I also welcome the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell. I will now ask the Minister to make his opening statement on the Estimates. The committee has a draft timetable with which I presume members agree.
Estimates for Public Services, 1998.
Vote 38: Department of Foreign Affairs (Revised).
I thank the Chairman for his welcome. The Minister of State and I will take the foreign affairs brief in two segments, if that is agreeable to the committee.
I have a copy of a declaration on Kosovo arising from the conclusions of the European Council meeting today and perhaps it could be included in the minutes of the committee's proceedings. It covers effectively many of the points made in the Chairm
an's important opening statement on the obscenity which continues in the Balkans and Kosovo. I also have a declaration from the European Council meeting on Northern Ireland which is most important. Perhaps that could also be included in the minutes.
If the Minister gives the staff a copy of the declarations, they can be copied and distributed to the Members. I should have pointed out at the start of the meeting that the Minister will deal with Vote 38 which relates to the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of State will subsequently deal with Vote 39 - International Co-operation.
I welcome this opportunity to meet the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs to consider Votes 38 and 39. My colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, will address issues relating to subheads C to I of Vote 39, which cover Ireland's contribution to overseas development aid. I pay tribute to the outstanding work of the Minister of State in this area and all others in which she has been involved in the Department. I will address 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 £64.896 million. Most of this is taken up by the administrative budget which amounts to £53.857 million. The remainder of the Vote funds programmes which promote peace and reconciliation within Ireland, encourage the development of cultural relations with other countries and support Irish citizens overseas. Subhead I contains a sum of £2.5 million to cover the costs of the Referendum Commission on the Amsterdam Treaty.
This is a time of great hope on the island. The British-Irish Agreement was an enormous breakthrough and its emphatic endorsement in the referendums on 22 May has deepened its significance still further. The people have voted for peace and for a new beginning. It is the duty of all politicians and people, North and South, to ensure the future is different and founded on the principles of partnership, equality and mutual respect charted in the Agreement. Above all, we must ensure that never again should there be recourse to violence to advance political goals. The 22 May vote confirmed that it is now the indisputable, sovereign will of the people that our differences and our future must be resolved by exclusively peaceful, democratic means.
We are deeply encouraged by the new energy and vitality the Agreement has engendered in political life, particularly in Northern Ireland. A new sense of optimism abounds. After the dark days of despair we have all lived through these past thirty years, that is something we all deeply appreciate and celebrate. As somebody who has been involved in political life throughout that period - just as you were, Chairman - it is a sense I have never experienced before. While it is the case that the breakthrough on Good Friday was unprecedented, its roots lie in the long years of work involved in efforts by previous Governments and by the parties. I pay tribute to the Members of both Houses - some of them here today - and to my predecessors for their invaluable contribution. I also add to the roll of honour the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body - whose present Co-Chairman, Deputy O'Kennedy, is a member of this committee - which has played a real and substantive role in developing links and bonds between the two Parliaments and more generally between Ireland and Britain.
We know the Agreement is not a panacea. Many aspects of it need to be fleshed out over the coming months and years. We have to keep working steadily and solidly, to get detail right, but without losing the broader perspective, that spirit of imagination which made accommodation possible. The focus at the moment is, understandably, on next week's Assembly elections in Northern Ireland and it is important that we show sensitivity and balance during this period. However, I assure the committee that we are, in a focused and systematic way, taking all the preparatory steps necessary to make the Agreement a living reality including establishing an interdepartmental committee, chaired by the Department of Foreign Affairs, to oversee all aspects of the implementation of the Agreement. A priority is the successful establishment of the North-South institutions, including implementation bodies. We are actively preparing for our dialogue with the Northern side on these issues.
It is important that progress on institutional questions is balanced by parallel progress on the other important issues on which commitments are made in the Agreement. We have made clear our expectation that the new policing commission, under the chairmanship of Mr. Chris Patten, will make proposals which fulfil the wide-ranging terms of reference set out in the Agreement. We look forward to similar advances in other important areas, such as prisoners, criminal justice and human rights, where I readily acknowledge we also have taken on obligations which we will have to fulfil. One matter on which I place particular emphasis is the normalisation of security arrangements and practices. Progress in this area sends a clear and unmistakable message that real change is under way.
On decommissioning, there are two realities to be addressed. First, it should not block the implementation of other provisions of the Agreement. Second, it has its place as one of the elements of the Agreement and people will rightly also expect the commitments in this area to be implemented in good faith. We must not forget either, the terrible price in personal terms that has been paid by so many families during the past three decades. That is why I attach such importance to the provisions in the Agreement on victims of violence. That is also why the Government has moved quickly on the establishment of a commission in our jurisdiction, under the capable and distinguished direction of the former Tánaiste, Mr. John Wilson. There is much hurt and much healing to be done and Government and citizens, have a role to play in ensuring that the needs and the voice of those who have paid the heaviest price on all sides are heard and responded to in full.
I urge all those concerned with contentious parades - whether as residents, loyal orders or police - to act with restraint and goodwill in the wider interests of stability and harmony, and of the new dispensation represented by the Agreement. We have always urged local dialogue and compromise as the best way forward. Even if this proves impossible in one case or another, it is important that the decisions of the Parades Commission are accepted and that the authorities make available the resources needed to uphold those decisions. We cannot again afford a situation in which force or the threat of force are seen to be decisive in Northern Ireland. Many challenges remain to be faced but the context and climate in which we face them has been transformed by the British-Irish Agreement. I am hugely confident that we can rise to those challenges.
The lead up and sequel to the 22 May referendum on the Treaty of Amsterdam has been a major focus of attention for the Government and especially for the Department of Foreign Affairs. On that date the people expressed once again in clear terms their endorsement of Ireland's full participation in Europe. The President signed the constitutional amendment Bill into law on 3 June and Ireland will therefore be in a position to ratify the Treaty of Amsterdam as soon as legislation to make certain provisions of the Treaty part of the domestic law of the State has been enacted by the Oireachtas and the terms of the Treaty have been approved by Dáil Éireann. The European Communities (Amendment) Bill, 1998, is proceeding through the Seanad and will be considered in the Dáil next week. Assuming that All Stages proceed as planned, Ireland may ratify the Treaty before the end of July. The target date for completion of national ratification procedures remains 1 January 1999. In accepting the amendments to the Constitution required to ratify the Treaty of Amsterdam the Irish people, for the third time since accession, showed their continued support for keeping Ireland at the forefront of European integration.
The EU enlargement process was launched on 30 March. This is a project of immense importance for the Union as a whole. The vision, which we share, is one of building a stable, peaceful and prosperous continent. An inclusive accession process has been launched and accession negotiations have begun with the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, Estonia, Slovenia and Cyprus. Ireland recognises that the achievements of the central and eastern European countries in preparing for accession call for a generous and open response from the individual member states of the Union. The Government is fully committed to do what it can to assist the applicant states in meeting the conditions for accession by sharing our expertise and experience with them in a practical fashion. The Union's strengthened pre-accession strategy, along with bilateral assistance offered by the member states, represents the most tangible expression of the Union's political commitment to our new partners in central and eastern Europe.
As Members are aware, Agenda 2000 is the package of proposals which addresses the future financing of the Union and the future development of its policies in the context of enlargement. The Commission's proposals include the overall budgetary framework to cover the years 2000-2006 and the further reform of the Common Agricultural Policy, the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund. They will have a significant bearing on our future economic and social development.
Since the tabling of the detailed Agenda 2000 proposals by the Commission in March. discussions have proceeded at a number of levels. Ireland, like every other member state, will strongly defend its interests in the negotiations which are set to run until next year. The cornerstone of the Commission's approach is the proposal that the Union be financed in the years ahead within an overall ceiling of 1.27 per cent of its GNP. While we have been prepared to accept this as a working hypothesis in the negotiations, the amount provided must be adequate to provide both for enlargement and the continuation of the common policies within the existing member states.
In regard to CAP, the Minister for Agriculture and Food has already made clear that, as the proposals penalise Ireland in significant ways, they are not acceptable as they stand. In the negotiations we will insist that they be extensively amended to restore equity. In regard to the Structural Funds, it has been clear for some time that Ireland, due to its economic success, cannot expect the same level of benefits as before. In particular, Ireland no longer meets the eligibility criterion for Objective I status, that is GDP per capita of less than 75 per cent of the Community average. The Commission has, however, proposed that regions such as Ireland should benefit from transitional arrangements.
It is a priority for Ireland that these transition arrangements should be adequate in duration and content. We have strongly argued in the negotiations that, in spite of our recent economic progress, Ireland has substantial continuing development needs, in particular as regards infrastructure. We have emphasised that the needs of the less developed parts of the country must be addressed. European cohesion policy is a medium to longterm undertaking and, if the Union's objectives in this area are to be achieved on a permanent and sustainable basis, there must be no sudden fall-off in funding.
I accompanied the Taoiseach to the meeting of the European Council in Cardiff which concluded earlier today. The Council set out essential elements of the European Union's strategy for further economic reform to promote growth, prosperity, jobs and social inclusion; identified practical ways of bringing the Union closer to the people through greater transparency, environmental integration and stepping up the fight against drugs and organised crime; established guidelines and a timeframe for further negotiations on Agenda 2000; reviewed other progress in developing the Union and its external relations and issued a declaration on Kosovo, and launched a longer term debate on the Union's future development.
The European Council also warmly welcomed the British-Irish Agreement and its subsequent decisive endorsement by the people in both parts of Ireland. The European Council noted the generous practical help which the EU has provided over the years. It also noted also the Commission's commitment to go on finding new, creative ways to support the fresh opportunities which the Agreement will bring and invited the Commission to bring forward proposals accordingly. I very much welcome this expression of continuing high level support on the part of the European Union. At that point the Taoiseach intervened and expressed his gratitude for what has been done to date.
In line with the Government's commitments in the Action Programme, we are focusing attention on key areas such as the United Nations, human rights, disarmament and the implementation of the common foreign and security policy aspects of the Amsterdam Treaty.
Our support for the United Nations and its efforts to develop a more effective response to new global and regional challenges remains a cornerstone of our foreign policy. We continue to work actively for UN reform. We are also pursuing our candidature for membership of the Security Council in the years 2001-2.
Another area where we have been very active is that of disarmament and arms control. Last week I launched a new initiative, together with seven other like minded countries, to inject a new sense of urgency into efforts to achieve nuclear disarmament. This initiative - resulting in a joint ministerial declaration - was, I believe, particularly timely in view of the setback to non-proliferation efforts resulting from the recent nuclear tests by India and Pakistan. Internationally, the declaration has received a broad welcome. Earlier today at Cardiff the European Council took special note of the initiative undertaken by Ireland and Sweden. In the area of conventional weapons, we are working on the follow-up to the Ottawa Treaty on Landmines which I signed last December, including a meeting in Dublin in September. We are also working to try to bring about better controls on arms exports by EU countries.
My colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, who has special responsibility for overseas development assistance and human rights, will be speaking in greater detail on human rights issues. I have a personal interest in and a commitment to human rights which are a fundamental consideration in determining our approach to all the other issues of our foreign policy, including those that I will now mention in more detail.
While the wounds in Bosnia are beginning to heal, the situation there remains fragile and it is essential that the international community ensures that self-sustaining stability and real peace are achieved. We will continue to support actively the realisation of these objectives through our involvement in SFOR, the EU monitor mission, electoral assistance and other OSCE activities.
As the Chairman pointed out, the crisis in Kosovo threatens a humanitarian catastrophe for the civilian population and constitutes a serious danger to regional stability which could recreate horrors on the scale we earlier witnessed in Bosnia. It requires effective action by the international community. The European Council at Cardiff addressed the situation in a comprehensive declaration which states what needs to be done and expresses support for actions to see that this is achieved. Further measures will he taken against the Serbs and others engaged in violence. Humanitarian aid will be provided as well as support for action to facilitate the return of refugees and displaced persons. Ireland is considering what bilateral contribution we can make.
Another area of concern is Cyprus. We have strongly supported the efforts, through the UN and the EU, to bring about a settlement on the island which would enable a united Cyprus to accede to the European Union at an early date. In my recent discussions with the Cypriot Foreign Minister I outlined to him the approach we took in the case of Northern Ireland, and I also pledged to provide our full support for efforts to reach a solution in Cyprus.
The Middle East peace process is now at a turning point. After two years of lost opportunities there is a risk of losing the significant achievements made at Madrid and Oslo. Together with our EU partners, we are considering how we can intensify our efforts, complementing those of the United States, to reinject life into the peace process while there is time to do so. Our practical contribution, for example, through our battalion serving with UNIFIL will continue. We are also seeing how we can help to meet the acute economic and social needs of the Palestinians.
Turning to Africa, this is an area where Ireland is well placed to play a key role in helping to resolve the economic and political difficulties that underlie specific tensions and conflicts. When I met President Mandela in Pretoria I paid tribute to the progress being made in South Africa where the divisions of the past are being overcome. I also talked about how South Africa's example and its role internationally could lead to positive results elsewhere. We are following closely developments particularly in Sudan, which faces an enormous human tragedy, and also in the regions of the Great Lakes and Nigeria.
I have referred already to the recent nuclear tests by India and Pakistan which have exacerbated regional tensions. Elsewhere in Asia the economic difficulties faced by a number of Governments, combined with human rights problems in certain countries, risk leading to political instability which could undermine much of the progress that Asian countries have achieved. I am particularly concerned about the situation in Indonesia, including the plight of East Timor, and I have raised this issue on all appropriate occasions. On a more positive note, there are indications that China is coming to grips with some of its internal problems, including those in the human rights area. I availed of my visit there earlier this year to give every encouragement in this regard. I also raised the issue of Tibet with the Chinese.
In 1998 the Government will spend £137 million on official development assistance or 0.32 per cent of estimated GNP, a record level for Irish aid. I am very happy that we have obtained an increase of £15 million in the ODA budget. The firm objective of this Government remains the achievement of our target that ODA will be 0.45 per cent of GNP by 2002. Development assistance is a very important element of Irish foreign policy. We need to continue to make every effort to help impoverished countries to tackle the issues of poverty and inadequate provision of basic human services such as education, proper health care and a clean water supply.
The International Co-operation Vote accounts for the majority of Government spending on development aid. The priority of Irish aid over the coming years will be to continue to work in partnership with the Governments and people of some of the poorest countries, in particular in sub-Saharan Africa. Preventing crises is better than simply responding at the time they occur. We know that a major humanitarian crisis requires an immediate response and we have put in place measures to ensure that our response is fast and effective. The Government is acutely conscious of the current humanitarian crisis in Sudan. We are at the moment involved in providing direct assistance to the people of southern Sudan who are suffering from the famine caused by a prolonged drought, the continuing civil war and impeded access.
The brief of the Department of Foreign Affairs is broad and it carries with it responsibilities which touch on the vital interests of this country. The diplomatic network plays an important role in furthering the trading interests of our small and open economy. Our interest lies in ensuring an open trading system in which Irish exports can compete on world markets. The Department aims to secure an international environment within which trade and investment can flourish and to build relations with other nations as a basis for the development of mutually beneficial business. Our embassies are keenly aware of Ireland's economic interests in host countries and take every opportunity to promote them. The Department works closely on these matters with other Government agencies.
Finally, I am glad to be able to inform the committee that the Government, in response to political developments both in Ireland and in Britain, decided last week to open two consulates general in Scotland and Wales, respectively. In recognition of its importance to us in economic and political terms the Government has also decided to open an embassy in Turkey.
It is very difficult to deal with such a broad subject in a short period of time. My time is even more limited than the Minister's but that is the result of the contingencies within which we must operate.
First, like the Chairman and the Minister, it behoves us all to draw attention to the unfortunate and reprehensible activities of the authorities in Kosovo, wherein a majority treat a minority with absolute contempt. It is not something that started in recent times; it has been ongoing for quite a long time. One question that is obviously raised in a situation like this is the inability or otherwise of the rest of Europe to influence in a direct and meaningful way the thinking of people who proceed along those lines.
This, of course, is not the first time some part of Europe has been beset by internal strife in recent years and I have no doubt that it will not be the last. However, it remains to be seen whether the activity will continue until such time as Europe decides it will be able to take realistic and meaningful action in response to such activity. Those who treat people in the way the authorities there are doing at present will continue to do so as long as they believe they can do it with impunity.
I can never understand why majorities seem to think that the rights of minorities should be determined, first, by the majority and in a measured way as befits a minority. It is one of the things that has never been explained to anybody at anytime or anywhere. It is something that must engage all our minds in the future.
Congratulations are due to the Minister, the Minister of State and all concerned, including their predecessors on the British-Irish Agreement and the immense amount of activity and hard work that went into it. Their work was laced with disappointment and fraught with difficulty but it went ahead simply because people here, in the North of Ireland and in Britain made a conscious decision that talking and politics was a far better option than any others that had been tried for the previous 30 years.
It is also useful to note that, at a time when politics and politicians are treated with a certain amount of cynicism, if you remove the political element from the arena you are left with very little else but violence. It is a salutary lesson that should be learned by all and it should be taken on board, particularly by people who treat the political system with contempt.
I pay tribute to all, including the Minister's predecessors, and those on the Northern Ireland and British sides, who tried again and again to resolve the problem. Finally, their efforts were successful. The success to date is not an end in itself but a means to an end. It is a way towards the final resolution which is peace. It will still take a great deal of time, energy, effort, co-operation and understanding on the part of all the constituent parties concerned to ensure that the objectives, as envisaged and set out in the British-Irish Agreement, are ultimately realised. That is of crucial importance for all.
It is also of political importance not only from the point of view of achieving peace but of economic activity on this island. There is no doubt that the peace dividend in terms of economic activity which will overtake this island as a result of the British-Irish Agreement has not yet been measured. However, it will be seen to be very significant.
The work so far in that area has been tremendous and it must be continued. The US President, Bill Clinton, put an immense amount of time, effort and energy into the British-Irish Agreement and the events leading up to it at a time when there were many other pressing problems worldwide. He did so over a long number of years; that is laudable. We must recognise his efforts as well as those of various other people, including Senator Mitchell.
The Amsterdam Treaty was an important milestone on the road to continued European integration and all that goes with it. In relation to that referendum - while this is not a criticism of either the Referendum Commission or the Department - I am not sure about the manner in which the money was spent and had to be divided. It involved circumstances outside the control of the Department and the Minister. The question arises how future referenda will be presented to the people. It seems odd to me that equal expenditure and time must be given to both sides because that ultimately ended up with television and radio performances.
One piece of advice given by the commission in advertisements was that people should read the Amsterdam Treaty in order to be able to vote on it. Anyone can give that advice and it does not cost anything to do so. In fact, we have been doing so for years. At some future stage a serious look must be taken as to whether wise expenditure is being incurred in that area. I am aware of the manner and method this situation has been brought about. It may be beneficial for the ventilation of views of one side or another, which should come normally and naturally from the various political parties, but I am not sure that it was wise spending of funds or what the net benefit was. All it seemed to do was stifle debate rather than improve the situation.
The Minister correctly identified the importance of EU enlargement, especially from an Irish point of view. It is no harm for us to remember that, as was pointed out at an EU Foreign Affairs meeting some time ago, our colleagues from Eastern Europe rightly believe they are citizens of Europe. They aspire to being part of the great vision of European integration. They are entitled to be part of it and we should not be afraid of an enlarged Europe. It presents a great challenge on the one hand but much opportunity on the other. It presents a much bigger market with huge benefits accruing to economies such as ours that have benefited in the past from greater competition. We have benefited hugely from the European Union and we will benefit greatly from an enlarged market which may involve increased competition but that, in turn, sharpens the economic edge of any economy.
The Minister referred to Agenda 2000 and it is true that it will present some other issues for the electorate. As time goes on, we must recognise that while in the past everything was a positive win-win situation, it may well be that some aspects of Agenda 2000 will not be so positive or attractive. That will emerge as time goes on.
In the changes that are envisaged, it is expected that countries that have benefited and achieved a certain level of economic development are likely to benefit less in future. That may well be the case but it is no harm to point out that a number of countries which are substantial economies within the European Union have had consistent growth rates over a long number of years, other than the last four or five years, from which they benefited significantly. That occurred at a time when our economy was doing badly. That fact needs to be brought to the attention of our European colleagues at every opportunity, not in a confrontational or aggressive way but by bringing to their attention the fact that those factors exist and that we have not achieved comparative successive in recent times by accident. It was directly as a result of the assistance we received from Europe.
It also goes without saying that for a large number of years prior to this era, many benefits accrued to a number of other member states. A large amount of that stemmed from membership of the EU. I am a member of the Joint Committee on European Affairs, and 15 years ago I was a member of the Committee on Secondary Legislation of the European Communities which was the forerunner of this committee. I was amazed at the changes in thinking regarding Europe between 1985 and now. Every meeting I attended in 1985, in Brussels, Strasbourg and elsewhere was dominated by European integration, co-operation and the inexorable growing together of European nations. That theme was always consistent. Now there is a slight change, and there is a Nationalistic fervour that did not exist then. This is not in the interests of the integrated Europe that Shumann, Adenauer and others envisaged. If pursued, that trend will become a problem. The main European powers have a responsibility to continue the momentum towards integration and cohesion. If they do not take that responsibility, the burden will fall on the smaller countries, which do not have the resources or influence of the bigger States. I will make no further reference to recent events.
This is a very significant Estimates meeting, coming as it does at the end of a very significant set of achievements in favour of peace and rejecting violence. I pay tribute to the Minister's role in that, to the others who contributed to it and to those who preceded him. I also compliment the Minister on consistently raising the East Timor issue with the Indonesian authorities and on his recent initiative on nuclear disarmament with like minded countries. That indicates the EU is an arena for, but not the boundary of, Irish foreign policy. That is an important and fundamental point, as it comes during the British Presidency of the EU, which appears to side with a bellicose Anglo-American version of events rather than diplomatic analysis. This seems to be the case, for example, with Iraq.
It is important that we ask ourselves what happened during the debate on the Amsterdam Treaty. It revealed a significant crisis in the European Union which it behoves us to address. That has been brought about by those who selfishly seek to interpret the EU in strictly economic terms, which makes a nonsense of the suggestion that Europe is now, or likely to be in the short-term, a Europe for the citizens. They have made a nonsense of the invitation to countries to join being an invitation to a common forum of citizenship. The interrogation of accession countries has been in terms of how they can change their economic structures in such a way as to mirror the worst features of an unreformed set of greedy market principles in the EU. The suggestion is simply that the market has replaced the principle of collective citizenship and in time will create wealth that will percolate down to every citizen so that we will have a Europe that we can be proud of. It is proving disastrously wrong; as people consume the benefits of European union in economic terms, they are breaking into a set of competing populisms, not indicating any great belief in fundamental values as to European identity. This is extremely sad. As a political scientist for nearly quarter of a century, I see this period as one of the times of the least amount of intellectual work in political issues, policies or philosophy, going on in Europe. The same goes for the social sciences. There has been a rejection of the transcendent values that used to inform foreign policy and debate. This has been comprehensively replaced by a theory of interest which has been rejected by European citizens, hence the low turnout in the referendum. I shudder to think what the future holds.
We are probably not entitled to review the Irish relationship with UNESCO, which has been little more than a disaster. There is a committee which may meet once a year or every two years, but it is relevant to the Minister's Estimates as our ambassador to Paris is also our ambassador to UNESCO. However, the identity of the person who gives that ambassador policy is open to a kind of Tridentine speculation. Ireland was not represented at the UN conference on culture in Stockholm, except by Deputies; Ireland is not active in the Council of Europe's discussion on policy. We made no real contribution to the Council of Europe report, "In From the Margins". We are doing nothing to implement our creative diversity as per the UN documents from the Perez de Cuellar commission. It behove us to look at this; perhaps UNESCO should be moved to the Department of Foreign Affairs and adequately funded.
I accept the Minister's commitment on the adequate representation of culture abroad, which is in the White Paper. There were to be discussions with the Minister who replaced me. Have those meetings taken place? Culture has gone from the title of that Department and now seems to be nowhere. Who represents us at these fora abroad? Have there been meetings between Ministers regarding attempts to advance the representation of Irish cultural reality abroad? I am not a crank in this regard; I am referring to the problems people have following most European summits.
The Estimates show a cut in consultancy money; contrary to other people, I favour an increase here. I appreciated the excellent officials of the Department of Foreign Affairs on any occasion I had to deal with them, whether they agreed with me or not. There should be a reflective, intellectual structure set up within that Department.
The present Minister may agree with my opposition to the immoral blockade of Cuba. There have been many developments relating to the abuse of human rights rhetoric against Cuba and some of us recently put questions to the Cuban ambassador to London. There is an opportunity to act on this matter, and we should not be governed here by the Helms-Burton arrangements in America. I am reminded that Mr. Helm spent more on his election campaign than was spent on the entire Nicaraguan elections when I visited that part of the world. He is obviously someone to which our ethics commission should turn its attention if it was ever to travel abroad.
He probably spent more than is spent in an Irish election.
Yes. I do not think his is a high moral position that should frighten us.
In relation to Northern Ireland it would be very offensive to suggest that horrific events did not occur. I am glad of the emphasis on victims in the Minister's speech. It is offensive to suggest amnesia when what is required is a kind of amnesty on memory where people are willing to leave things aside and try to move on and compose their lives.
It is sad that there is a reduction in the Estimates in support for Irish emigrant groups abroad. The sum could be and should be increased. There are many small groups publishing newsletters and trying to establish real links with Irish communities abroad and their efforts should be supported.
As a Minister I felt badly about poor people from Kosovo picketing meetings of EU Ministers. The simple message on their placards was that they felt they did not belong, that they were like a bunch of tramps outside a big meeting. We have much to answer for. They were sold out in meetings in the US which purported to reach a settlement. The way out is not by constructing a new geometry of ethnicities as one problem will follow another. Resources should be given to the Department of Foreign Affairs to allow it put thoughtful work into constructing competing and different paradigms of values which transcend ethnicities, nationalities and moments of history. Otherwise one ethnic conflict will follow another. I never remember there being less capacity in the EU for such work. Neither do I remember a time when serious work was done on analysing Islam, the western view of it, its view of the west, etc. This cannot be done if tiny sums of money are allocated which barely allows work to tick over. We must build a powerhouse of intellectual support. There is great consensus regarding what Ireland wants to do. I compliment the Minister on the initiatives he has taken in the international community in this area.
I praise the Minister and the Minister of State for their role in the negotiations leading to the British-Irish Agreement. The outcome reflects great credit on all involved. It behoves us to ensure every aspect of the Agreement is implemented, including legislation relating to the release of paramilitary prisoners, an issue on which worrying signals are coming for the Department of the Taoiseach at present. The Minister indicated his Department is chairing an inter-departmental committee on the implementation of the Agreement. I ask him to raise the legislation for the release of prisoners, an issue which has been raised on a number of occasions in the House. There is a commitment in the Agreement to introduce legislation. It may be possible to argue that legislatively this course of action is not necessary, but perception is extremely important in implementing the Agreement. There is the possibility of serious misrepresentation if it can be demonstrated to those who know no better in Northern Ireland that the Republic is not implementing some aspect of the Agreement. I urge the Minister to use his influence as chairman of the inter-departmental group to examine the issue as a matter of urgency.
The Agreement offers huge opportunities for Northern Ireland in terms of a new perspective on life, far more so than it does for the South. It was literally a question of life and death in Northern Ireland for many decades. Opportunities also arise in the Republic as a result of the Agreement. The 95 per cent support among those who voted to fundamentally change the Constitution, namely, in the way in which we define ourselves, bears great potential in terms of how politics might develop here.
It would be a mistake for any EU member state to become complacent about the ratification of the Treaty of Amsterdam by 1 January 1999. It is not unreasonable to draw attention to the fact that 56 per cent of people voted in the referendum on one of the most important decisions ever made. While 95 per cent of those who voted supported the British-Irish Agreement, not much more than 60 per cent voted for the Treaty of Amsterdam, despite the fact that it was one of the better treaties in terms of its social dimension. It signalled a fairly significant shift in the thinking of member states regarding the manner in which the EU should develop.
It is a great pity that Agenda 2000 is proposing a budget of 1.27 per cent of GDP. It will be impossible to develop an enlarged Europe on such a tiny budget. As far as I am concerned we are talking about the creation of a federal Europe, but such a budget will not allow us develop the cohesion necessary for a federal Europe to evolve, particularly if many states from Eastern Europe become members. They are much more underdeveloped than the least developed regions of the European Union. Such a small budget is short-sighted and a recipe for disaster. While there seems to be an upturn in the economies of member states, if this is reversed it is possible members states will seek to recover powers to control their economies. This would spell disaster for the euro, EMU and a federal Europe.
We must balance our concerns about maintaining as much financial support from the EU with the need to ensure we are neither seen to be nor are greedy in the context of available resources. The debate about the amount of money we can extract from Europe must be balanced by a political debate about the type of Europe we want. We have benefited in financial and other ways from membership of the EU and are reaching the point where we must make a more substantial contribution both financially and politically. We should put forward the strongest possible argument in the context of support, but it must be balanced by a debate on the nature of Europe. Such a political debate would make a commitment to Europe more likely in the context of the turn out for referendums and general interest in the EU. Given the turnout in European referenda and the interest in Europe generally, by having such political debate we would be more likely to get a commitment to Europe as an ideal as distinct from only seeing the likely financial benefits to be derived from it. Although the financial contribution we will receive from Europe will be reduced, the net benefit to this State will be that it will be a member of a wider European Union despite the loss it may suffer in financial terms.
The funding of referenda needs to be addressed. I do not support the idea being taken up by many of the organisations supportive of Europe, that what is absent is information on Europe. We cannot argue there was no information on Europe during the referendum. What is absent is a political debate on Europe not only at referenda, but in general. Next week we will have statements on the Cardiff Summit which will last for about an hour. We will each make statements on Europe and the Cardiff Summit and that will be the end of the European debate until the next summit in six months.
The European Affairs committee tends to deal with the run of the mill day to day legislative processes. We need to find a way to debate the political issues which derive from Europe. This committee or the European Affairs committee needs to make proposals on how the Treaties of Europe will be amended in the future. The idea of horse trading late into the night after months of virtual secret negotiations highlights the absence of public debate on the issues.
The Commission could make proposals, which it normally does, for the Council and the European Parliament to debate. National parliaments should also be drawn into the debate. This is an issue we need to address. What role do we want in such a process? Equally, we need to find ways to draw in the civic fora in a more real way in terms of the debate. There are many networks in Europe but they tend to be networks of professional organisations. We need to seriously address the issue of how we can generate the debate on Europe.
The Minister covered a wide range of issues and I do not propose to touch on them all. A number of other issues were raised, including Cuba. Sudan was also mentioned by the Minister. It would be impossible to deal with all the issues in terms of our contribution. The issue of Kosovo was raised and the Minister was good enough to circulate the European Council's statement on it. I broadly welcome the Council's statement. However, I am a little concerned about the part which stated that the European Council welcomed the acceleration of work in international security organisations on a full range of options, including those which may require authorisation by the UN Security Council under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. That is too generalised a welcome for steps about which we do not know the full details. Where military action is to be taken, where the European Union supports it and given that we do not have a common security mechanism, the minimum on which we should insist is that military action should be sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council.
In view of the time constraints, I suggest we pose our questions and allow the Minister reply to them all together.
That is not always satisfactory. Some Ministers are known not to respond to questions they do not want to answer. I am trying to protect Members' interests.
I thank and congratulate the Minister, the Minister of State and the Department for the excellent work they have done recently. It is entirely consistent with the professional application of the Department of Foreign Affairs. The Minister and Minister of State have enhanced the role of the Department and our status internationally.
The Minister and the Department have clearly enhanced the role of this country and this is evident on two fronts. First, the support they won for the British-Irish Agreement and the advance work which went into it internationally in terms of our partners in Europe, America and elsewhere highlights Ireland's persuasive role in international organisations. I will link that to what the Minister has done in renewing the commitment on nuclear weaponry. The response to that has been significant. In view of that, will the Minister consider looking at another scandal, the international arms trade, which Ireland, this Minister and Government are uniquely and well placed to address?
The Minister, the Minister of State and the Department are conscious of this trade. Regional conflicts throughout Africa and elsewhere could not be sustained or even launched in most cases without the active pursuit of profit by some of our partners in Europe and elsewhere. Because of the status we now enjoy through the Minister's efforts, will he give particular consideration to an initiative in that area and from time to time keep us posted?
I appreciate the Minister's comment on the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body which he is uniquely qualified to make because he was a former member of that body. Will he indicate the role the body might have in the institutional framework now envisaged? I am not suggesting the body should have an intrusive role but rather a supportive one in terms of what Government is doing.
Another scandal, which affects all countries and is linked to the international drugs trade, is what seems to be a respected international banking system. This is not normally an issue for the Department of Foreign Affairs but it is best qualified and equipped to deal with it. There seems to be an inclination in all countries to undermine the stability of their economies by making available to other countries offshore facilities where the profits from brutality, oppression and illegal drug trafficking may be hidden. We all appear to be falling into the same habit. It would be appropriate for the Minister to look at that. The system set out by that pillar of the establishment, the Swiss banking system included secret, numbered, accounts and enabled tyrants, profiteers and drug barons to hide their profits. Perhaps the Minster may indicate the initiatives that could be taken here. With 249 diplomatic staff it is remarkable the Minister and his Department have been able to maintain such a positive programme of work and such a high and respected profile.
I hope Kosovo does not become another Bosnia. If any action is required it will have to be by NATO, as was the case in Bosnia.
Nigeria is of deep concern to this committee. The Chairman was refused a visa to visit the country.
I have not been refused yet but I am having the greatest difficulty in getting a visa.
We have diplomatic relations with Nigeria and the Chairman should be treated with greater respect by the embassy. While much pressure has been put on Israel to adhere to its side of the Oslo accord there is no pressure on Palestine to abolish the covenant calling for the destruction of Israel. Its abolition is part of the Oslo accord. Similarly, there is no pressure regarding the amount of armaments being supplied to Palestine and the number of armed Palestinian police on the West Bank and Gaza. If Ireland is to be truly neutral it must raise these questions.
What was China's reply to the Minister's queries on Tibet when he raised the matter with them? I welcome the establishment of an embassy in Turkey. It is a very important country and is the gateway to the Middle East.
There has been a consulate in San Francisco for many years, yet it appears the centre of population in California is located in Los Angeles. Perhaps we should have a consulate there. The population of the city is between 7 million and 9 million. In 1989 there were 1.7 million Irish Americans in the city. There are more Irish there than in any other city in the US.
The Swiss banks hold money for and on behalf of dreadful African dictators. When they die naturally or are murdered there must be some way in which the World Bank could appropriate these funds and reissue them. They were stolen from taxpayer's money in the international community and invested in Switzerland. It is stolen property and there must be a way of making the Swiss hand it back to the UN or the World Bank.
I congratulate the Minister, the Minister of State and their officials on their outstanding contribution to the multi-party talks in Belfast which made possible the British-Irish Agreement. The Minister said he places special emphasis on the normalisation of security arrangements and practices, which I welcome. It is now time to have all permanent vehicle checkpoint structures removed. This includes those in County Fermanagh on the border of my county, such as at Mullan, beside Swanlinbar, Gortmullan, beside Ballyconnell and at Watland Bridge on the Cavan to Newtownbutler road. These ugly and unsightly structures are a source of major irritation to local communities on both sides of the Border. Their contribution to security is questionable. They are a hindrance to the development of tourism, trade and commerce. Will the Minister pursue the necessity of having them removed with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at the Intergovernmental Conference?
The vast majority of people here never understood the hardships imposed on communities in Border areas due to road closures and the presence of permanent checkpoints. Communities were cut apart and towns lost their natural hinterland and their catchment areas. I have been in constant contact with officials in the Department in connection with people who had genuine grievances regarding maltreatment by the security forces on the northern side. The officials dealt with these concerns in a diligent, thorough and understanding manner. I am grateful for their help to my constituents and to people on the County Fermanagh side of the Border.
I welcome the conclusions of the Cardiff meeting and especially the need for further investment and improvement in the infrastructure in the province on Ulster and the southern Border counties. I appeal to the Minister to ensure it is understood at EU Commission level that the six southern Border counties suffered as much damage in economic terms as the six northern counties. I also appeal to him to ensure the Commission underpins the peace process and it understand that to make the playing pitch level in economic terms, the six southern Border counties need a huge investment in infrastructure, inward investment and in the creation of gainful employment.
I am aware of the argument for reducing the support for Irish emigrant support groups abroad. However, this is not a wise idea. Irish people will always benefit from the assistance that accrued to the various voluntary groups over they years. There are a number of serious problems in cities throughout the world where Irish people tend to congregate.
Some emigrants are getting on in years. In many cases they do not have social security provisions, nor do they qualify for insurance related pensions, etc. They often seek assistance, advice and information and are concerned about whether it is possible for them to return home. Considerable attention should be paid to this area. They are Irish citizens and are our responsibility. It was unfortunate that when they were younger we were unable to look after them and they were unable to obtain employment here. In view of this, we have a moral responsibility towards them. I strongly urge that an emphasis be placed on looking after their welfare and encouraging them to come home. We are in a much more advantageous position now than was the case 35, 40 or 50 years ago.
With regard to the allocation for cultural relations with other countries a sum of £225,000 is indicated for lottery assisted funding on page five of the Estimates. This represents a typically miserable attitude in the Department of Finance to the Department of Foreign Affairs. I urge the Minister to seek a significant increase in that sum and pledge the support of the committee on this issue. Furthermore, the sum of £345,000 for cultural relations with other countries is a joke. I am not making a party political point here, it has been as bad under every Government. It emphasises the point I would ask the Minister to bear in mind, that is that the last word people want to hear in relation to financing Ireland's image at home or abroad is "culture". We are not represented at the intergovernmental conferences on heritage in Stockholm and at the UN by a Minister or a Minister of State. Neither were we significantly represented at any international cultural conference abroad. There is no one windier than the Irish and it is interesting that we are discussing this on Bloomsday. The deconstruction of the little insulting sums which are put in for our manifestation of ourselves abroad and our cultural relations with other people are perceived by most people as an insulting joke. People are depressed by this. The Minister would have our support if he could convince the Department of Finance to try and live in the end of the 20th century.
The Minister referred to Cyprus and the fact that he outlined during discussions with the Cypriot Minister for Foreign Affairs the approach taken in Northern Ireland. Have the British-Irish Agreement or background documents such as the Downing Street Declaration or the Mitchell Principles been translated into Greek or Turkish, or into any of the EU languages other than English?
On the subheads, I should emphasise to the committee that while this is not a large Estimate in financial terms, it is very important and it is most unsatisfactory that it has to be dealt with in such a short time. The policy considerations underlying every line of the Estimate are potentially enormous. It is unsatisfactory that such brief consideration can be given to it but we cannot avoid it.
Subhead F3, the Programme for Peace and Reconciliation is one of the few subheads in which there is a substantial increase - more than 100 per cent. The Estimate with the notes does not give any great detail of what is involved but I am surprised to find that, when there is an increase greater than 100 per cent of £2.5 million under that subhead, one of the very few institutes working on a cross-Border basis in peace and reconciliation, the Peace Institute in Limerick, has had its funding removed on the grounds that the Department could not afford it. It is the only body of its kind south of Dublin and it is necessary that there should be cross-Border contacts for people in Munster with the people in the North and vice versa. It is startling to find how few young people in Cork or Limerick have been in Northern Ireland. When I inquired of some of them in my own constituency if they had ever been in Northern Ireland, they said that they had been there for rugby matches but boasted that they were back across the Border before it was dark and that they had stopped in Dundalk for a few pints to celebrate the fact that they were out of the place. It is understandable that they said this but it is entirely the wrong attitude. This is the time when we should encourage people in the southern half of the State to visit the North and vice versa. It is important that small amount of grant aid, £15,000, should be restored. Otherwise it will have to cease that important aspect of its work.
The Referendum Commission appears under subhead I and relates only to the Amsterdam Treaty. The Department of the Taoiseach bore £2.5 million on its Vote for the referendum on changes to Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution arising from the British-Irish Agreement. The same consideration applies to both and I echo what Deputy Durkan said - the Government, through this Department and others, will have to come to grips with the nonsense of the consequences of the McKenna judgment.
There are other amendments which will have to be made to our rather prolix Constitution. One provision which could be removed is the section dealing with the directive principles of social policy, part of which can be paraphrased as saying that a woman's place is in the home and the State should encourage her to stay there and not have her engage in what the Constitution describes as "labour outside the home" which it seems to find unseemly. If the Government were to propose the removal of that Article from the Constitution, the vast majority of people in this State would support it. It is ridiculous that it should be there but the commission would have to devote half of the £2.5 million in subhead I arguing that a woman's place is in the home and nowhere else, and that women who work elsewhere are somehow inferior. That is ridiculous.
On a point of clarification, the Article to which you refer is not covered within the directive principles of social policy which have no binding legal effect anyway.
They are part of the Constitution.
The reference to the woman in the home is not in the directive principles of social policy.
That makes my point more strongly. It is therefore binding.
I think the Article refers to the mother in the home.
I find myself surrounded by unconstitutional women.
Because that money is being voted for that purpose this year, the Amsterdam Treaty would have been carried by a much larger majority but for the confusion caused by having to promote both sides of the argument.
I am glad to say Deputy O'Kennedy is right. He strengthens my point. Article 412° under the heading The family states:
The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.
If it was proposed to remove that section of Article 41, half of the money allocated to the referendum would have to be spent on arguing that women should stay at home. It is a nonsense and we should take the opportunity to make that point when discussing subhead 1 and express the view of the committee that a change will have to be made in this arrangement.
Our problem is not with the money but with the suggestion that one must reduce everything to yes or no.
I appeal to the Minister and his Department to supply the committee with a list of the unratified conventions Ireland has signed. I have asked for this on numerous occasions. When we asked for it a month ago during Committee Stage of the Geneva Conventions (Amendment) Bill, we were told we would get it forthwith. However, we have not received it yet. I do not know the reason, but the Department of Foreign Affairs is anxious not to impart this information. The committee is entitled to it and should get it forthwith. I ask the Minister to confirm that will happen.
As regards the £2.5 million for the Referendum Commission, the Department of Foreign Affairs was used as the facilitator for the disposal of that money to the commission. The Referendum Commission is an independent commission set up on foot of the McKenna judgment. While it did its duty well and operated within the law, I accept its advice to voters to vote "yes" on the one hand and "no" on the other caused great confusion. In fairness to the Department of Foreign Affairs, the White Paper and its précis were described as comprehensive and comprehensible. They were praised by those opposed to the Amsterdam Treaty as well as those in favour of it. As far as the Department is concerned, it did its job well and efficiently. Comments about the conduct of the campaign arising from the McKenna judgment should be left for another day.
As regards Kosovo, I have received a note on the reaction to the meeting between President Yeltsin and the Serbian leader in Moscow. The Serbian leader's willingness to comply with EU demands should be tested by pressing for an increase in monitors and refugee returns. Meeting informally at the end of the European Council, Foreign Ministers heard a report from the Presidency on the latest news from Moscow about the Yeltsin Milosevic meeting. They had met once and were to meet again. There was agreement on a number of points but no detail was given other than that the Serbian leader would participate in a new round of political dialogue. This meant only one of the four demands of the EU's contact group was met. In these circumstances, the Presidency recommended the immediate testing of Milosevic's willingness to comply with our demands and pressed for an increase in monitors and a return of refugees to their homes. It was agreed that the Presidency should pursue the matter.
Kosovo is an important issue. I have raised it and contributed to discussions on it at every available opportunity in international fora. The declaration on Kosovo at the European Council meeting in Cardiff calls for immediate action from the Serbian leader in four areas in particular: to stop all operations by the security forces which affect the population and to withdraw security units used for civilian repression; to enable effective and continuous international monitoring in Kosovo; to facilitate the full return of refugees and displaced persons to their homes and unimpeded access for humanitarian organisations and to make rapid progress on the political dialogue with the Kosovo-Albanian leadership. I have placed that full declaration on Kosovo in the committee's minutes.
Deputy De Rossa asked what provision the Government was making for the early release of republican prisoners in this jurisdiction. He was critical of the Taoiseach and his Department. The question of whether legislation is needed here is under urgent consideration. I understand the Taoiseach will brief party leaders on the situation in the immediate future. Prisoners on all sides have been a strong force for peace. The British-Irish Agreement provides for each Government to put in place an accelerated programme for the release of qualifying paramilitary prisoners. The Government is concerned to ensure the provisions of the Agreement which relate to prisoners are implemented in the spirit and letter of that Agreement. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has responsibility for implementing in this jurisdiction the provisions of the Agreement which relate to prisoners. Deputy De Rossa and other party leaders will be consulted on the prisoners' issue.
Deputy Michael Higgins mentioned UNESCO. As the Deputy is aware, this is not a matter for the Department of Foreign Affairs but for the Department of Education and Science. I am not passing the buck and I accept my collective responsibility.
Our ambassador to France is the ambassador to UNESCO.
I accept that. We are limited in what we can do. I will bring to the attention of the ambassador the valid points made by the Deputy which should be acted upon. I will ask our ambassador in Paris for views on what we can do and, perhaps, I can communicate those responses to the Deputy. Ministerial responsibility is a terrible issue and I am not sure colleagues appreciate hiving off parts of that responsibility.
As regards the adequacy of Community resources, Deputy De Rossa asked if the Government was satisfied with the proposed ceiling of 1.27 per cent of Community GNP on expenditure for the next financing period. Deputy De Rossa said GDP, but it is GNP and the suggested figure of 1.27 per cent is a ceiling within which the Commission considers it can finance its proposals on enlargement and the future internal and external policies of the Union. Our focus is accordingly on the components of the Commission's March funding proposals. The total future funding requirements of the Union remain to be agreed in the negotiations. The Commission is of the view that the figure of 1.27 per cent will be satisfactory from 2000 to 2006.
Deputy Michael Higgins asked about the cultural relations committee. It is interesting to note that £100,000 of the £570,000 goes to the Fullbright Commission. There are two tranches, one from the lottery and the other from the Department of Finance. We are about to launch an investigation into the workings of the cultural relations committee to see if it gives value for money. We have set aside £4,000 for that report which we hope will be available next year. I agree with the Deputy that the cultural relations committee has made a huge contribution to cultural diplomacy. Former Minister, Deputy O'Kennedy, would agree that it is value for money. There is a suggestion that it might be taken over by the Department of Arts, Culture, Gaeltacht and the Islands. I believe it is well situated in the Department of Foreign Affairs and I pay tribute to the members of the committee for the work they are doing and will continue to do so long as I am Minister. They are under-funded and more remains to be done.
Deputy O'Kennedy raised the issue of countries involved in the arms trade; I presume he is referring to EU countries involved in this trade. I recently attended a meeting at which a European Union code of conduct on arms exports was concluded. However, it was not enshrined in legislation. In my opinion it was a persuasive document which people could take or leave. I may be wrong but there are elements of the code which would raise eyebrows in this committee. The code of conduct will be examined on an annual basis and we will have a continuing input. I am as concerned as the Deputy about this issue and I assure him of my continued support for the views he expressed.
Would the Minister arrange to have a copy of the code of conduct sent to this committee?
Of course. I pay tribute to the work of the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body and the great contribution it has made to British-Irish relations. I was a founding member of that body and it was extraordinarily important in changing our view of Britain and Britain's view of Ireland. Some people had a jaundiced view of us and it was a remarkable committee for improving interparliamentary relations and attitudes and it continues to be very helpful in that regard. The British-Irish Agreement seeks to build on the body's successful model for interparliamentary dialogue in consolidating relations with other parliamentary assemblies in Britain, such as the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands and those being established in Scotland and Wales.
I am conscious of the work of emigrant groups. Consulates and embassies work closely with these groups and I will ask our people to be conscious of the plight of these people, particularly the older and more disabled emigrants. I will look at the funding for these groups.
A meaningful reduction in the profile and posture of security force installations and activities in Northern Ireland can contribute significantly to the building of a climate of trust and confidence in local communities. The British-Irish Agreement foresees such a reduction. The impact of security measures on local residents must always be borne in mind. The Government will continue to urge that any necessary security measures are applied with the greatest sensitivity and with the least disruption to local communities. This brings me to Deputy Smith's point. I will be meeting the Secretary of State, Dr. Mowlam, on 7 July and I will raise the Deputy's legitimate concerns. In the context of what we are trying to achieve and the great movement in the peace process, permanent checkpoints are redundant and should be seen to be so.
I thank Deputy's for their remarks on the peace process and how far we have come. I recognise the remarkable roles played by other Governments and individuals, including my predecessor. I pay particular tribute to the role played by Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, who has made an exceptional input into the talks. I also pay tribute to the officials who were directly involved. In many instances they were patriotic. They gave up their time - 24 hours a day - over almost two years. Their achievements and input will never be quantified but this should be placed on record and I am grateful for the praise expressed by Deputies for the role of the officials.
The issue of the Agreement being produced in English and Irish was raised. Ambassadors were instructed by the Department to instruct all Governments and local media and, where necessary, they produced summaries in local languages. The Agreement was produced in English and in Irish.
There is a relaxing of international attitudes to the isolation of Cuba. The EU and Ireland would like to see an end to the isolation of Cuba under the Helms-Burton Act. There is movement and I am mindful of that fact that President Clinton has taken steps in the direction of greater openness towards Cuba. It might not be popular to say so but the Papal visit had a huge impact on the Cuban situation and I pay tribute to Pope John Paul II for his efforts. I would also like to see moves towards greater democracy in Cuba. The Pope's visit has been a catalyst for positive change.
We could spend an entire meeting talking about the peace process and Europe as requested by some Members. I pay tribute to President Clinton, Tony Blair and the Taoiseach for their input into the peace process. Their contribution has been immense and continues to be of great merit and hope in the context of what we are seeking to achieve, namely, a permanent peace on the island of Ireland.
Deputy Briscoe posits that Kosovo should not be another Bosnia. I do not disagree and we must ensure that that does not happen. Bosnia was an obscenity. In the last 24 hours I stated that any movement on Kosovo must be under a United Nations resolution. The Middle East peace process is in stalemate. The British Presidency visited the region in controversial circumstances and President Clinton has made enormous efforts to bring the two parties together. The British Prime Minister invited them to London but nothing came from that meeting. We can only continue to hope that sanity will prevail. The Palestinians and the people of Israel deserve peace and we look forward to it in future.
A point the Minister may wish to emphasise at some of the discussions is the Palestinians carrying out what they agreed to do at Oslo - the abolition of the Palestinian covenant calling for the destruction of Israel. That has not happened and, were that point to be emphasised, it would show we were being even handed.
President Arafat has dropped that.
No, it has not been dropped. The Chairman is wrong.
It is something I would be glad to examine. On the question of consulates in the United States, there are consulates in Boston, New York, San Francisco and Chicago and the embassy in Washington. I understand the consulate in San Francisco covers Los Angeles. However, the Deputy made a good point and a consulate in Los Angeles is something we might examine. As the Deputy is aware, the Minister for Finance is not in a giving mood at the moment and, while I do not criticise him for that because he is doing his job, it sometimes causes pain. I will certainly examine the option of a consulate in Los Angeles.
Deputy Brendan Smith made interesting and forceful points regarding the International Fund for Ireland and raising the economic status of the six southern Border counties at EU Commission level. Their economic condition can be addressed by the funds available in the context of developments in the North and in the Border region. Some 10,000 projects were funded by the International Fund for Ireland and 300 by the Peace and Reconciliation Fund. Much is ongoing but there is a public discussion at the moment regarding Agenda 2000 and a continuation of Objective One status for midland, western and Border counties has been suggested. There is nothing fixed on that but I wish to let Deputies know that it has not gone from our minds and that we are considering it and all other issues relating to the Border counties. I appreciate the interest Deputy Smith has shown in the counties mentioned which arises from his commitment to his constituency. I am grateful to acknowledge that. Deputy Durkan made a point about the reduction in money to support groups for emigrants; I have covered that point.
The Chairman made a point about his beloved Limerick and the Irish Peace Institute. I understand there are two peace institutes in Limerick - the Irish Peace Institute Research Centre, which is a centre for peace and development, and the Irish Peace Institute. We have given £10,000 to one and £7,000 to the other.
The Minister must have given the money to the wrong one.
No, we gave money to both, but the problem is we gave more to one than the other. Perhaps that is the problem and why the Chairman raised the issue. It may be the pressure of the Northern talks which caused the confusion. There are two peace institutes——
There is only one institute but there two facets to its work. One deals specifically with cross-Border activities, such as reconciliation on a cross-Border basis and most of its money was withdrawn this year. It has only one paid staff member and the remainder work voluntarily. Since the money has been withdrawn, the paid staff member will have to be let go. This effectively means the work of the institute will come to an end. This is deplorable because the funding, which has been greatly increased, comes under the one subhead in the Estimate.
The Irish Peace Institute Research Centre was established in the University of Limerick in 1994. Its primary objective has been to research ways and means of finding a solution to the conflict in Ireland and the attainment of peace. It has published several useful studies in this regard. At the end of 1997 it was incorporated fully into the University of Limerick although still responsible for its own running costs.
The Irish Peace Institute was founded in 1984 on the initiative of Dr. Brendan O'Regan with the co-operation of the University of Limerick, the University of Ulster and Co-operation North. Its original aim was to promote a programme of education and research to promote cross-Border understanding. In recent times, it has concentrated on its outreach activities in the mid-west and surrounding areas of Ireland.
If there is something the Chairman wishes me to examine, I will come back to him on it.
The money was withdrawn from them this year. The Department called them and told them it was being withdrawn. It is a small amount - about £15,000 - and I ask that the allocation be given back to them.
I will do my best. I have done my best to respond to most questions. I am sure I have not dealt with some and any that I have not dealt with, I would be glad to respond to them.
I asked about the Chinese response to Tibet.
The Chinese Government did not give any great response; it took a note of what I said. The EU continues to pursue the Chinese in the context of human rights. In fairness to the Chinese Government, it has taken note of what was said and the concerns expressed. Its actions and reactions to the EU partners will be reviewed annually.
I am advised that the committee does not have to pass the Estimates, which is surprising. We consider them and the House passes them. We have completed our consideration of them.
I note that we are still not going to receive a list of unratified conventions from the Department.
The Secretary-General informs me a parliamentary question has been tabled on the subject. We will not let the matter rest at that. If the Chairman wants the information, it will be given to him.
I thank the Minister. That completes the consideration of Vote 38. We now come to Vote 39.
On Vote 39 - International Co-operation - I am pleased to be present for an exchange of views with the committee concerning Estimates of expenditure for 1998 in respect of the aid programme. The committee has an important part to play in the formulation of foreign policy. The sense of public ownership of official policy can be significantly enhanced by an active and constructive role for the Oireachtas and its committees in the policy process. I always welcome opportunities for exchanges such as this. I will begin by outlining our spending plans for 1998 and briefly refer later to a number of foreign policy issues and initiatives relevant to our aid programme, notably in the areas of human rights and good governance.
The Estimates provide for an overall aid expenditure this year of £137 million. This is the largest allocation ever, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of GNP. Expressed as a proportion of GNP, Ireland's allocation for official development assistance is now larger than the average for all donors - 0.32 per cent as compared with 0.25 per cent. At the same time, much remains to be done. The Government is committed to increasing the allocation further to 0.45 per cent of GNP by 2002, as an interim step on the way to the UN target of 0.7 per cent. Of the total allocation of £137 million, just under £104 million is provided for in the Vote for international co-operation, Vote 29. The balance is accounted for by Central Fund expenditures and voted expenditures by Departments other than the Department of Foreign Affairs.
About 65 per cent of the total allocation is provided directly as bilateral aid to individual developing countries. The balance is provided as multilateral aid through the aid programmes of the EU, the UN and the World Bank. About half the bilateral allocation is provided to six priority countries: Ehtiopia, Uganda, Tanzania, Zambia, Mozambique and Lesotho. The balance is spent through special programmes for: emergency humanitarian assistance; rehabilitation assistance to support the recovery of countries affected by major emergencies; support by the Agency for Personal Service Overseas for assignments in developing countries by volunteers from Ireland; co-financing of projects by non-governmental organisations such as Concern, Trócaire, Christian Aid and the member organisations of the Irish Missionary Union; fellowships to enable students from developing countries to study in Ireland and development education in Ireland.
The unifying theme of all the Irish aid programmes is the focused commitment to supporting the efforts of developing countries to find self-reliant solutions to the problems of poverty and powerlessness that confront them. The vision and aspiration of our efforts is of a world in which all people are free from oppression and able to fulfil their potential. The case for maintaining that vision and commitment is compelling, especially now that we have begun to enjoy a somewhat greater measure of prosperity at home.
On bilateral aid to the priority countries, I had the privilege of visiting Zambia and Uganda since taking up my present position. This enabled me to see at first hand the partnerships between Irish Aid and the the authorities and people of the countries concerned. I was impressed by the imaginative way in which programmes at community level are linked to efforts at national level to find better models of aid delivery. Of particular interest is the initiative known as "sector-wide approaches to development". The object of this initiative is to ensure that aid from abroad fits with coherence into the policies, priorities and spending programmes of the country concerned. Irish Aid is actively involved in this initiative and is thus at the cutting edge of international efforts to devise more effective models of development co-operation.
Another aspect of bilateral aid involves collaboration with NGOs. We greatly value this partnership with NGOs. About 15 per cent of the overall ODA budget - an exceptionally high figure by international standards - is channelled through our NGOs.
Part of the collaboration with NGOs involves the provision of emergency humanitarian assistance to populations affected by emergencies. While the bulk of our ODA - about 95 per cent - is allocated to long-term development assistance and while in an ideal world development would obviate the need for emergency assistance, it is a distressing reality that there persists a need for emergency humanitarian assistance. As is evident from the current situations in southern Sudan and Kosovo, humanitarian emergencies are invariably linked to underlying causes that are political and military in nature. Thus the international response must encompass both political initiatives and emergency assistance. The Government has been proactive in responding to such situations. In recent weeks I have visited Khartoum to urge the Sudanese authorities to allow better access for humanitarian assistance and to address the underlying political problems. The Irish contribution to humanitarian emergency assistance to southern Sudan in the recent past has amounted to just under £1 million. In relation to Kosovo, I have today allocated £50,000 through the International Federation of the Red Cross to help meet the immediate humanitarian needs there. I know Deputies are very concerned about the humanitarian emergency in Kosovo and the Committee can be assured the Government will continue to do everything in its power at both political and emergency assistance levels to play a responsive and flexible role in humanitarian emergencies as they arise.
There is plenty of politics in develoment. The political dimension of development is also of vital importance at the level of our long-term development programmes. Development is about freedom and dignity as well as material wellbeing. Productive economic activity cannot flourish in an atmosphere of oppression. Support for human rights and good governance is - and will continue to be - an integral part of our aid programme. A concern about democratic principles permeates all our work in development. For example, support for rural development usually includes training to sensitise local officials to the need to respect the rights and dignity of individuals. In addition, we have established a special budget line to support specific democratisation initiatives. Activities assisted under this heading have included training of elected representatives and the judiciary, support for consultative processes related to constitutional reform and assistance to independent human rights commissions and organisations and the media. In Eastern Europe we have supported the emergence of democratic institutions and a market economy.
Our multilateral aid is informed by the same principles. The Irish involvement at multilateral level is active and constructive. Increasing funding of multilateral programmes has increased our voice at the level of international debate. At present we are deeply engaged in the negotiation of a successor agreement to the Lomé agreement between the European Union and the African, Caribbean and Pacific states. In that context, Deputies can be assured that a distinctive Irish perspective will be brought to those proceedings.
Our aid policy and programme are an integral part of our overall foreign policy. Our aid initiatives cannot exist in a vacuum but are organically linked to our other foreign policy actions.
I will refer to some issues in the area of human rights which fall within my responsibility as Minister of State with responsibility for development co-operation and human rights. With my designation as Minister of State with special responsibility for human rights the Government has sent a clear signal that the profile in this area of Irish foreign policy was to be enhanced. Our objective is to maintain and develop Ireland's contribution to international efforts to ensure protection and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. To realise this objective, we have developed a number of strategies. These commit us: to actively pursue human rights priorities during our period of membership of the UN Commission on Human Rights; to ensure that Ireland's commitments in the field of human rights are implemented and to this end co-ordinate policy within the interdepartmental standing committee on human rights; to ratify key international human rights instruments to which Ireland is not yet a party; to work within the EU and international organisations to provide support for the consolidation of democracy and respect for human rights; to develop further the relationship between the human rights unit of the Department of Foreign Affairs and interested NGOs which has been established through the joint standing committee on human rights; mark the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights with appropriate events in order to promote a national public awareness of human rights issues.
I want to give a brief summary of a number of acivities in this regard. Ireland as a member of the UN Commission on Human Rights was prominent in the proceedings of its 54th session held in Geneva in March and April of this year. We sponsored two resolutions, Religious Intolerance and the Human Rights of Persons with Disabilities. We managed to strengthen significantly the Disabilities text and were succesful in persuading Cuba to co-sponsor, for the first time, the Religious Intolerance text.
The resolution on the Right to Development will help reassure the developing world that the more developed countries are not merely ready to preach at them about western standards but are willing to assist them in strengthening their economies and societies for the benefit of their people.
I led Ireland's delegation on the occasion of the examination of the first natonal report under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in January 1998. The Convention is, in essence, a bill of rights for children and Ireland is obliged to present periodic reports to the Committee on the Rights of the Child on the protection afforded under Irish law to the rights guaranteed by the Convention. The Committee acknowledged the progress made by Ireland towards fulfilling its commitment and recommended further steps that need to be taken. These hearings were both rewarding and instructive. Protecting the rights of children is an issue which is a priority for the Government and I gave the UN Committee a clear commitment that we will continue to strive to achieve high standards in this area.
Our delay in ratifying the UN Conventions against torture and all forms of racial discrimination is an embarrassment to us internationally. Our authority to speak out on human rights issues derives in large part from the quality of our record. It is not acceptable for us to remain among the few who have not ratified these important human rights instruments. I am determined that we should do so before the end of this year, which is the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. Certain items of domestic legislation must be enacted before we can complete the necessary procedures. I am liaising closely with the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to ensure these measures are given effect in the next Dáil session.
Human rights are by definition indivisible and this has been brought home to us by the questions posed to us as a society by people seeking asylum here. As today is international refugee day it is appropriate that I should repeat some of the commitments I have given on this issue. Today is an opportunity for us to celebrate diversity and tolerance of difference. As a people who have had a long and often painful experience of emigration we ought to reflect, in these more prosperous times, on the circumstances of those who are forced to leave their own countries.
We will fulfil our obligations to asylum seekers under the international human rights conventions to which we are party and our domestic policy and practice must ensure they are treated with courtesy, efficiency and fairness. The rights and dignity of these people must be respected. In the longer term we must develop comprehensive policies and strategies for accommodating ethnic minorities in Ireland. The dangers of emerging trends of racist and xenophobic attitudes must be confronted at every opportunity by political leaders. Each of us must try to promote a generous and positive welcome for refugees in Ireland. It is an opportunity for us to celebrate diversity and tolerance of difference.
The Refugee Agency, under the aegis of the Department of Foreign Affairs, is responsible for the co-ordination, reception and resettlement services for programme refugees, that is, refugees invited to Ireland following a Government decision. Such decisions are usually made on foot of an appeal from the UNHCR. The main groups of programme refugees in Ireland are Bosnians and Vietnamese. At present there are 826 Bosnians and 603 Vietnamese in this country, including a number born here.
The Refugee Agency is managed by a board comprised of an independent chair and representatives of the Departments most involved in refugee issues. The Irish Refugee Council, the Irish Red Cross and the Irish Episcopal Commission for Immigrants are also represented on the board, as are a number of observer members, including the UNHCR. The agency is funded solely by a grant-in-aid from the Department of Foreign Affairs. Its staff consists of the director, a small resettlement team and administrative support. They do valuable and much appreciated work with their clients.
Reviews of the agency have been undertaken in recent years. A review last year suggested that in the absence of a major conflict or crisis which might prompt further intakes of programme refugees, the agency would have fulfilled its purpose in the near future if its mandate were not altered. I am determined there will be no further procrastination on this issue. There is a need for an agency with a wider remit to deal with convention refugees who are given leave to remain in the country following the determination of their asylum status. I am liaising with the relevant Ministers to expedite this matter.
Any decision on the future role of the Refugee Agency, which will be a Government decision, must be in the context of the need for such a service for other than programme refugees. It would make sense from a number of perspectives to bring under one organisation the co-ordination of State services for programme refugees and those asylum seekers recognised as refugees under the Geneva Convention. We must begin to develop strategies on the basis that a certain percentage of the thousands of asylum seekers currently being processed will be determined and permitted to stay as convention refugees. We need to have support services in place in that event.
The views of the committee on these matters are of interest and value to me. I look forward to responding to members' questions.
I compliment the Minister of State and the Department and acknowledge the work done. However, there are issues that need attention. The Minister of State referred to the ratification of a number of human rights conventions that appear to have been competing for attention for some time through successive Administrations. For some reason we do not focus on such issues until they are brought home to us. Sufficient time has elapsed to enable measures to be taken to deal with the issue. It seriously undermines the position on human rights Ireland may adopt abroad if we have been lethargic in ratifying human rights legislation.
It is sad that hatred, violence and their consequences seem to be to the fore more than ever. Modern telecommunications are instrumental in bringing them to our attention. Prior to the serious outbreak of violence in Rwanda a local radio station there was instrumental in adding fuel to the flames.
I compliment the NGOs and those in the Department involved in the bilateral and multilateral aid programmes. The staff of the NGOs have done a large amount of work at the coalface, dealing with difficult situations and often at great risk to themselves. We are not as conscious of their work as we should be because they are at a remove from us. There is a tendency to ignore some of the violations of human rights which may take place in countries with whom we are involved in bilateral or multilateral aid programmes. This issue has arisen in the past and we generally come down on the side of continuing with the aid - to do otherwise would mean greater hardship for those most in need. However, it needs to be indicated clearly to the authorities in those countries that the continuation of aid is not an approval of their actions.
I am critical of what is happening with regard to refugees. I do not suggest we should invite refugees from all over the world, but there must be a means of responding to the needs of refugees as presented to us at a given time. We are not doing so at present. We do not have an organised means of dealing with the numbers of refugees coming here. I am aware that some people are sneaking into the country illegally, organised by less desirable elements.
The matter can best be dealt with by applying criteria throughout Europe which we could follow. It does not make sense to have different policies in various EU member states. Such an approach will not succeed. There is no sense in having one policy in one European member state and another policy in another. There is point in a refugee arriving in one country, being deported to another European country and then deported again. I will not sit in judgment in each individual case but a proper criterion must be put in place to deal with this problem and it must be humanitarian, responsive and responsible. As a society we must not ignore this problem because it is politically expedient at any given time.
Lomé I and II were instrumental in creating a recognition in the developed world of the shortcomings and difficulties within which developing countries operate and their inability to respond and move with the rest of the developed world. I hope the successor to Lomé I and II will be effective in dealing with the situation as it is today. Things have changed considerably since the 1970s and 1980s.
I congratulate the Minister on her appointment and work to date. In her speech she mentioned fellowships to enable students from developing countries to study in Ireland. What is the status of the hydrology course in University College, Galway, which is largely taken by Asian, African and Latin American students? This is of enormous value. Chinese students who took this course, one of whom graduated with a Ph.D., probably speak about Ireland more often than anyone else. I met some of the graduates of the course in Vietnam in the beginning of the year. There was a study which suggests that this is not something the Department of Foreign Affairs should be involved in. However, someone must continue to do this.
In terms of international aid, we must not withdraw funding and then say we were hoping someone else would take the matter on board. That logic fills me with despair.
The Minister referred to our success in encouraging the emergence of democratic institutions in a market economy in Eastern Europe. In some Eastern European countries a mafia has replaced the State in relation to running some of the cultural institutions such as theatre, opera, drama, dance and so on. The withdrawal of State funding from some of these activities is to withdraw funding from expressions of culture that were among the finest in the world and turn artists over to agents who are literally an international mafia - gangsters. One of my most demeaning experiences as Minister was when the French got the idea they would bring the African countries into the tail of a meeting of the Council of Ministers. They all sat around the table giving supplications of how much they had become like us and listing how they had deregulated the opera and so on. I found this offensive and humiliating. I put an end to it and I am sure I am breaching some law by saying that it was one of the topics that flattened one lunch.
The Minister said that in the longer term we must develop comprehensive policies for accommodating ethnic minorities in Ireland. What does she mean by the "longer term"? If we are required morally to believe in a multi-cultural Europe in relation to the principle of how we should relate with one another, why are we including "in the longer term"? A phrase used in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform was "that in so far as Ireland had a policy on emigration it was to keep Ireland white". The phrase "in the longer term" is nearly as bad.
The Minister went on to say that the dangers of racist attitudes must be confronted and that each of us must promote a generous and positive welcome towards refugees, that we must see this as an opportunity to celebrate our diversity and tolerance of difference. There is a touch of hubris about that because I am not sure what we are celebrating if we must demonstrate our respect for diversity and tolerance of difference. It is a huge transition from tolerance of difference to accepting difference. Not understanding the principle of cultural diversity and the multi-cultural world is part of the neglect of the cultural dimension of Europe and international policy. It is one of the reasons people say "I am willing to tolerate you".
I compliment the Minister of State on her visit to Sudan. One of the most horrific photographs of this year was the one showing more than 150 people being led into slavery in southern Sudan. This is one of the most tragic photographs I have seen. This is no criticism of the Minister or her officials because they are doing an excellent job in this regard.
I would like a full day's debate in the Dáil on the IMF. I was in Asia earlier this year and the view generally was that the conditions imposed by the International Monetary Fund was politically destabilising this region. Yet it is almost impossible to discuss this agenda of greed and the Department of Foreign Affairs practitioners are running after the disasters created by the IMF which is as unaccountable as the new European Central Bank. There should be a debate on the connection between aid and debt and the human rights issue. In relation to what is called "the south", towards which this is addressed, they feel considerably handicapped that the structure of the information media is one that gives them no equal opportunity to tell their story.
On the refugee problem, we need to make up our minds that there will be a cost associated with taking a moral position in this regard. At this stage we must stop dragging our heels on the issue and I would welcome a debate on the matter.
I welcome the Minister's statement. The NGOs are doing terrific work. We have been very supportive of them and I think this is appreciated. To whom did the Minister of State speak during her visit to Sudan? Was it the Sudanese Government who are forcing these people into slavery? Who are these people? Everyone is struck by the horror stories coming from Sudan.
There is a question about the funds stowed away by dictators like Mobutu, the late Prime Minister of Nigeria. It was said that the national debt of Nigeria could be paid, using the money salted away by just seven of the Nigerian Cabinet. All the oil revenues and so on, were going to off-shore accounts and into Switzerland. The IMF should have some way of reclaiming these moneys and in that way it could help. Many people believe the IMF should write off the money loaned to countries like Uganda instead of seeking repayment thereby creating great hardship. If the IMF could retrieve the money which had been salted away and use that to write-off the loans made to these countries it would be a terrific contribution. We need to push that agenda.
I welcome the Minister of State and congratulate her on what she has been able to do within her Department over the last year both in respect of development aid and human rights, and on her work in respect of the Northern Ireland talks which was very valuable to the Minister and the Government. She said "there is plenty of politics in development". She is perhaps more right than she thinks in saying that. Last Friday I attended a conference of chairmen of foreign affairs committees on development aid in London and the politics played there, institutionally at least, was a little bit frightening in a way particularly within the European Union where DG 8 is a large and quite powerful director in general but there are unfortunately two other agencies within the institutions of the Union dealing with development aid. There seems to be a major problem of lack of co-ordination within the EU and also between the EU and the national or bilateral programmes of member states, some of which are very generous but which are focused often in quite different directions. A major effort will have to be made to overcome that because the European effort which, taken together, is very generous, far more generous than any other country or block of countries and far more generous than the United States, is often at cross purposes with itself, which is a great pity. Much of that has to do with the internal politics within the Union and within the institutions of the Union. There are now major staff problems because of a proposal of Commissioner Pinheiro to re-organise the whole system. Things of that nature should not hold up clearly needed reform. Lomé IV is due to expire at the beginning of the year 2000. Lomé V will have to be different to its predecessors in many respects because the needs of the various States are different now. I share the Minister of State's anger at the non ratification by Ireland of various conventions. It is a pity our system seems to require legislation in many cases rather than just a resolution by the Dáil. Legislation seems to be difficult to draft and if it is not of an urgent nature it tends to be put on the back burner. Unfortunately legislation is frequently required from Departments other than the Department of Foreign Affairs. However the Department of Foreign Affairs is not great in producing legislation. For example the Geneva Convention legislation which we have now could perhaps have been produced quite a bit earlier.
Ireland is right to concentrate on the poorest countries. Six have been identified and they are probably the six poorest in the world. It is particularly appropriate that a country that does not tie aid to trade should try to assist where the need is greatest. One of the scandals is of tying aid to trade. Some countries which appear to be generous on the surface spend a very high proportion of their aid budget in the donor country. That is not appropriate. The expenditure should be virtually 100 per cent if that is possible in the recipient country and should not be used as a cover for trade for the benefit of the donor which is often the case. Trade also often comes with all kinds of strings attached. The British attitude to take aid-trade in Malaysia and Indonesia over the past decade leaves much to be desired. It is a sobering thought that among the largest suppliers of arms worldwide are member states of this Union. The damage done by that trade is awful and it seems to be very difficult to get anything done about it. The Minister referred earlier to new guidelines but from listening to some people's views on them I think they are little better than useless. They are very difficult to enforce, have no legal standing within the Union and cannot be enforce for example at the European Court. The work done in the six priority country by Irish agencies by Irish Aid and the NGOs is highly commendable. We get great value for what we spend.
There are two points that strike me about the 0.23 per cent which we are spending now. The first is that Irish GNP is growing at a fierce rate and to keep pace we have to increase our public expenditure on this Vote at a higher rate than any other country in Europe. The second point is that compilation is done solely on the basis of official public Exchequer expenditure. I wonder if that is necessarily fair or right. Should they not seek to reflect a country's entire giving whether it is through the Exchequer or privately? It seems to me not to matter greatly, if the country as a whole is giving. There has been very generous private giving in this country. It is a bit unfair to us to exclude that from the calculations. Countries such as Scandinavia, who receive the highest level of official aid and who have already reached the 0.7 per cent target receive very little private aid. They assume it should all be done by the State. That is not our philosophy.
The Minister of State might ask her Department to look at this, even unofficially, to see what broader methodology they could arrive at in making this calculation.
Deputy Durkan raised the question of human rights in some of our priority countries. We are very conscious of any failings, particularly in countries where we are in constant dialogue. It is an issue we keep under constant supervision particularly when we have bilateral programmes and contacts with the Governments involved. For example, there were suggestions of political instability and repression in Zambia - a country in which we have had a bilateral aid programme for a long time. The question arose whether we should continue to provide support in circumstances where political instability arises. There were strains in relations between Zambia and the donor countries earlier this year as a result of a security crackdown following a failed coup in October 1997. Ireland and all donor countries were concerned about the imprisonment without charge, of over 90 people, including former President Kaunda; allegations of mistreatment of detainees and the imposition of a state of emergency. The Government responded to most of these concerns by lifting the state of emergency in March 1998; charging or releasing the detainees and undertaking to conduct an independent investigation of allegations of mistreatment of detainees. The charges against Dr. Kaunda were dropped on 1 June 1998 and other trials are expected to start shortly. That is an issue which was brought to our attention. Generally we take action by raising these concerns with our partner countries.
Deputy Durkan also raised the need for a harmonising of the criteria for dealing with asylum seekers. We have one such harmonising criterion, the Dublin Convention, which was signed on the last day in office of the previous Government. The Dublin Convention is a convention whereby member states have agreed that asylum applications should be heard in the place where the aspirant refugee first arrives. That is honoured by many of our European partners. It is a blunt instrument without the back-up of a proper refugee Act - which we do not have - in operation. Concerns were expressed about the imposition and operation of the Dublin Convention and not having an interlocking framework to back it up and provide safeguards. There is a danger, as indicated by Deputy Durkan, that some countries have different policies about refoulement. Concern has been expressed by many people in the human rights field in Ireland about using the Dublin Convention in a way which does not allow the Minister to use his humanitarian powers of discretion in certain cases and certain countries where the refugee, if deported, could face definite persecution, or death. I agree with the Deputy that this area needs to be tidied up as soon as possible.
Deputy Durkan also asked what the Commission is proposing for future Lomé Agreements. The Commission has proposed that a global accord between the EU and ACP countries be negotiated between September 1998 and 2000 when the present convention expires. A mandate for negotiation of the accord is currently under discussion in the Council. It is intended that the new global accord will have a strong political dimension and will make the fight against poverty a central objective of the new partnership. In addition, EU/ACP co-operation instruments will be simplified and streamlined and greater differentiation between co-operation efforts will be introduced in various ACP countries. Work is ongoing in that regard.
Deputy Higgins asked about the hydrology course in Galway. We have recently approved a further £1 million to cover the expenses of the programme for the next three years. This should enable the programme to establish itself on a self-sustaining basis. I agree it is a course much recommended and lauded for its achievements over the years.
The Deputy also asked about the mafia in eastern Europe. There is much concern about the evident corruption in eastern European countries. He referred to my comments on racism. When I said "in the longer term to devise a strategy in relation to diversity and multi-culturalism" it was in the context of our immediate grappling with the refugee problems. I said we have an "administrative problem" in dealing with refugees, I do not think of the refugees as "a problem". The problem is of our own making. We have found ourselves unprepared to deal with the numbers involved and it behoves us to put proper procedures in place. Unfortunately, it has taken some time to put those administrative procedures in place to allow us to accommodate the increase in refugees arriving here over the last two years.
We must also prepare the way and prepare strategies for the thousands of refugees coming from Kosovo. With the increase in the number of conflicts in many parts of Africa and eastern Europe, as responsible members of the European Union, we must anticipate that there will be more people seeking refuge on our shores. We must embrace that with a degree of tolerance and a willingness to accept multi-culturalism. We must not see it as a problem but rather an opportunity for this country.
The Deputy commented on the allegations and factual incidences of slavery in southern Sudan. I raised these allegations and incidences of abduction of children by militia and other tribes with the support of the Khartoum Government. Human rights abuses are taking place on a great scale in Sudan. There have been terrible human rights abuses carried out by the rebel SPLA in southern Sudan. Unfortunately, in a civil war,human rights are bottom of the prioritylists.
My visit to Sudan was useful. Deputies have asked for a brief report. I met with the Minister with responsibility for planning and the Minister with direct responsibility for access while in Sudan and many of the substantial difficulties in relation to the landing of relief planes have been resolved with the co-operation of the Khartoum Government. However, the issue is now one of resources. The original need was greatly underestimated. There will be a continuing need for more resources for almost one million people who face starvation in the coming months.
Tomorrow I will attend an EGAD partners' forum which will also be attended by representatives of the Khartoum Government and the SPLM, the political wing of the SPLA. The international donors will be present to discuss these matters and to try to make some progress in the peace process in that region.
The NCD has funded human rights projects in recent years and has provided funding to solidarity groups such as the Irish Mozambique Solidarity, the El Salvador Romero Awareness Centre and other development awareness projects. The NCD has approved grants to the National Youth Council of Ireland for projects involved in combating racism. This will be one of the vehicles the Government can use as a practical expression of combating racism.
Those benefiting from grants include clubs, schools, the Integration and Youth Service and Youth Awareness Day. A grant of £3,000 was given to the Irish Refugee Council for projects to promote better understanding between host communities and refugees. A grant of £4,700 was given to the refugee language and training project to assist in the further distribution of its booklet "A Part of Ireland Now" containing ten refugee stories. A grant of £1,500 was given to the Mid West Development Education Centre for its culture, justice, human rights and refugee racism workshops. The Association of Refugees and Asylum Seekers in Ireland was given a grant for an anti-racism project for teachers. I support the efforts of the INTO in this area as schools must translate anti-racist messages to children.
On international debt relief, at last month's meeting in Birmingham, the G8, declared their support for the speedy and determined extension of debt relief to more countries within the terms of the HIPC initiative. They encouraged all eligible countries to take the policy measures needed to participate by 2000. However, no new initiatives were launched and development agencies were particularly critical over the failure to improve the speed, range and effectiveness of debt relief.
The G8 also called for forgiveness of aid-related bilateral debt. As all Irish aid is given in the form of grants, this is not an issue for us. The UK announced the cancellation of £123 million in ODA debt to lower income Commonwealth countries in September 1997, in addition to the £1.2 billion written off since 1978. However, most of the remaining debt owed to the UK is not ODA debt, it is owed to the export credits guarantee department. Germany has written off about $5 billion of ODA debt and German aid to LDCs has been exclusively in the form of grants since 1978.
Since its inception in 1996, the joint World Bank - IMF HIPC initiative has been regarded as the main mechanism to tackle the debt burden on the developing countries. While it has been generally welcomed, it has been slow to implement - to date, only six countries have been declared eligible for debt relief under the initiative, with a further two likely to be approved shortly. As of last month, Uganda has been the first country to actually receive such relief. HIPC assistance has also been approved in principle for Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Côte d'Ivoire, Guyana and Mozambique. Eligibility of a number of other countries is under consideration.
Although not a creditor nation, Ireland has made a bilateral commitment to provide $5 million towards debt alleviation in Mozambique, one of the most heavily indebted LDCs, in addition to being an Irish aid priority country. Consideration is being given to making a similar contribution to debt relief in Tanzania.
Deputy Briscoe asked about Sudan, with which I dealt. The Deputy also raised the issue of funds being stowed away. OECD countries are addressing this matter and codes of conduct are being drawn up which inter alia, will make it illegal to bribe officials in Third World countries. A code of conduct for banking was also discussed at a recent meeting of Global Coalition for Africa by African and Western leaders. The Swiss are enthusiastic about this.
Deputy O'Malley raised the question of aid and trade. There is no doubt the private sector plays a major and increasing role in development. The liberalisation of trade and capital flows is transforming the global economy and helping to bring about real economic growth. However, many developing countries, particularly the poorest ones, have been largely excluded from the benefits of globalisation. This has led to patterns of new inequality. The private sector, with its profit motive, is not in a position to substitute for traditional development aid. Our programme, because it is focused on poverty and is meeting basic needs, has a completely different agenda from that of international business. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to secure private financing for many of the projects in health and education sectors in which we engage in Africa. Development and aid programmes must play a key role.
Deputy O'Malley also raised the matter of aid tying. All Irish aid is free of tying. There has been a worthwhile move at international level to reduce aid tying. The Labour Government in the UK has taken a lead in this and has made it central to its foreign policy.
The Chairman raised the politics of development in the European Union and the need for coherence and co-ordination. There is a new common service which may help and there is also the question of the territoriality of commissioners. One of the ways we propose to deal with this is by way of a sectoral approach to aid. We are working with other European countries to fund projects in a coherent way.
Work is progressing on the ratification of these conventions and the legal division in the Department has been strengthened. It takes a lead role in ensuring other Departments fulfil their obligations to introduce legislation to ratify our international conventions. Legislation is required, which makes it difficult for us to comply with conventions. Unless we continue to exert pressure on relevant Departments, they tend to leave aside the introduction of legislation. I hope the conventions on torture and anti-racism will be the subject of legislation this year.
Deputy O'Malley referred to private and public aid statistics. He proposed that we should take account of these two methods of aid giving - official assistance and private donations - as a way of measuring and complying with the percentage of GNP. In some countries, a generous population could let a Government which is not generous off the hook.
Aid is taxpayers' money. In Scandinavia, the public takes a strong interest in how these public funds are spent. This interest is increasing here, partly because of the work of this committee, NGOs and the media. Irish people should be proud of what they achieve via our development co-operation and official overseas development assistance. We have an honourable tradition in this regard. However, as the fund grows, because it is linked to GNP, it will bring more responsibility to account for a growing budget, to ensure our funds are properly focused and we do not lose direction.
If our GNP continues to grow, we will have millions more pounds in development co-operation money to spend. We must build strategies around this and consider whether we will go to other countries or become more involved in the countries with which we are already involved.
We will continue to work with NGOs. As the Chairman said, the public is notoriously generous in its private donations. This will continue but it is important for people to know that official development assistance is strong, healthy and well focused. The two together represent a significant contribution to the poorest countries of the world.
I have the impression, which may be mistaken, that there was much more interest in development education in the 1980s than there is in the 1990s. With increasing affluence in Ireland, there has been a decline in interest in this area. Will the Minister consider carrying out an audit of the treatment of development issues across the third level educational spectrum? I spent 23 years in a university but I am not sure where a person could do post-graduate work on such issues? Does it feature in relation to conventional preparation of economics? What is the position in relation to law?
My impression is that one would have to go abroad to get a qualification in any of the development issues. There is a significant gap which says much about this area. Economics departments might have had development sections but they had business schools before they had even one person in a position to lecture on international interdependency. It is a scandal and these questions should be posed at meetings with heads of universities.
There has been a falling off in general awareness about development issues. However, money is spent on trying to bring about public awareness. The National Committee for Development Education does much work in this area in the formal and informal sectors. It has a budget of £1 million a year. I am considering the effectiveness of that work. At present it tends to be a funding mechanism for many informal groups around the country which are doing valuable work. However, the impact of this work must be examined in terms of whether it is reaching schools and third level institutions.