Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 28 May 1987

Vol. 373 No. 1

Estimates 1987. - Vote 44 — Foreign Affairs (Revised Estimate).

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Lenihan)

I move:

That a sum not exceeding £24,207,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1987, 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.

I propose that the Vote for Foreign Affairs and the Vote for International Co-operation be debated together, as is customary.

This debate on the Estimates of the Department of Foreign Affairs affords an opportunity to the Dáil to review our nation's foreign policy which is timely in two senses: in the first place it enables the Government to set out our views at an early stage in our term of office and to have, from the beginning, the benefit of the views of the Dáil on this crucial area of policy. Secondly, we have recently seen issues of foreign policy move to a central place on the Irish political agenda, notably in relation to the Single European Act. It has been brought home to us, as perhaps never before, that foreign policy issues cannot be regarded as remote abstractions. They can impinge, sometimes in very major and unexpected ways, on our most fundamental political and economic concerns.

There is a widespread consensus in Ireland, transcending most political divisions in our society, on the general principles we should try to assert in the conduct of our foreign policy. These look to a world at peace, and a world justly ordered, governed by law rather than force. They reflect a preference for responsive democratic systems, such as we enjoy in our own country, over those which resort to despotism or coercion. They set a high value on personal and religious freedoms, in contrast to those who regard such freedoms as secondary to other values. They are coloured by our own experience as a people, striving for a recognised and worthy place for our country among the nations of the earth and sensitive to the plight of victims and the vulnerability of small nations the world over.

In addition to a firm commitment to issues of principle, we require also an accurate sense of our environment and of Ireland's proper role in the areas where we are engaged. The debate on the Single European Act, which is still fresh in our memories, showed how difficult it can be to maintain a perspective on all of these dimensions. Because we cannot always change the world to the extent we would wish we sometimes leap to the conclusion that we cannot influence it at all. Taken to its extreme — and the extreme was occasionally evident during the referendum campaign — this leads to outright isolationism. This mentality emphasises concepts such as sovereignty and independence, which are important to us all, but it views them more as limitations than as assets in our dealings with the world. It assumes we are too weak to assert our principles in association with friendly states and, at the same time, strong enough to make them prevail in the much more difficult circumstances of isolation. These attitudes, as the referendum results showed, are very much minority sentiments and they are ones which I believe greatly underrate the resourcefulness of our people.

I spoke earlier of a degree of consensus on many of the underlying principles of our policy. I believe this consensus reaches into many areas of practical policy also. Once outside the domestic environment, all Irish people perceive how much the things which bind us together outweigh the things which divide us. We know that the more our basic principles and interests are maintained as consistent national objectives the more likely we are to see them prevail. We know that the more domestic differences are carried into the external arena the greater the possibility of damage to our interests as a whole. Successive Governments become the custodians of Ireland's international reputation and, in the general interest, they will seek to safeguard the foreign policy gains made by others as well as those achieved by themselves. There are points of agreement and shared objectives which transcend party political divisions and are a source of strength to us collectively. In the conduct of our foreign policy we will give due value to these areas of consensus. We hope Opposition Deputies will reach in the same spirit and give the same emphasis to national over party political considerations in dealing with this special domain of foreign policy.

I would like now to turn to individual aspects which are of particular concern to us. It will not surprise the Dáil that I should deal first with Northern Ireland. Some of the features of this very difficult problem have been with us for a long time, including sadly, an unremitting campaign of violence which continues to take a heavy toll. Each passing year adds its own witness to the futility of the campaign of violence. Its appalling effects are clear to all except to those who have the power to stop it but choose instead to kill and destroy, wilfully visiting untold suffering on their fellow-citizens and adding immeasurably to the barriers of mutual hatred and suspicion which must be overcome in the search for peace and agreement

In recent years there has been growing acceptance that a framework for a solution involving all the parties had to be created. The December 1980 summit in Dublin Castle between the Taoiseach, Deputy Haughey, and the British Prime Minister was a decisive step. In our two months in office the Government have continued to be active in promoting the Anglo-Irish process. I myself have had meetings with the British Foreign Secretary, Sir Geoffrey Howe, and with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Mr. King. I co-chaired the meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference with Mr. King in Belfast on 22 April.

In our relations with the British Government on Northern Ireland, we are using the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference fully so as to improve the position of all the people living in Northern Ireland and especially the Nationalist community. The Conference and the Joint Secretariat in Belfast provide a mutually accepted institutional framework for dealing with Northern matters and matters relating to North-South co-operation. We have commited ourselves to use this framework to make progress and we look forward to meeting an equal spirit of commitment on the other side of the table.

The Government's immediate priorities in the Intergovernmental Conference include in particular: progress in the area of fair employment; substantial reforms in the administration of justice; improved North-South economic co-operation.

I will deal briefly with each of these headings.

First, it is regrettable that after 15 years of direct rule the unemployment rate among the Catholic population is more than twice the rate among Protestants. The Fair Employment Act, introduced in 1976, has not succeeded in redressing this imbalance. At the meeting of the Conference on 22 April both sides agreed to the need for progress in legislation and practice in this area. The Government will continue to stress the need for effective legislation and for effective action on the ground. We want to see the introduction of sanctions applied to those employers and bodies who fail to meet their responsibilities to ensure equitable patterns of employment.

Secondly, the courts and the law in the North should be such as to merit the full confidence of both sections of the community. Our Government are committed to seek substantial reform both in the court system and in the emergency legislation in the North. Parallel with the administration of justice through the courts and the law is the relationship between the security forces and the Nationalist community. We want to see introduced a programme of special measures to improve that relationship, including the introduction of a code of conduct for the police. We want to see action as quickly as possible on the Stalker/ Sampson report.

Thirdly, the Government will pay special attention to encouraging North-South economic co-operation, in particular in areas likely to increase employment possibilities in both parts of Ireland. The International Fund has established a range of programmes that will, I believe, bring substantial economic and social benefits on both sides of the Border. I want to express our appreciation here to those Governments who have so far contributed to the fund — the United States, Canada and New Zealand. These have given practical expression to their goodwill and the desire to see the political process in this island succeed.

Above and beyond this necessary programme of reform lies the vital task of maintaining the political process. We will continue to seek to build conditions for peace, stability and justice so as to overcome the causes that produce violence on this island. We will work closely with the Nationalist community and we will be attentive to all constructive views which may be expressed to us by members of the Unionist community. To all who desire a solution through constitutional democratic means, we hold out the hand of friendship.

I turn next to the question of our relations with the European Community, which the recent debate on the Single European Act has brought into sharp public focus. The Government put the question of the Single European Act to the people in the clearest and most straightforward terms, and the people have pronounced upon it. In saying "Yes" decisively to the Single European Act, the Irish people have reaffirmed their commitment to the European Community and to Ireland's positive role in its future development. In this context, I wish to say that the policy of neutrality in particular reflects a long standing and widespread consensus among Irish people that our interests are best served by remaining outside military alliances. Our neutrality, that is to say our choice not to join any military alliance, is respected by our European partners. Ireland's presence in the Community is in itself an important political and procedural guarantee that the Community can never be seen as a mere subgroup of a military alliance.

The Single European Act however is not some kind of blank cheque in the foreign policy area. It is rather a codification of what we have engaged in for many years now. Such co-operation has already enabled the Twelve to contribute positively to the searches for just and lasting settlements in many crises around the world: the Middle East, Central America and South Africa are prominent examples of situations where the Twelve have been to the fore in advocating peaceful settlements. It is my intention to ensure that Ireland will continue to play its full and constructive part in the elaboration of joint positions on foreign policy with our European partners. We have a distinctive input in this process and it has given Ireland an enhanced voice in the world.

In relation to the economic aspects of our Community membership, the Government are determined to ensure that the Single European Act will provide a basis for the development of the Community along lines that will address our particular needs and safeguard and promote our economic interests.

The immediate context in which the Government will pursue this approach is provided by the negotiations which commenced recently on the set of proposals for the period up to 1992. These were brought forward by the Commission with a view to making a success of the Single European Act and are informally known as the "Delors plan". They envisage an increase in the Community's resources, the development of policies designed to further cohesion and the completion of the process of reform of the CAP.

In their broad lines these proposals address the issues of major concern to Ireland. The challenge of international competition in the world market means that action along the lines advocated by the Commission is needed to give the Community adequate and assured resources, to ensure the Community budget is managed prudently and efficiently and to allow for effective measures to be taken to reduce regional disparties in the Community. We support the objectives of a medium term solution which would enable the Community to plan ahead.

We also support the opening of the internal market which we consider should significantly enhance our export opportunities and add to the attractions of Ireland as an investment location to service this wider market.

We welcome the general thrust of the proposals on future financing. We support the Commission's proposal that the ceiling on the resources available to the Community budget should be 1.4 per cent of the Community's GNP. This would represent an increase of 45 per cent by 1992 in the resources available compared with the resources available under the existing 1.4 per cent VAT ceiling.

Deputies will be aware of the considerable benefits which Ireland has received from the Community's Structural Funds. Between 1973 and 1986, Ireland received £1,563 million in total receipts — the highest level of benefit of any member state. In the enlarged Community of Twelve, moving towards completion of the internal market, we simply cannot afford to take this level of benefit for granted. Nevertheless, there is a clear commitment in the Single European Act to work towards economic and social cohesion. It is our task to ensure that as the Community's internal market is opened up, parallel action takes place to lessen the disparities which exist between the regions. The need to narrow the existing gap in living standards must be taken into account in the implementation of all Community policies. The Structural Funds — Regional, Social, Agricultural Guidance — are important instruments in this effort. The Community is committed to reviewing and improving the way they work and to ensuring that the assistance from the funds has the maximum economic impact in the neediest areas.

We welcome the Commission's acknowledgement of the importance of concentrating structural assistance on the least developed regions. We consider that the proposal to double the Structural Funds and to devote 80 per cent of the Regional Fund to the promotion of these areas should have real economic impact. We shall also seek to ensure that our particular budgetary capacity is taken into account and shall continue our efforts to ensure that the Community's intervention rates are modulated accordingly.

In order to bring about restructuring and to alleviate hardship, the Commission is proposing a system of direct income aids for farmers. We accept that a system of Community aids may be necessary in some areas. We are opposed, however, to the introduction of a national aids system which can lead to a distortion of competition and to a re-nationalisation of the CAP, the Community's most successful common policy. Our approach is that the major underpinning of farmers' incomes should be by market support through guaranteed prices and intervention. In this situation, Irish agriculture can exploit its natural advantages and compete successfully in the European and world markets.

I would like to turn now to the question of our foreign relations with the world at large, and, in particular, their economic and political aspects. The present economic climate has brought home to all the urgency of a national commitment to a programme of growth. The emphasis on export-led growth in the Government's Programme for National Recovery will have implications for many areas of my Department's activity. The vital task of enhancing our foreign earnings will be pursued vigorously as a primary objective by our diplomatic missions. The methods of carrying out this objective will naturally vary to meet the particular circumstances of individual countries. Our representatives will be called upon to monitor changes of legislation or practice which would affect our trade adversely and to lobby on our behalf so that export opportunities or investments are not impaired. In state trading countries missions have a particular role as the channel of contact with central trading organisations, either directly or through the operation of co-operation agreements and joint commissions, for which my Department have specific responsibility. Our diplomatic personnel will work in close liaison with CTT and other promotional bodies in areas where they are both represented or on their behalf in areas where they are not. Apart from direct exports of goods they will also be instructed to pay particular attention to supporting the service sector and to contracts funded by international bodies such as the United Nations or the World Bank.

My Department will be intensifying their efforts in the areas I have referred to with a view to enhancing the contribution they can make to the promotion of our exports. Familiarisation meetings are being arranged with semi-State bodies active in the export area for officers going on postings and it is hoped to expand these arrangements. Increased attention will be given to the tourism area. My Department are already represented on a high-level committee under the Minister of State for Tourism and our missions abroad will be active in this area directly or in liaison with local Bord Fáilte offices. The cultural dimension of tourism is one in which Ireland has much to offer and one which our missions should be well placed to promote.

A second major dimension in our relations with other countries is, of course, the political one. I would like now to review some political issues which I feel are important for the conduct of our foreign relations.

Among these issues there are a few with such awesome implications for us as the relations between the Superpowers and the question of disarmament. We believe it is of vital importance that the two Superpowers continue their dialogue aimed at advancing international peace and security.

While this country is neither directly nor indirectly involved in these bilateral discussions, we welcome their comprehensive character and the prospects of achieving, for the first time, a genuine reduction in the number of nuclear weapons held by the Superpowers. The Government believe that the elimination of intermediate range nuclear weapons in Europe, which is the area of the Superpower dialogue in which agreement seems closest, would be a positive step towards the goal of nuclear disarmament and towards halting and reversing the arms race generally. We hope that progress can soon be made in other areas also and that all sides will agree on maintaining existing agreements, which are the basic foundation of the arms control process.

In 1987 Ireland will take part in the UN Conference on Disarmament and Development, which will begin in New York in August. We are determined to play an active and positive role in the disarmament process, especially in the fields of nuclear disarmament. We will continue to urge strict implementation and the widest possible acceptance of the non-proliferation regime. We regard agreement on a comprehensive ban on nuclear testing as more necessary, and more feasible, than ever.

In the broader East-West framework, we continue to attach special importance to our involvement in the CSCE process. This provides an East-West network of contacts and co-operation which has endured despite periods of tension between the Superpowers. It is also a forum in which smaller countries in Europe, such as Ireland, can contribute to the development of more stable, humane and co-operative relations in the region. We are, therefore, participating actively, along with our partners in the Twelve, in the third CSCE follow-up meeting which is currently taking place in Vienna. We are working to achieve a substantive, balanced outcome at Vienna, which will include new measures in all areas covered by the Helsinki Final Act, but most particularly in the fields of human rights and human contacts.

This Government attach great importance to maintaining, and indeed strengthening, Ireland's role within the United Nations. We have a distinctive contribution to make on many areas of concern to the UN and it is the Government's intention to ensure that our voice continues to be given full expression. In addition to our participation in the work of the General Assembly, our current membership of the UN Commission on Human Rights provides an opportunity to highlight our particular concerns in the human rights area, an aspect of the work of the UN to which we attach particular significance.

For all its shortcomings, the United Nations provides a unique and valuable world forum. We accordingly welcome the efforts being made under the direction of the Secretary General to improve and up-date the operation of the organisation. An essential pre-condition of progress in this regard is a willingness by all member states to discharge their charter obligations by making their obligatory financial contributions. The present unsatisfactory situation both militates against the completion of the reform process and distracts the UN from the broader issues with which it should be preoccupied.

An aspect of United Nations activity with which Ireland has a long an honourable association is, of course, United Nations peacekeeping.

It is appropriate that I should on this occasion pay tribute to the members of the Defence Forces serving with the United Nations — Truce Supervision Organisation at various centres in the Middle East, the UN Force in Cyprus and, of course, UNIFIL, our major commitment at present in the peacekeeping area.

The tragic deaths of three members of the UNIFIL contingent over the past year have highlighted our commitment in this respect. I should like here to offer consolation to the families of the three men concerned and say that they died in the cause of peace in the finest traditions of the peace-keeping role of Ireland in troubled spots throughout the world.

The Government have made clear to all of the parties to the conflict, and in particular to the Israeli authorities, our insistence on the need for maximum co-operation with the forces and the unacceptability of any actions which might threaten the security and our personnel. The Government will continue to monitor carefully the situation on the ground in southern Lebanon to ensure that the assurances which they have been offered in this regard, will be fully implemented. I saw the Israeli Ambassador only last week in this respect. In this, we will maintain close contact with the UN Secretary General. We will also continue to impress on the Security Council, under the mandate of which the force operates, the importance we attach to facilitating the full implementation of this mandate.

Historic ties, geographic proximity, patterns of trade and economic interdependence ensure that the tragic divisions and instabilities of the Middle East remain a matter of consistent concern and priority for Ireland and its partners in Europe. We can be proud of our active and constructive role in the formulation of a European policy on this issue, for example, in the evolution of the keynote Venice Declaration of June 1980 which remains the basic expression of the policy of the Twelve member states of the European Community.

In February of this year the Foreign Ministers of the Twelve, in a new and important departure, adopted a declaration endorsing an international peace conference to be held under the auspices of the United Nations with the participation of the parties concerned and of any party able to make a direct and positive contribution to the restoration and maintenance of peace and to the region's economic and social development.

The war between Iran and Iraq is now in its seventh year. The loss of human life as well as the damage to the economic infrastructure bears heavily on the two peoples involved. This futile and deplorable conflict poses an increasing threat to the security of the Gulf region and has serious implications for international peace and security generally. We have called on the parties concerned for an immediate ceasefire and a withdrawal to internationally recognised frontiers. Together with our partners in the Twelve we have urged both parties to comply with the relevant resolutions of the UN Security Council and have supported the mediation efforts of the UN Secretary-General.

The situation in South Africa has shown no improvement during the last year. Indeed violence and repression have reached new heights. South Africa has now had a countrywide state of emergency for almost a year. Many thousands of people, nearly all black, have been imprisoned without trial under its provisions, often for many months; their numbers have included many hundreds of young school children. Hundreds more have been killed either in fighting between blacks or at the hands of the security forces.

Against this background an election was conducted among the white minority in May. The results were predictable and sad. The election, confined as it was to a small minority of the population, did not address the true problems facing South Africa but showed a rise in support for those demanding more repression of the black majority. Nothing in the results has prompted the South African Government to take the steps necessary to open a genuine political dialogue with the leaders of the black community.

Not surprisingly, the year has seen an increase in international pressure against South Africa. Further steps have been taken over this period by the Twelve member states of the European Community, by the Nordic countries, the Commonwealth and the USA. The Twelve decided in September last to ban imports of South African iron, steel and gold coins as well as deciding to ban new investment in South Africa. Ireland welcomed this decision and fully supported community action in this respect.

South Africa continues its open defiance of the United Nations and world opinion by its illegal occupation of Namibia and its refusal to allow a negotiated settlement in accordance with the provisions of UN Security Council Resolution 435. We shall continue to oppose these trends in South African policy. We urge full adherence to the Security Council resolution and effective support of the front line states in their resistance to South African destabilisation.

We are very conscious of the acute economic and social problems which afflict the countries of the Latin American region and threaten their political stability. Along with the rest of the Twelve, we will continue to aim at a relationship between Europe and Latin America which will help to strengthen democracy and respect for human rights and promote badly needed economic development. In this respect we will follow the Contadora formula. We support the States in South America that are pushing for that type of agreed peaceful formula to settle affairs in Central America.

The plight of what has been called the Third World is one which occupies a very special place in the foreign policy preoccupations of the Irish people. The marked disparities between rich and poor nations and the problem of the debt overhang of the developing countries are matters which must now enter into any assessment of the collective future of our world. For us in Ireland there is the added dimension that images of hunger and deprivation and the spectacle of victim peoples touch a deep chord in our collective memory.

Next July the seventh UNCTAD Conference will take place in Geneva. We hope to play a positive role at that conference. Apart from our diplomatic effort we have financial commitments to the Official Development Assistance programme which is channelled multilaterally through the European Community and the United Nations-World Bank system and through our bilateral assistance programme.

This year the provision for our aid through the European Community is IR£16.32 million. This aid is spent principally in the Lomé Convention countries of Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific, in countries of Asia and Latin America and on the Community's food aid programme. The allocation for the bilateral assistance programme this year is IR£17.175 million. About 60 per cent of our bilateral aid programme is directed to four priority countries in Africa, namely, Lesotho, Sudan, Tanzania and Zambia. Technical assistance constitutes a major component of our aid. In this respect 95 experts were employed at the end of last year. In addition, many Irish public and private sector organisations act as technical consultants for bilaterial aid projects.

A further dimension of our involvement with other states is the consular protection of our citizens abroad. A special aspect of this has been our concern in regard to the numbers of young Irish people who have emigrated to the United States in recent years and whose future is uncertain or illegal by reason of their status in that country. Our determination to improve their position was set out clearly in our Programme for National Recovery and formed the basis for a number of talks which the Taoiseach and I had with Congressional leaders, Irish-American politicians and the United States administration during our visit to Washington in March. I would like to thank in particular Congressman Donnelly who has since then introduced a draft Bill dealing with this problem and which, if enacted, will increase the number of immigrant visas available to Irish citizens. We thank Congressman Donnelly for his initiative and we also thank the other Congressmen who supported him in pursuing this matter.

I might mention also the important question of our relations with the Irish community in Britain. My predecessor played a very strong role in this respect. I was glad to attend the annual congress of the Federation of Irish Societies in Britain which was held recently. I was able to learn at first hand about their problems and the emphasis they place on the Dion Committee to which we have given funds of £250,000 this year under the Vote of the Minister for Labour.

I talked to them about their concern in regard to the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four and the Annie Maguire cases where it is quite clear that injustices occurred. We welcome the fact that in regard to the Birmingham Six, the Court of Criminal Appeal will be looking at the matter in November.

These are the main lines of our foreign policy which the Government intend to pursue. I have tried to do my best in the context of the 30 minutes constraint. We are confident that our foreign policy is based on the principles the Irish people wish to see asserted and the role they wish to see us play in our international relations. I can assure the Dáil that our foreign policy will be implemented in a way which will serve the national interest and play its part in the Programme of National Recovery to which we are committed.

Mr. Barry

We accept this Estimate because it is one we prepared. There is one noticeable exception which makes the Minister's speech in relation to development assistance appear very hollow because it has been reduced from our Estimate by £1.3 million. This has happened only twice in 15 years, where the allocation, as a percentage of GNP, has been reduced. In both cases the money for international co-operation has been reduced by Fianna Fáil. Deputy Brendan Griffin will deal with that later.

There are constant pleas made in this House for more time to debate foreign affairs. When I was Minister I was very receptive to suggestions that we should have much fuller debates in this House on foreign policy extending to one or two days. I would like a commitment from the Government, who control the time of this House, that they will allocate two days for a debate on all aspects of foreign policy in the autumn when we resume. That would receive the support of the House. It is ridiculous to try to debate such important things as the European Community, international affairs, disarmament, the Middle East and Northern Ireland in a 20-minute contribution. It is just not possible.

The Minister said:

We know that the more our basic principles and interests are maintained as consistent national objectives the more likely we are to see them prevail. We know that the more our domestic differences are carried into the external arena the greater the possibility of damage to our interests as a whole. Successive Governments become the custodians of Ireland's international reputation and, in the general interest, they will seek to safeguard the foreign policy gains made by others as well as those achieved by themselves... In the conduct of our foreign policy we will give due value to these areas of consensus. We would hope that Opposition Deputies will react in the same spirit and give the same emphasis to national over party political considerations in dealing with this special domain of foreign policy.

I agree with that. It is essential that externally we should support Government policies. I regret that this is another late conversion by the Fianna Fáil Party. The only occasion on which Opposition Deputies attacked the Government while out of the country was when the present leader of Fianna Fáil went twice to America and attacked the Government. That is something unheard of in any democracy and it was certainly something new in the conduct of affairs of this country. Likewise, the present Tánaiste went on a surreptitious visit to Washington at the time of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and did his best to persuade Irish-American politicians not to give any support to the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I am glad that he was totally unsuccessful in that and that it was rejected by those politicians as an unpatriotic act. I hope the sentiments that the Minister expresses in the speech this morning will not be just for the convenience of his role as Minister, but that when he is back in Opposition he will follow through and support the Government in their foreign policy.

The same thing happened in relation to the Single European Act which Fianna Fáil knew from the time it was signed in February was in the national interest. Deputy Collins as Opposition spokesman for Foreign Affairs at the time did not make one reference in his Estimate speech last May or June against the Single European Act but just re-emphasised our commitment to Europe and the necessity for us to play a full part in Europe. Yet, for political reasons, because they sensed they might be able to drive a wedge between the Government parties last December they decided to take up a position which they did not believe in. Those chickens came home to roost as far as Fianna Fáil were concerned in the last few days. Documents issued by the "No" campaign outside the polling stations — and I will have something to say about their dishonest campaign — ran as follows:

"It is dishonest and misleading to attempt to put the ratification of the Single European Act across as something of great benefit to the people of this country, because this is not, in fact, the case."

Charles J. Haughey, Dáil Éireann, December 9, 1986.

The fact that Fianna Fáil supporters were confused about the Single European Act relates directly to Fianna Fáil's dishonest opposition to the Single European Act which they were careful to cloak over by the euphemism "we did not vote against it in the Dáil'. This was part of their political broadcast. It is true they abstained, but every word they said was against the Single European Act. Professor Mary McAleese was clearly one of the ones duped by what they said. She believed they meant what they said and she went out pushing a "No" attitude in the campaign, quoting extensively the words of the leader of Fianna Fáil and saying every time "but I am saying no more than Mr. Haughey said last December". Unfortunately Professor McAleese is not as familiar with the ability of Fianna Fáil to make U-turns on virtually any subject, as perhaps other people are, and she thought they meant what they said. Professor McAleese quoted extensively from Deputy Haughey and then found herself being disowned by the party for saying things which her party leader said six months ago. It was a ridiculous position in which to be.

This was reflected in the electorate. When I was campaigning for a "Yes" vote people came up to me and said "we are voting no, we are members of Fianna Fáil". That was fairly general among Fianna Fáil supporters. This was also reflected in their thoroughly lazy campaign on the issue. In the early hours of polling day when nobody was around they put up posters and then disappeared back into their houses. They were not outside the polling stations, they did not canvas or distribute literature. I speak from my experience in my constituency and in other constituencies where I spoke to the people during the campaign. I am glad that the people, despite the great temptation to rap Fianna Fáil for their change in stance over the Single European Act, the Anglo-Irish Agreement, the health cuts and other Government cuts, resisted doing that in sufficient numbers to allow the Single European Act to get the "Yes" vote yesterday. I am very pleased about that, despite the recent opposition of Fianna Fáil and the dishonest campaign conducted by some elements in the "No" lobby. Some of them were very honest, though not all. I was sorry to note that Cork Council Trade Unions issued a circular which was handed out outside of polling stations on Tuesday which said:

Title II means:

An overall reduced standard of living for most Irish people.

More job losses.

Abolition of custom and excise duties and harmonisation of VAT will mean the loss of an estimated £1,000 million yearly in revenue. This can only mean more hospital closures and further cutbacks in health, education and social welfare.

The prices of basic necessities will go up:

Butter by a minimum of 11p a pound.

Bread by a minimum of 7p a loaf.

Milk by a minimum of 3p a pint.

Tea by a minimum of 20p a pound.

This document was issued in the name of the Cork Council of Trade Unions and it clearly misrepresented what the Single European Act was about, they said that voting:

NO to the Single European Act means:

NO to Health, Education and Social Welfare cuts.

NO to more job losses.

NO to price increases.

NO to Thatcherite monetarist policies.

This organisation which is responsible for the trade union movement in the city of Cork issued that dishonest reprehensible attempt to mislead people about the Single European Act.

Also in relation to the Single European Act in a television broadcast last Tuesday week in a "Today Tonight" programme a journalist asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs to comment on a statement which he said had been made by the Danish Foreign Minister in Copenhagen that for the first time at their discussion on European political co-operation in April they were able to discuss matters of armaments, disarmament, strategies, treaties and so on and the Irish Minister present did not object. Perhaps the Minister was taken by surprise but he did not deny that position on the television programme. The Minister talked around it and said that it is normal that they would talk about these things, that there were 11 members of NATO and so on, and that he would shut up. Perhaps the Minister will have an explanation for not denying this on the television programme and perhaps the Danish Minister did not say it at all as we had another example in the last few days of the Danish Minister being misrepresented by some over-enthusiastic fellow countryman of his in relation to his attitude to the Single European Act.

When political co-operation is discussed, the Irish Minister cannot allow that discussion to go ahead if it is dealing with armaments, strategies, manoeuvres theories about the line-up of forces or anything that is more correctly dealt with in the NATO or in the WEU context. It is not enough just to stay quiet and let the discussion flow over his head. It is not a suitable subject to discuss in political co-operation and the Minister present from Ireland must always object to it and draw the attention of his fellow members to the fact that it is more correctly discussed in one of the other fora. Therefore, I would like the Minister to comment on the fact that he did not deny last Tuesday week that he had just sat there and to assure the House that in future if such discussions take place he will object and will ensure that they take place where correctly they should take place. Political co-operation in the European sense deals with the economic measures of security. It does not deal with arms and so forth. I am sorry to say that the political aspects of security have been misrepresented. Of course we have an interest in the political and economic aspects of security. For instance, the one we can all think of very quickly is in regard to the supply of oil.

I want to move on to the North-South relations and the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Mrs. Thatcher gave a phone-in interview on radio during the weekend when various questions were put to her. The heading in one of the newspapers was: "Thatcher Prepared To Concede on Accord", the accord being the Anglo-Irish Agreement. What she said on the programme in answer to questions is not quite clear. She gave the impression, in fairness I believe unwittingly, that it was possible to renegotiate the Anglo-Irish Agreement and that she would be willing to see that happen if they sat down with a devolved Government. She said that a clause in the agreement allows renegotiation of the agreement. She was referring to Article 11 which provides that: "At the end of three years from signature of this Agreement, or earlier if requested by either Government, the working of the Conference shall be reviewed by the two Governments to see whether any changes in the scope and nature of its activities are desirable". I suggest, only on the basis of the outside chance that there may be not full recognition of what that clause means by one of the parties to the agreement, that it does not mean that the Ango-Irish Agreement can be renegotiated. The workings of the conference can be reviewed but the agreement cannot be renegotiated. I say this, conscious of the danger of an over truculent approach by either Government to the working of the Anglo-Irish Conference.

Yesterday's newspapers reported that the Minister had raised, correctly, through the Anglo-Irish Secretariat the matter of the shooting of the van driver and the attitude of the RUC in that incident. Bishop Daly referred to this at the removal service the other day. The conference and the secretariat can and should be used in matters such as this which are of concern to Nationalists in the North. I raised here on the Adjournment a fortnight ago the matter of the Ballygall shooting and I asked the Minister to make sure that that would be raised through the Anglo-Irish Conference. It is not clear from newspaper reports — although that does not necessarily mean anything — whether the Minister has responded. I want to draw his attention to the yellow card which is issued to members of the security forces in the North. It provides that in all circumstances they are to use the minimum force necessary, that firearms must be used only as a last resort and that the members may open fire against a person only if he is committing or about to commit an act likely to endanger life and there is no other way to prevent the danger. If they have to open fire they should (a) fire only aimed shots, (b) fire no more rounds than are necessary and (c) take all reasonable precautions not to injure anyone other than their target.

I think the Minister understands what I am saying. This must be taken up. A good relationship between Nationalists and the security forces is an important part of the ability of constitutional Nationalists in the North to get their fellow Nationalists to withdraw support from the men of violence who have done so much damage and who feed on the hate they can generate between Nationalists and Unionists. The security forces should not be seen as the security force of one side or another. They are there to defend all the people irrespective of political beliefs or religion. That is an essential key to bringing about peace in the North, to having Nationalist confidence in the administration of justice and in the security forces in the North. If that can be achieved we can achieve the other objectives of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, of bringing about peace and stability in the North. The Minister should consider seriously what has been happening in the North in the last few months and should on every occasion an incident occurs raise the matter through the secretariat.

I am very pleased that in the general election campaign in Britain the constitutional Nationalists in the North, the SDLP in particular, are standing firmly by the agreement as the main plank in their platform for winning seats from Unionists and from the enemies of the people, the Provisional IRA and their hollow political wing, Sinn Féin. I wish them every success in that regard and that SDLP seats will be at least doubled when the votes are counted in the North in the middle of June. If the Government here can give them or any constitutional Nationalists in the North any help, it should be given. Any party whose aim is to bring about reconciliation between the two traditions there without the use of violence deserve that.

Deputy Cooney has asked for a debate on the Anglo-Irish Agreement in this House and I hope that the Minister will get the Government to agree to give him the two day's debate in the autumn. It could be included in the Foreign Affairs debate.

I join with the Minister in paying tribute to the United Nations forces in Lebanon. The contribution Ireland has made to peacekeeping is in stark contrast with the activities of the Provisional IRA who claim to speak for the Irish people in the North of Ireland and has been underlined by me. Our peacekeeping forces have been going out now for 25 years. Any time we were asked by the United Nations to contribute to peace keeping — no matter in what part of the world — every Government here was glad to accede to that request. In doing so I believe they had the full backing of our people. We can all be justly proud of the role they play at present in a most difficult situation in South Lebanon, with different factions among the Lebanese people themselves, with the unnecessary presence of the Israeli defence forces and the South Lebanese army in South Lebanon, indeed the inability of the United Nations to fulfil the mandate given them almost ten years ago to establish a Government in South Lebanon and to oversee the withdrawal of Israeli troops. To my mind, neither of those things has happened even though the Israelis might dispute the second. That is very regrettable.

The role the United Nations forces have played in South Lebanon has brought some measure of peace, stability and an ordinary form of life to the people of that unfortunate region. Of course every Government will have grave doubts about whether they should continue that role because of the fact that the United Nations have been unable to fulfil their mandate. However, on balance on every occasion most Governments will come down — as did my Government — in favour of its continuance, on the basis that even though the United Nations forces are not fulfilling their mandate they are performing a role in the region that is helpful in bringing some element of stability to some part of Lebanon.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I think the Deputy's time is up.

Mr. Barry

There is just one further point I want to make. I saw in the papers the other day that the Government had decided to allow South Korea to open an embassy in Dublin. I have no objection to South Korea opening an embassy here. However, we had been operating for a number of years on the basis of reciprocity, that we would allow embassies to open here when we were allowed open an embassy in the corresponding capital. Of course, there are exceptions to that. One is Turkey, another is Kenya, yet another, Luxembourg. There was an effort made to establish that reciprocity principle, that we would only allow embassies to open here when we opened a corresponding one abroad in the corresponding capital. Because of financial restrictions here we will be unable to open embassies abroad. This Government appear to have moved away from that principle and a South Korean embassy is to be opened here. As I have said, I have no objection to that. We established diplomatic relations with South Korea last year. I think that was a good thing to do and I welcome them here. I do not know whether we are to open an embassy in Seoul. I do not know what is the position. If we are to move away from that principle of reciprocity I should have thought that number one on that list would be Israel because of our relations with them. We have frequently had to see the ambassador over incidents in South Lebanon. Indeed another reason would be the growing amount of trade with them.

I apologise for having exceeded my time. I fear that had I four times as much the Chair would still be telling me I had exceeded the limit. I hope the Minister will agree to the two-day debate I have suggested.

Miss Kennedy

This debate on the Revised Estimate for the Department of Foreign Affairs takes place at a most interesting time given that the House and the country have just passed a referendum on the Single European Act. That referendum brought the issue of foreign affairs to the centre of the political stage. In my first contribution to a foreign affairs debate I should like to congratulate the Minister on his appointment to the Government and to wish him well during his term of office.

The most important issue highlighted by the debate in the past few weeks on our membership of the EC is the absolute ignorance of most people, including some Deputies, on Ireland's foreign policy. It was not until the Supreme Court gave its judgment on the Single European Act that the importance of our membership of the EC was brought home to most of our people. Though the judgment caused much distress to many Deputies — understandably, in the case of the last Coalition Government, and seemed to have a nuisance value for members of the present Government — it has hammered home one very important point. We have never properly examined Ireland's foreign policy in the Dáil or indeed in the Seanad either, even though, as a nation, we are obsessed with our sovereignty and the part we are supposed to be playing in the world.

For that reason, if no other, the referendum on the Single European Act has awakened a new interest in foreign policy which did not exist before. It has made people examine our membership of the EC, our neutrality, our attitude to Sellafield, and examine what are our vital national interests and other issues arising within the EC. I believe that was a good development. It highlights the hames the Government made of the whole introduction of the Bill relating to the Single European Act last year and the inadequate debate thereon. We must remember that this issue was of more fundamental importance to the future of this country than the last general election or indeed any of the other recent referenda. I hope that such an important Bill, such as that relating to the Single European Act, will never be rushed through this House in such a manner again, or that an Opposition party will never oppose, as did Fianna Fáil last December, just for opposition sake.

There is a great interest taken by many of our people in our foreign policy. It is for that reason I appeal to the Minister for Foreign Affairs to set up a foreign policy committee when the new committees are being established under the 25th Dáil. We have had a Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the EC sitting for a number of years. I believe this should now be broadened into a foreign affairs committee generally. I should also like to support the call by the Fine Gael spokesman, Deputy Barry, for a full two-day debate on the issue of foreign affairs in the autumn.

Speaking in the shadow of the Single European Act referendum I should like to highlight the totally inadequate job done by the EC offices in Dublin, the Commission and Parliament offices here, over the past 15 years to educate and integrate the Irish people as full EC members. I am sure I am not alone in stating it was not until the Single European Act referendum was upon us that I learned of the enormous contribution of the EC to our economy. I am not speaking in terms of the £900 million a year figure bandied about during the campaign which makes Ireland the biggest net beneficiary of the EC. Rather I am talking about how our health budget will receive £30 million this year from the EC whereas the health cutbacks proposed this year add up to almost £60 million. For example, most of the roads being built in this country these days are funded by the EC. Most of the third level regional technical colleges are assisted and funded to a huge extent by the Community, with parents and students receiving grants for these colleges. We could not afford to do a lot of these things for ourselves.

Similarly, practically all of our environment legislation — and there is great interest these days in matters dealing with the natural environment — has come about directly as a result of EC directives, for example, the Air Pollution Bill debated in the House in the past few days. The same applied to the Water Pollution Bill and the dealing with pollution of the sea by oil in the late seventies. All the motions in the world passed by the Dáil could do nothing by way of closing down Sellafield nuclear plant in comparison with the power of a monitoring committee being set up by the EC. I would fault the EC Commission and European Parliament offices in Dublin for not educating, first, the Oireachtas, second, the media and, third, TDs generally on the importance of Europe these days to the Irish economy. As a former political correspondent, I know that the Commission and Parliament offices rarely, if ever, invited my former colleagues to Brussels or Strasbourg to observe matters of Irish interest. It is a great pity that much of this information is not made public.

I would suggest that when we introduce legislation, such as the Status of Children Bill which will be before the House in the near future dealing with illegitimacy, the EC office in Dublin, simultaneously, should make information available to Deputies and Senators about the legal status of illegitimate children in the other eleven member states of the EC. For example, it would have been very interesting at the time of the divorce referendum last year had the EC offices in Dublin given information about divorce in other EC countries.

I have listed two pieces of social legislation but the same rule of thumb could apply, for example, to taxation policy. There was a fear, quite understandably, during the Single European Act campaign that the harmonisation of taxes could mean higher tax rates. Yet the EC offices had at their immediate disposal valuable statistical information about the direct and indirect taxes in all the other economies of the EC. Since we are now committed through the referendum to a future in Europe we should look more towards Europe for comparative purposes. The tendency in Ireland is always to look towards the United States or to look over our shoulders, with a big inferiority complex, at Britain.

Before I leave the subject of the recent referendum there are two other issues I would like to raise. The first arises from a question put by the leader of the Progressive Democrats, Deputy O'Malley, to the Taoiseach in the Dáil yesterday asking him when the Government will hold talks with the leaders of the other political parties on the constitutional implications of the Crotty judgment for other international treaties. The Taoiseach did not seem to treat the matter with great urgency. As the Government's power to ratify the Anglo-Irish Agreement could be involved and as a case on the Agreement is pending in the High Court, I appeal to the Taoiseach, on behalf of the party, to conclude his examination with some urgency. I hope we might be in a position to come back to the House before the summer recess to clear up this matter as it is vital to the Government's ability to conduct foreign policy. The former Taoiseach, Deputy FitzGerald, in the debate in the Dáil a few weeks ago, raised the matter of our membership of the United Nations. I would also like the Taoiseach to treat this matter with some urgency.

The second issue I would like to raise is our traditional policy of neutrality about which we heard so much during the campaign on the Single European Act. I would like to call on the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs to allow Government time for a full Dáil debate on the issue of neutrality. This issue has never been properly debated in the Dáil. The older political parties, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, have adopted semi-false positions as if we really were a politically neutral country but we are not and any responsible party will tell the people that we have not been politically neutral for a long time. What we are is militarily neutral.

Young people are very interested in our policy of neutrality but many of them have not fully thought it out. It would be very interesting if a new foreign policy committee, for example, were to debate our neutrality and, for the first time in this country's history, came to an all-party agreement on what neutrality actually means in the eighties. The historical fact is that neutrality was a tactic very wisely adopted by Mr. de Valera during the last war. The people have a fondness for it but, as we saw during the debate on the Single European Act, they have not been led by their political leaders to fully understand the implications of it. In my personal view, and this has not been discussed by my party, our neutrality should allow us to lead and take part in disarmament talks within the EC but as the former Taoiseach, Deputy FitzGerald, pointed out in a most interesting contribution to the House some weeks ago, an Irish head of Government cannot participate in such talks because of our policy of military neutrality. I was delighted to see that the Minister, Deputy Lenihan, referred to the disarmament issue during his speech. It is wrong that we should not be able to take part in disarmament talks. It would not infringe on our concept of military neutrality. Most Irish people would like to see us play a leading role in Europe and the world on the issue of disarmament.

I would like to raise a few pet subjects of my own which come under the Estimate for Foreign Affairs. Firstly, the Progressive Democrats propose that the different Irish trade, industry, tourism and diplomatic agencies should be integrated overseas on a single site providing an Ireland House focus for foreign interests and contacts. Under this strategy the locations of the IDA, CTT, SFADCo, Aer Lingus, Bord Fáilte and the Department of Foreign Affairs would be amalgamated with the obvious saving in overheads. It would also minimise the obvious duplication that currently occurs.

For many years the Department of Foreign Affairs have concerned themselves mainly with the diplomatic or high politics side of foreign relations to the detriment of trade and industry which this country has to rely on for exports and ultimately for the provision of jobs at home. The former secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Seán Donlon, did much work in co-ordinating the politics and the economics of foreign relations. The Government who are now supposed to be looking at expenditure cuts in all areas should consider this idea. An Ireland House concept would present a co-ordinated and composite picture of Ireland in foreign countries. All too often people in the know say that the various organisations like Córas Tráchtála and Bord Fáilte are competing for business and duplicating their efforts whereas they should be working in their separate areas for the one purpose.

I wish to refer to my favourite subject going back to my old school days. We do not put enough effort into the teaching of foreign languages. All too often — I have heard this from parents since I was elected as a TD — pupils leave secondary schools with a proficiency in the written language but without a functional use of the language for the business world. There are a number of opportunities for young people in Europe but because of the language barrier which poses itself as a problem, we are all too inclined to export our graduates to the United States or to Britain. By doing so we are cutting off a big labour market. Any European city today, with the introduction of cheaper air fares, is no more than two hours away. I want to make it clear that I am not for a moment advocating that young people should emigrate but I would be running away from reality if I did not accept that we will not be providing full employment for the foreseeable future and that young people are going to work abroad. If young people are to emigrate we should educate them more in order to open up the best opportunities for them.

If one looks at the situation in our secondary schools today it has hardly progressed since I did my leaving certificate. French is still the common foreign language. Taking the leaving certificate results of 1984, the last year for which I could get figures, 27,762 students studied French, only 3,544 studied German, 1,953 studied Spanish, 154 studied Italian and 37 studied Greek. These figures are out of a total of 45,000 students who sat for their leaving certificate in that year. These are the major languages of the EC and there is not enough emphasis placed on them in the schools. I bet that the State's investment in the Irish language by comparison is far ahead of the total of the State's investment in all other foreign languages put together. The Irish language should be retained as a living language and I am not advocating cutbacks in that area but we should place more emphasis on the teaching of foreign languages in schools.

I would like to raise the matter of Irish troops in the Middle East serving with UNIFIL. My colleague, Deputy Martin Cullen, from Waterford asked me to raise the question of a certain battalion serving in Lebanon on the weekend of 16 May last when Irish soldiers had to run for cover. I would like the Minister to clarify whether there is ongoing trouble for our soldiers in Lebanon. I remember the former Minister for Defence, Mr. O'Toole, promised a major review of our membership of UNIFIL and the United Nations in the last days of the previous Government. I would like the Minister, when replying, to tell the House the outcome of that review. Is there a constant danger for Irish soldiers in Lebanon and was there another outbreak of incidents which went unreported around 16 May? I notice the Minister of State is shaking his head but I would like him to clarify the position.

The final point I wish to raise is probably the most important in the whole area of foreign affairs and that is the issue of Northern Ireland. I welcome the commitment of the new Government to the working of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. We are now coming to a most interesting time when we will have a newly elected Government in Britain, we have a new Government in Ireland and there is a time span when a further commitment can be given to the workings of the agreement. It is not enough, after 18 months, that the agreement is in existence. We should now be pressing harder for the implementation of the commitments made when it was introduced in Hillsborough in November 1985.

I would like to ask the Minister to clarify the position of the international fund and whether moneys are being committed from the EC. My understanding is that the British Government are still refusing to apply jointly with Ireland for a contribution to the fund. The British Government, I understand from a recent meeting of the British-Irish Parliamentary Union in London, have asked the Irish Government to make an application in their own name and that the British Government will later support the Irish case. It would be a great pity if that were so and I would ask the Minister to clarify the position.

Finally, I ask the Government to spell out in greater detail what their priorities will be on Northern policy in the next year or so after the British general election. We have not seen the reform in the security area promised under the Anglo-Irish Agreement and there were definite commitments given on that in the statement published with the Hillsborough Agreement in November 1985. I hope the Government will be working towards the implementation of that reform. Likewise reform of the courts was promised but I understand the British Government are holding back on this issue. With the general election behind them in Britain, I would like to see a new thrust being given to the implementation of the Anglo-Irish Agreement by this Government. It must be remembered that the Agreement was not to be an end in itself but a means of bringing the Nationalist community in particular away from the feeling of alienation they had with the political system and process in the North.

Mr. M. Higgins

I must begin by agreeing very strongly with the Fine Gael spokesman on Foreign Affairs and former Minister, Deputy Peter Barry, in saying how inadequate it is that we have 20 minutes to discuss foreign policy. I appreciate the constraints on time but I ask the Minister of State to ensure that in his reply the Minister will give an answer to our specific request for a two day debate in the autumn on all aspects of Irish foreign policies.

Foreign policy in my party has always occupied, some people have felt, an inordinate amount of time. During my period as spokesperson on foreign affairs for the Labour Party we published no fewer than 11 position papers including Ireland, A Neutral Nation, Disarmament, Human Rights, International Development Co-operation in the European Community, European Political Co-operation, Eastern Europe, The Middle East, Southern Africa, Latin America and World Peace. I list these not for some form of self-congratulation but to reject the suggestion made in the Minister's speech of us who took a particular position in relation to Title III of the Single European Act were in some way isolationist. I reject that rather nasty and mean suggestion. It is a miserable view and I would contrast the record of my party in international affairs with the record of the larger parties who could genuinely be accused of being isolationists.

I want to take up a number of fundamental principles. Because I am so constrained by time, what I have to say will almost generate into a list of specific questions. Let me begin straightforwardly. Can I have a straight answer on whether we will have a foreign affairs committee? I do not want a fudge on this issue. There is no point, as happened yesterday, in the Taoiseach standing up and saying he proposes to reinstitute the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities. Anybody who goes to the trouble, as I do, of reading those reports, even the latest, No. 34 published in December 1986, will see that the committee, before they opened an adequate discussion on EPC, had to tease out whether they were within their terms of reference, if they were to examine many matters that were within EPC. This goes right through the history of the committee. When we debated this matter last November we had a responsible reply and I could agree with the care taken in the reply of those who opposed the concept. They looked at all the foreign affairs committees in Europe and concluded that what I was proposing — I believe they constructed it wrongly — was close to the Danish model and therefore would be an encumbrance of a diplomatic kind.

In putting forward the proposal — and I have today submitted a motion in this regard — I hope for all party support that we would have parliamentary accountability in the area of foreign policy. Twenty minutes on the Estimates is not my view of parliamentary accountability in this area. As I said, I agree with those who have asked for a full two days debate on all aspects of foreign policy in the autumn. If a foreign affairs committee were merely consultative, it would be of little value. Much of the debate we have just heard would have been unnecessary if we had such a committee.

May I give an example from the contributions we have just heard? I listened to Deputy Barry explain what took place at ministerial meetings when issues of security and defence came up. He drew a distinction between being silent and affirming a principle and drew attention to the manner in which this had been fudged on a television programme. This is precisely the educative function of a foreign policy committee. People who act in our name must be accountable to the Houses of the Oireachtas, and it is very important that we take steps away from what is at present one of the most secretive processes of diplomatic unaccountability towards parliamentary accountability. I have heard all these internationalists who want to have diplomatic relations all over the world and who would accuse me of being an isolationist. Let us be like the rest of Europe. We are out of step with the rest of Europe because we do not have such a committee. This cannot be justified. I do not have time to go into the historic, cultural and philosophical reasons behind this, but it has a lot to do with the professional practice of diplomacy, the influences on it, the difference between the British tradition and the European tradition and our over-dependence on models, historically, of British style diplomacy and so forth. I could spend the day on that but I have no intention of doing so.

What I have said in relation to accountability of foreign policy is more urgent than ever now that the people have democratically decided on the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution which enables the Single European Act to impinge on our lives. Surely the process of European political co-operation must be made more open and more accountable. This is necessary now more than ever particularly in the discussions which surround Title III. I accept the people's decision but we now need to be informed, we have the right to be informed.

There are other aspects through which I want to go quickly and I have to list them because of constraints of time. Would the Minister tell the House, under the revised Overseas Development Aid allocation, if Ireland will achieve the United Nations target? I have got more letters on one topic of foreign policy than any other in recent months, since the budget was announced, and that was about the further cut in Overseas Development Aid. Somebody pointed out that this was the second time it had been effectively cut back in the last 15 years. This means that the State is cutting back by exactly the same amount as the Irish people gave voluntarily through Live Aid and other activities. In other words, the people gave and the State is cutting back. We could go into all these figures if we had the time. Within the question of the allocations, there is the disaster fund. I want to raise here the urgency which attaches to this. The Minister referred to the situation in Mozambique. However, I am afraid the ghost that haunts the chamber that formulates our foreign policy was active in the preparation of the Minister's speech. The Minister said:

This famine is unique; for while it is true that there has been some drought, this natural tragedy has come on top of a man-made one caused by civil strife arising out of activities of the anti-government guerrilla movement RENAMO which has wreaked havoc in every province in Mozambique.

What is going on in Mozambique is not civil strife; it is the price that Mozambique has been forced to pay because of its opposition to apartheid. I suggest that the Minister withdraws the phrase "civil strife" from his speech. It has given credence and credibility to something that is anything but civil strife. The fact of the matter is that 50 per cent of the gross domestic product of Mozambique this year, and last year, went on restoring railway lines, ports and roads that were destroyed by forces, assisted by South Africa, who are supporting apartheid.

In addition, 80,000 children died in the fighting last year. News coming from Mozambique this week is that famine will be greater in scale than the famine in Ethiopia. I am afraid that out of a population of 13.4 million some 4.4 million are at risk. The drought the Minister has referred to has occurred. An airlift is in progress to bring seed and agricultural implements to the country by September for planting but there will not be any food in the country until next April. The international community have been alerted and asked to try to avert another Ethiopia in scale in Mozambique. We are not assisted by people talking about civil strife in Mozanbique and we should come off the fence in regard to that. Mozambique is under siege by people who support the apartheid system. Our foreign policy is unequivocal in that regard. That country has been destabilised by forces that are being assisted by what we have called a hateful regime. We have a responsibility to those people. Will the Minister inform the House of the allocation being made? Will he tell the House if it is his intention to double or treble it in view of the fact that we have expresed the view that we would seek support from the European Community to try to divert the famine?

The biggest problem facing us is trying to make the world safe from nuclear destruction, the deflection of the great resources spent on war and destruction into the area of development. Nearer home we have to try to build on a basis of consensus that will remove the tragedy of what is happening in Northern Ireland. We should be able to effectively and positively use our membership of the EC. Those matters were touched on by the Minister in his speech but, with the greatest will in the world towards the Minister and his Minister of State, I find myself curiously unable to discover the principles of foreign policy they speak about. For example, I suggest that one of the paragraphs in the Minister's speech is offensive. In my view it amounts to the greatest piece of codswallop I have ever read. The Minister said:

There is a widespread consensus in Ireland, transcending most political divisions in our society, on the general principles we should try to assert in the conduct of our foreign policy.

I would love to know where they are, and where they go on, other than one which excludes people from knowledge of our foreign policy. That is very comprehensive here. The Minister continued:

These look to a world at peace, and a world justly ordered, governed by law rather than force. They reflect a preference for responsive democratic systems, such as we enjoy in our own country, over those which resort to despotism or coercion.

With respect, and I hope this is carried back to where that statement originated, that is more a prayer than a statement of foreign policy principles. I do not know what it means. Does it mean we congratulate ourselves on some kind of purity and that we find everything around us less democratic? It is time we had a little bit of education of what the word "democratic" means. It means more than voting 13 times in one's lifetime. It means ordering society in a democratic way. There is a lesson we could learn on our own doorstep in Northern Ireland. The whole history of the Northern Ireland problem is about the relationship of majorities to minorities. Can anybody talk about how majorities treat minorities even in this country? The reference to minorities in the Minister's speech is quite insulting.

I object to the rather shrill notes that were issued after the referendum on the Single European Act. I justified the opinion I held within my own party and publicly. I did not go around the country telling people that the trucks would not roll from Recess on Wednesday morning unless the people voted "yes" or that the fish would rot at Rossaveal. I heard all that rubbish during the campaign.

With regard to the general principles of foreign policy, I should like the Minister to tell us his view on the initiatives being taken by some of the Nordic nations, and other countries, with regard to the flow of nuclear submarines in areas like the Irish Sea. Do we intend to participate in the talks that have been convened by outside countries towards eliminating the nuclear danger from the sea? Is the Minister aware that the Irish sea has become a nuclear corridor and is being used by both super powers? Do we intend to assist in setting up, through a combination of foreign policy positions and initiatives from the Department of the Marine, a monitoring and information system so that we will know what nuclear danger exists in the waters that are effectively ours? Do we intend to stand back, say nothing and not participate at meetings and conventions called by other countries who aspire towards those aims? If we do not intend to participate, what will be the basis for that decision?

It has become a fashionable thing to say that Irish neutrality is somehow or other a vague word. It reminds me of the heady days of the sixties when people used to speak about virginity as if it were going out of fashion. Those of us in the Labour Party who speak about neutrality have always dealt with positive neutrality. Positive neutrality means that we build the mind of peace, of universal inter-dependence, that we teach people the basics of economic and political independence and of cultural pluralism in our schools. That amounts to positive neutrality at home. Externally we should use it as an informing principle of our relationships in the Community, the UN, the Council of Europe and in our talks with Latin America.

I should like to deal with the question of Latin America and ask what will be the Minister's philosophy in the coming year in regard to the whole question of the renegotiation of the Latin American debt. What position will we be taking in relation to the construction of aid, trade and debt relationships of Latin America as they open up next year? Is there a convergence between the Irish position under those three headings? I do not want any vague answers. I will do all the praying myself but I want answers on aid, trade and debt as they affect the Central and Latin American continent. How does our position fit with that of our Community partners?

What is the present position about Irish people abroad? I should like the Minister to tell me if he finds it appropriate — he need not reply to this question in the House if he does not consider it appropriate — the position of Brian Keenan in Lebanon. I am anxious to assist in this case but I do not wish to put any pressure on the Minister if he considers it would not be helpful to give information.

With regard to Northern Ireland, it is very important that while use is made of such new institutional mechanisms that have been put in place through and following the Anglo-Irish Agreement, and the process which preceded it, we take cognisance of the developments that have taken place since the signing of the agreement. If we are to refer to Northern Ireland we must deal with specific measures to bring the two communities together. Everybody knows that one of the consequences of the agreement's formal progress has been the polarisation within the Unionist community. This is reflected almost every day in news reports from Northern Ireland. What further measures are planned in regard to foreign policy? What aspirations are in place towards addressing the understructure of the Anglo-Irish Agreement in terms of relations between the two communities?

Is it proposed to increase our diplomatic presence in Central and Latin America? Do we intend to have any representation in Central or Latin America? Do we intend to totally ignore the Latin American continent as a potential trading area in which the independence of our foreign policy has brought us a great deal of respect? Following the San José meeting of the Council of Ministers during the Irish presidency there was an enormous reverberation in Latin and Central American countries of respect for the automomy of Ireland's foreign policy. I clearly remember a spillover from the term of office of former Senator Dooge as people were very anxious to trade with us. What initiatives are we taking in regard to a whole continent that has, in the last ten years moved significantly towards a democratic transformation from dictatorship?

From time to time there is a change in the climate of our foreign policy. Sometimes we seem to be developing a competence and an enthusiasm for participation in the resolution of regional conflicts such as those in Central America. However, at other times, our enthusiasm wanes and these enthusiasms affect each other. I remember well during the Anglo-Irish Agreement process that there seemed to be a certain limitation in our enthusiasm for making a more vigorous contribution towards the resolution of difficulties in Central America. The time has come for us to be forthright about what is taking place in Central America. Hearings are taking place at present in the United States which show how people, including nuns, were murdered and raped on the borders of Nicaragua by armies who were illegally funded by hard mercenaries. We know that people will now be charged in relation to all these things. Has the time not come to call a spade a spade in relation to what is happening in Nicaragua? Can we not lend our voice unconditionally to say that we deplore the attempts to destabilise the elected Government of Nicaragua? Members from all parties in the House participated in the electoral process in Nicaragua and printed their report which has not been denied by anyone in the House. The time has come for us to speak out unequivocally in that regard.

I have a little crib about the Single European Act. I thought that the Supreme Court enjoyed the normal tolerance of the separation of powers. I also thought that different aspects of foreign policy contained within the EPC were somehow affected by outside economic considerations. People got irritated about foreign policy aspects and they wanted to concentrate on the economic benefits. However, if you go down that road you will have no independent foreign policy. How could you? I condemn the behaviour of either of the super-powers. I do not want anyone standing up on their hind legs — as they do every now and again — asking if I protested about Afghanistan. I protest about the violation of human rights in any part of the world and about the invasions of freedoms.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair must protest about time.

Mr. M. Higgins

I will conclude shortly. In all these issues, on which I have so inadequately touched, I made the case for the necessity of having a thorough debate in the autumn over two days on foreign policy. I appeal to all parties in the House to support my proposals for the setting up of a foreign affairs committee. I will accept any reasonable amendment from any party which will enable such a committee to be set up so that parliamentary accountability of a proper kind will be established.

Proinsias De Rossa

I should like to re-echo the points already made by a number of speakers that the time for debate on foreign affairs in this House is extremely limited. I support Deputy Barry's call for a two-day debate on the issue in the autumn. I recall that as Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Barry, indicated that he would try to provide an extended period of debate on this matter but that did not materialise for some reason. However, I recognise his goodwill in that regard. I urge the Minister to facilitate the House in Government time to debate all these issues in much more depth as 20 minutes does not allow anybody to deal to any extent with this matter.

I also support the call made by Deputy Higgins for a foreign affairs committee of this House to be set up. It seems extraordinary that an island of this size with involvement in the United Nations, CSCE and the EC does not have a Dáil committee which would examine in detail the various aspects of the Government's policy in relation to our contacts with other countries and assisting in developing a coherent approach for this country internationally.

I hope that the position of The Workers' Party in relation to international affairs has been made clear over the past number of weeks in the debate on the Single European Act. In the debate and referendum, we sought a renegotiation of the Single European Act, not withdrawal from the EC, as some people indicated. We were concerned that certain sections of the Single European Act, including Titles II and III, would have a serious effect on the economic and foreign affairs aspects of Irish life. Those who voted overwhelmingly for the ratification of the Act accepted the assurances of the Government, Fine Gael and the Progressive Democrats that those fears were ill-founded. It must be made very clear that the decision was made on the basis of assurances that neutrality — in whatever way one cares to define it and I do not necessarily define it in the narrow terms the major parties in the House have done — is not at risk because of the ratification of the Single European Act, that every possible effort will be made to ensure that our economy will be in a position to compete by the year 1992 on the completion of the internal market of the 12 members of the EC.

It has been made quite clear that that is the basis on which the people have accepted the Single European Act. I accept that it is my obligation, and I hope every other Member in the House accepts that it is their obligation, to ensure that the people have not been misled and that those assurances are valid and kept to. A detailed debate on foreign affairs on a regular basis and also the establishment of a committee on foreign affairs would enable Deputies of this House to monitor what is happening in the EC and other international fora, to monitor what is being said on our behalf and to be able to have an input into what is being said on our behalf.

The Minister in his opening remarks outlined what he regarded as the consensus of opinion in relation to foreign affairs. He outlined the general principles we should try to assert in the conduct of our foreign policy. In reading through his speech I can find nothing in that regard with which I would disagree. I do not think there is a Deputy in the House who would disagree with the principles he outlined which were as follows:

Those look to a world at peace, and a world justly ordered, governed by law rather than force. They reflect a preference for responsive democratic systems, such as we enjoy in our own country, over those which resort to despotism or coercion. They set a high value on personal and religious freedoms, in contrast to those who regard such freedoms as secondary to other values. They are coloured by our own experience as a people, striving for a recognised and worthy place for our country "among the nations of the earth" and sensitive to the plight of victims and the vulnerability of small nations the world over.

No one could quibble with that as a general statement of what the views of the Irish people are. They have demonstrated time and again through their generous response to appeals for support for people who are suffering as a result of either oppression or starvation that there is widespread support for those general principles. However, it would be unreasonable to assume that there would be general acceptance of the position taken by the Government on every specific issue. It is easy to agree on general principles but it is not so easy to agree on how those general principles ought to be implemented nor is it so easy to agree, for instance, on the points raised by Deputy Higgins in relation to Nicaragua. I find it extraordinary that the Government do not demonstrate publicly their total horror — which I think is a view they have — at what is happening to the democratically elected government of Nicaragua and at the way in which perhaps the most powerful state in the world, which prides itself on defending the free world, but which actively, through all kinds of devices, assists the Contras in their attempts to overthrow the democratically elected government of Nicaragua. In that respect that powerful state is acting illegally even within the terms of their own national law.

I accept that the present Minister and the previous Minister, too, indicated in the House that they had made clear to the American Government their total abhorrence at that kind of activity but the people would be much more assured if that abhorrence was much more real and was demonstrated practically by the Government establishing diplomatic relations with the Government of Nicaragua. That would be a practical demonstration of one small country standing with another at its time of need. Apart from the political consequences of what is going on in Nicaragua there are also the human consequences. Starvation has resulted from the destruction of crops. The Contra rebels have destroyed villages and have carried out assaults and killings of local small farmers and other citizens of Nicaragua. The Government should seek out ways in which we could assist Nicaragua in that regard also.

Starvation in Mozambique has been referred to. This starvation has resulted not from some natural catastrophy but from the interference of South Africa which has used groups either within or on the border of Mozambique to destabilise it. There is an urgent need for the Government to be much more vociferous and open in their condemnation of these acts. That would be a genuine demonstration of neutrality. I would never agree with an interpretation of neutrality which obliged us to sit on the fence and to close our eyes to oppression, starvation or interference with small nations. In the past we, too, have suffered from both interference and oppression. We cannot be neutral in regard to injustices or attacks on human rights or on the destabilisation of democratic states.

Neutrality must mean the active pursuit of justice and principles such as those outlined in the Minister's speech. In relation to neutrality I have argued that we should seek an association with the non-aligned movement. The response I have received on numerous occasions was that the non-aligned movement is largely a non-European one and is comprised mostly of underdeveloped countries. That is true to a large extent. But one factor which is significant is that the members of the non-aligned movement are all non-members of any military alliance. Many speakers in this House and the spokesmen for the different parties have defined our neutrality as nonmembership of military alliances. There are socialist countries, capitalist countries, progressive and reactionary governments and a wide range of types of societies involved in the non-aligned movement but what they are basically seeking to ensure is that they exert some pressure on the superpowers who are part of military alliances, on the Warsaw Pact and NATO countries to disarm and that they respect the sovereignty and independence of all nations.

Mr. McGahon

What about Afghanistan?

Proinsias De Rossa

If we have a debate on Afghanistan in the autumn I will be quite prepared to deal with that issue but now I am arguing for ——

Mr. McGahon

Tell that to the Russian Embassy.

Proinsias De Rossa

I will and if you have a valid case to make about Afghanisatan I hope you will come into this House in the autumn when we will have a two day debate and can deal with the issue then ——

Mr. McGahon

The whole world knows about it.

Proinsias De Rossa

—— but I have only a few minutes left in which to deal with many other matters.

I would like to refer to the Anglo-Irish Agreement. When that agreement was brought forward in this House it was supported by The Workers' Party but we made it clear at that time that we supported it with reservations, that we recognised that it was the only political initiative which was on the table at that time, that it contained hopeful signs that there would be moves towards a democratically devolved government in Northern Ireland, that perhaps there would be moves towards development of its economy and that a Bill of rights would be introduced.

Any serious person looking at the development of the situation since the introduction of the Anglo-Irish Agreement cannot genuinely say that there has been progress on those fronts. There has been discussion on the Flags and Emblems Act; it will be admitted that there was a failure to reform the Diplock Courts, and there has been discussion about the provison of street names in Irish and so forth. They may well be important in their own way and probably are but I would argue very strongly — and I am sorry that the Minister made no reference at all to this fact — that there is an urgent need for a democratic, devolved government in Northern Ireland where the democratic, or, as some parties are described, constitutional parties would have an opportunity to run the affairs of Northern Ireland in so far as it is possible to do so.

I regret that there is an emphasis from the Government side and, indeed, from the spokesman for the Fine Gael Party here this morning, on using the Anglo-Irish Agreement solely in the interests of the Nationalist community. The Minister stated that they would work closely with the Nationalist community but, of course, that they would listen to the Unionist community. Deputy Barry urged that the Government should support all constitutional Nationalist parties who were seeking a reconciliation in Northern Ireland. It is certainly odd for a Government and parties in this House whose declared aim is reconciliation and unity, not only of the community in Northern Ireland but of the communities on the whole island of Ireland, to emphasise, almost to the exclusion of others, assisting and aiding solely the Nationalist community. In saying that, I am not denying that there has been a long history of discrimination against the Nationalist community in Northern Ireland. However, it would be folly in the extreme to replace that with discrimination or the ignoring of the genuine fears and concerns of the Unionist section of the community in Northern Ireland.

I hope the Irish Government and the new Minister will take every opportunity to try to bring the democratic parties in Northern Ireland together, through the Anglo-Irish Agreement or any other means, for discussions on how devolved government can be established there. It is only through that process and through the rule of law, implemented in an impartial way, that the paramilitaries can be made irrelevant and run out of business. The evidence over the years has shown that it is not possible to apply purely security solutions to the Northern Ireland situation.

In the brief time available to me, I had many other points with which I wanted to deal, such as disarmament, peace-keeping and Lebanon, but I would particularly like to raise the question of the Irish soldiers who have died in Lebanon as a result of attacks from Israeli forces and the allies of the Israeli forces. A special means should be found to honour those men. I have raised the matter in the Dáil on Question Time but did not get a very satisfactory answer. In view of the sacrifices that these men and their families have made a special means should be found to honour them and acknowledge the great service which Irish soldiers are giving to the Irish nation, enhancing its reputation as a peace-keeping and peace loving nation.

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs (Mr. Calleary)

I do not specifically intend to deal with some of the remarks that were made in that it is a matter for the Minister and I am sure that he will deal with these as comprehensively as the ten minutes he is allowed will permit him.

The Government consider development co-operation to be an extremely important part of Irish foreign policy. The Government's commitment to developing countries reflects the traditional concern of the Irish people to cooperate with the people of developing countries who are much less well off than themselves. Funds provided as Irish Official Development Assistance — whether channelled through international organisations such as the EC, the UN agencies and the World Bank Group, or spent directly through the Bilateral Aid Programme — are the main form of expressing the Irish public's concern for the interests of developing countries. This concern is also given direct practical expression through the very generous level of public contribution to voluntary agencies working in developing countries.

Throughout the developed world there is a growing realisation that the problems faced in particular, by the least developed countries are extremely complex. They require not only aid, whether through official or non-governmental channels, important though that is, but a coherently linked set of policies implemented at both national and international level to encourage development.

We in Ireland, with our close links with some of the least developed countries of Sub-Saharan Africa — three of our four priority countries fall into this category — have a keen appreciation of the importance of correct policies if development is to take off in these countries. Development aid by itself is not enough without a better environment for the exports of developing countries. Depressed commodity markets mean that developing country commodity producers cannot earn enough to service their debts. This is where the international community must adopt innovative and flexible approaches on the financing side, both private and official, towards making debt burdens more manageable and towards restoring growth.

National policies in these countries, of course, have a role to play also. For example, Sub-Saharan Africa, with its high concentration of low-income countries, faces a particular challenge in the area of agricultural development. To arrive at a situation in these countries where temporary drought conditions do not inevitably lead to famine and starvation will involve action by their governments to encourage food production and the provision of storage facilities. The particular development problems of sub-Saharan Africa also call for a reassessment by the donor community. In the course of 1986, attention was focused — in the OECD's Development Assistance Committee and elsewhere — on measures to co-ordinate and improve donor assistance in support of the difficult and painful economic restructuring programmes to which many African countries have committed themselves. This reassessment has had implications for the pattern of aid provided by some major donors. It has, for example, resulted in increased emphasis on participation in co-financing arrangements in support of large-scale sectoral adjustment programmes and increased willingness to finance, on a temporary basis, the recurrent and local cost elements of projects, in recognition of the particularly heavy adjustment burdens at present being borne by these countries.

These issues, resources for development — both domestic and external — international trade and commodities, will be discussed at the Seventh Session of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development — UNCTAD — in July of this year. This will provide an opportunity to developing and developed countries to examine together the global issues of interdependence which must be addressed if a more secure economic future is to be assured to people in every country, including our own. Ireland is particularly concerned that UNCTAD should be successful and to this end we are working, with the other member states of the European Community, to ensure a successful outcome.

As we in Ireland face the very difficult decisions required to deal with our economic and financial problems, it is perhaps easy for us to forget that we are relatively well off and that most Third World countries would be glad to swap our economic problems for their own. Figures do not adequately convey the differences in standard of living and wellbeing because it is very hard for us who had a per capita income of nearly $5,000 in 1984 to visualise what life must be like on an income of $250 which was the average per capita income in the less developed countries in the same year. We have a basic obligation to help those who are so very much less fortunate than ourselves.

In framing the 1987 budget — and this was referred to by Deputy Higgins and Deputy Barry — every effort was made to maintain progress towards the target of 0.7 of GNP for Overseas Development Aid fund. However, this was not possible in view of the current budgetary and economic difficulties which have required the Government to seriously cut back public expenditure. As indicated by the Minister for Foreign Affairs to the House recently we maintain our commitment to reaching the target as soon as economic circumstances permit.

The primary purpose of development aid is humanitarian and it is vitally important that aid projects genuinely and effectively contribute to the development of the peoples of the Third World. It is not enough to set up a factory or a school and to take over a farm and run it with expatriates; real development involves developing the people, their self-reliance and their capacity to take up the challenge of maintaining progress made with expatriate help, and of sustaining further development.

We in Ireland can make a very distinctive contribution since we have so recently come through the development process and have long established links with developing countries, in particular in Africa. Our bilateral aid programme provides a focus for our efforts. I am very conscious of the high level of competence and dedication of many of the Irish agencies and individuals who have engaged in development work. I am proud of what such Irish people have achieved for the people they work with. However, the process of development co-operation is a two way process. Not only is the work of benefit to developing countries but it is also of benefit to the organisations and individuals involved who engage in challenging employment, developing their knowledge of a new environment and their capacities to resolve problems within it. It is of benefit to Ireland generally in terms of economic activity generated and in expanding our perspectives and understanding of developing countries.

I am pleased to note that the quality of Irish development work is recognised abroad, in particular, by the multilateral aid organisations who have engaged Irish organisations and individuals for their development projects. In this connection I note, for example, that to end 1986 contracts valued at nearly IR£16 million obtained by Irish firms had been financed by the Fifth European Development Fund.

Turning to the specific allocation for bilateral aid, the Minister has already given an indication of the geographical distribution of the bilateral aid fund, for which IR£14 million has been allocated in 1987. I wish to note some aspects of the sectoral distribution of expenditure. In the four priority countries — Lesotho, Sudan, Tanzania and Zambia — 31 per cent was spent on rural development, 24 per cent on education and training, 23 per cent on agriculture, 8 per cent on industrial projects, 7 per cent on infrastructure and 6 per cent on health. This breakdown indicates a concentration on the sectors where Ireland has traditional strengths and where we have most to offer to developing countries. The sectoral distribution also indicates that much of Ireland's aid is getting to the poorer populations in the countries we are assisting.

The range of projects financed or cofinanced with other agencies under the BAP is very wide and I will mention just a few of them. A major element in our 1987 programme in Sudan is the expanded programme of immunisation project in the central region which is part of a major health programme funded mainly by UNICEF and other large donors. It aims to reduce the high mortality rate among young children by immunising them against the common diseases — measles, polio, whooping cough, tetanus and diphtheria. Immunisation is to be extended from less than 10 per cent of children under five in 1985 to 90 per cent by 1989.

In Zambia, our 1987 projects include continuing technical assistance to several important organisations, for example, to Chilanga Cement, the sole cement producer in Zambia. With the assistance of a team from Irish Cement, Chilanga Cement have become exporters to neighbouring African countries as well as meeting Zambia's requirements; to ZADL, a major State farm enterprise which is just returning to profitability and which has sought continued Irish technical assistance; to the export board of Zambia to which CTT are providing assistance and to Zambia public administration where the Institute of Public Administration is involved in a major training project set up under the auspices of the World Bank — International Development Association.

We have a significant involvement in the development of accountancy skills in several countries, in particular, in Lesotho and Zambia. These are important skills in terms of fostering self-reliance, for a capacity to manage money is a vital element in managing any economic, and indeed any social, undertaking.

Bilateral aid projects such as those I have outlined above account for 72 per cent of the 1987 allocation for the bilateral aid fund. Another major element is the scheme of co-financing with non-governmental organisations under which assistance is provided towards the cost of development work carried out by such bodies. A sum of IR£1.75 million has been allocated for the purpose in 1987.

Irish non-governmental organisations have a network of personnel which gives them an impressive capacity to implement projects at village level in the health, education and agriculture sectors. They are backed up by a high level of commitment among the public in Ireland. The close co-operation that exists between the official aid programme and that of non-governmental organisations interested greatly the OECD Development Assistance Committee in their review of Irish aid last year. The committee noted that the contributions to development aid as a whole of Irish non-governmental organisations, expressed as a proportion of GNP, are the highest among Development Assistance Committee member countries. I should, therefore, like to take this opportunity to express my own, and the Government's, appreciation of their tremendous efforts. I am sure the House will join with me in this tribute.

I want to turn to another subhead, that of disaster relief; for which an allocation of IR£0.50 million has been made this year. To date in 1987, the tragedy in Mozambique — and this was specifically mentioned by many Deputies, including Deputy Higgins and Deputy De Rossa — where man-made problems of war and displacement have combined with poor weather to cause famine and misery, has drawn a substantial allocation — IR£90,000, of which 44 per cent has been channelled through NGOs and 56 per cent through UN agencies.

Mr. M. Higgins

Is it proposed to increase this figure?

Mr. Calleary

That will be kept under review. Two allocations have been made already this year. I want to refer to Deputy Higgins' contribution. He may not have turned over to the page of the Minister's speech where he said that South Africa in its 1984 agreement with Mozambique committed itself to end its support for this group and where he said there must be grave doubts whether it is abiding by this undertaking. In reply to questions raised by Deputy Howlin and Deputy Griffin in May, the Minister outlined the Government's concern in relation to what is happening in Mozambique. I share fully the Deputy's concern.

Mr. M. Higgins

My quibble was with the phrase "civil strife". It is not a civil strife.

Mr. Calleary

I accept that. A further £20,000 was allocated to the victims of the earthquake in Equador. I cannot indicate the pattern of future allocations from the disaster relief fund in 1987, but the House may be interested to know that over 80 per cent of the 1986 disaster relief fund was allocated to Africa and that of that amount over 70 per cent was allocated to the Sudan and Ethiopia. The organisations receiving the largest amounts of the assistance were GOAL, Trocaire and Concern.

The Agency for Personal Service Overseas provides funding for development workers, those sent abroad by its partner agencies and those managed directly by itself. It also provides training for intending development workers and has created an extensive resource centre on developing countries and development work. It maintains a register of persons willing to go abroad to work on the development projects which it sponsors. The 1987 allocation is IR£2.4 million.

Allocations are also being made to ACDC the Advisory Council on Development Co-operation of IR£110,000, to Gorta of IR£60,000 and to the Refuge Resettlement Committtee of IR£75,000 in 1987.

Development work can be difficult and necessarily takes place a long way from home: yet individuals and organisations who have been willing to take up these challenges have found their work exciting and rewarding. I would like to encourage more people to consider becoming involved. For some, this involvement may take the form of volunteer work, particularly for those who have skills to impart but relatively little relevant work experience: for others already well established on a professional career it may take the form of a semi-professional or professional assignment. For firms in the private, as well as in the public sector, there is a development market of which Irish Aid funds only a very small part, a market for high quality and specially tailored services and goods which contribute effectively to development in the fields of education, health, agriculture, infrastructure, industry, etc.

The problems of developing countries are major, complex and diverse and we try to provide a balanced response within the funds available along the spectrum from immediate disaster relief to the long term commercial and social development projects which are vital to developing countries' efforts to overcome their vulnerability to famine, disease and the displacement of peoples. Specific questions raised by various Deputies will be dealt with by the Minister when he replies.

Mr. Griffin

I join with my colleague, Deputy Peter Barry and other Members on this side of the House in urging that we have a two day debate on foreign policy, perhaps in the autumn. It is totally impossible to encapsulate in 20 minutes the views and statements of Members who wish to contribute. The contributions of Members, especially the contribution of Deputy Peter Barry a former Minister for Foreign Affairs who successfully negotiated the Anglo-Irish Agreement, the Single European Act, the Dublin Plan and many other fine achievements for Ireland, will be of value to the present Minister. The Minister would be enriched from having listened to our views and would be able to produce a fuller foreign policy which would be acceptable to all Members of the House.

In the limited time I have I will concentrate on development assistance. As junior spokesman for Foreign Affairs in the Fine Gael Party I have a responsibility in that area. The Minister in his statement said in relation to development assistance:

The plight of what has been called the Third World is one which occupies a very special place in the foreign policy preoccupations of the Irish people.

I agree with that statement but regrettably their plight does not have a special place in the foreign policy preoccupations of the present Fianna Fáil Government. If it had they would not have cut back the ODA in this year's allocation. I am making this point on behalf of the people who made complaints and who were disillusioned and disappointed at the cutbacks in what the Government felt was already a very meagre contribution. The cutbacks are in direct conflict with the previous Government's programme, Building on Reality, of November 1984. In a period of four years they intended in an orderly and committed fashion to raise the Irish ODA contribution to the target set out by the UN, 0.7 per cent of GNP. In 1986 £43.3 million was allocated in our budget and this year that was increased to £44.4 million or 0.26 per cent of GNP but in the Fianna Fáil budget the figure has been reduced by £1.1 million back to 0.25 per cent of GNP. That is the second time in the last 15 years under a Fianna Fáil Government that in real terms as a percentage of GNP there has been a severe cutback. I would have thought that despite the cutbacks which affect the country, including my native town of Tipperary where the local District Hospital has been closed, at least the projects in the Third World would have escaped the Scrooge-like tentacles of the present Ministers for Finance and Foreign Affairs. Unfortunately that is not the case. Nothing is sacrosanct. Indeed the most vulernable people, the helpless people of the Third World, have to suffer as a consequence of the cutbacks. I hope that the very fine projects will not suffer as a consequence.

Only four countries have reached the UN percentage optimum figure. Norway leads with 1.03 per cent, the Netherlands second with 0.91 per cent, Sweden third with 0.86 per cent and Denmark fourth with 0.80 per cent of gross national product. Other countries have indicated that in time they hope to attain the figure of 0.75 per cent of GNP. There is a public commitment in Ireland to give this assistance, so the Government have the support of all right thinking people, as was very much in evidence two years ago in the Band Aid and Live Aid contributions the people made when it was brought home forcibly to them on TV night after night by Bob Geldof and others that the Ethiopian people in particular were in need. I am glad to note what has been remarked here often, that the Irish people contributed more per capita to the relief of the Ethiopian famine, drought and disaster than any other people.

We should not let go unnoticed or unheralded the great contribution our priests, nuns, brothers and lay people of all denominations make to the Third World. It is not for them just an afternoon's or one day's contribution. They have devoted their lives to the welfare of the least well off sections especially in sub-Saharan Africa. I suppose it is a throwback to our famine days here. We have an empathy with these people, having ourselves suffered over 100 years ago in the great famine. We have a subconscious sympathy for others who suffer in the same way and doubtless that is one reason for the very generous public response in giving towards the relief of the Ethopian crisis on that occasion. Recently in America a poll was taken to find who was the most admired lady in that land. Mother Teresa of Calcutta topped the poll. Ahead of all the others in the world of Hollywood, "Dallas", "Dynasty" and so on Mother Teresa was selected by the American people as the woman they admired most. It is reassuring that deep down people have an admiration for those who have a commitment to the underprivileged, the deprived and the less well off. On that basis the Irish Government, and all governments, could give maximum support for this type of aid.

I have here the ODA report for 1985. I understand the 1986 report is in print and will be available very shortly. It is regrettable it is not available for this Estimate discussion today. As the Minister informed the House, the ODA programme is made up of two elements, multilateral and bilateral. I am pleased to learn that the administrative costs take up only a tiny proportion of total costs; in 1985 they were 1.4 per cent of the total. Multilateral contributions are by way of mandatory contributions to the EC, the UN, the World Bank and the OECD. I am not convinced that any of these organisations have a commitment to resolve the problems of the less developed countries. If they had we would not have the scandal of surplus food. While the world produces more food than it can consume today, 700 million people suffer from malnutrition because they have not enough food. Coupled with that, vast amounts of money are spent on armaments, Star Wars and nuclear deterrents.

In America land is deliberately taken out of production in order to keep down stockpiles and, I suppose, to keep up the cost of food. The surpluses in EC stocks include 1.4 million tonnes of butter, 1.3 million tonnes of skimmed milk powder, about 0.5 million tonnes of beef, 16 million tonnes of cereals and 33 million hectolitres of wine, not to mention other products like sugar and tobacco. Those figures refer only to the EC. The figures for America are equally staggering and scandalising. Here we have on the one hand stockpiling of foods and on the other hand millions of people dying in Ethopia, Mozambique and other nations.

The second element of the ODA is bilateral aid. Again we have a commitment to four priority countries, Lesotho, Tanzania, Zambia and the Sudan, and other countries not on the priority list get contributions. I am thinking of Burundi, China, Ethopia, Gambia, Kenya, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, South Africa and Zimbabwe. In that 1985 report on assistance to developing countries I am pleased to note the very practical type of assistance being given to each of these countries. As the Minister of State said, they are areas where Irish people are most experienced. The Hololo Valley project is the principal agricultural project in the Lesotho programme. In the area of health a laboratory training programme has been set up; in industry there is a hand knitting project, and there are educational projects. In Tanzania there is the Kilosa dairy farm, water supply, electrical installations and rural projects.

Our country was under-developed in the last century and working on that raw experience we can bring the peoples of these countries along step-by-step because we as a nation trod the road they travel now. I could not but be impressed by the variety and choice of projects that assistance to developing countries embraces. I hope all these projects, which are based on the indigenous workers and on the facilities available to them, will leave behind them a skilled workforce who will be able to take over and to provide a ready supply of food and so on. Let me paraphrase a proverb: if you give a man a fish you feed him for one day but if you teach him how to fish you feed him for life. That should be the spirit behind these projects. It will get the people themselves, the indigenous workers, to undertake these projects so that after a while they will be able to fend for themselves. Then the expert volunteers can move on to other areas rather than remain there thus preventing the locals from taking complete charge and being responsible for their own destiny.

I was not aware of the magnificent work being done by the Agency for Personal Service Overseas. In 1985 they assigned 569 people to various projects throughout the developing world. The report I have referred to contains a wealth of information. It breaks down the various services under the headings of countries and it refers to agencies like Concern, UN volunteers, the Holy Ghost Fathers and the Mill Hill Missionaries, item by item, and every £1 spent is accounted for. It tells how the payments are made sector by sector and gives details of all assignments and of the various groups. Like the Minister of State, I would like to encourage graduates and young people who at present find themselves unemployed — not for that reason alone but for a loftier motive — to consider giving perhaps two years of their lives to work in underdeveloped countries. I could not think of anything better for a young man or woman on the threshold of life to do than to give two years to the less privileged and less well off people and to share their skills and experience with them. I would hope that young graduates and others would be encouraged to join APSO, giving the benefit of their education, experience and strength in the building up of these countries in less-well-off areas.

I regret that there is a cut-back in the Disaster Relief Fund this year. Last year £1.275 million was provided for this fund but this year the figure has been reduced to £0.5 million. Like other Members I would bring to the Minister's attention the matter of famine relief in Mozambique. I am not concerned whether it has risen as a consequence of civil or other strife. If a Mozambique person is dying he or she is not concerned whether that has been brought about by way of civil strife or other disaster. We are told that at present there are 4.5 million people in danger of dying there through malnutrition, which situation I believe has been compounded by the destruction of their roads and rail network. I would plead with the Minister to increase his allocation this year. I understand that already he has given approximately £90,000 to the relief of famine in Mozambique. Hopefully there will be no other disaster between now and the end of the year. I do appreciate that the Minister must keep some funds in reserve in the event of another calamity or disaster. The call has rung out from the United Nations, urging the establishment of a relief fund of £209 million. I would urge our Minister and the Minister of State who is present to think of increasing their allocation. This is one obvious area where relief is urgently needed. It will be pointless if such relief is given too late — for example, if the Minister were to find at the end of the year that there is a surplus in that fund which could have been allocated. Now is the moment to give it to Mozambique where it is so pitifully needed.

In passing I should like to pay tribute to the splendid Irish organisations working on behalf of the Third World, organisations such as Trocaire, Concern, GOAL, Viatores Christi, Gorta, Christian Aid, the Irish Missionary union, the Methodist Mission, the Church of Ireland Bishops Appeal——

Acting Chairman (Mr. Hilliard)

May I ask the Deputy to conclude, please?

Mr. Griffin

Your intervention, Sir, bears out the point we are making, that one narrow facet of foreign policy, that of Overseas Development Aid about which one can say so much cannot be dealt with within the allotted 20 minutes. I thought I would have 20 minutes.

Acting Chairman

The Deputy's 20 minutes have now expired.

Mr. Griffin

Not according to my watch. However, I would recommend that the Minister consult the 1986 Report — Development Co-Operation — which contains many statistics, in which the whole question of Overseas Development Aid is dealt with in a thorough fashion. It contains a wealth of Information.

Acting Chairman

I must ask the Deputy to conclude. There is another Member wishing to contribute and there are only six minutes remaining.

Mr. Cooney

I am conscious that, at this stage, I am eroding the Minister's time for reply but, as he has such a limited time in any event, I suppose it does not make a great difference. Indeed the House will have to look at this form of truncated Estimates debate because it is totally unsatisfactory.

I intervene to touch on one point in the Minister's speech, that is when he spoke of the problems of the Middle East, by which we understand, the problems of Palestine, Israel and the unresolved difficulties there. There is no doubt but that is the single greatest source and cause of unrest in the world today. It is the direct contributor to the greatest part of international terrorism. It has been a festering sore on the international scene now for too long. Happily there are indications that significant political developments might take place in the near future.

The position of the Community is well known having been established by the Venice Declaration of 1980 which recognised that the integrity of Israel has to be protected but, at the same time, the resolution of the question of a homeland for the Palestinian people also has to be solved. The principles of that declaration were reiterated as recently as February last by a joint declaration from Brussels. We are aware that in Israel itself there are moves which indicate a considerable amount of internal support for a new initiative to be taken under the auspices of the United Nations, in particular under the auspices of the Security Council, for an international conference of all the parties involved in that problem. Of course all the parties must include the Palestine Liberation Organisation. Whether we like it or not they are the only people representing the dispossed Palestinians. Some formula to permit their presence at the peace conference will have to be devised because a conference without a real presence of that element would not be a real conference.

I intervene to ask the Minister to use his seat in the Council of Twelve Ministers, particularly now in the context of Title III of the Single European Act with the advancement towards greater political co-operation, to take advantage of that new position within the Community to push the Community to re-establish the initiative it took with the Venice Declaration of 1980. The Minister might use his good offices to push the Community to play its part. It can play a very significant part because of its historic links and close geographic relationship with the Middle East and its independence from the two superpower interests in the Middle East, the Soviet and American presence which, of course, compounds the difficulty in the area. I would suggest to the Minister that he use his position now to ensure that the Community do what it can to increase the momentum which has been established towards this international peace conference. As I have said, it is the single greatest source of unrest in the world today on a global scale. The Middle East problem is the root and cause of the greater part of international terrorism. There is no more urgent problem today. We are now in a position to play a significant part, through the Community, in ensuring that the tentative moves which have begun to emerge for an international conference are brought to fruition.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Lenihan)

I should like to thank the House for a very good debate within the constraints of the time available. In that context I intend to have discussions initiated between the Whips with a a view to having a fuller debate, as was suggested by Deputy Barry, on the resumption of the Dáil in the autumn. Deputy Barry suggested a two day debate on foreign affairs. I agree with the general tenor of his remarks, that we should have fuller and more informed debate on foreign affairs generally. That struck me very much during the recent referendum campaign. Greater information should be made available to the public on our involvement within the EC and in regard to foreign affairs generally. Deputy Higgins' suggestion in regard to a foreign affairs committee will be considered by the Whips in the context of the general structuring of the committee system for the new Dáil session. I understand it is one of the matters under discussion between them. I have absolutely no objection to the establishment of such a committee. It is a matter for the Whips to discuss and decide how best we can organise our business to meet the exigencies of such a committee. Certainly, I will be recommending strongly that we have a full debate on foreign affairs in the autumn session.

One other point I might take up was raised also by Deputy Higgins, that is the question of our general approach to foreign affairs. Deputy Cooney referred to it in regard to the Middle East and Deputy Higgins referred to it to a greater degree in regard to Latin America. I find that we can exercise the greatest possible influence in these areas through the political co-operation system now written into Title III of the Single European Act, in conjunction with the other member states of the European Communities. When we seek to achieve what I believe is a consensus view in this House on areas such as the Middle East and Latin America, through the European Communities, we carry far greater strength. When the Communities as a whole adopt a progressive and open democratic attitude that counts for real strength. It is in that way you can exercise your shared sovereignty to the fullest extent possible. The European Communities as a whole are induced or persuaded by Irish influence to take a stance on the Middle East, Latin America or South Africa. In regard to those three areas the Communities' stance is the same as the Irish stance and that means something real. There is no point in talking to ourselves. When a large percentage of the people agree with our point of view and when it is accepted in a community of nations like the European Communities, that is a positive step as far as Ireland and other countries, be they Central America, South America, the Middle East or South Africa, are concerned. Those areas are among the contentious areas of the world in which the Communities have taken an advanced position that approximates to Ireland's position. We should always remember that aspect and think very clearly on it. It is realistic in regard to an assessment of what sort of role we can play in regard to foreign policy through the political co-operation aspects now to be formalised and codified in Title III of the Single European Act.

Mr. Higgins

That is why we need a foreign affairs committee.

Mr. Lenihan

I will not be led down that road. Deputy Kennedy talked about the priorities in regard to the Anglo-Irish Conference. I set out those priorities in my initial speech. We want progress on the social aspects in regard to fair employment in particular. We want a fair employment Act that has real teeth. The British promised a White Paper before the end of the year on that aspect, to be followed by legislation that will extend and strengthen the present innocuous provisions of the Fair Employment Act in all aspects of employment in Northern Ireland, not just to the Civil Service but to local authorities, State agencies and private employers to ensure that there will be substantial sanctions for non-observance of fair employment practices. We should consider that area at present.

The second aspect relates to law and order and the administration of justice. A code of conduct as far as the RUC are concerned is very important to ensure that there is a basic code observed by them. That would give some reassurance to the Nationalist population in Northern Ireland in particular. The third aspect relates to economic co-operation for which there is obvious scope. The international fund can be helpful in that regard. I agree with Deputy Barry in that the cycle of violence is such that it behoves the security forces in Northern Ireland to observe an attitude that commands respect in regard to their behaviour in the enforcement of law and order. We debated this matter recently on Deputy Barry's Private Notice Question. If we are going to advocate a more just, equitable and fair society in Northern Ireland, which is the kernel of our argument, then the forces of the State must be seen to act in practical terms in a fair and equitable manner that shows respect for the law on their part as well as that which is required from citizens generally.

Deputy Barry also mentioned the point about the South Korean Embassy here. While there is not reciprocity — he is right in that regard — it is important to have that embassy here because South Korea is an expanding country with investment interests in the European Communities and with a very positive investment interest in establishing locations for industrial expansion within Ireland so as to obtain entry to the European Communities. The amount of third country interest in Ireland as a location base for investment will rapidly increase now that we have agreed to ratify the Single European Act. It is countries such as South Korea, Japan, Taiwan and the United States, to mention four outside the Communities with surplus funds available, who will be anxious to join the Communities to expand their export industries and we can benefit substantially in that respect. It is an area in which we should move quickly from the investment point of view.

UNIFIL have been mentioned and as far as they and other peace-keeping operations are concerned the Irish Army have played a very honourable role which is highly regarded. We can be proud of their motivation and the standing in which they are held. I raised the recent incidents mentioned by Deputy Kennedy with the Israeli Ambassador as recently as last week.

Mozambique and the development aid to that country were also mentioned. Recently we gave £40,000 from the disaster relief fund to Mozambique. The situation in that country is very serious. We will not be found wanting in regard to further contributions to Mozambique from the disaster fund. I agree, and Deputy Griffin was critical in this regard, that as far as the overall development aid aspect is concerned — and I will be frank — we are not giving as much aid in that area as I would like to see given. I can assure the Deputy that that is due entirely to the budgetary constraints of which we are all aware. We will try through the agencies and through our participation within the Community to enhance our contribution to the greatest possible extent.

I wish to pay a tribute to APSO who are doing a tremendous job. The degree of commitment and the personal contribution by the people involved in providing services through this organisation are in the best tradition of Ireland's contribution to Third World activity. While our financial contribution might not be as high as we would wish, our expenditure in terms of manpower is substantial and in the best traditions of Ireland's contribution particularly to Africa.