Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 4 Jul 1985

Vol. 360 No. 3

Estimates, 1985. - Vote 44: Foreign Affairs (Revised Estimate) (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That a sum not exceeding £21,577,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1985, 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.)

Mr. G. Collins

I cannot share the Minister's delight with the results of our period of the Presidency in that the real results have not measured up to expectation. It is with regret that the saga of the super-levy was a diplomatic fiasco beginning with the Taoiseach's total misreading of the situation in Stuttgart and ending with the Minister for Agriculture's inexcusable and unbelievable muddle over figures. Those involved in the dairy industry are reeling from the effects of the super-levy and many of them face ruin having regard to the limits on milk production imposed on them and the heavy investment which they made in an effort to achieve full development of their operations.

Our Presidency ended with a resolution of the wine lake problem which did not advance one single Irish interest. The Dooge report contained a number of veiled threats to Irish interests but few positive features. Ireland did not put forward any proposals for the intergovernmental conference. In this morning's Financial Times there is an article which underlines the thinking put forward in our contribution to the debate on the Dooge report last week. The article states:

If Europe has reached a dead end after the failure of the Milan summit, it is only because the Common Market took a wrong turning more than 10 years ago.... The Community chose to concentrate on extending the Common Market in geographical magnitude, and, cautiously, in the coverage of macro-economic policies which were being harmonised. In the process it neglected efforts to unify around the most essential function of a modern sovereign state-macro-economic policy....

The key difference between America and Europe is that expansionary macro-economic policies applied to a huge continental economy with a single currency, do not produce balance of payments problems nearly as quickly as they would in small independent countries.... It is because of Europe's macro-economic fragmentation that sensible reflationary policies to deal with unemployment appear impossibly risky for any individual government....

People resent the Eurocrats because they intrude in everyday life; yet when it comes to great political challenges like unemployment, inflation or arms control, Brussels seems impotent and irrelevant. A Euro-initiative on unemployment or nuclear disarmament would probably command much more public support than a programme to harmonise insurance regulations.

I agree with that. One of the biggest failures of the Dooge report is the failure to get that message across. There is obvious resistance to that message in many quarters. Internationally we have opted for a low profile. No initiatives have been taken in Ireland in relation to disarmament and the Taoiseach turned down an opportunity to be associated with an initiative by six non-aligned and neutral countries at the summit of 1984, even though he was invited to join Olaf Palme, the late Mrs. Gandhi and others. We hear very little of the Government's attitude to events in Latin America. Perhaps he would clarify whether we still recognise at the UN as the legitimate Government of Kampuchea the appalling Pol Pot regime who were responsible for genocide.

I am convinced that there is a great disillusionment in this country with regard to our membership of the EC particularly when we know that no initiative has been taken that has been of any benefit in dealing with the most prominent problem affecting nearly a quarter of a million of our people. We have had summits and reports at various times on matters that are far removed from the everyday problems of the people. In time, political union may be achieved but that will not be until such time as there is a proper economic base within the Community. When we joined the EC our unemployment figure was between 65,000 and 68,000 but now there are more than 230,000 people unemployed. The Minister must know and the Taoiseach should know that there is an unbelievable level of cynicism towards the Community as a result of the failure of the leaders of the member states and their foreign Ministers to tackle this problem seriously.

It is important for us as a small nation that the Community succeed. Conversely, it is vital for the success of the Community that the people give it their support. About 12 months ago I expressed my disappointment at the low poll in the European elections held around that time. Before those elections, in an effort to increase interest in them, to help people participate in them and to help them understand what was involved, I urged that the local elections be held at the same time but the Government decided otherwise because they feared the wrath of the electorate in the local authority elections. One lesson I learned in Government is that there is no good day for making tough decisions and that a situation is never eased by postponing the day of the difficult decision. Is it not very obvious now to the members of the Government parties that the decision they took 12 or 14 months ago regarding the local authority elections was not a good decision even from the point of view of themselves. The results of the recent elections could not have been more unfavourable to the Government.

Regrettably there is a growing cynicism and scepticism towards Europe. Recently I have met people who are well versed in what is happening in Europe, well versed enough to query why the energies of the Government and the Taoiseach should be directed towards political union rather than towards economic recovery.

I was somewhat upset and concerned this week to hear the Taoiseach, in the course of his statement on the Milan European Council, talk about the people's Europe, about how important it was that we should have a people's Europe, that the essence of the problem was being attended to by the ad hoc committee on a People's Europe. The Taoiseach went to a lot of trouble to tell us that the report of that committee and I quote:

contains concrete recommendations on the right to vote in elections to the European Parliament, on strengthening the right of petition to the European Parliament, and on a possible role for a European ombudsman; on co-operation in television production; on setting up a European Academy of Science, Technology and Art and

lo and behold:

on the feasibility of a Euro-lottery to finance cultural projects;

The Euro-lottery is taking off. We had a promise of another lottery in a certain document produced by the Government no so long ago.

The Taoiseach continued:

on voluntary work camps, exchanges between schools and universities and the organisation of Community sporting events, Community teams and combating violence at sporting events; on the organisations of volunteers for development work in the Third World; on provision of a Community emergency health card, easier access to medical treatment when travelling in the Community, greater Community co-operation in combating drug abuse; on twinning of towns and cities; and on the adoption of a Community flag and anthem.

The Taoiseach told us that these recommendations were approved and member states were requested to implement them within their respective competences. He said the Foreign Ministers had been asked to report on progress at their next meeting in December.

Those are all laudable objectives. I say to the Minister, and through him to the Taoiseach, that the army of unemployed in this country would see their priority as the possibility of employment. Of course we all subscribe to the adoption of a Community or European flag and anthem but surely the attention of the member states of the Community should be directed to the economic stagnation obtaining within the Community in an effort to deal with this horrific problem of 230,000 or 240,000 people out of work. I cannot put a figure on the number of young people who have emigrated. Whereas none of them might disagree on a Euro-lottery, the financing of cultural projects, voluntary work camps and the like, they would prefer to have the wherewithal to buy a decent meal for themselves rather than take the emigrant ship or join the dole queues. I say that because it appears to me we are still motivated by the concept of political union irrespective of the cost or consequences of the economic stagnation obtaining.

I should like to see the Foreign Ministers being asked to report to their Prime Ministers at the next summit on how best member states can help each other to get their economies going in an effort to do something in that area. We may fool ourselves on the importance of the matters I have just mentioned — the Community anthem, the twinning of towns and cities and the Euro-lottery — but surely the Minister would accept that the real problems facing people — and people are the Community — is that they want food to eat, somewhere to sleep and to be gainfully employed. I appeal to the Minister to do something about that in the immediate future.

I might move briefly on to something that was said — and I would not want the Minister to think I was misreading or was not listening intently to what he said — but I am not sure if he mentioned the famine situation——

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. P. Barry)

The Minister of State will do it today.

Mr. G. Collins

In the course of his statement the other day the Taoiseach noted that two-thirds of the 1.2 million tonnes of cereals, or their equivalent, which were committed at the last meeting of Heads of State in Dublin in December last, had already reached their recipients or were en route to Africa. I may be at a disadvantage now in that I will not be able to comment on what the Minister of State will have to say but I want to repeat that a fresh approach to the whole question of famine in Africa is urgently required. We were all staggered to see on television, via satellite, the tragic and dreadful circumstances obtaining in these famine countries on the African Continent. As Irish people we can say that we reacted as best we could in the circumstances to help our fellow human beings who were starving to death and dying of disease. But that sort of reaction is not good enough, it is not getting to the root of the problem. Much more has to be done in an endeavour to deal with the root cause of the problem, to ensure that, in a world where food surpluses are an embarrassment in many countries, where good wholesome food is often destroyed in an effort to maintain its price levels, we, as human beings — who can send people to the moon — cannot do something about the famine and drought problems that exist within a couple of hours flight from where we stand this afternoon. Those with special expertise in this area must be given greater support by the leaders within the Community. They must be given greater finances to get worthwhile projects under way. We can feel rightly proud of our voluntary organisations, their efforts, and hope that they will be helped to an even greater degree than in the past. I shall listen with great care to what the Minister of State will have to say in this regard.

This debate provides us with an excellent opportunity to comment on the success or lack of success of Community policies. One policy I want to raise and comment on is the regional policy. Unfortunately the European Regional Policy has failed to live up to our expectations. Far from reducing the gap between the Community's rich and poor regions and nations it has failed to prevent an increase in regional disparities. I am alarmed at this trend. I fear that, if it continues unchecked, Community cohesion could be jeopardised. I have always argued and held the view that regional policy must be one of the pillars of Community policy. It is the only Community instrument which specifically sets out to reduce unemployment through job creation. Tragically its resources remain totally inadequate.

The regional policy accounted for only 4.8 per cent and 5.2 per cent of the overall EC budget in 1982 and 1983 respectively. I am convinced that these sums are derisory. I propose that a significant increase be made in the Community own resources to permit essential additional expenditure on regional policy. Some recent developments in the regional policy have given rise to some concern, such as the implementation of the new regulations which came into force on 1 January of this year. While I welcome the basic thrust of the new regulations I regret that the Council were unable to address themselves to the fundamental problem, namely lack of resources. I welcome the intention to concentrate some aid on the Community's weakest region and to provide more assistance for small and medium sized businesses. I would like to think that disadvantaged countries such as Ireland and Greece will be able to take up their full quota entitlement.

I also welcome the move towards programme financing and the greater involvement of local and regional authorities in their decision making process. I would have preferred this to have been taken a step further, having advocated that payments should be made directly to regional authorities in preference to the national exchequers. We are one of the Community members who have payments made to the national Exchequer. This is a mistake not only by the Commission but by the national Government. The commissioner has acknowledged that local authorities are better equipped and are more knowledgeable about areas and regions, to prepare a proposal for the Commission, and that they should be permitted to make it directly to the Commission. In the same way payments should be made directly to these local bodies where they would be far more beneficial not only to the local communities concerned but to the EC and its image abroad among the member countries. When they are made through the national Exchequer it is very difficult to identify the benefits that have flowed from a grant from this Regional Fund. To do it in the way in which I suggest, the Commission should press member states not already doing it in this way to start direct payments and then it will be easy to identify where the money from the Regional Fund is going. People in the Community areas concerned will at least be able to acknowledge that definite benefits are coming to those areas from the Community. This is very important when one considers the low poll in member countries in the last European election.

We are all familiar with the haggling that went on with regard to increasing the 1 per cent VAT and we know the difficulties that were encountered by member states who were opposed to increasing the 1 per cent VAT and how attitudes were taken up not having regard to the future of the Community and to the welfare of the Community but for purely nationalist reasons in an effort to score "successes" or "victory" for the member state concerned. Now we have the increase coming up shortly but very few if any Members in this House would accept that the new level of 1.4 per cent will be sufficient to finance the new Community having regard to the additional membership of the Community of Spain and Portugal bringing approximately 60 million people extra into the Community. There can be no doubt but that as it was we were struggling from one financial crisis to another and some of us are genuinely worried that the type of schemes which would benefit our country and others like us will not be financed as they should be. Certainly if they are not financed it will defeat one of the main ideas held by the founding fathers of the Community, the idea of convergence. Much more effort should be put into it now that we are enlarged to ensure that enough money will be there to finance the fund.

The Taoiseach in his statement referred to the fact that the total of the Community budget is only 2 per cent of public expenditure in the member states. Indeed rather more than that is lost each year through frontier delays and far more than that is lost through our failure to exploit the advantages of a unified market of nearly 300 million people for the new high technology industries. A great effort has to be made by the leaders, the heads of Government at their summit meetings to deal with the problems. I am talking about the frontier delays. Reference has been made to it but much more can be done and should be done to insist that we have no waste of resources.

The Minister stressed rather strongly in the introductory part of his speech the fact that this Government are committed to the rule of law. I and my party are equally committed to the rule of law and will support whatever actions are necessary to ensure that those who flout international law either by hijacking or terrorism are dealt with. None of us condones the type of atrocity we witnessed in recent days. I am thinking of the Indian Boeing that was blown out of the sky off the south west coast of Ireland a few days ago. Nor would we condone the terrorism for whatever reason that almost caused a similar type explosion which could have killed everybody on board the plane that landed in Tokyo Airport. If the civilised countries of the world can agree on a worthwhile programme to defeat those who will try to use hostage taking or hijacking to further their aims, we will be doing a worthwhile service for the community generally. I say to the Minister that we will support the Government in any initiatives they take in dealing with the growing tendency to terrorism for the purpose of achieving aims or ideals held by small groups of people who are representatives of nobody other than themselves. Any help we can give with regard to this we will give.

Let me talk briefly about the United Nations. We have always helped and supported the UN as a body since we became members of it approximately 30 years ago, and it needs more support now than ever if it is to continue as an organisation. I know that I do not have to push the open door because the Minister is as interested in preserving the strength of the UN as I would be and I say to him that we should do more to help in that regard. It is a pity that some of the greater world powers who are members of the UN cannot see their way to understanding the problems within the members of the UN or to dealing with these problems perhaps more patiently than they are being dealt with and helping the UN as a body to get over its difficulties with regard to its role, where it is going and its finances.

I was taken aback somewhat a couple of years ago when in discussion with some officials of the State Department of the US in Washington I experienced a type of hostility to the UN, a type of irritation with the UN in that perhaps attitudes and approaches of the greater nations were being questioned by the smaller states. We in Ireland can understand that readily. As I understand, it, part of our role in the UN over the last 30 years has been, is and I hope will always be to stand up at any time and question any nation on their policies and attitudes and approaches to problems. Because we are not party to any bloc of world power we are there as a small independent nation, and that is the most effective way we can try to help as regards world peace. I only hope that the larger nations can help. I cannot recall straight off what sort of moneys the USSR still owe the UN but I gather that the figure is colossal, and if you are going to starve the UN by denying it moneys that are rightfully there as a result of commitments freely entered into by member countries, that is one way of weakening the organisation and its role and rendering it somewhat ineffective, certainly more ineffective than we would like to see it. I understand that the total debt by the USSR to the UN is in the region of £28 million. I cannot say for certain but it is very great in comparison with the budget and it causes a financial problem within the UN. We have always been very proud of our membership of this great international forum and that we have played a very noble role on all occasions with regard to problems that this organisation has had to deal with. One of the highlights of our participation in the UN in recent years was the role played by Ambassador Doran who was our permanent representative on the UN while he was also a member of the Security Council during a very difficult time.

The UN is very much involved in many of the troubled spots throughout the world trying to do a most difficult job to bring peace to warring factions and communities, warring for different reasons many of them difficult for us in this part of the world to understand. Many of us have great difficulty in keeping up with the situation because of changes that occur almost hourly, never mind daily, weekly or monthly. As the Minister said, people here are very much aware of the situation in the Middle East, having regard to the fact that we have a large contingent of Irish men and some women serving with the UN forces in the South Lebanon area. Of course, we are supportive of them and we must and should be so. We approve thoroughly of their presence there and we support them in what they are trying to do, which is to keep peace between peoples who are not able to agree with one another or to live side by side in peace, and I say that with very great regret.

I tell the Minister that the people of Ireland are very conscious of the difficult role that our troops out there have to play together with personnel from other troop contributing countries. The people here are very concerned about and very pleased with the role being played out there by General Callaghan in the difficult task he has to perform. Here in this part of the world we must be careful about how we form opinions because we have the media on one side playing up the side they are interested in and playing down the other side, while on the other side we have the same process reversed. We must be calm and cautions in our assessment of the situation there in the hope that our presence there will continue to help in a bad situation and that peace can be restored there sooner rather than later. It is difficult for us, living on a small island as we do, to image the position that exists out in the Middle East. Somebody described Lebanon to me geographically as a State not much, if any, bigger than the counties of Cork and Kerry put together with a small population. Yet news comes from there of atrocities of one sort or another which make world headlines on television and in the newspapers on practically a daily basis. I say to the Minister that the party that I represent here will do everything we can to support and help him in this area, having regard to the terrible tragedy taking place there.

The Lebanese problem cannot be taken on its own. As the Minister said correctly, the ongoing war between Iran and Iraq is now going into its fifth year and again people are being slaughtered in hundreds of thousands and we are told that young boys of 14 and 15 years of age are being pushed to the front lines and are nothing other than cannon fodder. Unfortunately, the great powers have been unable to help with regard to bringing about peace. All initiatives to date have failed. I was saddened recently to hear some self-styled expert say on a radio programme that perhaps it was a good thing that the war is continued. I could not participate in the radio discussion but I tried to question myself about his motivation for saying that. Anybody who can, for any reason, try to justify having a war of such proportions, having regard to the brutal cost of that war, shows a new form of lunacy about which we should all be extremely careful.

I was glad to hear the Minister talk about the situation in Afghanistan. It was sad news when we were enjoying the festivities of Christmas four or five years ago to learn that Russia had invaded Afghanistan and the mighty bear had trampled on its smaller neighbour for its own reasons. It is a tragedy that continues today and there is an obligation on us in the free world to highlight this tragedy at every opportunity. We should not allow it to become the forgotten invasion. We should speak out about it and condemn it, nothing the consequences of the invasion on the population of Afghanistan, the destruction and chaos that exists there and the destabilisation of neighbouring countries as a result of the flood of refugees. We should always remember to stand up for these people on the far side of the world. When those who in this House or elsewhere try to tell us about other systems of government and the idealistic philosophies and dogmas they try to hide behind, we should tell them to ask their fellow travellers what they are doing in Afghanistan and urge them to get out.

In recent times there has been a greater number of outrages in South Africa than ever before. Hundreds of people have been killed as a result of political violence there. We have seen on our television screens police committing atrocities which we did not think could ever be committed and which certainly could not be condoned. The way in which protesters were gunned down by the police last March was rightly condemned by Ireland and the partners in Europe. I urge the Minister to do his utmost to convince our partners in Europe to take greater steps against the regime in South Africa and put greater pressure on them to bring about a reasonable position there. Having regard to the fact that we are supposed to have a trade embargo with such countries, what member states of the Community are still engaged in large-scale trade with South Africa? We are trying to force that Government to adopt a more reasonable and balanced approach to the problems in that country, which are spilling over into neighbouring countries as well. The Minister should inquire from his colleagues in Europe about the position in relation to trade and ensure that we make a greater effort to help those who are not in a position to help themselves.

Whereas we welcome the Spanish and Portugese into the Community, the Minister must accept that there is genuine concern, particularly within the fishing community, since our fisheries are likely to be severely affected — indecently assaulted — by the Spanish fishing fleet, even though the Minister has said that the Spanish and Portuguese will be excluded for ten years from the 50-mile zone around our coast and that from 1996 only 93 Spanish vessels will be allowed to fish in that area. This is what the Minister envisages will happen but it would be unwise to believe that up to the present we have been able to keep the Spaniards from fishing illegally in our waters. They are doing so almost continuously. Snámh in aghaidh ar easa dúinn é b'fhéidir iad a choimead amach nuair a bheidh cead acu teacht isteach. It will be exceptionally difficult for us to police our waters after 1996 and up to that date. I hope the Minister will be able to convince his colleagues in Government that a far greater investment will be necessary in the fishery protection service if we are to have any hope of realistically policing our fishing grounds.

Central America is an area which causes all of us very great concern. The atmosphere there has been reported to us by an all-party committee of this House which went to observe elections there and came back with such stories that it is difficult to understand. When one studies the attitude of the Congress of the United States to White House and State Department policy, the scenario becomes even more confusing. We are further confused by the report of the Catholic bishops of the USA. The European Community, Governments and foreign ministers are keeping in touch with the situation there and I hope progress can be made. During his time as President of the Council of Foreign Ministers the Minister played a leading role in trying to improve the situation there. I should like to hear a little more on the position as he sees it in that part of the world, although I appreciate that the Minister may not have an opportunity to deal with it in his reply. I have here a document which I have prepared in conjunction with people advising me which runs to about 25 pages. We are aware of the history and extent of the problem and the efforts made to try to deal with it. We support the Minister in his efforts on behalf of the Government, in conjunction with the member states, to bring peace to this part of the world.

I would urge the Minister to oversee the development of a Community policy on forestry. After oil, forestry products represent the single biggest import category of the EC accounting for over 11,000 million ECUs per annum. There is no Community policy on forestry, which is surprising. I know that the IDA were involved in reporting on the development of the Irish timber industry for the eighties. They produced a worthwhile report which said that forestry, unlike agriculture, was not covered by the Treaty of Rome and that, therefore, it is difficult for the Commission to implement a full forestry policy. They said that there would be difficulties obtaining agreement and means of support for forest development, in obtaining a consensus on an industrial development strategy for the industry and that there would be problems in altering the situation where concessions on timber imports are used as a bargaining position in trade negotiations with timber exporting countries. The report concluded that because of these factors it was considered unlikely that any timber industry development strategy would be agreed and implemented in the immediate future.

It would be very much to our benefit if we could devote our energies to the creation of a forestry Community policy and it would certainly be of great value and would have very sound economic benefits. I urge the Minister to do his best to make sure that this is not put on the long finger because, unfortunately, all Governments have, to some degree, neglected the development of forestry.

Perhaps I have gone on long enough although this is an area where one could talk for a very long time because there is so much to be dealt with. The international problems are great. Communities are tearing the heart and soul out of each other in different parts of the world but I never allow that to depress me because during the first half of this century we had two world wars with European countries strangling each other at the drop of a hat practically on a continuous basis; many millions of lives were lost and yet, since the creation of the European Community about 30 years ago, we now have peace in Europe. I am sure that nobody here would take a wager that that peace will not continue through what is left of this century and well into the next. This was part of the aim of those great people in Europe who came together from a war torn Europe which had destroyed itself and brought many parts of the world into destruction because they were sucked into those wars. I am not without hope because the peace which we now take so much for granted, despite the horrific problems which exist in Northern Ireland, the only part of the European Community in which there is trouble, would not have been dreamed of in the middle or late forties. It was achieved as a result of the vision which great people, small in number, had.

Their economic dream still has not been achieved, their ideals have not been realised and we are a long way off from convergence and from balancing the standards which exist in different member states of the Community. We should not allow member states who have recently joined Europe — some who joined as recently as ourselves — to change the rules and regulations of the Community to suit their own needs. I urge that we remain true to the ideals of the Treaty of Rome because I am satisfied that it is in our interests that that should be so and that nothing is watered down. If we allow that to happen we will not be protected as was envisaged at the time the people decided by an overwhelming majority to become members of the Economic Community.

There is a very great responsibility on the Minister, his colleagues and us to try to ensure that there is a better understanding of Europe among the people. He should make a greater effort to let them know what is involved and we must list and explain to the younger generation in particular, why the Community was formed. We should look at our civics classes to see if we could make a greater effort in bringing home the idealism, the concepts and the vision which were held by the founders of the Community. I know that Europe is not the answer to all our problems. I have said publicly on occasion that Europe owes us nothing. We must work hard for whatever we achieve within the Community and it is to our advantage to be good Europeans.

It is vital for us that the Community succeeds and it will only do so if there is a greater realisation and understanding of the basic problems within the Community. We should make it an economic Community and, if we deal with the economic problems and ills which affect the members of the Community states, we can then advance to other levels.

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs (Mr. J. O'Keeffe)

I am pleased to have the opportunity of intervening today in the debate on the Votes for Foreign Affairs and International Co-operation.

The proposal included in the Vote for International Co-operation is to provide just under £23 million — to be exact £22.957 million — in respect of certain parts of Ireland's Official Development Assistance (ODA) to the Third World, and in respect of Ireland's contribution to certain international organisations. I should perhaps emphasise at the outset that the Official Development Assistance (ODA) provided for in this Vote is only part of the overall ODA provision for 1985, which amounts in total to £38.357 million; the balance of this expenditure is provided for in other Votes and in allocations from the Centural Fund. The funding proposed represents a 20 per cent increase over last year's level for the same items. I am confident it is a proposal which will commend itself to the House.

By far the greater part of the funding involves allocations of assistance to developing countries, and my remarks today will relate mainly to these allocations, for which I have particular responsibility as Minister of State. In addition, provision is made for the contribution of Ireland's share of the running costs of certain international organisations.

It will thus be seen that the proposed allocations involve Ireland's participation in the cost of maintaining essential parts of the infrastructure for the conduct of international relations. It is obviously most important that Ireland should be prepared to play its part in facilitating in this way the conduct of international relations on a satisfactory basis. Indeed, as a small country which is strongly influenced by the international environment, we have a definite interest in doing so.

The combination, within the same Vote, of provision for these contributions to international organisations, together with provision for assistance to developing countries, may be thought to be interesting because it helps to emphasise the integration of development policy with foreign policy generally. To a significant degree — and arguably to an increasing degree — our participation in international contacts relative to the position of developing countries helps to define our role as a nation in international affairs generally. The predicament of the developing countries is one of the most pressing and challenging questions facing the international community and one which raises principles which are central to our view of our own role in the world. It is also increasingly being realised that there is some truth in the cliché that "everything is connected to everything else" and that the persistence of desperate circumstances in the Third World is sure to lead to a deterioration of the international environment which will injure all countries, including industrialised countries, and certainly not excluding Ireland. For these reasons, it is important that we should have a well-devised and fully integrated foreign policy and that development policy should be a key aspect of that overall approach.

Appropriate financial provision for development assistance is an important part of our approach not only because of the direct, practical value of the measures financed but also because, as the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Co-operation with Developing Countries has usefully pointed out in its report for 1984, "the degree of moral authority a country can bring to international discussion and negotiations relative to the interests of developing countries is influenced by the level of Official Development Assistance that country provides".

In this connection, the House will be aware that the provision for Official Development Assistance (ODA) to developing countries in 1985 reflects the Government's commitment, set out in the national economic plan, Building on Reality, to continue to expand Ireland's assistance to the disadvantaged countries of the Third World, and to do so on a planned basis. In accordance with the provisions of the plan, the allocation for Irish ODA is £38.357 million in 1985, as compared with estimated expenditure of £31.865 million in 1984; it will grow further to about £44 million next year, and to about £50 million in 1987. Expressed as a percentage of GNP, ODA is set to increase from 0.23 per cent in 1984, to 0.245 per cent in 1985, 0.260 per cent in 1986 and 0.275 in 1987. It should be noted that this represents an increase of 25 per cent in the proportion of national income allocated to ODA over the period concerned. The provision for the current year should thus be seen as part of a structured programme of expansion which facilitates the orderly development of Ireland's assistance to developing countries.

The effect of these allocations is that Irish ODA will continue during the period of the plan to grow at the same rate as that achieved during the period 1974 to 1984, although public spending is being curtailed. In fact, the rate of growth planned for ODA is three and a half times faster than that planned for public spending generally. The fact that ODA received such relatively favourable treatment in the course of the fundamental reappraisal of the economy and public finances which underpinned the plan is an indication of the Government's acute awareness of the problems of developing countries and of its readiness to do what it can to contribute to a solution to those problems. Moreover, it is also provided in the plan that the Government will give consideration in the light of changing economic and financial circumstances to implementing the even higher rate of growth of ODA previously envisaged.

In comparison to aid provided by the governments of other developed countries, the Irish ODA has grown steadily in recent years. In 1983, which is the most recent year for which full statistics are available, the level of Irish aid, expressed as a proportion of GNP, was equivalent to 61 per cent of the level of the main donor countries, whereas in 1974 it had been only 15 per cent. In other words, relative to other donors, Irish aid has grown fourfold during the period; and this trend seems likely to continue as a result of the provisions of Building on Reality. The pattern revealed by this figure is that Irish Governments have continued throughout the recession to increase ODA steadily although the performance of donors generally has lagged.

The Government fully accept, of course, that it is always necessary to endeavour to do more, in view of the severely straitened circumstances of the developing countries. For this reason it will continue to keep under review, in the light of changing economic and financial circumstances, the possibility of implementing the faster rate of growth previously envisaged, with the ultimate aim of reaching the United Nations target of 0.7 per cent of GNP as ODA.

The Vote for International Co-operation provides in its subheads B to H, inclusive, for part of the moneys required to discharge our ODA commitments this year. The balance of the moneys required for this purpose is provided for in the Votes for various Government Departments and in expenditure from the Central Fund. The particular aid activities which it is proposed to fund from the Vote before the House today are the following:

Subhead B provides for voluntary contributions of £2.110 million to the United Nations development agencies this year as compared with contributions of £1.815 million last year. The House will be interested to know that, in addition to the traditional contributions to the United Nations Development Programme, the United Nations Children's Fund, UNICEF, and to various funds for refugees and for the victims of apartheid, there is provision this year for the first time, for a contribution of £20,000 to the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Women in Development.

Subhead C provides £2.100 million for the Agency for Personal Service Overseas, to further its programme of facilitating service in developing countries by persons from Ireland. This compares with a grant of £1.800 million last year.

Subhead D provides £629,000 for the relief of disasters in developing countries, as compared with a provision of £300,000 last year. In the case of this subhead the provision is merely indicative, as actual expenditure depends on developments during the course of the year which are, of their nature, impossible to foresee with precision. In fact, last year the amount initially provided for this purpose was augmented during the year in response to the urgent need for assistance to ameliorate the effects of the famine in Africa, to the extent that the eventual level of expenditure was more than three times the amount initially provided. It is probable that this year also the amount allocated for this purpose will be augmented during the course of the year. One type of assistance funded from this provision is support for refugees, who are a group of people particularly badly affected by the famine in Africa — Sudan, which I visited is particularly badly hit. Recently we announced a grant of £100,000 towards the relief programmes operated in that country by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees.

The question of the admission, reception and resettlement of refugees in Ireland, coming here by virtue of Government decisions taken in response to crises such as that of the "Boat People" a few years ago, is also a subject to which I have been giving attention in recent weeks. Following a series of consultations with other interested bodies, both governmental and non-governmental, I hope to be in a position to bring forward recommendations for action in the near future.

Subhead E provides £12 million for the bilateral aid programme administered by the Department of Foreign Affairs, a significant increase over last year's level of £9.437 million. This programme supports efforts aimed at the long-term development of developing countries, with a view to helping to address the underlying causes of under-development and famine.

Subhead F provides for a grant of £75,000 to cover the administrative expenses of GORTA, the Freedom from Hunger Council. The equivalent grant last year was £66,000.

Subhead G provides £3.4 million — the same amount as last year — in respect of the Irish contribution to the European Development Fund, EDF, which is the main financial instrument of the Lomé Convention, and to the International Fund for Agricultural Development, IFAD.

Subhead H provides £100,000, as compared with £90,000 last year, in respect of the operating expenses of the Advisory Council on Development Co-operation, ACDC.

In total, the allocation for the activities funded from these subheads is proposed to be £20,414 million this year, representing an increase of about 20 per cent over last year's level. This proposed allocation reflects the continuing commitment of the Government to the particular activities concerned and, more generally, to the principle of helping the developing countries in their efforts to overcome the problems facing them. It is also worth noting that these activities benefit, in particular, from the stable planning framework provided by the provisions of Building on Reality, as the persons and organisations involved in implementing them now have, for the first time ever, a guaranteed level of funding for a number of years into the future. This is an even more important consideration in the case of these particular activities, which for the most part are implemented directly and fully funded by Ireland, than in the case of the other parts of our ODA programme, which for the most part involve contributions to international programmes in the case of which the Irish share is only a part of overall funding. It is this stability, as much as the significant real increases involved, which provides the basis for the planned further development of our assistance to developing countries in the coming years.

The House can be assured that the Government will continue to do everything they can to assist that development, with a view to ensuring that our policies and programmes in this area are as effective as possible. The Government are also pleased to note an increasing role for Members of the Oireachtas in this regard including, in particular, the work of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Co-operation with Developing Countries, under the able chairmanship of Deputy Nora Owen, whose report for 1984 and whose recent fact-finding visit to African countries supported under the Bilateral Aid Programme, have made a valuable contribution to the development of our approach in these matters.

I should like to avail of this opportunity of assuring the House that I will continue to do everything in my power to facilitate the strongest possible role for the Oireachtas in the formulation of public policy in this important area.

Mr. Allen

I would like to deal with two areas referred to in the Minister's speech. I sat through some of Deputy Collins' speech and it was sad to hear him putting forward views without specifying areas or individuals and rehashing gossip on a serious issue like Northern Ireland. He spoke about people saying things they heard about other people——

Mr. G. Collins

It was not gossip. It was reported by people who were in the company of the Minister when it was said.

Mr. Allen

No names were mentioned and no areas were specified but——

Mr. G. Collins

No, because the people specifically asked that they be not named, but they were present when the remarks were made.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy will have an opportunity to put this on the record some other time.

Mr. Allen

If the names could not be mentioned, the Deputy should not have said anything. I, too, have been in the United States and friends told me they heard Fianna Fáil spokesmen talking on the Irish problem and they could not differentiate between them and some of the Provo spokesmen. I do not think we should get into that area now.

I met a delegation representing victims of the supergrass trials earlier this year. I want to put on the record my appreciation of what the Minister has done in that area. He has done a great deal to reduce that problem considerably, but unfortunately the principle of being innocent until proved guilty has been abandoned in the North and we must do our utmost to have eliminated that unjust system where people can be detained and convicted on the word of a criminal.

We must continue our efforts to reduce the alienation of the minority community in Northern Ireland and expose areas and incidents of discrimination. Platitudes by senior British politicians about bringing the communities together fall flat when specific incidents of discrimination are allowed to continue without any political check. Such a check could be very useful.

Recently I spent some time in Nicaragua with three of my colleagues — Deputy Hyland, Senator Ross and Senator Higgins — and I was in El Salvador with Senator Hyland for the elections last Easter. We hope to publish a report next Tuesday on the elections in El Salvador. Therefore I will not refer to that area in detail because it would pre-empt the publication of that report and it would be unfair to Deputy Hyland who is not here today. Having visited Nicaragua last November I have tried to follow what is happening in Central America, specifically Nicaragua, and tried to follow the United States policy in that area. I fully support any measures which would propose a negotiated solution in these countries. I am sure I speak for some of my colleagues who have been in that area when I say I am very concerned about some of the policies of the Sandinista Government. I believe United States policy relies too heavily on the military and will make a solution more difficult to achieve. For this reason I hope our Government and our Minister for Foreign Affairs will continue to oppose the covert funding of the Contra forces in Nicaragua which the United States Congress and Senate supported in recent times.

The Minister said the basic approach of the EC countries to the problems of Central America is that they want to create conditions in which the conflicts can be resolved peacefully and that the many economic and social problems in that area can be tackled on the basis of co-operation and international solidarity. I welcome this approach.

I am glad the Minister said there will be a follow up to the ministerial conference, the Costa Rican Conference, and that this meeting will be held before the end of this year. He said he expects a co-operation agreement will be signed at that conference. That is welcome and very important news.

The Contadora forces have experienced many difficulties, but I agree with the Minister's belief that the approach embodied in the Contadora process continues to offer the best hope of reaching a solution to the problems of the region. I hope the Central American and Contadora countries will make renewed efforts to arrive at a comprehensive and just agreement as soon as possible.

However, a key to any agreement is that the United States must be willing to participate in regional efforts to find a solution and should be prepared to listen to the suggestions of her friends in Europe. I am including Ireland as one of those friends because, like Deputy Collins who said he detected hostility at times when approaches were made to United States officials, I too detected a certain hostility when I spoke to certain officials of the United States administration.

The impression I got was that Europe was a very long way from Central America, that that area is in the sphere of influences of the United States and that we have no role to play in what is happening there. Nothing is further from the truth. We have a big role to play there. Like many of the Central American countries, Ireland was the subject of colonial domination for many centuries and many of the Central American countries now find themselves in the position we were in in the twenties and thirties when we faced external and very strong economic pressures. These threatened the very existence of this nation. There is a link between this country and countries such as Nicaragua and we must have sympathy with the position in which the people of that country find themselves while, at the same time, identifying and appreciating many of the sinister forces operating in such countries.

The major fault of any attempt at a military solution in this region is that it fails to address the social and economic conditions which have caused so much hardship and instability there down the centuries. US economic assistance in commercial policies must play a major role in alleviating these social problems. Otherwise, they will continue to fester and create conditions which are easily exploited by other agencies, countries and systems alien to the western hemisphere and to our society here.

Having spoken to many people about the problems in Central America and shared a platform with a number of US officials at a recent seminar in Washington, I believe that the United States do not understand or appreciate the deep concern felt in Western Europe about US policy there. They do not realise how this unwise policy might affect their relationship with their friends in Western Europe. Their policy, which in part contradicts international law, will in time seriously harm the international image of the United States.

Recent developments in the United States, such as the funding of the Contra forces and the economic embargo which has been set up by them against Nicaragua, are undermining public confidence in United States leadership in the western world. This is doing and will continue to do great damage to the security of the western world in time to come.

Shortly after returning in 1984 from Nicaragua, I spoke in this House on a number of points and shall not repeat them today. However, I should like to refer to some which I did not mention but which are still very relevant today. One matter overlooked in the Nicaraguan elections in 1984 was that 32 per cent of votes cast went to the opposition parties, which clearly indicates that Nicaragua is not a totalitarian State, although the confidence and courage of those elected and those in opposition will determine whether democracy becomes a reality or whether the country ends up in the control of a single party regime.

In this connection, the national dialogue which was opened before the election between the various political, social and religious movements and parties there and the positive developments resulting from the initiatives of the Contadora group to which I referred earlier, formed the essential basis for a solution acceptable both to internal public opinion and opinion in the outside world, thereby avoiding military escalation and any sharpening East-West confrontation over Central America.

Unfortunately, the attitude of the present United States Government, especially with regard to support for the Contras, does not leave the parties involved within Nicaragua sufficient margin for manoeuvre. More forthright recognition of the rights of the people there to self-determination will deprive the extremist elements in the Sandinista leadership — and there are very extreme elements there — of the alibi they are now using of the threat of aggression and intervention. Removal of this threat could, and I believe would, give the more moderate elements in the Sandinista Government a chance to open constructive dialogue with the opposition parties.

Recent information coming from Nicaragua is that the continued threat of military aggression or intervention and economic embargo is weakening the position of the moderate elements within the administration there. All the political parties, even those which did not take part in the election of 1984, agree that it is essential to preserve as many as possible of the achievements of the revolution, to take them and progress with them further. This applies not only to agrarian reform but to the campaigns for literacy and health care and the fight against extreme poverty. In fact, national reconciliation and the end of the Contra campaign, which is funded by the United States, would make it possible to redirect military expenditure, which currently devours up to 50 per cent of the country's budget, towards the objectives I have just mentioned.

Economic pressure, uncertainty and the obstacles to inter-regional co-operation might disappear and this could happen in a very short time because of the determination of the people there — a determination which always exists after a revolution — to make life better within that country. If this objective is to be attained, it is absolutely essential for a wide cross-section of political opinion to tolerate it. Indeed, the same applies to the maintenance of the mixed economy which guarantees private property and also to the policy of non-alignment. These three objectives form the basis for a national pact which was signed by all the political parties shortly after the revolution. Today it still represents the essential basis for the success of the national dialogue which is taking place and is under threat because of the isolation of moderate opinion within Nicaragua, due to the unfortunate ham-fisted approach of the US administration.

The European reaction to the US trade embargo, even though at times muted, reflects the serious and growing divergence in informed opinion between the United States and Western Europe on the appropriate policy towards Central America. In fact, the United States believe that we should not interfere at all, as I said earlier.

The Minister referred earlier to the Costa Rican meeting. By including Nicaragua in the proposed aid package for Central America, the European Foreign Ministers' meeting in San José, with the Minister, Deputy Barry, as President, acknowledged that the crisis in Central America cannot be reduced to a mere question of political confrontation between the super powers, that social and economic factors are very important keys to explaining the upheaval which is happening in the area.

The United States trade embargo which was announced since that meeting, in my opinion and that of most people, violates a number of international charters and the embargo can only aggravate the regional conflict and further distance the day when we will get peace in the region. The embargo is likely to have a similar effect on Nicaragua as the embargo on Cuba had over 20 years ago. It will make Nicaragua more dependent on the Soviet Union. That dependence will be most undesirable but it is being forced on that country. At the very least, we are giving the extremist elements in the Government the excuse to become more dependent on the Soviet Union.

Unfortunately United States policy is designed to promote a self-fulfilling prophecy. It is achieving what it set out to prevent. Not only does it threaten the capacity of the Government in Nicaragua to implement their economic and social policies but it weakens the private sector in that country. It has also been condemned by the conservative Opposition in Nicaragua. It is appropriate to note the views of Colombia, Venezuela and Mexico. They have made it clear that the embargo is incompatible with furthering the Contadora process.

The very serious consequences of the embargo can be reduced only if western countries increase their aid to Nicaragua. It is good to see that in May of this year in Caracas the Latin American countries not only condemned the embargo but, even more effectively, decided to set up a package of economic measures to help Nicaragua to counteract the embargo. If western European countries are in favour of a non-aligned Nicaragua they should not only oppose the embargo but be more realistic and effective by adopting a policy consistent with the San José declaration and follow the Latin American lead.

Not only do I advocate the doubling of EC aid for the Central American region but I advocate that within this package there should at least be a doubling of aid to Nicaragua. I support present EC plans to contribute to regional agreements which further political dialogue, assist development and increase economic integration.

Due to the embargo Nicaragua will have need for preferential access to European markets for their exports such as coffee, cotton, bananas, beef, fish and sugar. More importantly, they will need financial facilities to enable them to import machinery, spare parts, chemicals, insecticides, oils, pharmaceutical supplies and hospital supplies. I spent 11 days in the country and I visited hospitals in the rural areas. I could see the urgent need for that kind of aid. Quite honestly, if we do not supply that aid, where will Nicaragua go? They will go to eastern Europe and to Russia — in fact, they are doing that. Unless we make some early decisions about supplying the essential items I have outlined we will force countries like Nicaragua into the eastern bloc.

It is also a fact that Nicaragua has not received any development aid from the World Bank since 1982 and it was the only Latin American country not to receive IDB money in 1984. Yet, their record in implementing and completing aid projects is one of the best in Latin America and that has not been contradicted by anyone. Apart from Nicaragua, all countries in Central America, and in particular El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Costa Rica, have received huge amounts of aid from the United States both in military and economic assistance. For the current year the relevant department in the United States is requesting for El Salvador the sum of £483.4 million; for Honduras £246.15 million; for Costa Rica £190.75 million; for Guatemala £87.5 million and zero for Nicaragua.

The relatively small European contribution by comparison will only begin to compensate for the imbalance in the United States figures. Therefore, I ask our Foreign Minister to ensure that the circumstances surrounding the Nicaraguan case be considered at European level. Having spoken to the Minister, I know he has a sincere and deep interest in what is happening in that country.

The Vice-President of Nicaragua was in this country earlier this year. Since his visit the Contra campaign has been stepped up. We see weekly reports of killings, of the destruction of property and the planned wrecking of the economy, which is fragile at the best of times. When he was here he made a very modest request. He asked us to advocate to the United States the resumption of bilateral talks and he asked, as a symbol of our good faith, that we would consider sympathetically opening up at junior level some diplomatic connection with Nicaragua. I ask the Minister to consider that matter also.

Even though we have limited resources we are rich in experience so far as agricultural technology is concerned. Our people have the know-how and the education to undertake small projects that would bring about immediate and direct benefit to the population in Nicaragua. I was told by the Deputy Minister for Agriculture that there are more than 2,000 small co-operatives operating in the country in private ownership. The majority of these people received land and are waiting for adequate finance and expertise to enable them to start operations. They need finance and technical expertise if they are to survive. I saw in a rural part of Nicaragua a project in which Trócaire have an interest. If the project got the benefit of more technical aid from Ireland it would be of major benefit to the region.

We could invest our technical expertise to help with the production of milk and meat. There is malnutrition in Nicaragua and there is evidence of children being under-nourished. With a small investment of technical expertise we could bring about an improvement in milk and meat production. We could adapt our methods to those of the peasants but we could also teach them about cattle raising, the production of cheese, yoghurt, poultry, eggs and chickens. Nicaragua is a fertile country that just needs to be irrigated and developed. With some of our technical people working with the small groups in the country we could strengthen economically the intermediate groups between the individual and the State. In my opinion, this leads to the formation of authentic democracy. Since we are known for our expertise in this matter we have a role to play.

I will sum up the points I made. First, we should set up diplomatic contacts with Nicaragua as soon as possible, even at a low level. I know we are giving continued political backing to the Contadora group. We have a duty to call for the disarming and the disbanding of the Contras who have wrecked the economy and have killed the population in Nicaragua. We should look for a substantial aid programme for all Central America from the EC which should be conditional on human rights being maintained and protected in those countries. We should insist that international financial institutions such as the World Bank deal fairly with all the countries in that region. We should use our influence and special relationship with the United States to further the peaceful resolution of the problems in that region. We should press the EC and European countries individually to use their financial and commercial resources to encourage stable relations with Central America.

I hope I have not spoken for too long but having spent taxpayers' money going to Central America I felt I should put my views before the House. If the problems in the region are not tackled in a realistic way it will become an area of major confrontation in years to come. We have many missionaries there. I was honoured to meet a group of Franciscans in a remote part of El Salvador on election day. We were deep in guerrilla country and I was proud to meet people from Limerick, Dublin and Cork. We have development workers out there and there is an obligation on us to protect not only the rights of the Irish people who are there but the investments they have made in time and money.

Mr. G. Mitchell

A large poster sponsored by Trócaire was erected on Harold's Cross Bridge which stated that constituents should write to their local TD about the problems in the Third World. I received the total sum of one letter while at the same time I received 70 or 80 letters about some controversial legislation in which the bishops had more than a passing interest. That sums up the interest there is in what is happening outside of this country.

There is a lack of interest in foreign affairs both in the House and outside and it is probably due to the fact that we are an island and have our own internal difficulties. With the exception of the Minister and the former Minister we feel we do not have a role to play. We have an important role to play. We are probably one of the 15 or 20 liberal democracies which remain in the world. We should be very proud of that. We have a major contribution to make in a non-aligned way. If we want liberal democracies to continue and develop in other parts of the world we must be seen to be interested in the problems they face, particularly in the Third World and in Central America.

I have two proposals to make. I should like to see a UN information office opened in Dublin. That would cost the State £40,000. It would help to promote an interest in foreign affairs and in the difficulties people face abroad. It would be another source of information apart from the helpful information which is available from the Department. It would reflect well on the Government and on the House if we included a provision of £40,000 to open such an information office. The child with the extended stomach and the bulging eyes in the sub-Saharan continent is every bit as much our responsibility as if he or she lived next door. We cannot turn our backs on that. The public have been ahead of the State in regard to the amount of money they have contributed per head of population relative to GNP. It is heartening to see that reaction from the public. However, in a formal way we should develop our interest, and persuade our colleagues in the EC to do the same, in what is happening in the sub-Saharan continent.

I propose that the Minister or Deputy Collins introduce a foreign affairs committee. The Overseas Development Committee is a start but it is very limited in the area it can examine. It would be in the interest of the House and the State if we had this committee. From ripples come waves and from waves come change. We have a small but significant contribution to make. If Deputies were members of such a committee they would take a greater interest in the nuclear holocaust which could descend on all of us, in East-West relations and in what is happening in the sub-Saharan continent and in Central America. I ask the Minister to bear those two suggestions in mind.

When we go out of office we will be remembered for the innovations we introduced. People will ask what we did when we were in Government. They will look at our record. There are significant contributions we could make and two of those would be to open a UN information office and to set up a foreign affairs committee.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. P. Barry)

It is somewhat disappointing that the debate attracted only five speakers but in view of what is happening throughout the country this evening it is understandable because that other job, too, is a very important part of the democratic process and of the work of public representatives.

As Deputy Mitchell has said, a debate on foreign affairs is extremely important. In the early part of my speech I indicated that foreign affairs is not some kind of ivory tower subject that is the concern only of the Opposition spokesman and myself but that it has a real relevance to ordinary people. I will take up the suggestions offered by Deputy Mitchell and will endeavour to act on them.

The affairs of other countries, be they big or small countries but especially the bigger ones, infringe on the lives of the people of this country. That is a factor we should not lose sight of. We have a role to play in international affairs and we have the fora in which to play that role. We wish to preserve liberal democracy, the tradition that has become more and more part of what the building of this State was about. We wish to export that tradition, to promote it in other fora. Our role is small. We are an island off the mainland of Europe but we have an independent voice and we are listened to. We must continue to use that voice at the UN, in the EC and at any other bodies of which we are a member.

Deputy Mitchell, too, expressed the view that there is a lack of interest in foreign affairs but I do not think that is correct. When I came to this House first, questions to the Department of Foreign Affairs usually numbered two or three and the subject of foreign affairs was debated only at the time of the Estimates. This Department now attract many questions from Deputies on both sides and all of these questions are extremely intelligent and searching. I am glad to receive those questions and to be able to respond to them at Question Time.

The new format for Question Time will suit my Department very well because the questions put to me usually relate to matters that are topical and urgent. In the past number of years a period of three or four months would be likely to elapse between the times the Minister appeared in the House to answer questions. That was not suitable to those kinds of questions because the questions are usually designed to probe the Government's attitude to various current events around the world.

A period of five and a half hours during which time five speakers have contributed, is not a true reflection of the interest in foreign affairs. If it were not for the election taking place today of chairmen to local authorities more Deputies would have contributed. One thinks immediately of Deputy Owen and some independent Deputies who have a great interest in foreign affairs, also Deputy Hyland who would probably reflect the views expressed by Deputy Allen in relation to Central America and Nicaragua. Both these Deputies have become experts in this field and there are many other areas, too, in respect of which Members of the House have become expert. We should have the opportunity of hearing the views of those Members more regularly. A limited debate once yearly on the Estimate is not sufficient. Last year I promised that we would have a full day's debate on the Estimate. I kept my promise but time could not be found to allow for a debate of similar duration on this occasion.

My speech was divided into three sections and I shall endeavour to respond on that basis. The three sections were international affairs, the EC and Northern Ireland. First I should like to dwell on a couple of points made at the outset by Deputy Collins. He referred to a remark made by the Minister for Agriculture in Berlin at the opening of Green Week. Deputy Collins must have forgotten that he had already tabled a question to me on that matter. My reply to his question is to be found at column 1254 of the Official Report for 12 June, 1985. I replied adequately but not apologetically so far as the Minister for Agriculture is concerned.

The Deputy made the point also about some remarks passed by a Minister in Belfast and in New York. I understand Deputy Allen has responded to that so I shall not bother with it.

Deputy Collins said I had not spelled out the Government's position on world affairs, on Northern Ireland or on European affairs, but these are the subjects my speech was about. We have been fortunate in that there have been a number of debates in the Dáil in the past 12 months on European affairs and of course the reports of the EC are debated here every six months so that we have the opportunity of contributing regularly on that section of foreign affairs.

In addition, there are the summits following which there are statements in the House as happened on Tuesday after the Taoiseach's return from Milan. Apart from his statement, there were replies from the Leader of the main Opposition party and from the Leader of The Workers' Party. If Deputy Collins would read my speech again he would find that I set out precisely and clearly the position of the Government in respect of the three areas he mentioned.

The Deputy referred also to the increase in the Vote for Foreign Affairs between 1982 and 1985. As he says rightly, that increase has been of the order of 29 per cent. Votes in respect of other Departments have increased by more than 20 per cent but there is an element for my Department which is not present in other Votes and that is that a considerable portion of the Vote for Foreign Afairs is not in IR£s and therefore the translation into foreign currencies, particularly the dollar which evaluated by 30 per cent in that period, means that the cost to the Department is much greater than is the case in other Departments.

Deputy Collins is right when he says that the aid section of the Department has been the subject of significant increases. That is something we are proud of but our pride is tempered by the fact that the increase is totally inadequate to meet the needs of the world. However, in the national plan we have undertaken in precise terms to increase this aid and to repeat that increase in 1986 and 1987. Consequently, at the end of the period of the plan, our contribution under this heading will be significantly higher than the level it was at when we came to office.

Regarding the effect of the embargo, the Department of Foreign Affairs have lost 43 posts. There is a limit to what one can do because when a post becomes vacant in a three man mission abroad and is not refilled it becomes impossible to run the office. Such vacancies must be filled if such offices are to be kept open. This limits the degree of the effect of the embargo but nevertheless we have lost 43 posts out of a total of 800. That does not represent the figure of 8 per cent the Minister for the Public Service quoted this morning as being the average but it is slightly more than 5 per cent. Therefore, the record of my Department is good in that respect and our co-operation in the operation of the embargo is good also.

The EC occupied a large proportion of Deputy Collin's contribution and rightly so because the Community is very much part of our foreign policy. Our decision to join the Community was one of the most significant since we achieved our independence. Our membership has changed the country totally. I would not wish to see that decision being either diluted or reversed. As Deputy Collins said, there is a reward for being good Europeans. I believe strongly in that view. We should not at any time seek to be clever and to vote with people whose interests may coincide temporarily with our own. We should take the longer view and think of what we can do to build up the Community so that it becomes the vibrant force it was intended to be.

I agree with Deputy Collins that the history of the past two years in relation to the Community will not be written in gold letters. There has been a significant faltering in the advancement of the Community. This was brought about in the first instance by the effects of the two oil crises and by the resultant unemployment and recession which those factors induced throughout Europe. It is very depressing, worrying and challenging because it demands a response from the Community with which I am very dissatisfied, with 14 million people unemployed in the EC and another three million to be added when Spain joins the Community on 1 January next, and some more from Portugal.

The policies necessary to reverse that situation of growing unemployment have been put forward very forcibly by Ireland at the last three Summits, and at every Council meeting we attend — whether it is a Foreign Affairs Council, Internal Market Council, an ECO/FIN Council — our constant theme is that to talk about anything at present bar relaunching this Community so that the 14 million people, soon to be 17 million, who are unemployed will find jobs, while not a waste of time, is not ordering one's priorities correctly. I was in Milan last Friday and Saturday with the Taoiseach. He must have made that point half a dozen times during that two day summit. We were talking about political co-operation, which is important, because it constitutes another pillar towards the unification of the EC. But it is not what European people feel at present is the number one priority and we must react to that.

The fact that the Commission have been instructed to bring forward as early as possible, certainly for the next summit, an analysis of what has gone wrong — why these people are unemployed — plus proposals for relieving this level of unemployment and for getting people back to work within the Community is a move in the right direction. People may say it is too little too late. We can judge the "too little". I for one, think and the Taoiseach shares this view strongly, as do some of our partners, including I am glad to say the present Presidency, Luxembourg — that we must concentrate on getting our people back to work as well as doing all the other things that are necessary like the improvement of decision-making, political co-operation and the enlargement process which is now completed. We must bring about a convergence of economies which is written into Article 2 of the Treaties. We cannot say we accept Articles 500 to 600; we want those implemented. We want all the Articles, including the one which talks about bringing about convergence of economies, implemented. We believe very strongly in that.

Deputy G. Collins was critical also of the agreement reached on fisheries and allowing Spanish trawlers to fish here after ten years. This argument has been advanced fairly frequently in this House, in EC debates. The argument seems to contend that ten years is not sufficient because, after that, the Spaniards will rampage through our waters, scooping the fish out of the sea. This was illustrated by the Deputy in question who said: "Look at what they are doing now; they are rampaging through our waters and scooping the fish out of our seas." It does not really matter what agreement is reached if one believes they will do it anyway. I do not believe that. I believe that the Spaniards will respect the agreement. It is a bit too much to hope that there would be 100 per cent respect. Unfortunately our own boats do not respect the common fisheries policy 100 per cent, nor can we expect 100 per cent respect on the part of Spanish fishermen.

I believe that the Spaniards will obey the rules of the common fisheries policy and the terms negotiated for their entry under the Fisheries Chapter. I believe we will be able to police our waters, ascertaining whether the common fisheries policy is being respected after ten years. As I said in my initial remarks, we are talking about 93 boats only after the ten years. There is a total ten-year ban from 1 January 1986 to 31 December 1995 on Spanish or Portuguese fishing boats in the Irish Box 50 mile zone.

Deputy G. Collins also spoke about a better understanding among young people about Europe. I agree with that. The Heads of State and Government at the Council of Europe meeting in Fontai-nebleau also agreed with that because that was one of the reasons that the ad hoc committee on a people's Europe was established. Many of the suggestions made by that committee were intended to help to make Europe more real to people within the Community. I hope it will work; I believe it will.

As regards the regional policy I accept fully what Deputy G. Collins said. The regional policy has not grown at all at the rate it should. It is one of the most important policies as far as we are concerned. But there has been an adjustment of the figures which affords us the possibility of getting more from the Regional Fund in the future than the controlled amount we received to date. This is a move in the right direction. But we must push for an increased, realistic regional policy. We must also push very strongly for an increase in own resources. The level of 1.4 per cent VAT from 1986 onwards to cater for existing policies, enlargement and new policies which are so necessary in so many fields is an inadequate amount. We must keep on pushing to get this figure increased. Indeed we proposed last year, when this was being discussed, that a more realistic figure from everybody's point of view would be 2 per cent, again a point made by Deputy Collins.

I take Deputy Collins' point about forestry. Certainly I shall think about proposing a common forestry policy. There is much work we can do at home without any common forestry policy. I certainly take his point and shall see what can be done in that regard. Deputy Collins also said no initiative had been taken to deal with unemployment. I think I have dealt with that and I referred to it also in the course of my remarks earlier today.

Deputy G. Collins also asked about Kampuchea and whether we recognised the Pol Pot regime there. Of course we do not. Neither do we recognise their Vietnamese-backed invasion of Kampuchea, and we have not recognised them at the United Nations. He also said — as I said myself in the course of my remarks — that some of the larger countries were not giving the full support he would wish to the United Nations. That is correct, regrettably. The United Nations have been a force for good in the world for 40 years. I would hope that their fortieth year will bring home to many people who are not giving the support that I and Deputy Collins would wish the necessity for having a United Nations organisation in the world where problems can be solved that have the potential to lead to far greater disasters. The United Nations have performed that role very well.

I am sorry to say that Deputy Collins is totally wrong about the amount of arrears owed by the USSR. It is nearly ten times what the Deputy said; it was £200 million at the end of last year. I do not think any further comment is needed in that respect.

Deputy Collins also said that the Taoiseach had turned down an invitation to participate in an initiative of six States concerning disarmament. The Government were not approached to join that initiative although we endorse the goals of that initiative——

Mr. G. Collins

The Government were not invited?

Mr. P. Barry

No, we were not invited. I want to say a word about Deputy Allen's magnificent contribution here today on the question of Nicaragua and Central America. It was a marvellous exposition of what a Deputy can learn by visiting an area. The amount of information and knowledge he has given me and this House today is very valuable.

I will conclude on Northern Ireland. Let us be quite clear about this. I want to repeat what I said. Deputy Collins said the Government's intentions and policies on Northern Ireland were unclear. I recounted what we were trying to do and what we hoped to achieve in the North of Ireland, that this Government are a nationalist Government who believe in a unitary State which is not available at the wave of a hand at this moment. I will just quote the last paragraph of my opening speech again:

This Government, if we succeed in the current negotiations with Britain, will seek no political advantage from that success; neither over the Opposition here nor over the unionist people of Northern Ireland. That is not what we are about. Let me again make our position crystal clear. First, the Irish Government are totally committed to Irish unity and we will continue, without fear or favour, to work for its achievement by peaceful means and in agreement. Second, we are determined to transform the condition of the Northern nationalists and to do so now.

Vote put and agreed to.