Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 31 May 1979

Vol. 314 No. 12

Estimates, 1979. - Vote 48: Foreign Affairs (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That a sum not exceeding £9,042,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 1st day of December, 1979, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and of certain services administered by that Office, including certain grants-in-aid.

—(Minister for Foreign Affairs).

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,

Mr. Quinn

I hope I will not be accused of misinterpreting the Estimate. I calculate that the increase in subhead F., Information Services, has been from £135,000 last year to £187,000, and this has been designed to cope with our information requirements during the term of our Presidency, a matter of about £50,000. I suggest that Fianna Fáil are spending more on their own publicity in this election campaign than the Government apparently propose to spend to provide additional information services. Earlier I referred to the Minister's statement in his speech in which he stressed the importance of having a proper information service to develop the image of this country abroad so that the position of Ireland will be highly publicised during the period of our Presidency.

There may be additional matters, additional costs, to which the Minister may wish to refer later, but now that I am becoming aware of some of the costs of modern publicity I regard this as a paltry sum. It seems to be exceptionally small in relation to the importance of the political objectives involved and the overall size of the Estimate.

I was referring earlier to the increase in the Estimate for cultural relations, subhead E. It does not seem to tally with what I perceive to be the thinking of the Minister when he spoke earlier. Though I found his 75 pages interesting, I would have been much better informed if I had been brought up to date on the exact position of requests for cultural agreements, now either in the Taoiseach's office or that of the Minister, from various countries, including some of our fellow EEC member states.

I hope the Minister will remedy that lack of information later because there is great public support for such activities, much more than politicians on all sides tend to assume. A request for such sums, properly brought by politicians before politicians, would get a much more favourable hearing than some civil servants, with all due respects to them, think about what politicians might wear. This has been my experience in Dublin Corporation and it has been more than vindicated by the public response to any expenditure made in that area. I do not think this is a party issue. It should be brought to the floor of the House. There would be more public support for it if the real costs were brought before us. Let us try it and test the reaction.

I do not wish to go into the merits or demerits of the quality of Irish dancing, but I should like to know the arrangements, if any, that have been made by the Department to have some exhibitions of Irish cultural activities held here during the six months of our Presidency. Many visitors will be coming here between June and December. Do the Department have a programme? For instance, if we have visitors can they be told that such an activity will be on here, and so on? The House should be informed in this respect. The Arts Council and the local authorities in Dublin and elsewhere in the country should help to try to achieve the objective set out by the Minister to present a favourable image of the country.

I am worried about the amount of money proposed to be allocated to achieve these objectives. Perhaps this would be the tip of the iceberg of a complicated and complex system of accounts and maybe the Minister in his reply will be in a position to point out that certain other items would be used to the effect but would not necessarily appear in the form that they are here. I would welcome that clarification and I will be in the House to hear it if I get a reasonable opportunity and notice from the Whips.

I want to move now to the general run and review of international affairs to which the Minister referred. The Minister and I have a common and shared view on a lot of international issues and I find most of his assessment of international positions compatible with mine. Most of the positions which he advocated on behalf of the Government are acceptable politically to my party in matters such as apartheid, Southern Africa generally and the Middle East position. In so far as a country can develop a tripartite approach to international matters, that strengthens the voice of whoever happens to be the Minister of the day in dealing with other nations. That voice is strengthened all the more when people realise that the Minister comes from a democracy which it is to be hoped, is responsible and healthy and which will be changing its Minister frequently, in other words at the next general election.

I may have been cynical earlier about the length of the Minister's speech, but I am glad that he has covered a broad field. In many of the areas on which I am not expert and therefore can have only a limited opinion we would find ourselves not in disagreement. On behalf of the Labour Party, and I am speaking personally, I am not sure that I would share Deputy Ryan's attitude to the internal settlement of Southern Africa and to Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, but these matters will take time to develop. The attitude of this House to such matters is no longer a mere debating point because daily our diplomats and our Ministers are being asked to formulate a common position with eight other member states in the EEC. As the Minister pointed out in his speech, his role as President of the Council will also involve him in coordinating the political European co-operation which is a much more informal alliance than one which does not have the sort of back-up resources that the EEC, Berlin and Brussels generally provide. Therefore, it is useful and important that attitudes to foreign affairs, which may have been somewhat academic four or five years ago prior to the EEC, be now expressed in this House. In whatever way the Labour Party, as distinct from representatives in this House, can be of help to the Department of Foreign Affairs in the next six months, we will be very happy to do so.

I move now to the question of development co-operation. When in Opposition the Minister supported a common approach to advancing Ireland's contribution to the UN objective of the target of GNP. He has also been a positive supporter in Opposition of our bilateral aid programme which was created and developed by the last Government. That bilateral aid programme was long overdue and was not so much a credit to the last Government as a shame to this House that had not demanded such a programme for many years previously. We tended to rest on the laurels of the great spiritual empire, as we used to describe it, of the missionary efforts of various members of the Irish community overseas. The Minister admitted that his speech was a long one. Perhaps there was not enough time, but I find it somewhat disturbing that this House was given less information today about the new advisory council which at last has now been agreed, than the AGM of APSO was given last evening if my information is correct. I am aware from the AGM of APSO that the council will have up to 30 members, that it will be used as a forum as described in its terms of reference and will be represented at the various functions. Why was this House not given the same degree of information as were APSO, who were perfectly entitled to it as they are the central agency? The Minister stated that an advisory council had been established and then he went on to say:

Likewise, the Council will have a major role in helping to co-ordinate the activities of the many bodies involved in development, thus ensuring maximum understanding and co-operation in this important area of national policy.

I would expect and understand such vagueness—and I am not being antagonistic when I use the word "vague"—if this council was set up fairly quickly but, as the Minister knows, I probably more than anybody else in this House, asked consistently when the council would be established. The option was on the Minister's desk when he became Minister nearly two years ago and only now are we being told of the formation. I would have hoped that we would have got more information about the advisory council in an introductory speech on the Estimates and that we would have got some indication of the kind of representation that would be on it. I request the Minister respectfully to give in his reply a full and frank explanation of how he and the Department see the role of the advisory council. My understanding is that a number of the agencies in this area want some clarification on it.

We can get obsessions about institutions and councils and the way they are going to relate to one another. They tend to become a substitute for the primary concern which is the bilateral aid programme itself. I do not wish to labour the matter about the council or to let them become an issue in themselves. They should be set up, given adequate funds and their own secretariat and told to get on with the job. This House must get back to the basics of the size and shape of the bilateral aid programme and the priorities within it and let the professionals and the volunteers get on with the job of implementing them. I do not want to attempt to play politics on that issue.

Mr. O'Kennedy

For clarification, I thought the Deputy might have been aware that the statement I made when the council was being established on 30 April went into much greater detail than I did today, indicating many of the matters to which he has now referred. That statement was issued through the Government Information Service. We are in consultation with the organisations involved at this stage.

Mr. Quinn

My comments were made in that spirit. I did not see a copy of the GIS statement.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I will let the Deputy have it now if he wishes.

Mr. Quinn

Thank you. I welcome in the sum for international co-operation the item about education at home. That side of the bilateral aid programme is very important. It could very easily be misinterpreted because it falls close to the accusations that some aid programmes devour too much money in administrative costs and that some aid programmes advertise themselves on the basis that 100 per cent of the money given is given to the people who need it. That would make sense if we were talking about a charitable organisation and charitable donations, but a bilateral development co-operation programme is not charity. It is a conscious step towards achieving some form of new international economic order, which has been demanded by the group of 77 among others and to which the Socialist International feel particularly committed for the reasons Deputy R. Ryan referred to earlier. We ignore the absence of a consciously created international economic order at our peril. The necessity to educate our people about the importance of development co-operation is in many respects as important as it is to get an effective programme on the ground in the five states we have selected for special action.

I wonder if the sum involved is enough. I know that the Department of Foreign Affairs have appointed a Secretariat to handle this side, but I wonder what integration will take place between that Secretariat, the Department of Education, the RTE Authority and the rest of it. How will we get over this question of the legitimate campaign of organisations such as Trocaire, on the one hand, and the necessity to convince people of the interdependence of economic development in the north-south dialogue contest? This is a big problem, because in essence what we are trying to do at the end of the day is to explain why leather workers in Gorey because of a changed economic pattern must lose their jobs in an industry that they thought was indefinitely secure. That is not an easy task and it is not made easier in times of economic difficulties which are now facing us and the difficulty is undoubtedly compounded four days before an election. However, these are temporary short-term difficulties which should not deflect us from what will be the reality for most of the people in society.

In the year 2000, which is closer to us than the year 1950, I will be 54 and will have to live in a world that will have been totally transformed from the world we are now in. If we do not consciously set up some form of humane international economic order as required and demanded by the late President of Nigeria, the alternatives will be unacceptable to all of us. I would like to see both the advisory council and the development education component of our overall bilateral aid programme moving away from the concept of charity and guilt associated with the former colonial past, which in reality became cleverly entwined with a form of neo-colonialist exploitation, to the use of this money as the contribution of a small neutral republic tangibly attempting to redress the balance between north and south. It is easy to enunciate that as a principle but it is totally different to make it begin to happen on the ground. I appreciate that and the difficulties of Iveagh House in attempting to provide staff, on a permanent basis, in full-time development co-operation offices in the countries where we should have them.

In the Estimate speech last year we talked about the question of the embassy representation in Nairobi and all of that. In relation to the DFA, the new role for the DFA evolved because of the changed relationships we have with the rest of the world and the changed attitude of all three political parties to foreign affairs. We support the development of this, because in the final analysis it is also in our own interests.

I am not adequately briefed to refer to other areas which I would like to refer to, but I will have another opportunity to refer to, for instance, the whole question of the role of our contribution to the fifth EDF and the way in which the EDF works. As this is to be signed in the Sudan we will have to get used to calling it EDF.

Mr. O'Kennedy

That is not quite final yet.

Mr. Quinn

In relation to my concern about bureaucratic delays in spending the money, I compliment the Minister on the way he moved sideways, money that was not picked up under one heading last year and used it in the co-financing. That was a useful exercise that should be supported.

We will have another opportunity to discuss this. I will need more time to go into it because it is a complex area. When the final conditions of the EDF are seen and the relationship of the 77 nations comes back to the EEC, then we can look at it in a different light. We can look at it in a proper discussion of the eleventh and twelfth reports which the House will have to discuss.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

In case there is some mistake, we are dealing with the eleventh and twelfth reports with this Estimate.

Mr. Quinn

I understand from my Whip that we were just noting them today.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

They are being disposed of today with the Estimate.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I can assure the Deputy that we will have a report fairly soon and we will have a chance to discuss it.

Mr. Quinn

In relation to the bilateral aid programme, what is absent in this speech, although it may be elsewhere, is a breakdown of the priorities for that programme in terms distinct from the contribution of personal services. It is easy for us to simply step in and provide professionals or to subsidise personnel rather than subsidise specific projects or materials. I would be interested to know how the Minister would see the bilateral aid programme taking off over a number of years. It is right that we have concentrated on a couple of countries. It would be very useful if the House were given a good up-to-date report on how the bilateral aid programme is working in Tanzania or in Zambia. We tend to vote the money and we do not get a lot of feedback. This is the one area that we cannot measure ourselves. Any other moneys spent in this House tend to be measurable by direct experience of the Deputies in the House. Bilateral aid, of its very essence, cannot be subjected to the same sort of test. So it should be reported back to us in whatever form is appropriate. The more we see of what is being done the more support there will be in that area.

I want to move from that side of it, not so much to the aid programme but to the question of the activities of the semi-State sector overseas. In the last debate on this Estimate Deputy Woods spoke at length and raised the question of the role of the State sector and its involvement in overseas commercial activities. That was on 31 May last year. I will not take up the time of the House quoting it. But, in essence, he talked about setting some proper framework within which the State sector would operate, and was moving very close to the idea of some sort of guidelines. I have raised this matter with the Minister before. Without cutting off our commercial nose, without endangering the obvious commercial activities in which the State sector must engage—because as Deputy Ryan said earlier we should get the highest possible price for our products and services overseas—the State sector is not and cannot be treated the same as a privately-owned company.

As far as the Labour Party are concerned, we do not treat it the same; it is an organisation established by the people through the agencies of the State for very definite reasons. It is not a form of State capitalism; it is not something that is given free rein. Therefore, it is subject to the same sort of constraints as a local authority or the State itself. Lest I be mistaken in this area, what I am talking about is complex, difficult to define, and certainly there is no instant panacea, because one could very quickly draw up a list of countries from which the State sector was excluded which would more or less close the door to any overseas activity. That is not the point nor is it the intention. The Minister has at all times simply stated—if I am paraphrasing him correctly—that if the United Nations have not come out with a specific sanction against relationships with a particular country, he and the Government are not prepared to give directions to the State sector vis-à-vis such a country.

Mr. O'Kennedy

The Deputy has said he is paraphrasing. I know he is doing it in good faith but that is not the full story. If I might just refer the Deputy to the attitude of the APC States in relation to the attitude, as they perceive it, of the Community on human rights, then he will begin to see how complex is the issue.

Mr. Quinn

Fair enough. But the APC countries are making a claim for a greater share of the cake on the grounds of morality because the division between wealth in the north—south line is unethical and unacceptable. But if one introduces moral arguments one way, they go across the line the other way. Part of the Trócaire seminar back in January this year was getting very close to that kind of thing. I do not think the APC States have the right to simply say: We want far more of what you have got and you have absolutely no right at all to tell us what we do at home.

Reverting to the State sector, suppose a particular State company that wanted to make money, came out aggressively looking for money and was given a clear mandate to do so, came back to this country with a contract six or seven months ago to undertake the rural electrification system in Uganda, or to get the aeroplanes into the air so that their former president could have a more efficient service, I suggest that would provoke serious question and comment in this country.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I would hope so.

Mr. Quinn

That is an extreme example. But there should be some guidelines. I have asked Aer Lingus and the answer given by their chief executive—and I feel happy to quote it because it was a presentation made to Deputies and Senators of these Houses—was that while they had continuous contact with the Department of Foreign Affairs, there was no formal framework as such. I believe there should be. I recognise also that the drawing up of such a framework is not an easy matter. But these companies belong to us and there should be some framework set up within which they operate. There are at least a number of countries in which one could query their involvement.

At the end of the day one must balance that kind of attitude with the commercial realities of the world. I recognise that but I do think there is a need for it. One of the Minister's own colleagues referred to it. It is a view that I and the party have held for some time. I should like to see some work done on it. I presume DEVCO would have some role to play in that through the advisory council—and do not forget that at all times I am talking about activities totally outside the bilateral aid programme. But if the bilateral aid programme has the objective that I and my party believe it should have, the positive activities undertaken by a bilateral aid project in one country could be seriously undermined by the commercial activities undertaken by a semi-State company in an adjoining country. This is new territory for all of us in this country. We should endeavour to foresee some of the difficulties or even attempt to minimise them.

I want to revert now to the point the Minister made before Question Time, a point that struck me at the time, about his attitude to the Parliament and about Ireland's attitude generally. As the Minister who will be president of the Council when the directly-elected Parliament takes office, more than anybody else, he will be in a position to set the tone of the relationship of the Council of Ministers on the opinions voiced by that Parliament. What disturbs me—I am not now wishing to be partisan and party political, but we are at an election time—is the statement attributed to the Fianna Fáil Party on page 9 of Hibernia of 31 May 1979 under an advertisement headed “There are four real issues in this election”, the second issue reading

The Socialists. The Irish Labour Party's Group in Europe have continuously sought to destroy the Common Agriculture Policy which has benefited not only Irish agriculture but our villages, towns and cities as well. Our economy could not withstand the destruction of the CAP.

This is the Dáil, and that is a party political broadcast; all right.

The Minister said in his speech this morning:

The Government are fully committed to resisting any tinkering with the essential principles of the CAP and are convinced that this is in the interests not only of the country but of the process of European Economic integration.

While I recognise that resources in Mount Street are fairly limited, they do have two full-time officials in the EPD, in the European Parliament; they have direct and ready access to the common appeal published by members of the Confederation of Socialist Parties. What they actually stated in Brussels in January, what was actually published in the appeal is as follows, and I quote now from the Labour Party document entitled "Ireland and the European Community"—the Labour Party European Elections 1979, Policy Statements, paragraph 16 of the appendix:

The Common Agricultural Policy must be adapted so as to achieve a better balance between production and consumption, more stable prices and an equitable development of agricultural incomes through greater efficiency and better structural policies. The consumer interest must be taken fully into account in the evolution of the CAP.

That is what the Socialist Group—the biggest group with which the Minister will have a relationship after he becomes President of the Council of Ministers —actually stated. I suggest that that is not a tinkering with the essential principles of the CAP, which was a stabilisation of prices. It is certainly not a policy which would continuously seek to destroy the CAP. The second item is a political lie. The Minister should read the document: what the Labour Party have said continuously, what the French Socialist Party have said and what the SPD, the Belgians and the Italians have said in relation to the CAP. We have at the moment in the House a candidate whose name is on the same page as the quotation I have given.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I said earlier today that we should not start, and I sincerely hope we do not, to debate the election campaign in this debate.

Mr. Deasy

It is the last chance.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It may be the last chance but I do not want it taken at this stage.

Mr. O'Kennedy

The Deputy will note that I resisted the temptation in the course of my address.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This may be very tempting but I would rather that it was resisted. The CAP is all right so long as we do not get into policy documents and all the rest of it on the election.

Mr. Quinn

We are talking about an Estimate for Foreign Affairs and what will be the major event for that Department, the Presidency. We will have a directly-elected Parliament, people elected on various policy positions. We will also have the Minister's commitment to such things as an increase in the size of the Regional Fund which will be immensely strengthened by his relationship during the Presidency to the directly-elected Parliament. I am concerned about the opportunities the Minister will have as President. Those will be totally destroyed if what I have referred to is the level of Fianna Fáil's perception of the political groups in the European Parliament. I say that with due respect to Deputy de Valera.

My concern about this matter is not as a member of the smallest party in this House but as a participant of what will be the largest group in the European Parliament, a group which was able in the final analysis to deliver the votes to Senator Yeats in his bid for the Presidency of the Parliament. This level of misrepresentation is not in the interests of Ireland. The Minister and the Government have quite clearly stated in paragraph 68 that they are committed to the essential principles of the CAP. The Socialist Group are also committed to it and always have been. The author of the CAP is now a Senator in the French Parliament and a member of the European Parliament. He was a former Agriculture Minister in the Gaullist administration in the early sixties.

This side of the House know the origin of the CAP and the way it has evolved. It took a long time to evolve it. Provided the essential principles are retained it is always open to adaptation, reinterpretation and relationship to new changes. It was, by definition, changed when the first enlargement took place and will change in some shape or form when the second enlargement occurs. I am concerned about the position the Minister will now have by being President in the next six months. He has a potential to use that position to win the support of the European Parliament to increase the Regional Fund and the Social Fund in a way that he has, regretfully, been unable to do within the Council of Ministers. As Deputy Richie Ryan indicated, the support for the Minister which will come from the Parliament will be endangered by that kind of nonsensical attack we have had. The short-term party political requirements of a party under siege at the moment has, as publicised in that document allegedly in the interests of Ireland, will do more harm to the real interests of Ireland than anything else.

Senator Yeats did not refuse the votes of the Socialist Group when he was running for the Presidency of the European Parliament. The members of the European Parliament have at all times recognised the position of Ireland and the contribution of Irish members. The quality of the 15 southern Irish members who will be elected next Thursday and of the three Northern Ireland members who will be elected on the same day will continue to enhance the European Parliament. The influence this party have had within the Socialist Group has been totally disproportionate to our numerical size at party level and at public representative level.

We have an opportunity of changing the actual influence of the directly-elected Parliament with the Council of Ministers by virtue of the Minister's Presidency. While the political lie I have referred to may in the short term copper-fasten the votes of the majority party in this country it will in the long term do more harm to this country.

The Minister's contribution was a long one and covered a very wide range. It has informed the House on the Government's attitude over a large range of issues. He emphasised the relationship the Government will now have with the new Tory Government in Britain. I am sure they will find the Tory Government very accommodating. We sincerely wish that, when the new Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has become properly acquainted with the situation, a positive framework will emerge in the North of Ireland along the lines of the policy we have identified in the past and put forward, which our leader, Deputy Frank Cluskey, enunciated yet again in Killarney. We share the Government's commitment to making the EEC institutions work, to make the EEC become something more than what it was originally created for. We feel, because we opposed entry in 1972 on the grounds that it would not work as well as it was projected and because our projections were right in relation to such things as the Regional Fund, the Social Fund and industrial jobs, more qualified to criticise the EEC. But that criticism is completely from within and completely committed, unlike our counterparts in the British Labour Party, to reforming and changing the thinking from within rather than sniping from the outside and having a dog-in-the-manger attitude to it.

The Minister and his officials have a hard task ahead of them in the next six months. I hope this Estimate will raise the necessary resources and that the questions I have raised and the criticisms I have made will be seen to have been made not only by a political opponent but by someone who shares with the Minister very similar objectives for the role of foreign affairs in our society.

Síle de Valera

In support of this Estimate I want to talk about two specific elements which were raised this evening—one on the North and the other the implications for Ireland of the direct elections to the European Parliament. I will not be able to resist making some comment about Deputy Quinn's remarks about the position of the Labour Party in the Socialist grouping in the European Parliament.

The Minister referred to the new British Prime Minister and said that she had asked for time to consider the position on the North. I wonder if this is an excuse to hold off making any final decision, or is it an excuse to do nothing policy, or is it even an excuse to maintain the status quo? These questions immediately come to mind when I hear of her asking for time to consider the position on the North. If this is an excuse to maintain the status quo there is a real danger because the British Prime Minister's colleague, Mr. Airey Neave, shortly before his death, said that Britain's main interest in the North was that it was a military base. That was the reason why Britain was interested in holding on to the Six Counties. Here again we see the selfish British interests with regard to the Six Counties.

There has been talk about a devolved Government. I believe if that came about it would be nothing more than a back door to restore Stormont. At this stage I would like to see active goodwill by the British Government, indeed a commitment, not just a showing of goodwill, to an ordered and phased withdrawal by the British military forces and a positive declaration of their interest in and their commitment to Irish unity. That is what I hope to see. If this is not done, what will be the position in the next 20 years? I believe the agony will still be prolonged or, it might even be worse than it is at present.

Much reference has been made over the past few years to such terms as "majority" and "minority" within the Six Counties. We must remember that we are talking about the Irish people as a whole and the majority of the Irish people look for an independent Thirty-two county republic. Therefore, it is inaccurate, indeed untrue, to talk about a situation of a minority or a majority within a region, namely the Six Counties.

The Minister referred to Mr. Humphrey Atkins and his statement on the legitimacy of a number of political aspirations. I would like to see the British Secretary explain what he means by "political aspirations". Would it be to restore Stormont? Perhaps it would be a much more positive step, even recognising the wrongs of Partition and bringing about a situation and assisting reunification? May I suggest that the Minister press the British Secretary and the British Government to clarify and expand their attitudes and intentions towards a just solution to Partition? Anything else would be a sell out because when considering a solution we must consider the wishes, the aspirations and beliefs of the majority of the Irish people.

The Minister mentioned the RUC and H Block. How could any section of society, whether a majority or a minority, hold allegiance to a force which has a reputation of brutality and ill-treatment or to a State whose prisoners, in a prison like H Block, were ill-treated? This is one sure way of alienating any one section of a community.

I come now to another very important facet, and this is of worldwide publicity with regard to the question of the North. We are under a grave obligation to put our case to all nations, and in particular to the United States of America, that great democracy of the west. We all know the great help and support the USA has given Ireland throughout our history. It is vital that we counter malicious propaganda which has been so skilfully perpetrated by the British news media, that we put the truth of the situation across at every given opportunity and establish that what the majority of the Irish people are looking for is an independent thirty-two county republic.

This leads me to Ireland's forthcoming Presidency. We will have a wonderful opportunity because both the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs will be in positions of power. They will hold those positions for the next six months and will be able to put our case not just to members of the Nine but to the world at large.

I would like to say something about the direct elections and their implications for Ireland. These are the first direct elections of their kind. They are historic elections. It was necessary that such elections should come about because as a result of these elections the European Parliament will be a much more democratic body and will gain in influence. The Minister referred to the greater influence this Parliament would have because from now on it would have to be consulted much more simply because it had a direct mandate.

It is also of vital importance that we maintain the balance between the European institutions and the national Parliaments. When we talk about the powers of the European Parliament we will have to be very careful where we thread. If one looks for the extension of the powers of the European Parliament, the legislative power will have to come from somewhere else. Where will it come from? It will have to come either from the Oireachtas or from the Council of Ministers. This issue has arisen over the past few weeks because there happens to be an election in the air, but that is not the only reason. There is a much more sinister reason. If you analyse the situation you will find that those who are pushing for greater powers for the European Parliament are in opposition in their national Parliaments. These people might believe this is a backdoor to power. Because they are not in power at home they are not in a position of power in the Council of Ministers. They hope for a change to get this power.

This question has come up a great deal in the past few weeks and will probably continue to crop up in the next few days. For any change to come about with regard to the powers of the European Parliament it would need the support not just from Ireland but from the other eight member states and I believe that support is not forthcoming.

The function of those elected to the European Parliament will be to act as watch dogs for the people who elect them, to be able to channel back information about what is going on in Europe and to create a link between the national Parliament and the European Parliament. This link unfortunately has not been created to date but I feel that after the direct elections this should change.

In regard to the regional policy, Brussels looks on Ireland as one clearly defined area. Here again there will be a chance for the 18 members who will represent Ireland to work together for the good of Ireland not only on the regional policy—because we have very similar problems as is natural in one unit and one country—but I would hope it would not stop there and that full co-operation would begin to evolve on other matters.

Deputy Quinn spoke of the Labour Party and its influence in the European Parliament, but one must be realistic. It is all very well to say that the socialist grouping is a very powerful one since it has a very large number in the European Parliament, but when one realises that the Irish Labour Party represents only about 1 per cent within that grouping we can see how ineffective the say the Labour Party have.

Mr. Quinn

I fear that the Deputy is not informed yet.

Síle de Valera

We are well aware that the party to which I belong and the alliance of the Danish Progress Party and the RPR within Europe are pushing most strongly the Common Agricultural Policy. This is one of the links binding us together as an alliance. At all times we have pressed this and I can assure the House that pressure will certainly be continued. To Deputy Quinn all I can say is: if the cap fits wear it.

Mr. Quinn

Are we to take it that the Deputy stands over the position as stated in Hibernia?

Síle de Valera

I have not read Hibernia and I do not look on it with any——

Mr. Quinn

It is your own advertisement.

Síle de Valera

I have not seen it.

Mr. Quinn

They do not even show you the political advertisements.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We cannot have a battle across the floor of the House. Deputies should address the Chair.

Mr. Quinn

Through the Chair, may I ask Deputy de Valera did she see this Fianna Fáil——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It would not be in order to ask that question. Deputy de Valera without interruption, please.

Síle de Valera

I must stress that the grouping to which the Irish Labour Party have allied themselves in the European Parliament is one which holds multinational interests and cannot therefore have the Irish interest to the forefront. That is why we have allied ourselves with the RPR and the Danish Progress Party because, while we are a small grouping, by that very fact we are a cohesive and unified one. If one looks at the initiatives——

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Quinn has already had one-and-a-half hours. Let us have Deputy de Valera without interruption, please.

Síle de Valera

If one looks at the initiatives, the amendments and the questions and the debates, one will find that they have taken part in those. Perhaps up to three-quarters of the time spent in debating has been taken up by Fianna Fáil Members in the European Parliament. That shows their interest and commitment——

Mr. Quinn

In the plenary sessions but not in committees.

Síle de Valera

——not only to the parties to which they belong but to Europe as a whole. As we have seen, Deputy Quinn does not want to accept the policies or perhaps the outcome of the policies of the group to which he or his party belongs within Europe. But I think it is about time, especially when coming up to the election, that they should face reality.

I have stressed only two points in the Minister's Estimate, the position in the North and the implications of direct elections. In conclusion, it is my ardent hope that the Minister, the Taoiseach and the Government will find themselves making steady progress with the British Government towards bringing about a solution to the Irish question, namely to achieve a 32-county republic.

Mr. Deasy

I welcome the opportunity of taking part in this debate. I pointed out to the Minister last year that I felt it was rather inconsistent to be referring at length to Northern Ireland under the aegis of the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I think his Department and Ministry should be renamed and possibly referred to as the Ministry for Internal and External Affairs or Ministry for Foreign Affairs and Northern Ireland. It is inconsistent to speak at length on Northern Ireland under the heading of "Foreign Affairs".

However, I concur with most of what the Minister said on the Northern Ireland issue. We welcome the fact that there is a strong and, we hope, stable Government in Britain and that as a result the lack of political will so evident under the previous Government will be replaced by some political initiatives shortly. I would not feel as uncharitable as Deputy de Valera, who made some rather scathing remarks about the new Minister of State for Northern Ireland, Mr. Atkins, and the British Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher. It is only fair to give them an opportunity to formulate a policy and put it into operation. It is far too soon to criticise them and we may lose their goodwill by being premature and expecting miracles overnight. We look forward to an early statement and formulation of policy.

In reference to Northern Ireland I wish to raise a point already mentioned at Question Time and never satisfactorily answered by the Minister—at least in my presence. If possible, I should like the Minister to state the extent of our jurisdiction in regard to the waters around the Six-County coastline. That specific question was asked recently by Deputy Blaney and he did not get a direct answer to it.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I stated very specifically the extent of our jurisdiction with reference to median lines and everything else. That is the only basis on which it can be defined.

Mr. Deasy

The question referred specifically to Carlingford Lough and Lough Foyle.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I stated the extent of our jurisdiction but if the Deputy wants clarification——

Mr. Deasy

I would like clarification. It did not come across——

Mr. O'Kennedy

Perhaps the Deputy did not have the data with him to enable him to perceive exactly the details. One does not say two or three miles off the coast; one must be able to indicate precisely where it is.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister will deal with those matters in his reply.

Mr. Deasy

I would appreciate it if the Minister would clarify that matter. We are probably the envy of most nations of the world in that we are entirely neutral, in that we have a democracy——

Mr. Quinn

They do not envy us now—no oil or petrol.

Mr. Deasy

Most countries are either under a dictatorship or are bound to major states by means of military alliances. Ireland is rather unique in being entirely neutral and independent and free from any such tie. As a result we are in a position to speak our minds freely and openly on matters of world concern. But we do not use our privileged position in a proper manner. We should speak more openly and more often. We seem to be afraid of our shadow when it comes to referring to injustices on an international scale. We should come to the defence of some of the underprivileged and crucified small nations and the minorities within certain countries who are enduring persecution. We have opted out recently in regard to the executions in Iran. I know we are under an obligation to Iran in that they supply about 14 per cent of our oil requirements, but we have a duty to object to the cruel and vindictive regime inflicting such hardship on former politicians and civil servants. We were quick to protest to the Government of Pakistan in regard to the death sentence on the former President, Mr. Bhutto, but we seem to hide behind the EEC banner and say we are making protests in private instead of publicly condemning acts being carried out against supporters of the former Government in Iran.

We might have taken some initiative in regard to Southern Rhodesia. The Minister speaks of this situation in terms which he might just as readily have used one or two years ago. The situation there has changed dramatically during the past three months and we should recognise that fact. The Minister in his reply might state whether he has any new thinking on the matter. We have received reports of the recent elections and the handing over of power from the white minority to the black majority under the premiership of Bishop Muzorewa. We have a certain duty to give the incoming Government a chance.

Mr. O'Kennedy

The Deputy has referred to reports which have been received. Does he mean that he has received them?

Mr. Deasy

I refer to reports which have been carried by the media. The official Government approach does not seem to have changed. If it is true that 65 per cent of the population in Southern Rhodesia voted overwhelmingly in favour of the new regime, then we should recognise this fact. If the new system is working, why not support it? If the figures published are not correct, I should like an explanation from the Minister of the situation as he sees it. This matter has implications not just for Southern Rhodesia. This type of changeover could be adopted in other areas, such as South Africa, where there is a domineering white minority who have no intention whatsoever of surrendering power to the black majority. If the present arrangements work in Southern Rhodesia we should recognise that fact and press for a similar transition from white minority to black majority Government in South Africa. I should like to hear the Minister's views on this subject.

Greece is to become the tenth member of the EEC, although full membership will not be formally granted until January 1981. Spain and Portugal are now negotiating to join the Community. While the Regional Fund seems to be shrinking and there appears to be a lack of commitment on the part of the wealthier members to enlarge that fund, it does not seem to make good sense to invite countries to join the Community whose regions are greatly underprivileged. Many of the areas within these three countries would qualify for assistance from the Regional Fund and their combined population approaches 100,000,000. The entry of these three countries to the Community must militate against our getting an increased share of the Regional Fund. Perhaps there is a rational explanation as to why we should back the entry of these three countries. It defies me at present because we seem to be cutting our own throats. Aid is not being increased for the existing underprivileged areas within the Community.

I have repeatedly put down questions to the Minister in recent months regarding claims on territory around our coasts. The Minister has made reasonable attempts to answer these questions. Because of our present energy and economic difficulties, these claims should be pressed with a great deal of urgency. We must make every possible effort to find fuel, especially oil, off our shores as soon as possible. It is not very wise to have protracted disputes with Britain regarding who owns territory off our coasts. Such disputes should be settled as quickly as possible so that exploratory work can be carried on in an attempt to find mineral wealth and oil. I specifically refer to the area off the south-east coast. The Minister said in reply to a recent parliamentary question that he was making arrangements with his British counterpart to have a tribunal set up to delineate the exact areas involved for both countries. I have also asked why there has not been a decision on who owns the territory around Rockall. The Minister said he was seeking a third party to mediate in the dispute. These areas are likely to be rich in oil and it is in our interests that these disputes should be settled sooner rather than later.

I have never been very happy with the UN resolution passed in 1970 regarding the deep sea bed. That resolution stated that the areas outside our jurisdiction are there for the good of all mankind. It has emanated from more recent sessions of the Law of the Sea Conference that the landlocked countries are endeavouring to divide up these areas among themselves. We would be selfish if we claimed these territories, but we have a right as a nation to fight for them. I feel sure that the great powers, Russia, the US and China, will not settle for 150 or 250 miles.

In reply to questions recently, the Minister said we are seeking jurisdiction over the outer limit of the Continental Shelf. That is a reasonable claim, but will the major states be satisfied with similar claims? I suspect that in the case of the Arctic or the White Sea, Russia will be looking for 500 miles or 1,000 miles, or the whole lot. Therefore I advise the Minister to hold his fire, not to give any concessions on this point until he knows the attitudes of the major powers. We would be foolish to give away millions of square miles in mid-Atlantic and then find the major powers refusing to give similar concessions to the landlocked countries. If we do so our posterity will never forgive us for having made such a monumental mistake.

I am surprised at the lack of public concern here in regard to this matter because these sea areas comprise a much greater area than the entire land mass of Ireland. With improvements in technology and exploration facilities, the seabed in these territories could be far richer in terms of oils and minerals than the same areas of land. I hope the Minister will not sign away any of these rights at the Law of the Sea Conference until he has seen the overall position.

In our search for oil I should like the Minister to tell us of the diplomatic approaches he is making abroad, particularly to countries which have not previously supplied us. There have been reports about close relations with the Nigerian Government. Have such new links been used to try to find fresh sources of oil supply? Finland and China have been mentioned, but what about Venezuela, which is very rich in these resources, and Peru, which probably has greater resources than its home needs?

Mr. O'Kennedy

The Deputy mentioned Finland. In case he might be too influenced by what Deputy Kelly said, I was not looking for oil in Finland.

Mr. Deasy

I was referring to a report that came back.

Mr. Quinn

It was Deputy Lenihan, in his usual optimistic form.

Mr. O'Kennedy

If initiatives of this sort had been taken a couple of years ago we would not now be in the position we are enduring.

Mr. Deasy

I have been asking the Minister if diplomatic moves are being made in this direction.

Mr. O'Kennedy

Very considerable moves have been made but I will refer to them when I am replying.

Mr. Deasy

I was disappointed that the Minister did not suggest grant-aid to Irish emigrants in Britain. He may remember that six months ago I asked on the Adjournment that an attempt be made to give aid to Irish centres in Britain which cater particularly for young emigrants. This has become increasingly important since our rate of emigration began to rise again. Young people of 15 and 16 years of age have been emigrating and they have no place to go, no jobs. They are liable to fall into the wrong hands. The centres in Britain have done tremendous work.

Debate adjourned.