committee in the area of foreign relations and on issues about which we are concerned.

We are entering a crucial phase with regard to the Intergovernmental Conference. The Government laid the foundations for the completion of that process. The committee has deliberated on the draft treaty and we hope within the coming days to complete a document which will be forwarded to the Tánaiste and laid before the Dáil. It will detail some of the issues of concern to the committee. I hope that what we have to say will be seen to be constructive.

Without pre-empting anything in the document, there is one issue which may be raised for the Tánaiste to consider, that is greater co-operation in foreign policy, which is something the committee favours at EU level. There is a concern that the structure within the draft treaty framework does not appear to recognise a role for foreign affairs committees within the national Parliaments. For many years some Members in the Dáil and Seanad fought for the establishment of a foreign affairs committee to play a constructive role — as did the Tánaiste many years ago. It would be unfortunate in the context of greater integration of EU foreign policy if it down graded the position of foreign affairs committees within the national Parliaments. I am not sure of the degree to which that issue has yet been addressed. When we finalise our report we will have constructive proposals to make in that regard and I hope they will contribute to the process.

During the year the committee raised a number of human rights issues. China was an area of concern. We should congratulate the Government on the stance it took recently with regard to human rights in China. Everyone found the failure of EU countries to adopt a joint integrated approach very disappointing. It is a difficulty in the co-ordination of foreign policy on human rights issues. There is a genuine concern that individual EU countries will put their own economic interests ahead of human rights issues. This was a clear indication of how a powerful country, such as China, could divide EU countries. Their economic interests did not lean towards a united EU approach on human rights in China. The Government is to be congratulated for sticking to its guns. I hope on other human rights issues EU countries will be able to co-operate in a more constructive way in future years and make a contribution.

I thank the Chairman and other colleagues for their remarks on the Irish Presidency and our embassies. I am proud of the effort put in at home and abroad to deliver foreign policy for the Irish people.

In regard to Deputy Gallagher's remarks, the Minister of State, Deputy Burton, met the Canadian representative on 9 June 1996 and we will convey our views to him again before the next meeting. All parties have a common position on this matter.

I am grateful for comments on the development aid programme. We have worked to ensure that, as we expanded the programmes, we were able to get value for money. Projects were targeted on the ground rather than going through the agencies. That is our priority and the expressed wish of the committee. We have to be careful as the programme is expanded to ensure we do so in a conscientious way. We still want to reach the 0.7 per cent target and will continue to work towards that. NGOs and the interested parties are appreciative of what we have done during both Administrations over the past number of years.

I thank the Chairman for his remarks on the Government's stance on the resolution on human rights. It was regrettable that EU countries broke ranks. It was important that Ireland held its ground and the Danes must be complimented for taking a lead on this. I take note of the Chairman's remarks on the role of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs. I had many tussles with a former Taoiseach on its establishment. It is working satisfactorily and we are better informed through its work. It and officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs have achieved a level of co-operation from which both sides benefit. It is important that there is a sense of ownership in terms of foreign policy through the committee and the Oireachtas.

I wish to refer to two other matters raised. Deputy Burke referred to differences between party leaders on Northern Ireland. I assure him there is a united Government policy in regard to working to establish peace there and the Framework Document will be on the table during negotiations as was indicated in the ground rules agreed by both Governments earlier this year. Second, I appreciate the manner in which Deputy O'Malley raised his matter. I did not have all the information compiled for the letter delivered this morning. I wanted to make sure having acted on erroneous information in replying to hundreds of parliamentary questions over the past four years, I was not going to do so again. I wanted to obtain all the information and I will correct the record as the Deputy rightly requested.

The emphasis on the growth in Irish development co-operation will be as much on quality as on quantity because as we increase the level of our aid there must be a quantum leap in the quality of what we do. A number of measures are being undertaken to ensure that is so. I am grateful to Deputy Gallagher for his remarks.

Zaire and the Great Lakes region were referred to by a number of Deputies. Currently, the civil war, led by Mr. Kabila, will inevitably lead to a change of Government in Zaire. We have considerable concerns about the position of refugees in eastern Kivu. On a number of occasions recently I met my counterparts, in particular, the President of the Development Co-operation Council, the Dutch Minister, Mr. Pronk. We have put in train a number of suggestions to the UNHCR. Last week we released an additional £500,000 for the relief of refugees in Kisengani and eastern Kivu. Nonetheless, I fear killings are taking place there as there is evidence to suggest that. Last year, there were 60,000 killings in that region. As the victors have changed sides there is scope for revenge killing. The Council has recommended access by the international agencies to Kisengani to the Rwandan Government. CONCERN is already on the ground in Zaire and we are working in close co-operation with it. We hope there will be an airlift of the most vulnerable refugees and that arrangements will be made for road passage of the remainder. There is a considerable political problem because some of the refugees are walking towards the central African republic. Therefore, we are approaching the end game in Zaire.

I commented on Mr. Mobutu and his wealth before to this committee. We hope that if there is a change of Government in Zaire it will be by negotiated peace settlement. We sought the appointments of Mr. Ajello and Mr. Sahnoun, the special representative of the Secretary General. It may then be a matter for the new Government to seek the return of some of the money which has been taken from the people of Zaire. The international community must put mechanisms in place to allow that to happen.

I thank Deputies who paid tribute to the work of officials in the development co-operation section. They represent Ireland well and work hard on our behalf. The Chairman referred to the Intergovernmental Conference and developing European policy. The development of this committee has shown that the capacity for analysis and discussion of complex situations is critical to any solution. I hope what will happen will result in an increased capacity to analyse political and humanitarian situations in developing countries and that we will not rush in with a fig leaf of humanitarian effort when the damage has been done. There should be a concerted political effort to prevent disasters and humanitarian tragedies rather than always being the ambulance of the world.

I compliment the Minister for State on her dedication. She has done a great job and I hope I am not in trouble with my party for saying it.

I thank the Minister for State and the Members of the committee for their constructive contribution to a useful Estimates meeting. I thank the Tánaiste, in his absence, for responding to questions comprehensively and constructively. That concludes our debate on the Revised Estimates for Foreign Affairs and International Co-operation.

Report of Select Committee.

I propose the following draft report:

The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs has considered the following Revised Estimates for Foreign Affairs and International Co-operation for the service of the year ending 31 December, 1997 — Vote 38, Foreign Affairs (Revised Estimate) and Vote 39, International Co-operation (Revised Estimate). The Revised Estimates are hereby reported to the Dáil.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Report agreed to.

Ordered to report to the Dáil accordingly.

The Select Committee adjourned at 6.35 p.m.

Top
Share