I welcome the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, and his officials. The select committee is considering Vote 38. I call on the Minister to make an opening statement which will be followed by ten-minute statements by the main Opposition spokespersons after which other members may contribute.
Estimates for Public Services, 2001.
Vote 38 - Department of Foreign Affairs (Revised).
I welcome the opportunity to meet the select committee to consider Vote 38 which amounts to £108,794,000. Most of this figure is taken up with the administrative budget which amounts to £86,255,000, and the remainder of the Vote funds programmes which promote peace and reconciliation in Ireland, encourages the development of cultural relations with other countries and supports Irish citizens abroad. This year's Estimates also include a provision of £4 million for costs associated with the holding of the referenda on the Nice treaty and the International Criminal Court.
I propose to commence a review of the Department's activities with some words on the referendum on the Nice treaty. I signed the treaty on behalf of the Government last February. The treaty agreed the institutional changes necessary for the enlargement of the Union. The Government remains fully committed to enlargement which is the primary task facing the Union in the period ahead. The Government, however, is faced with the difficult but necessary task of reconciling the realities of the outcome of the referendum, the commitment to enlargement which is so important for Ireland, the Union and, in particular, the candidate states, and the stated intention of our EU partners not to reopen the text of the treaty.
The concerns of the Irish people reflected in the referendum result clearly need to be addressed in detail and at length. However, we can already take note of two aspects of the outcome. First, there is widespread support on both sides of the debate for giving effect to the commitment on enlargement. Second, from preliminary examination of the reasons people voted "No", many who opposed the treaty did so because of concerns which did not relate to its content.
The Government has announced that a national forum on Europe will be established in the near future. The forum's terms of reference will be discussed with the Opposition and it will have a wide membership. The intention is to seek the views of all shades of opinion. This will facilitate a wide range of discussion on issues facing the Union and on Ireland's role in that process. All who participate in Union business in whatever capacity have much to learn from an open dialogue of this kind.
The real challenge facing the forum will be to engage the wider community and to contribute to a deeper understanding among citizens of how the Union operates and how it might most appropriately develop in the future, fully consistent with our values and interests. We hope that one result of this process will be a better understanding of where treaties such as the Nice treaty fit into the overall framework. It might also facilitate a better understanding of the fact that key areas of national competence such as, for example, taxation, social policy on abortion, neutrality etc. remain firmly with individual member states.
The referendum result was a disappointment and a setback for all of us who are committed to an enlarged Union. We must reflect on the difficulties encountered in persuading the public to support the treaty. The Government will not rush to judgment, but will seek to encourage reflection and dialogue on these important matters which will, I hope, in time help to develop common ground on the way ahead.
I also wish to comment briefly on the outcome of the other referendum sponsored by my Department and held on 7 June concerning the ratification by the State of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. This referendum was passed by 64.22% of voters and received the highest number of "Yes" votes of the three referenda held that day. When established, the International Criminal Court will be empowered to investigate, prosecute and punish the most serious crimes of concern to the international community - genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. In voting in favour of ratification of the Rome Statute, the Irish people affirmed the commitment which Ireland has shown towards this historic development in the enforcement of international humanitarian law.
We remain committed to the process of EU enlargement. Negotiations began in 1998 with six of the candidates known as the Luxembourg candidates and in February 2000 negotiations were opened with six more known as the Helsinki candidates. This means that all candidates have opened negotiations with the exception of Turkey, an accepted candidate since December 1999, which does not yet fulfil the criteria necessary for negotiations to begin. The pre-negotiation strategy to help Turkey fulfil these criteria is being put in place.
The tempo of the negotiation process has increased during recent months due to a combination of two factors, namely, the prioritisation of enlargement by the Swedish Presidency and the successful use of the Commission's road map strategy as a framework for these negotiations. Many sensitive issues, including the free movement of capital and workers, have been addressed in recent months. It is clear that we are moving into a more substantive and, at times, more difficult phase of negotiations. Progress has continued apace and candidates are proceeding well in key areas.
The conclusions of the European Council in Gothenburg last week seek to make it possible to conclude negotiations by the end of 2002 with those candidates which are ready. The objective is that these candidates should participate in the European Parliament elections of 2004 as EU members. Ireland is very supportive of this position. It sends the right signal to the candidate states and should add further impetus to the negotiation process under the incoming Belgian Presidency and beyond.
In reviewing the proposed expenditure of my Department, it is important to consider that expenditure in the context of the Government's domestic agenda and its foreign policy objectives. Ireland has a small, open economy which is physically dependent on foreign trade and inward investment. Together these factors have transformed our economy in recent years and greatly improved the living standards of the vast majority of our people. Success in attracting high quality inward investment, notably in the rapidly growing high-tech and pharmaceutical sectors, has pushed Ireland in global terms to the forefront in a number of economic sectors. In addition to creating thousands of highly skilled jobs, inward investment generates a substantial share of our exports to international markets.
Advancing Ireland's economic and commercial interests is among the top priorities of my Department and its network of embassies and consulates abroad. Our diplomatic missions have privileged access to high levels of government in their host countries. They develop and maintain professional and personal contacts with key economic policymakers and important commercial players in the private sector. This access and contact can be crucial in advancing Ireland's interests abroad. The work of promoting Ireland's economic interests requires close co-ordination with other Departments and State agencies at home and overseas. My Department liaises closely with the main economic Departments such as the Departments of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Public Enterprise, and Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, as well as with the relevant State agencies.
Ireland is now a successful trading country. It is in our national interest that the global economy remains strong and open to free-flowing international trade and investment. We will continue to contribute to the achievement of a just and stable international trading environment conducive to the growth of trade and investment and foster mutually beneficial bilateral relations with our overseas trading partners. Our continued economic prosperity requires that we actively pursue these objectives.
When I appeared before this committee in May last year, Ireland was engaged in a vigorous campaign to secure a seat on the UN Security Council. Success in that campaign against stiff opposition and competition was a major achievement and reflected well on our country and the respect in which it is held at international level. Since joining the Security Council in January, Ireland has engaged fully and effectively in its work. We have made a constructive and positive contribution across the range of issues, including peace support operations in various parts of the world and regional conflicts in key areas such as the Middle East, Angola, Afghanistan, Iraq, the Great Lakes, the Balkans and East Timor. We have also made a significant contribution on important issues such as the strengthening of co-operation between the Security Council and countries which contribute to peacekeeping operations and the protection of civilians in armed conflict.
We will hold the Presidency of the Security Council for the month of October this year. The key priorities will be to manage the business of the council effectively during the month to ensure it reacts speedily to crises as and when they arise and, in preparing for the Presidency, to give careful consideration as to how best Ireland's distinct UN experience and approach can contribute to actively taking forward the Security Council's agenda during the month. I intend to visit New York at an appropriate time during the Presidency and possibly preside over some council discussions.
Allow me in the time available to update the committee on the current state of play in some of the key regional conflicts which are of concern to us on the Security Council and in our foreign and security policy co-operation with our EU partners. The position in the Middle East remains critical. It was clear from the discussions between the EU heads of state and Government and with President Bush in Gothenburg that the US has re-engaged with the search for peace. The US-brokered ceasefire and the Mitchell report, together with the EU's road map, demonstrate the common purpose of the EU and US to encourage and assist the parties to step back from the brink.
In the western Balkans there is serious concern at the dangerous position in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. The EU has taken the lead in the international community's efforts to stabilise the position there and in the region as a whole, and a Security Council delegation, which included our permanent representative, has just completed a visit to the region.
Ireland is heavily engaged with the peace efforts in the Democratic Republic of Congo through our Security Council seat. We participated in a Security Council mission to the Great Lakes region in May, which was extremely successful in providing a timely boost to efforts to end the crisis. In the aftermath of publication of the report of the panel of experts on the illegal exploitation of resources in the DRC in April, we stressed, during Security Council meetings and in bilateral contacts with Uganda and Rwanda, that thorough investigations must be conducted into the serious allegations made. Ireland welcomed Uganda's decision to establish an independent judicial commission of inquiry into the allegations against it and the decision to extend the mandate of the panel of experts by three months to undertake further investigation.
Our role in US peacekeeping is a high priority of our foreign policy. Our participation in UNIFIL in southern Lebanon will conclude late this year. The Government has been actively exploring potential participation in other UN missions. The change in and more complex nature of peacekeeping in today's world involves additional tasks such as humanitarian assistance, the protection of human rights and civilian police work. Ireland continues to play its part in these arrangements through involvement in UNTAET in East-Timor and in the UN-authorised KFOR in Kosovo and SFOR in Bosnia. We recognise that its membership needs to give the UN the capacity to put in place well planned and resourced peacekeeping operations. The Brahimi report on reform of UN peacekeeping has made a series of detailed and practical proposals to this end. Ireland is working actively for their implementation.
There have been real and significant developments, both nationally and internationally, in relation to human rights, which are now firmly established as a cornerstone of our policy. In the past year, a Human Rights Commission has been established. It is one of the few national institutions whose statutes will accord with the Paris principles, the UN guidelines for the establishment of these bodies. The commission will have far-reaching functions in the field of human rights. Its main function will be to foster a human rights culture in this State. It will work closely with its counterpart in the North and will formulate a charter of rights for all the people of the island to provide them with a level of rights protection that is second to none.
The past year has seen the ratification by Ireland of the UN convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination. Ratification at this time is especially appropriate in light of the forthcoming UN world conference against racism. In preparation for this Ireland held a national preparatory conference in September 2000 and participated in the European preparatory conference held in Strasbourg.
This time last year when I appeared before the committee, the non-proliferation treaty review conference had just adopted the new agenda for nuclear disarmament on foot of an initiative launched by Ireland in 1998. The way forward for progress on nuclear disarmament was set out clearly. It is up to states with nuclear weapons to implement the undertakings they gave at the conference. In the interim, however, the overall environment for further work on nuclear disarmament has become more complex. We will pursue our objectives in the light of the evolving context.
In the field of conventional weapons we are actively engaged in preparations for the UN conference on small arms and light weapons which takes place in July. We want to see an agreement on a programme of action which will form the basis of further international efforts to reduce the spread of these weapons and their impact on development. Our approach on all these issues is taken in conjunction with our commitment to develop a constitutional and strategic approach to conflict prevention, from addressing the causes of conflict to responding to conflicts and crises when they arise.
I will say a few words about Northern Ireland. I am aware that members of the committee continue to take a close and supportive interest in the process and in our efforts to secure full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. As Members will be aware, we are entering a round of discussions this week with the pro-Agreement parties to seek an agreed basis on which outstanding elements of the Agreement, policing, demilitarisation, decommissioning and the full and inclusive operation of the institutions, can be implemented. Members will understand that it would not be helpful to go into detail on what has been discussed. I can say, however, that our task is not an easy one. The issues involved are difficult ones and have immense real and symbolic importance for all sides. If we are to succeed, all parties will need clarity and certainty as to what will happen and when. All will need to emerge confident that commitments made on all sides will be honoured.
In the more than three years since the agreement was achieved and endorsed by the people, we have begun to see its enormous potential to transform. Conflict on the island has long blighted our political and economic well-being. The agreement has, as it promised, offered us the chance of a new beginning, a turning of the page. The parties face difficult choices and tough decisions. They are, I firmly believe, conscious of the need not to let this historic opportunity pass. They must bring with them their difficulties and their constituencies and we must be understanding of needs and concerns. However, we need to move quickly to rebuild confidence on all sides, inject momentum into the process and secure progress now. The Government stands ready to do all it can and I know that in our efforts we can rely on the support of all sides of the House.
The Estimate is for a sum of £108 million, the major part of which deals with administration. A huge part of that Estimate deals with salaries. There are 1,255 permanent staff and temporary staff usually in the passport office. Both the Government and the Opposition have always found the staff to be absolutely professional and very helpful. We are lucky to have such staff in the Department of Foreign Affairs.
According to Eamon Delaney, staff are capable of occasional high jinks as well, but I will not fault them for that.
I hope the Minister will elaborate on that.
From the point of view of human relations, the way staff are dealt with is reminiscent of the dark ages. We must make progress in this regard. There is a major difficulty arising concerning how partners of diplomats going abroad are treated - diplomats in non-marital relationships. The Minister must address this issue.
As we have more missions abroad, we will have more diplomats. Many diplomats travel with partners who are in permanent, but non-marital, relationships. I understand such relationships are not recognised or supported by the Department and that the fares of the partners concerned are not paid. There are no holiday arrangements or visas organised for them. The consequence for such partners is that they have no diplomatic status.
Consider the example of a third secretary posted to China. Many difficulties would arise in that instance. The Department of Foreign Affairs is no different to any other Department in that there are difficulties in retaining staff. More than Eamon Delaney have left the Department and may leave it in the future. Problems of this kind should be confronted and dealt with.
Increasingly, both partners in couples, whether married or not, have careers and this can cause its own difficulties for the non-diplomatic spouse concerned. These problems are multiplied when the couple is not married. The problem is being addressed in other countries and there is no reason Ireland should not do likewise.
I spoke of expanding our diplomatic relationship and I want to see further expansion, because it is in our interest. I want to see Irish representation in all applicant countries to the EU. Once there was a shortage of money, but not any more, so it is possible.
It is ridiculous that we do not have a Minister of State for European Affairs. Many may point the finger at the Minister, Deputy Cowen. He is assiduous in attending to his duties abroad, but it is not possible for somebody who has duties concerning Northern Ireland etc. to attend all these meetings.
It is ludicrous that we have nobody co-ordinating European policy. We have Ministers in other Departments, some of whom have been making Eurosceptical noises, such as Deputy de Valera who did not bother to attend most of her Council meetings abroad. There should be a Minister for European Affairs to chair a Cabinet sub-committee, co-ordinate work on European matters between Departments, substitute for Ministers who cannot or will not attend European meetings, and interface with the parliament and the public to address the famous democratic deficit that is being spoken about so much.
With regard to the policy on Northern Ireland, my leader, Deputy Noonan, made it quite clear that we fully support the Government. We wish it well in the difficult discussions that are now taking place. The Taoiseach was quite pessimistic about Northern Ireland when he spoke to the Dáil on Tuesday. I hope we do not have a Humpty Dumpty type situation where nothing can be put together again. I hope the peace process can survive and that the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement can be brought about.
Irrespective of what happens, there are considerable benefits to North-South co-operation. The structure that has been put in place has been very useful, but if it is to be recreated, co-operation must continue. We have seen the fruits of North-South co-operation - for example, the Ballyconnell canal.
We have staff in the Department of Foreign Affairs involved in North-South co-operation, but we must ensure that the expertise that has been developed and the progress made will not be impeded as a consequence of political developments or difficulties. A collapse in political arrangements should be compensated for by an even greater emphasis on North-South co-operation.
I referred earlier to the democratic deficit. This arises in a number of areas and must be seriously addressed. Yesterday, in the Dáil, I made a point to the Minister about membership of the Security Council. I sought to know our objectives and what progress has been made in achieving them. The general public saw that a great diplomatic effort was made to secure a seat on the Security Council, but do they know what is happening there? Is an effort being made to ensure that they do?
I know a little about it because I receive a document on the issue, a monthly bulletin. However, it is marked as being confidential. What is the point in circulating a confidential document to an Opposition spokesman? Should the approach not be to publicise what is being done at the Security Council to ensure that the democratic deficit is addressed? Foreign policy will not be effective unless it is domestically based. There is a danger of the public becoming hostile. Where there is no knowledge, no debate takes place.
A major principle of foreign policy - neutrality - was declared during World War II by Eamon de Valera. He sold it to the public and received full public support for it. It now has become part of our national psyche and is regarded as being beyond question. I am not interested in speaking of neutrality so much as about how it was sold. I am concerned that this selling process is not currently in operation regarding foreign policy issues.
It is necessary that the Minister brings the public with him. In a healthy democracy, it is necessary to have healthy debate, and to have healthy debate, one must have information. That applies to the Security Council and to the Council of Europe. Does the public know what is happening in the Council of Europe at the moment? I attended the twice-yearly meetings of the Council of Europe at a time when it was as dead as a dodo. Its activities have become more relevant because of the Eastern European countries entering in the past ten years. However, there is no public debate about what happens at the Council of Europe. It is a question of Nice and the EU.
Part of the difficulty with the EU is that not enough information has been made available about activities at EU level and the Minister must carry some responsibility for this. I recall a time when there were six-monthly reports on what happened in Europe which were debated in the Dáil, but I have seen no reports for a couple of years. Why? Does the Minister accept his responsibility in this regard? Much of what happens at the EU is dry, arid and difficult but he must mediate that to the public and to the Parliament. Part of the reason for the failure of the Nice Treaty was the lack of information and healthy debate and therefore the lack of a supportive public for what is happening in Europe. There are other ways in which one can deal with this and earlier the European Affairs Committee debated the contribution it might make.
When I was chairman of the All-Party Committee on the Constitution I was responsible for a report on the use that could be made of the Seanad as a bridgehead to Europe. If the Seanad is underemployed in some ways and some people - I am not looking directly at the chairman - thought at one stage it might be abolished, we should give it a useful purpose and role.
I still think so.
Apart from reforming the way it is elected, it could be a bridgehead to Europe. European directives could be submitted to it and MEPs and Commissioners could attend sittings of it for debates. That is just a proposal. There is not healthy debate on the European Union because the knowledge is not available.
There is no time now for a major post-mortem on the Nice referendum but it was a result of a failure of leadership on the part of the Government and because of the mixed signals being sent out by the Government parties regarding our support for the EU, enlargement and the Nice treaty. This morning The Irish Examiner carried a story about a U-turn by Fianna Fáil MEPs on the Rapid Reaction Force, adding to the Taoiseach's woes. It does not pain me if the Taoiseach has political woes but it troubles me, as one who is pro-European and who supports Nice and enlargement, to see the dog's dinner being made of all this, before and after the referendum.
We now need the period of reflection to which the Minister referred. We suggested not holding the referendum until the autumn so that reflection could take place. If we are to achieve a positive outcome we need leadership, vision, energy, political judgment and competence.
The division came up four or five minutes ago. We have to finish.
On the EU, as with everything else, we need a healthy debate and a decision taken by Government. Those in Government must then support that decision fully and not be all over the shop, sending out confused signals and engaging in hypocritical comments about it. If we do not get that the Nice treaty is dead as far as this country is concerned.
Sitting suspended at 4.34 p.m. and resumed at 4.52 p.m.
Are you finished, Deputy O'Keeffe?
Yes, Chairman.
I will now call on Deputy Higgins.
I wish to raise a few issues concerning the Estimate before making a few points about the Minister's introductory speech. This is the first time I have had an opportunity of attending the committee at which Estimates were being discussed. In 1981 I wrote about the need for a foreign affairs committee but it was comprehensively opposed by many people. I have great sympathy for the Minister and his officials, given the small number of staff listed under subhead A1, dealing with salaries, wages and allowances. A total of 313 diplomatic staff is clearly insufficient to serve Ireland, particularly in light of our new role as a rotating member of the Security Council. Apart altogether from that, when one reflects on the structures and staff over a period of years, one discovers how those making the case for economic and commercial activity being conducted by embassies have won so much ground. One might question why the number of officers from other Departments seconded to the Department of Foreign Affairs is so low, at 44. If, in fact, the embassy staff are to have visited upon them the work of trade and commerce, and the development of commercial contacts, one would expect the appropriate Departments to second their staff to manage it. I suppose we are far too advanced in a version of neo-liberal economics to expect those who benefit, namely, the companies involved, to make any contribution to the State. If they are enjoying one of the lowest capital gains tax and corporation profits tax regimes in the world, they probably would not rise to that anyway.
Other issues arise relating to the figures themselves. Subhead E deals with contributions to bodies in Ireland for the furtherance of international relations. That figure was £194,000 but will be reduced to £115,000 to take account of a special sum that was given to the European Movement to cover a deficit from 1999. It raises a question about the difference between that which is allocated to the Irish United Nations Association and, say, the European Movement. There is a strong case for giving far more money to the Irish United Nations Association. If we were to make such a case, one might reasonably expect us to be active in pursuing UN reform. There is, after all, the old, unfinished agenda of Erskine Childers and Brian Urquhart. If we are to be active in that area and encourage our citizens to be interested in the United Nations and its agencies, and if we are to put a stop to the further erosion of the authority of the United Nations which is gathering apace, there is a strong case for allocating far more money to the Irish United Nations Association.
Cultural relations with other countries is an old chestnut. I remember, when I was a Minister, discussing the case for an agency to represent Irish culture abroad. The increase from £809,000 to £1,180,000 is meagre. There is no way one could regard that as sufficient to provide an adequate representation of Irish culture abroad. The Irish cultural relations committee was, ab initio, designed to encourage an exchange with other cultures, including the arrival of other cultures here. To summarise the point, we are understaffed and to some extent the financial allocation is not necessarily being made in the best way.
If we are to disseminate information about Europe, past, present and future, in the widest possible sense, we need organisations that are much more than propaganda units for the institutional structure of the European Union as it is. If one does not do that, one will have a group of people who imagine they are on an inner circuit of information. They will regard everybody else who is not party to this as being, somehow or other, deficient in infomation.
In his speech, the Minister almost suggested that there are two aspects to the outcome of the Nice referendum, which are encouraging. One is, and I agree with him, that there seems to be widespread support for enlargement. The second is that the "No" vote was accounted for by concerns "which did not relate to the actual content of the treaty". As somebody who advocated a "Yes" vote on balance - and certainly not for the reasons that many of the other people who advocated a "Yes" vote might have done, although I will not go into all of this - it was basically because the applicant countries needed the protection of the social model that Europe has on offer. The applicant countries are in transition and, as such, they are vulnerable. Workers, in particular, are vulnerable and need legislation governing security in the workplace, and other forms of protection. The quicker they have that the better. That was the deciding factor for voting "yes" in my own case.
I have full sympathy for the Minister in trying to represent his view. He referred to how matters will now be addressed in the forum on Europe, which was proposed originally by the Labour Party. One thing the forum will not be is a kind of softening-up procedure for another run at the Nice treaty. It has to address bigger issues, including the crisis of governance in the European Union, and by that I mean the crisis of participation by citizens. There have been only two or three speeches by major European figures - Santer was probably the last - who spoke about a Europe of citizens. There is an institutional crisis that has been deepened by an absence of clarity and the presence of a certain kind of institutional atrophy. If one wonders why such matters will have to be discussed in the forum, one must bear in mind that a few years ago a president of the Commission defended the institution a few weeks before its membership was almost entirely replaced. I understand that the agenda of the forum to which the Minister referred will be discussed with Opposition parties. In my opinion that agenda should not be structured on the basis that the Irish public caused the problem. The people had their say in the referendum and we must now move on. In doing so, we must address not only the difficulties which have emerged on foot of the referendum result but also a number of serious issues relating to Europe.
Another issue that arises is the fact that the Minister, as stated earlier, signed the Nice treaty on behalf of the Irish Government. That statement is almost provocative. I assume the Minister signed the treaty on behalf of all his colleagues in Government, but one would not believe, having heard some of their statements, that this was the case. I know Ministers of State are not directly involved in the Government but they are supposed to be guided by it. In that context, it appears that the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Deputy Ó Cuív, closed his eyes to what was going on.
The Minister stated that a diplomatic process, preceded by an Intergovernmental Conference, was taking place, the purpose of which was to seek the assent of the public. There was, therefore, a need to move from the realm of the professional/technical into the realm of the public. I worked for a period as a political scientist and I am aware that what usually happens in these types of consultations with the public in different political systems is that one either opens up the diplomatic process at an early stage, inviting people to become involved and explaining matters on a step by step basis, or one moves to the end point and presents the conclusion over such a period to allow every aspect to be made absolutely clear. Neither happened in this case.
During the referendum campaign in this country the constitutional and institutional problems of Europe were revealed by virtue of the fact that many major European figures decided to give speeches about their visions for the future of the European Union without necessarily claiming a mandate from any of the institutions, such as the European Parliament, or a wider European audience. The individuals to whom I refer were, therefore, talking about abstractions. The Attorney General then replied to them and stated that he does not favour a federal Europe. The entire debate on this matter turned into an abstraction with one common element, namely, the absence of an institutional framework capable of delivering to the public clarity on the issues.
It has been stated that if we are to achieve participation and inclusion we will probably have to consider other models. For example, it was suggested that draft directives should be discussed in advance and that assent to them will require prior clearance. In addition, the public will be able to hear about matters at public meetings which were previously dealt with at closed meetings. There will also be a debate on the neglected aspects of membership of the European Union.
As already stated, I have considerable sympathy for the Minister for Foreign Affairs. When I served as Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, I attended every meeting of the Council of Culture Ministers between January 1993 and June 1997. I have often felt that people have a semi-detached relationship with the Council and it is difficult to see how this will arise in any debate on the future of Europe. I wish the forum on Europe, to which the Minister referred, well in terms of it encouraging tolerance. One cannot run a campaign on the basis of insulting one's opponents. However, people on the other side of the debate must realise that people took decisions which, on balance, were motivated by a desire to include people in the European Union even though there would be a particular downside to this.
What we must do is try to address the issues which have nothing to do with the Nice treaty and which arose a long time prior to its advent. The issues to which I refer are the manner in which we relate to Europe, the institutional structures involved, this Parliament's Mickey Mouse efforts to deal with European matters and the assumption that people will make decisions in the best interests of the country and that a public discourse is designed to embarrass and lead to the release of irredentism. We must address these issues. Instead of suggesting that the Irish electorate is the cause of the problem vis-à-vis the Nice treaty, we must highlight the fact that there are fundamental flaws in the Union and in the way it relates to the citizens of Europe. There are many people who want to contribute to the debate on the future of Europe, it is not a matter for debate between lawyers or in respect of which Attorneys General should comment when taking a break from advising the Cabinet. It is appalling that the latter should have happened.
Describing as an act of integrity the bad faith shown by a Minister of State who campaigned in favour of one view and then announced after the referendum that he voted against that view defeats all logic. Such behaviour has the capacity to move a problem of crisis in governance in an institutional sense to one of legitimacy. Why should we believe any comments uttered by someone who claims to have murmurings in their heart or who hears the calls of a higher conscience? There is something fundamentally dishonest and amoral about such appalling behaviour.
Where do the different political parties in Government stand in relation to the social model? Do they hold the view of the British Tory Party that the social model is an economic cost? Is that the reason members of Government are saying they want an unmitigated, unmediated, neo-liberal version of the market economy that exists in the United States? If the answer is "yes", they should say as much and stop sniping behind the backs of the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs. If they want Ireland to become the 51st state of the United States, they should indicate that fact. I understand a number of them want to rejoin the Commonwealth. If these views are expressed at the forum, its deliberations will prove to be nothing less than bizarre.
In my opinion, the crisis of governance to which I refer could spill over into a crisis of legitimacy. The forum should concentrate on the general issues of participation, institutional atrophy and inclusion. At home, we should urgently address issues of transparency in relation to the review of proposed instruments. The forum should be guided by an attitude of tolerance and we should put an end to the mixed signals emanating from different members of the Government.
I return for my final point to the comments I made at the outset. The diplomatic section of the Department of Foreign Affairs should be strengthened. I would like more staff to be appointed to work on issues of diplomacy. I would also like other Departments which are effectively camping in the Department of Foreign Affairs to carry the cost of what they are demanding from that Department. It is time taxpayers stopped subsidising corporate bodies which are busy with globalisation and anticipating the arrival of huge benefits and that these bodies paid for some of what they are demanding from the State.
I wish to address the Minister's closing comments about Northern Ireland and the difficulties which threaten not only the continuance of the peace process but also the positive developments that might occur. It is important that we should make it clear - I do not believe there are any doubts about the position of democratic representatives in the Oireachtas - that there can be no ambiguity, no use of special language and no sheltering behind statements to the effect that people do not speak for the IRA. The Taoiseach made clear his views on that yesterday. The time for ambiguity and sheltering behind the fact that "we are a political party and do not speak for it" is over. We are mature, sensible people and as elected representatives we are aware of the special relationship. There is no point in hiding that. If we are to have movement towards what we have all worked for over the years, it is time Sinn Féin was told that although it is nice to parade as political representatives and to be available for interviews on television and radio with a very sophisticated and complex speak, it is time to reject anyone who has access to arms. It is time to condemn attempts to resurrect the violence and horrific suffering of the past 30 years in Northern Ireland. It is time to leave no one in any doubt that we want the same straight speaking from all elected representatives in which we are privileged to be able to indulge here. It may not break the deadlock but it would certainly go a long way towards restoring trust and confidence among the other political representatives. I accept the issue is much more complex than that, having been engaged in discussions on the North over the years. The people who elected us expect nothing less from us than to be clear. If we are not, ambiguity will be tolerated and translated into a new dimension where we will all have to wait to see if the great masters - who recently converted to political activity - are prepared to go along with what all of us demand. I want to make that very clear.
During my time as Minister for Foreign Affairs, from 1977 to 1979, I appreciated the positive role of the European Community as a supportive framework through which all of us as elected representatives could co-operate. I recall when we got the breakthrough at the Council of Foreign Ministers and it agreed to support cross-Border projects. That seems a long time ago but it was a significant development. Our European colleagues deserve full credit for consistently supporting the efforts of both governments to bring about a positive environment for economic development in the Border region. Our European partners have consistently played a positive and honourable role in this. We owe it to fellow member states to recognise the direction we feel Europe should take. The Minister cannot be faulted for commitment and unrelenting effort in the normal course of negotiations and on the debate on the Nice treaty. He is a man of passion, spirit and conviction and I would be happier if that passion, spirit and conviction were more evident in the text before us today. Perhaps this is not the forum at which one should express those views. This is a classic presentation from sophisticated people in the Department of Foreign Affairs and I have good reason to be conscious of how sophisticated and enlightened they are. However, what is missing is the vision which this Minister is capable of expressing. I come back to what Deputy Michael D. Higgins stated: why did Shröder, Fischler, Prodi and Jospin not say what we said during the course of our referendum campaign? That campaign represented an appeal to our people to give us the ultimate authority that only they can give. Why did we not give our vision? It is a valid and vital vision based on our contribution to European partnership since 1973.
I am privileged to be the last surviving Member of this House who was on the Council of Ministers in early 1973. I was a member of the Council of Energy Ministers at that time and subsequently of other councils. The role of all our Governments was respected and appreciated. There is no need for us to apologise to any of our partners any more than they have to apologise to us. Our independence in foreign policy and our neutrality has always been a major asset to the European Union. Others looking at Europe saw that Ireland shared their positions. It was no accident that all the Lomé conventions, until the recent ones, were negotiated and renegotiated under the Irish Presidency for the good reason that the ACP countries were not prepared to conclude negotiations with some of their former colonial masters. Ireland fulfilled that role in Europe's interests. If Europe has any meaning, it has to have a consistent conviction within its borders and in its external relations. We are uniquely placed to contribute. I said to the Minister that we need to have regular debates on these regular reports. We have had no continuing debate on the evolution of Europe, not in the Parliament or in the select committee. We must have a continuing debate on the evolution of Europe and these reports afford us that opportunity.
In terms of fundamental human rights, as we integrate more with our partners in Europe we have a right and an obligation to remind those partners that some of their activities are not acceptable to us. Let that be heard from this Parliament. I have mentioned many times that our partners are engaged in the export of the weaponry of death. We should be heard to question and reject that. I am pleased that we are engaged in preparations for the UN Conference on Small Arms and Light Weapons which takes place in July. I wish that effort well because the Iran-Iraq war could not have continued without our partners. One partner was supplying both sides. All of the regional conflicts in Africa and some of the most brutal conflicts in the world were supported by the weaponry of death exported by some of our partners. We are entitled to say that is not consistent with our vision of Europe. I wish the Minister and his staff well in pursuing the vision which all Irish people can not only accept but enthusiastically endorse.
I want to raise a few specific issues on the Estimates and the layout. I also want to comment on the enormous value we get from our diplomatic staff. I did not realise the number of diplomatic staff, 313, was so small. I have been in embassies of other countries abroad, some of which have a staff of that size, notably those of several of the big countries. The work our diplomatic staff does, even with the expansion, is quite remarkable.
However, I am critical of the number of staff in the Minister's development co-operation division - 44. Yesterday at Question Time, the Minister will have heard the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy O'Donnell, indicate she, too, was not happy with the size of the staff in that division. If the next Government, which I hope will be ours, continues to increase the proportion of GDP allocated to development aid to 0.4% by 2007, the budget for that Vote will be as big as those of some Ministers of State, which have the full back-up services of a Department. I urge the Minister to produce plans to ensure that, as the budget expands, adequate staff will be in place to deliver the funds in the development aid budget with all necessary controls and protections built in.
Yesterday I also raised the need to ensure there are good promotional opportunities in the various sections of the Department of Foreign Affairs to avoid the loss of well trained, experienced staff to other Departments. This is an important issue. I am aware the Department of Foreign Affairs feels it is a very special Department even, at times, a cut above the rest and very high qualifications are often a requirement for the competitions for entry into the Department. Of course staff are excellent but, having had them trained, it is important to guard against losing them to other Departments because of a lack of promotion opportunities.
I join my colleague, Deputy Jim O'Keeffe, in highlighting the need to examine how to cater for staff appointed abroad, who have a more modern relationship than the standard one many of us older people have. There should be no embarrassment caused in the Department for any staff appointed to foreign postings and whatever protections are needed for partners travelling with departmental officials should be built in and easily available.
I looked hard in the Estimate for a heading, United Nations Security Council. We will be on the Security Council for a finite period and, therefore, I would have expected a separate heading. Under the overall UN heading, I calculate that there has been an increase of £1.155 million in the New York budget and £291,000 in the Geneva budget. I do not know whether those increases relate to ordinary UN work or if the costs of the UN Security Council are built in. I would welcome an amendment to the methodology used in the Estimates to accommodate developments such as the election to the Security Council to allow me to calculate the costs of an appointment to a particular body. This would enable us to assess the work which has been done. Is my calculation of an approximate cost of £1.3 million for membership of the UN Security Council correct?
I, too, am somewhat disappointed by our achievements arising from our membership of the UN Security Council. I hope that when the Presidency rotates to us, which I believe will be in October, we will try to make a mark on it by achieving something special for Ireland. We led the way in other areas such as East Timor and much earlier in the Western Sahara, although that referendum still has not taken place so perhaps the Minister could update me on the current position there. Ireland does not carry the baggage of colonialism and has used that position to make a mark.
If the Minister and his Government are still in office in October, I ask him to inform us if he has started to identify areas in which Ireland will take a lead on becoming President of the Security Council. The Security Council has a very long agenda, much of which Ireland should cast aside to concentrate on others. I note, for example, in paragraph 27 of this confidential briefing, which I will now make less confidential, it says, "Work on reviewing UN sanctions regimes continues and the chairman of this working group is in the process of finalising his report". It is so confidential we do not know who the chairman is and which country has taken responsibility for this review.
I have raised the matter of sanctions against Iraq with the Minister before. This is a relatively new tool for dealing with errant nations. Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe, and South Africa were aberrations. In recent times, however, sanctions have been exacted against ten or 11 countries, yet there is no sanctions monitor similar to the weapons monitor, that is, someone to assess the efficacy of the sanctions, how long they will stay in place, whether they should be amended and if they cause more damage to ordinary people of a country than the rulers they are trying to attack. I do not want the UN to continue with the sanctions policy without first drawing breath and assessing how sanctions will continue. There is no doubt that sanctions against Iraq have become counterproductive, harm the ordinary people of the country and have not made much difference to Saddam Hussein and the way in which he treats the world and his own people. I welcome the strong line on the matter taken by the Minister.
Is that bell for me? I will continue until told to stop.
I have only a hammer, not a bell.
That sounds like the start of song. The chairman should not encourage me to sing "If I had a hammer".
Are we owed anything for our participation in UN missions? The last time I was on this committee a few years ago, the considerable amounts of money owed to Ireland were always a highlight in the Estimates. Is the UN up to date with its payments or do we owe it any money? I do not see a note on that. I am aware an agreement was reached with the US to pay back to the UN a certain amount of the money it owes. Are we still paying for US involvement with the UN? This is one of the difficulties with the people's perception of the UN.
What saddens me - perhaps the Minister can explain this - is the decision of the six MEPs from the Minister's party to vote against the rapid reaction force. In my view the force is wrongly named because it implies a very militaristic operation. The Government told people during the recent referendum campaign it supports Ireland sending soldiers and police to the recent UN missions to the Middle East, Kosovo, Ethiopia, Somalia, Namibia and all the other places Irish forces, either police or Army, have been. People have said they did a great job. However one has to explain to them that the rapid reaction force was essentially Europe taking charge of the UN mandate so that, within 4,000 kilometres of our borders, it would be European troops and police who would engage in whatever operations arose. There seems to be a failure to understand that it was to be a continuation of a UN-type operation. I do not know if the failure is because of the negative impressions that emerged regarding the UN and some of its operations and the questioning of UN sanctions, but the brand name of the UN has been damaged in recent years. It is losing the respect it had and this must not be allowed to happen. The existence of the UN is an extremely effective way of ensuring we do not enter a third world war or any other major conflict.
Why have the Estimates for the Irish immigrant groups abroad dropped from £311,000 to £295,000, not a huge drop but significant nevertheless? One might say it is because there are fewer emigrants. That does not mean that the needs of a number of Irish people, many of whom emigrated in the 1950s and 1960s, do not need to be addressed. Why are there 44 officers from other Departments working with the Minister's Department? I hope it has nothing to do with Sports Campus Ireland. The Minister's Department has nothing to do with that.
Recently I was part of the delegation that represented Ireland in Cuba at the Interparliamentary Union meeting. It was my first time at such a meeting. We received a briefing from the Department of Foreign Affairs, but one aspect of what we were doing frightened me a little. We were sitting with delegates from about 140 countries. Issues arose that left one to one's own devices and there should have been an official from the Department of Foreign Affairs to brief one on the most up-to-date thinking of the Minister and the Government. One had to improvise.
One sensitive issue was discussed regarding the rights of Israel to membership of a particular group. It was being stopped by Iraq, Iran and various other countries. We had no means of receiving advice on the matter. I recognise that the Mexican ambassador had come to the conference, but he was not present when this topic was being discussed. Therefore, there is a need for more liaison for those who travel as members of an IPU delegation to major interparliamentary meetings. We saw the amount of input other countries were putting into speeches, etc., and the tension and points of order they were raising. We could not match it and were not participating as much as we might have.
I welcome the Minister and his officials to the committee. I wish him well in his difficult negotiations over the next few days with regard to the political institutions in Northern Ireland. In my own region there is serious concern, both north and south of the Border, regarding the difficulties that are emerging. The painstaking work of recent years could be undone very quickly, which is unfortunate. The Minister spoke of the necessity of achieving clarity and certainty in respect of commitments of some political groups. As Deputy O'Kennedy clearly stated, that time has definitely come.
With regard to subhead F1, the reconciliation fund is worthy of mention. It provides small financial assistance to help groups, both north and south of the Border, to involve themselves in worthwhile cross-community projects. The departmental officials working with this fund have established a great rapport with community groups throughout the Six Counties and in the six southern Border counties as well.
I would like to see that fund expanded because I know from experience that the level of funding available to the Department for allocation is quite small. Expansion is necessary because even with very small funding, one can achieve very worthwhile results. The funding provided is of a capital and a revenue nature. I hope that, in the discussion of the Estimates for the next year, the Minister will succeed in obtaining additional funding.
With regard to Deputy Owen's comments on immigrant groups and the assistance provided for them, some local authorities are encouraging people to return home, people who are living in poor housing, particularly in Britain and the United States. My county suffered from huge emigration over the years but its local authority is making an effort to encourage emigrants to return to their own rural areas. Perhaps the Department, through its embassy network, could co-ordinate such an approach in Britain and the United States. At a time when resources are available, those who emigrated due to difficult circumstances and are still living in such circumstances should be given the opportunity to come home and be rehoused in the areas from where they originated.
Before I ask the Minister to reply, I would like to make a few remarks. One concerns what the Minister adverted to in his brief remarks on Northern Ireland. We are at a very important juncture and things may go entirely off the rails within the next ten days or two weeks. The Minister is unwilling to go into detail on the matter and I accept that. It is appropriate.
I do not think there is a full realisation of how close to the brink we are on this island. If Mr. Trimble resigns, it will be disastrous and those who have spent the last three or four years criticising him will have to face much more difficult circumstances. I hope the parties in the North who are parties to the dispute and are the primary ones who will have to solve the problem are prepared to do so. The two Governments are only there as facilitators. They cannot force a solution. It is healthy that there is such a small divide between the two Governments in terms of how they might approach the problem. That is very different to the way it used to be.
To some extent, the parties in the North are further apart now than they were two or three weeks ago because of the unfortunate result of the elections there. The elections seem to have rewarded extremism and penalised moderation, which is often what happens when a delicate set of circumstances are about to deteriorate. Great skill will be required on the part of many people in the North and outside it to avoid a tragedy. The Good Friday Agreement has been in place long enough to realise the benefits that can and do flow from it and the even greater benefits that could flow from it if it were implemented in full. We realise that the destruction of it would be tragic and catastrophic.
The Minister gives a list of what he calls the outstanding elements of the Agreement. It is what I might call the official, politically correct list. Policing has been the number one problem, demilitarisation is number two, decommissioning is number three and the full and inclusive operation of the institutions is number four. There is only one real problem in that list of four and I am sure the Minister and his officials know it but might not like to say it. The problem is decommissioning. The rest would fall into place very quickly. One of them could fall into place in the morning if the Government and all the parties in the North were to put an end to the nonsense that is going on about policing.
What is wrong with the present proposals for policing in Northern Ireland? We had Mr. Patten before this committee recently. I asked him if he was satisfied the legislation that has been passed adequately reflected the recommendations of his commission. He said that it did. Mathematically the legislation amounts to about 95% of the report. I find it difficult to understand that parties like the SDLP and the Government parties cannot come out fully in support of the new police service in Northern Ireland. It is their duty to do that.
Decommissioning is the nub of the whole thing. The failure to give up arms, an implicit reliance on a private army, and it also appears, a private police force, seems to betoken a party that cannot be described as a normal political party. That we should pander to them seems to me to be unacceptable. The people in Iveagh House should not pander to them. They should be able to see the difference between democracy and very slightly implied militarism with the constant unspoken threat of a return to it.
We have had very helpful papers from the Department on Ireland's participation on the UN Security Council. It is very useful because it lets us know what is going on. When this was discussed by this committee before, I appealed to the officials to ensure that at the end of the two years it could be said that the Irish had been on the council and it was noticed that they left some imprint on what went on. I have every confidence that at the end of the two years everyone in New York will be able to say that Ireland was there, was most adequately represented, was one of the most efficient countries on the Council, and its representatives were of excellent calibre, but that will be it. In light of our three year campaign to get on to the Security Council many countries expect more from us than efficient administration. There are opportunities for that and we should not shy away from availing of them.
Is it not remarkable that the most productive dialogue with Russia in the past six months has been with, of all people, President Bush of the United States? Where is Europe in that? It is disappointing that that has been the case.
There are many regional and local conflicts listed in the documentation that we get every month. There are committees relating to sanctions and other aspects of these. It seems to be implied and understood that those conflicts have been there for a long time and they will remain for a long time. It appears that dealing with them is simply going through the nuisance of attending a monthly or bi-monthly meeting and that they will not be solved. That is not the way to approach it. A much more proactive attitude should be adopted by the Security Council. The Council should not continue to be dominated to the extent that it is by its permanent members, and in particular by three of those, the United States, Russia and China. There is an opportunity for a small country, on the Council for a brief period, to make a difference.
When we discussed the Middle East with Department officials during a meeting about the Security Council, they told us the Council was reluctant to take particular steps as it was waiting for one of the major players and did not want to queer the pitch. In other words, the Council was waiting for the Americans to make a move. The Americans did and it made some difference, but there should be more involved than the Americans and the Council should not wait for them to make a move.
We are in some difficulties now after the Treaty of Nice referendum. The difficulties are multi-faceted as is the problem. No aspect can be isolated. The Government is now talking about setting up a forum on Europe. I am sure it will not do any harm but I do not think it will do a great deal of good. When a Government or a political party does not know what to do about a problem it usually approaches it from one of two perspectives and perhaps from both. One is to set up a forum where everybody can talk about it and the other is to spend money on the problem. Neither approach guarantees success.
I would have thought that if one wanted to bring the apparent removal and distancing of Europe down to a more democratic level we should copy what has been done in some member states, that is to have within the parliament, as we have here, a European Affairs Committee which examines in advance the draft directive and the draft regulation and expresses a view, after public debate, in a committee of the parliament before the Minister representing Ireland attends the Council meeting. One of the problems with the system as it exists is that technically Council meetings are held in private and the agenda is supposed to be a secret. That is a joke because it is not observed. It cannot be observed if European affairs committees of parliaments of member states are discussing it in public. As this is already done in a number of member states why should all member states not do so, particularly those whose people feel the EU is too removed? Much of the criticism about the way things are done is justified. Unfortunately, when the media comment on it people are divided into one of two sections, a Eurosceptic or a Europhile. Intelligent comments are ignored. Anything that is not laudatory and supportive immediately puts one in the Eurosceptic category. Serious debate on these matters is not reported. That is a great pity and the reason we do not have debate on the issue. However, when a Minister of State says something, there is a crisis and he is perhaps taken more seriously than he deserves. It is played up as if it were a hugely significant matter when the real debate tends to be ignored.
We have a problem because, even though we will be accused of being anti-democratic, I cannot see how we can avoid having another referendum. We hear much about democratic deficits. One of the greatest democratic deficits that I have seen is the fact that 18% of the electorate of one of the smallest countries in the Union can halt the progress of the Union. If we applied Parnell's dictum how would we view that? We will have to have a serious debate on it, and not at the Éamon Ó Cuív level. We will have to face up to it because it is very important.
We view Europe in very limited terms. On the 8 o'clock News on RTE this morning, the first item was "Great news for Ireland". I thought some marvellous thing had happened. The quota for beef intervention for the remainder of the year is to be increased by 100,000 tonnes and the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development said it is great. He was immediately followed by the president of the IFA who said that was not enough and that Europe would have to do better. Also, the price was not high enough.
It was 70p in the pound.
But you have sold.
That is not what Europe is about but, unfortunately, Irish commentators suggest it is. What Europe is about at this time is the fact that there are 12 states in the centre and the east of Europe, nearly all of whom were occupied and had authoritarian regimes for half a century, who have returned to the democratic process but with fragile political and economic systems that need the support and sustenance of this Union. There are also many other provisions, but that is primarily what the Nice treaty is about. I am unhappy that 18% of the electorate effectively said to the people of those 12 applicant states, "I am all right Jack, hard luck, you came too late". If we had been told that in 1971 and 1972 - we were much less vulnerable - we would have had reason for grievance. The Union exists to deal not only with the day to day economic problems but to preserve peace on this Continent and it has done so more successfully than any other institution. In supporting the primary purpose of the Union we should not get bogged down in the detail of its administration. If that aspect were more fully explained to the people - the people are not ungenerous - they would see their obligation in this respect.
The referendum was rushed through. Ireland is the only country that had to have a referendum and it was held 19 months before our ratification was required. I was unhappy that it was rushed through so quickly and I said so many times. I hope that over the next 19 months we might have a more informed debate about what really is at issue here, the fundamentals of the European Union, why it exists and in so far as the Nice treaty is concerned to examine what is in it and not spend countless hours, days and weeks debating what is not in it, such as abortion, armies, conscription and all the rubbish that is trotted out at the time of every referendum held here. There was a peculiar agenda on 7 June; it was not confined to the Nice treaty. One need only consider the extraordinary vote against the establishment of an international criminal court to try people for genocide and other crimes against humanity. What possible objection could any reasonable person have to the establishment of such a tribunal? Yet, more than one person in three of those who voted here, voted against it.
And for hanging.
The pro-hanging group——
Some 37%.
——was even greater. The most significant votes were not the small numbers cast for or against the treaty, but the vast number of votes that were not cast.
I thank members of the committee for their detailed comments on a range of aspects with which I shall try to deal as best I can in the time available. Taking into account what Deputy O'Kennedy said about the nature of the speech, the purpose of our Estimate is to get down to the nitty-gritty of expenditure and policy issues. If passion or commitment were required I would just refer to the speech I made in the House on the Nice treaty last week. I will revert to that later.
I wish to take up what the Chairman had to say first of all, to make sure there is no misunderstanding. There are outstanding issues of substance in relation to Northern Ireland on all the questions. There is no question of anyone pandering to anybody. In relation to policing, while I respect Commissioner Patten and the outstanding work done by his commission in formulating the report - and, indeed, I noted what he had to say when he attended this committee - the fact is that there are outstanding issues of substance to be resolved with the British Government between the parties, including the SDLP. People will recall the sense of disappointment on the publication of the Police Bill last year. Many who had given their unqualified support for the implementation of the Patten proposals found that in their transposition to legislation - and in other means of implementing those recommendations - there was a failure in the initial stage to recognise the transformative nature of the policing issue and how it could make a huge contribution towards the normalisation of society.
There is a need in any democratic society - and I will come back to the fact that this is an inclusive process - for the prospect of providing a police force which commands the respect and participation of all traditions in the community. That is an absolute prerequisite for normal democratic development in a way that will bring stability, prosperity and peace. While that is also a matter of history, it does not take away from the supreme sacrifice many members of the existing police force have made as a result of violence. Their families continue to pay that price.
The objective assessment of the situation by moderate Nationalist thinking in Northern Ireland is that there are still outstanding issues which have been made clear by the SDLP and others to the British Government. The British Government is continuing to consider those proposals, although I do not wish to go into them in detail here. I would make the point, however, that they are matters of substance and are solvable. The Government will make an objective assessment when the negotiations on those issues have concluded.
The Select Committee will recall that we have been discussing these matters in detail for some considerable time - since resuming in the new year. Those discussions were deferred in the interests of the British general and local elections on 7 June, and have now been resumed. Long before any public positions were made known by the First Minister in relation to his position, both Governments stated categorically that we regard the end of June as the time span within which we should try to resolve these matters. That remains our position which is independent of any suggestion by any party that an ultimatum is being put down by any particular individual which may be put forward as a reason for not discharging their responsibilities. Those responsibilities have been clearly outlined by members of this committee and I agree with them.
Both Governments are seeking to resolve these issues satisfactorily by the end of June. The fact that a further public position has been made known by the First Minister which coincides with that date is a matter of fact but it does not take from the determination of both Governments to resolve these issues, including policing. It is not just that the issues are independent or dependent, they are there on their own merits. Hopefully, the political will can be established to satisfy people in order to proceed with the necessary reforms that must take place.
As regards putting arms beyond use, I would simply refer to the fact - and I hold no brief for those who are not democratically accountable - that commitments have been entered into as far back as May 2000 that, on the basis of full implementation of the agreement, a process would be initiated whereby arms would be put beyond use in a verifiable way that would instil public confidence. That commitment should be fulfilled, and it can be, on the basis of everybody being prepared to face up to their responsibilities. While I take note of the strong views that have been put forward here, and members of the committee are entitled to do so, I am putting forward those views for the purpose of clarifying the Government's position which is to objectively assess proposals on their own merits based on the ongoing discussions.
There has been continuing progress on these areas but we need to see them resolved satisfactorily. I share with members the sense of urgency they have clearly articulated about these questions. It is clear that we need to see a resolution of these problems with the clarity and certainty that Deputy Brendan Smith and others have referred to as being necessary in the present circumstances. Let us be clear about that particular issue.
Deputy Jim O'Keeffe referred to the need to co-ordinate European policy. We have a Cabinet sub-committee on European Union affairs chaired by the Taoiseach, not my me, because we regard this matter as being so important. The sub-committee meets on a regular basis - more than once a month, and more frequently prior to Council meetings. That sub-committee provides the co-ordinating mechanism and it works very well.
It is up to every Government to decide where they wish the responsibilities of the Minister of State to be. We have greatly increased the overseas development aid budget and we regard that as an important aspect of pursuing our foreign policy objectives. Development aid programmes to provide assistance to less developed parts of the world form an intrinsic part of our foreign policy objectives. It is a priority by which we can make a major impact and play a highly respected role. Quite apart from departmental work, it reflects our past traditions, including religious and vocational commitments. We should never underestimate or devalue those matters. This Administration has given those onerous responsibilities to the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, plus the development of a human rights framework which she is doing excellently.
Quite apart from the increased volume of development aid, the Government has accepted the need for a review of Ireland Aid's policy for the purposes of ensuring that logistically and in a proper, resourceful manner we can make sure that we use these increasing funds efficiently and well. That review is currently being undertaken under the chairmanship of the Minister of State. They have made a lot of progress and will continue that work during the summer with a view to trying to resolve the future framework later this year. That important work is ongoing. It is fair that every Administration should decide where the Minister of State's priorities lie. The system is working effectively.
Regarding my responsibilities, I find no difficulty in being in attendance at General Affairs Council meetings and attending to my responsibilities with regard to Northern Ireland. Although they are onerous, they are very interesting and I find I can fulfil my duties without any serious difficulty. The committee can be assured that our representation at these Councils, and that of the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, at the Development Council, is constant at all times.
On the cross-Border dimension, we do not suggest that we cannot continue with that. We will do all we can between now and the end of next week to make sure the institutional framework continues and that everybody in it continues to work it to the full.
The Implementation Bodies are in place and clearly we will continue with those. Under the framework of the Good Friday Agreement, there are those devolved functions which are dealt with on a partnership basis at executive level. We hope that will continue and we do not foresee any other arrangement.
There have been changes in the way the Parliament deals with the reporting on European Union matters. There is now a far more developed committee system than we had when we began this process in 1972, when the only prospect of debate was the six-monthly report to the plenary session of the Dáil.
We usually debated them about four years later.
This is the point. We have gone beyond the 12-month or six-month forward position in relation to the production of those reports. There are huge interdepartmental pressures on many issues, particularly with the enlargement question and the Nice Treaty issue, but I take on board those comments which are well made. It is a matter which I will take up at the next EU Cabinet sub-committee meeting to ensure that these matters can be resolved more quickly and a debate allowed on that aspect at committee level or in plenary session. It is a point which is well made.
The Deputy also referred to the Council of Europe. As the committee will be aware, Ireland recently held the chairmanship of the Council and was well received. We have a permanent representative at ambassadorial level in attendance there. I intend, subject to Government approval, to maintain a permanent ambassadorial presence at the Council of Europe. This was not the case in the past and that is an issue which we should deal with. It is a matter which is before Government in respect of other issues.
The Deputy spoke of the need to extend the diplomatic network. The need is accepted. Certainly with the Nice treaty outcome, that comes sharply into focus again. All I can do is confirm that there are proposals before Government on this matter. There is a need to ensure we have a presence in the applicant countries and we must increase our diplomatic presence in South America, where at present we only have a mission in Argentina. The need to appoint a resident ambassador in Brazil has been mentioned and the need to look to the trade situation in Sao Paulo is another issue. The committee can be assured that this is a matter which is being taken up by the Department with our colleagues at Government. We will deal with it on a phased basis.
Deputy Michael D. Higgins asked about the number of diplomatic staff. There are 311 diplomatic staff. There are also 616 general service grades. The Deputy is probably aware of that. There are 44 officers from other Departments seconded to us and 282 locally recruited staff at missions abroad.
The 44 staff working in the development co-operation division, to whom Deputy Owen referred, relate to this Vote. There are a total of 70 staff working in that area. The remainder are paid for out of Vote 39, which the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, dealt with here on a previous occasion.
Is the Minister of State in charge of a larger number of staff than those in her section?
It comes out of this Vote but they work for her exclusively.
On the question of other departmental staff, about 33 of them would be in Brussels. They come from various Departments, the Departments of Finance, Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Enterprise, Trade and Employment and some others, and there are some others in our embassies in the US etc.
And the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development.
Yes, of course. The staff of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development are very much involved there. They are there to relay their intermittent success from time to time back home. It is a Department which is close to the Chairman's heart.
I take the point Deputy Higgins makes about the UN association. He would like to see more moneys going to that in the future.
The figure is £15,000.
That is all. He made a general point and I note his comments on it. It will be something I will take into account in the future.
He asked about the cultural relations issue also. That is a matter on which he has strong views. As he will be aware, since the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands was formed the question of formulation of policy is a matter which must be resolved between that Department and the Department of Foreign Affairs. My Department does not have a very large role in that regard. Our budget of £1 million, when compared to what is being spent by the Arts Council and other agencies, is not a large sum.
The Minister arranges the flowers and she plants the bulbs.
Any further comments should be addressed through the Chair.
I understand the Deputy was not too bad about buying a few flowers himself when he was over there. Regarding the forum on Europe debate, it is important to point out that the intention of the Government here is to set up a context in which we can have a rational objective debate. I do not wish to rerun the Nice treaty referendum issues again. We did that in the Dáil last week. We respect the outcome. However, it is a matter of great disappointment that so many people are not connected to the extent that they felt it was an issue on which they should vote. Clearly that is an issue which we must resolve.
The question of increased monitoring or scrutiny at parliamentary level is a matter of organisation rather than of substance. We have a committee system and we should use it. I welcome such debate. I have always indicated that I am more than happy to attend committee meetings where it is physically possible to do so and discuss any issue under my remit, and I think that should happen. I have issued that invitation to this and other committees on an ongoing basis. I do not have a problem with that process.
It is something we must structure and resource. The Joint Committee on European Affairs held a meeting yesterday and I have received a letter from the Chairman, who wishes to see me about the outcome of that discussion. I am more than happy to meet him and we will take it from there. That process would improve the visibility and profile of European issues and would give a greater opportunity to our parliamentarians to put their views. In many cases their views would be welcome. It is just a matter of us organising that rather than that there has been any substantive disagreement between the Executive and the parliamentary committee system about it. We should take it from there and deal with it, and put it up for discussion and decision. I do not have any problem with that.
On the social model, we insisted in the Treaty of Nice negotiations on giving the social protection committee a treaty basis. That was done and it is a credit to the Government. I know Deputy Higgins would be the last to categorise the situation or render it simplistic but it is true that we need to allow a debate to take place which is not seen to be at one extreme or the other of the political spectrum in terms of what is regarded as politically correct in European terms. Europhile or Eurosceptic are labels that mean different things to different people. We need the forum on European debate to be helpful and informative to ensure people feel they are being informed sufficiently to make a decision should it be put to them before the end of 2002.
The question of enlargement and integration are two distinct issues. We talk about enlargement under the Treaty of Nice and there are changes in the institutional structures regarding qualified majority voting, but they are issues which can be understood and argued for on purely pragmatic and sensible grounds which do not mean a forgoing of sovereignty in a way which undermines our national interest. It is far from it.
Previous treaties which were ratified established much greater parameters and remit in terms of European institutional competence than the Treaty of Nice confers. Confirmation of that is the Danish Government, which monitors this aspect closely, which did not see the need for a referendum because there was no substantive transfer of competence from the national to the institutional. That is why the Danes believed the Treaty of Nice did not require a referendum in their instance.
That is what the Crotty judgment clarified. Only where there was a transfer of competence from the sovereign member state to the institutions of Europe should the question of a referendum arise. This gives rise to the question whether we needed this referendum.
The legal advice of the Attorney General was to the effect that we needed one.
Did the Minister say the treaty or these issues would be put to the people again?
We must decide how and in what way this issue will be put to the people again. The Treaty of Nice is not up for renegotiation. Therefore, we must work out a solution to our problem within the framework of the Treaty of Nice. That does not show disrespect to the electorate. It respects the outcome of the referendum because we must do some work to see if we can resolve the problem. Those who say this is disrespectful should recognise that, if we do not do anything about it, the decision of the people will stand and we will be a block on enlargement by the end of 2002.
It is a matter of moving forward in resolving issues on the basis that we have a decision where the Treaty of Nice was rejected in a referendum. That is the position and we are trying to devise a means of resolving the blockage on enlargement that would represent were we not to do anything about it by the end of 2002 and to have a structured and rational debate about that. Not even the most vehement people in the "No" camp suggested during the campaign that they were opposed to enlargement. Therefore, they should not be opposed to this approach since we are moving forward on the basis of trying to deal with enlargement while respecting the decision of the people. I will not say any more about it than that.
I have one observation. When we refer something to the supreme authority, the people, and seek their agreement, we should at least respect their right to be informed about what they are being asked to agree to. That was a deficit in this instance. One cannot expect people to agree to something and give their supreme authority and assent without their being clear as to what they are being asked to give it to.
I agree with that and I am sure everyone else does too. The problem was——
Why did the Minister rush it?
The Deputy should let me give my view. It is obvious he does not agree with me. The problem was that the campaign did not restrict itself to the Treaty of Nice which was the issue being put to the people. I took the approach that, if people wanted to discuss other issues, I was prepared to go along with that for the purposes of explanation because to leave them unanswered would be to suggest they had a legitimacy which I did not believe the arguments merited.
The idea we could devise a campaign where the Treaty of Nice issues would be the only ones discussed is too optimistic a scenario given the way we have seen that campaign conducted. It is clear to me that, in instructing the debate in the forum on Europe, we need to take on board whatever issues people have who see something in this beyond what we know to be part of it. At the same time, we cannot ignore the fact people have concerns which we need to address. Too often things are said as if something will happen which we all know can only happen if there is political consensus on the part of the 15 member states or whatever number of states are members at the time.
If there is any evidence that this is the truth, the Treaty of Nice negotiations confirm it. A point made at the European Council, which was a fair one and which supported what the Taoiseach had to say, was that perhaps there were too many people decrying the Treaty of Nice when it was published claiming it did not go far enough. The Treaty of Nice represents the political consensus of the 15 member states at this time. It allows for enlargement to proceed. Therefore, it should be supported on that basis and not because there are some who believe it should be something else. It is what it is because it is the basis of the agreement between the parties.
The Minister must recognise there is a dimension of European problems.
Yes.
The forum must give primacy to those.
Yes, and the forum will deal with those issues as well. It is a question of making sure that, in discussing these issues, we are able to do it in a way that will not add to the confusion. We are trying to clarify the broad range of issues rather than adding to any confusion there may be already.
I have dealt with the staff issues mentioned by Deputy Owen.
Can I have a commitment from the Minister that he will deal with a point I raised about the non-marital partners of staff who go overseas?
That is an issue about which we are in discussions with the Department of Finance.
I understand it causes many difficulties and problems and it is outrageous that we should be one of the few countries in the western world which adheres to old regimes and refuses to acknowledge such situations.
The issue of arrangements for people working and living abroad is something which has been incrementally decided upon for the past 40 years. We have now come forward with a proposal to deal with all these issues comprehensively rather than isolating one specific problem and which will properly finance and resource our missions and personnel abroad, including their partners and spouses who accompany them. We are in the process of dealing with all those issues comprehensively. It would be wrong to suggest that this is the only issue. There are a number of issues.
This issue causes many problems.
I make the point in reply that, perhaps, much more progress has been made on this in recent months under the current Administration than was the case for a long time.
Under the previous Minister who failed to deal with it?
Let the Minister conclude.
No. We should try to deal with the Estimates without making that type of point.
Do not let politics get in the way.
We can let politics get in the way of policies but let us not deal with an operational matter such as this in a way that is not fair to everyone.
I am happy as long as it is being dealt with.
Regarding support for Irish emigrant groups, the allocation for 2001 will be at least the same in US and Australian dollars as last year. The provision can vary as a result of changing exchange rates, but I assure the Deputy that the grants will at least be maintained in dollar terms. There is also a need to review policy in relation to emigrant groups in general, and I am in the process of preparing a mechanism for that purpose. We will involve other Departments - it is not just a question for the Department of Foreign Affairs. We need all the social supports for emigrants, as there are people now reaching an age where help and support is required. Deputy Smith mentioned facilitating the return of emigrants. There have been some excellent schemes in operation, such as the work done by Dr. Gerry Cowley in Mayo. He and others have brought forward excellent proposals and have addressed the issue in a very practical way. We will deal with this matter in a policy framework in the coming months to update and improve services.
Deputy O'Kennedy raised a number of points. He has consistently highlighted the arms industry and I raised it at a meeting of the Council of Ministers when Eritrea was being discussed. I made the point that there were members around the table representing countries which have an interest in this issue beyond the political. That point was made on the basis of comments and sentiments expressed at this committee on a previous occasion. We will attend the conference in July and hopefully a programme will be provided for action. It is a long outstanding issue which is destabilising regions which are already very poor, particularly in Africa. The issue of natural resources funding many of the conflicts was raised on Question Time yesterday. Under our chairmanship of the Angola Sanctions Committee, for example, we are working hard to limit the access of UNITA to this type of arrangement. We will play our role on the Security Council in that regard in the way we are expected to do.
I also take on board what Deputy Brendan Smith said about the Reconciliation Fund, which is doing excellent work. The Ireland Fund and other funds already exist, and the Reconciliation Fund supports what is being done and is an opportunity for us to show we deal with things objectively in the interests of community development, regardless of the tradition from which people come. I had the privilege of making sure, for example, the Derry Apprentice Boys received funding from the Reconciliation Fund this year. Similarly, projects in loyalist east Belfast were funded. The funding is accepted as being granted on the basis of merit, and not in any attempt to proselytise or use influence in an inappropriate way. This source of funding is welcomed by many community groups which are unheralded and which are doing the day to day work of reconciliation on the ground, which is far more difficult than just making speeches about it.
Regarding the Security Council, I take on board the expectations of the committee. I also take on board that it is not just a question of us working efficiently. We are getting involved in initiatives. In the Middle East, for example, the role of Ireland on the Security Council complements the increased role the EU is playing in the Middle East. The fact that the High Representative, Javier Solana, has been appointed is a major improvement in the ability of the EU to increase its influence and visibility in this area, not just in the Middle East but also in the Balkans and Macedonia, where the EU is seen as effective and not simply as a forum for discussion at Council level. The fact there were three Europeans on the Mitchell committee which reported, and the fact that the US and the EU are in agreement that the Mitchell report is the only way forward in trying to resolve the problem in the Middle East is important.
During my time I have seen an improvement and increase in terms of EU involvement in the Middle East. As members of the Security Council we are working to deal with the issue. We have to operate under the structures of the Security Council. There are countries with veto wielding powers on the council and we have to ensure a veto is not invoked, setting back at nought the work done. The Security Council is keeping developments in the Middle East under close review. There is a strong opinion, shared by Kofi Annan and others, that we need to move on the Mitchell report now rather than having a further initiative at Security Council level which would complicate matters. Things are dangerously on edge, and we have to move quickly to the first phase after the arrangements for the ceasefire.
In discussions with the Secretary of State, Mr. Powell, and the Council of Ministers, which I attended, there is real co-operation taking place and a recognition of Europe's role in trying to broker a resolution of the Middle East problem, which was not the case under previous initiatives. This was replicated when the Heads of State met the President, Mr. Bush. I do not subscribe this recognition solely to Javier Solana, but I accord him due credit in being helpful in ensuring the EU has a person on standby in the Middle East. It is necessary for people to be physically in place in such crises, making views known and listening to others to try to resolve issues. Shimon Peres made that point when he attended the Council of Ministers meeting, as did Nabil Shaath, when they had discussions over lunch with the Council last month.
I think I have covered the issues raised. I take on board the comments which have been made. I thank the committee for its attention to the Estimate and for the questions raised by members. I reiterate that I am available to return to the committee to discuss specific policy issues in more detail.
On behalf of the select committee I thank the Minister for attending, and his officials.
I express our appreciation to the one member of the media corps who attended and who has just left. We have had a very wide-ranging debate and I would like the Clerk to write to that member and express our appreciation to him. If we are to inform the public we must ensure we get more recognition.