Deputy Michael Higgins is in possession and has one minute left. I will not interrupt him to remind him of that fact. He has the capacity to demonstrate to the House how well one minute may be utilised.
Private Members' Business. - Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs:Motion.
The following motion was moved by Deputy Barry on Tuesday, 6 March 1990:
"(1) That it is expedient that a Committee of both Houses of the Oireachtas (which shall be called the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs) consisting of 13 Members of Dáil Éireann and four Members of Seanad Éireann be established.
(2) That the Joint Committee shall
(a) consider such aspects of the Government's Foreign Policy and, in particular, the Government's Official Development Assistance to developing countries as the Joint Committee may select; and
(b) oversee the activities and expenditure of the Department of Foreign Affairs
and shall report annually thereon to both Houses of the Oireachtas; and may make such other reports thereon from time to time as it thinks fit.
(3) That the Joint Committee shall have power to appoint sub-committees and to delegate any matter comprehended by paragraph (2) of this Resolution to a sub-committee.
(4) That every report which the Joint Committee proposes to make shall, on adoption by the Joint Committee, be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas forthwith, whereupon the joint committee shall be empowered to print and publish such report, together with such related documents as it thinks fit.
(5) That provision be made for the appointment of substitutes to act for members of the Joint Committee who are unable to attend particular meetings.
(6) That the Joint Committee, previous to the commencement of business, shall elect one of its members, who shall be a member of the Opposition, to be Chairman; and that the Chairman shall have only one vote.
(7) That all questions in the Joint Committee shall be determined by a majority of votes of the members present and voting and in the event of there being an equality of votes the question shall be decided in the negative.
(8) That the Joint Committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records and, subject to the consent of the Minister for Finance, shall have power to engage persons to advise it for the purpose of particular inquiries.
(9) That the Chairman shall, at the request in writing of a member of the Government or of not less than five members of the Joint Committee, summon the Joint Committee to meet specially.
(10) That six members of the Joint Committee shall form a quorum, of whom at least one shall be a Member of Dáil Éireann and at least one shall be a Member of Seanad Éireann."
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
To insert the following before the word "That" in the first line:
"in view of the need to ensure the maximum public participation and political accountability on such issues as for example the maintenance of Ireland as a country whose foreign policy is independent and unconstrained by any military associations or alliances, and as a country whose neutrality is expressed in terms of its support for peace, demilitarisation and human rights throughout the world."
—(Deputy M. Higgins.)
During my 29-minute contribution last evening I was stressing the right of Parliament, the right of the Oireachtas. I do not need to elaborate except to say that the Labour Party will be pressing their amendment which deals with neutrality.
I appeal to Members on this side of the House to realise that all the arguments made by Deputy Barry and me are ones to strengthen the rights of this House to be equivalent to the rights of Parliaments all over Europe to debate foreign policy and to establish foreign policy as an accountable aspect of debate, accountable to the public. It has inner and outer dimensions in relation to the public's perception.
There would be no problem in agreeing the terms of discourse. I would appeal to the Government even at this late stage to reconsider their position. The thrust of my speech is that in no modern democracy does any parliament say that the secrecy, the subtlety and competence of diplomacy should be used as a substitute for accountable foreign policy which is contributed to by elected members to an assembly, which in turn is accountable to the public. Our privileges as parliamentarians are at stake and our utility as a Parliament.
If the Government side were willing to accept the principles of what we are saying they would find us accommodating, amenable and constructive. It would be very wrong to think that people such as Deputy Barry, a former Minister for Foreign Affairs, or people such as I, those in The Workers' Party and others, would be anything but constructive in such a committee. I appeal to them to pull back from the position of last evening.
In his contribution to our debate in this House last evening, Deputy Barry rightly drew attention to the many complex developments currently unfolding in Eastern Europe and the knock-on effect these developments have for Ireland and the rest of the Community. I can assure Deputy Barry that the Government are very much aware of these developments and are actively monitoring the situation and their possible or likely impact on Ireland. The Government's position is not passive nor could it be, given Ireland's current EC Presidency role on the one hand and the need to protect our legitimate national interests on the other.
We are witnessing momentous and historical events and accelerating changes in Europe. The moulds which have shaped and bound our continent since 1945 are being broken with a rapidity which defies imagination. The last European Council foreshadowed these developments in its call for the strengthening of peace in Europe in which the German people will regain their unity through free self-determination.
These developments hold out the promise of a better way of life for those directly concerned, the people of Eastern Europe themselves. Throughout the region we can see how the tide of political and economic reform is bringing about change which even a short time ago would have been unthinkable. Democracy, greater openness, pluralism and respect for human rights are still rapidly gaining ground. We are very pleased at these developments and believe that they are not only desirable and good in themselves, but that they are also essential in order to overcome the economic and other problems of these countries.
Second, the changes which are taking place, both in domestic and in foreign policy, have had a profound influence on international opinion and have made an enormous contribution to the dramatic improvement in East-West relations which has come about in recent years. In particular, the two Super Powers are now actively engaged in building a new relationship which transcends the antagonisms of the past. Co-operation is replacing confrontation. We hope that this trend has become irreversible and is leading the world ever further away from the confrontations of the past which at times threatened to turn into open conflict. I think we all share the feeling that what we are experiencing now is not just another episode in the cold war, when history itself seemed to have frozen over. The cold war is now over and we have reached an important turning point in European history and world history.
The Government have actively followed developments in Eastern Europe and, from the outset of Ireland's EC Presidency we have been conscious of the rapid pace of developments there and their profound implications for the Community and its member states. The special ministerial meeting in Dublin last January, called on the initiative of the Presidency, considered the Community's responses to the changes which were taking place in Eastern Europe. This initiative manifested our intention and ability to make a contribution to ensuring that these changes will be to the advantage of all and underscored the relevance of the Community's own integration to the future of Europe as a whole. Ireland and its partners in the Community have displayed their determination to support the political and economic reforms in Eastern Europe through a variety of measures, including intensification of political dialogue and increased co-operation.
Two important meetings within the framework of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe take place during our Presidency. The Bonn Economic Conference is the first major CSCE conference in the economic sphere. Its aim is to give a new impetus to economic relations between the CSCE participating States. Ireland and its Community partners see the Bonn conference as an opportunity to demonstrate in a concrete manner our readiness to respond to change in Eastern Europe and to strengthen moves there towards political and economic reform. In the area of human rights, the Copenhagen meeting of the Conference on the Human Dimension will examine the implementation of the human rights and human contacts provisions of the CSCE documents and will seek to make further progress in these spheres. Ireland, as EC Presidency-in-Office has an important contribution to make in bringing about a successful outcome to these two meetings.
While changes in Eastern Europe have for the most part taken place peacefully — Romania being the outstanding exception — this is nevertheless a time of tension which has to be managed with care and responsibility. German unification is a central question. There can now be no doubt that this development corresponds to the wishes of the German people and the Government accordingly welcome it. The Government believe that it marks the beginning of a process which will restore the unity of the civilisation which is common to all European countries, East and West. Such a major transformation of Europe's political landscape must, of course, be handled in a way which takes account of the legitimate interests of all concerned.
The European Community is naturally deeply affected by all these changes. This is why Ireland, as EC President-in-Office took the initiative to propose to have them discussed at a special EC Summit Meeting next month. We are deeply conscious of how our own development as a Community of nations is influenced by events in Eastern Europe. Equally the Community has an enormous influence on events in Eastern Europe and a corresponding responsibility.
A number of measures of trade liberalisations have been taken by the Community vis-à-vis Poland and Hungary. These measures, which include the abolition of quantitative instructions and the extension of the generalised scheme of preferences, are designed to assist the Polish and Hungarian economies by boosting their export earnings. They were considered carefully by member states, including England, before their adoption. They are not without cost or risk but this had to be seen against the background of our desire and commitment and that of the Twelve to materially assist the emergence of democracy in Central and Eastern Europe. If and when the question arises of further such measures, or of the extension of the Polish and Hungarian concessions to other countries, I can assure the Deputies that all the implications, political and economic, will be taken into account before a decision is made.
With regard to EC relations with EFTA, the thrust of current Community activity is to work out a new, closer relationship between the two, particularly in the context of 1992. The implications of a new EFTA-EC arrangement have been examined closely by the Department of Foreign Affairs and continue to be the subject of discussion in the Community. Fundamental to our approach is our wish to see an agreement of the greatest possible mutual interest to the EC and EFTA and one that is global and balanced in character.
In the context of all these rapid and momentous developments, there is no reason to believe that the Oireachtas is in practice, less well informed than other Legislatures. In recent months, events in Eastern Europe as, indeed, also other matters such as the situation in the Middle East, Cambodia and famine relief, have been discussed in one or other of the Houses of the Oireachtas.
I wish now to turn to a number of aspects of the proposed committee which I find curious. The committee would have the power to oversee the expenditure of the Department of Foreign Affairs. I need hardly point out that this function is already discharged by the Committee of Public Accounts. I cannot see what useful purpose would be served by a duplication of their role and activity in relation to the Department of Foreign Affairs.
Duplication could also arise in relation to the work of the Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities. This committee examine EC legislation together with domestic implementing measures. They report to both Houses of the Oireachtas on the broad range of foreign policy including issues arising from our membership of the European Communities. The committee would have the power to discuss all aspects of foreign policy. To this extent an overlapping with the functions of the Joint Committee on Secondary Legislation would seem inevitable.
There are, I believe, adequate arrangements and opportunities already in existence whereby Members of the Oireachtas can raise and discuss foreign policy matters of interest and concern to them. These arrangements have already been outlined by my colleague, the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs. In the view of the Government what is proposed in the motion would not involve progress in the right direction.
It was suggested in this House last night that the Government's attitude to the role of elected representatives in relation to the State's foreign policy is arrogant and disrespectful. This is decidedly not the case. Public understanding of and support for foreign policy positions are vital elements in the democratic process. The Government fully acknowledge this fundamental fact and conducts their relationship with the Legislature in the matter of foreign policy, as in other areas, accordingly.
With the permission of the House I should like to share my time with Deputy Connor. Fine Gael brought this motion before the House out of a sheer sense of exasperation, because of their repeated efforts to ensure that we do the obvious thing and have an all-party committee to deal with something which is at the core of our value, an interest in foreign policy.
One of the areas in which we have distinguished ourselves in relation to our image abroad has been the consistent interest which we, as a small nation took in foreign policy at United Nations and European Council levels and within the EC. We prided ourselves on having an open, fair, objective and impartial view in relation to the conduct of foreign affairs. Therefore, it seems incredible that in the much heralded, vaunted and anticipated Presidency of the EC the Taoiseach did not indicate that he is prepared to relent and set up such a committee. Indeed, when talking to members of the Government side in a private capacity they will acknowledge that such a committee is needed, although they must vote as directed by the Whip.
It is extraordinary that the Taoiseach was received by a foreign policy committee last week in the United States but that, if rolls were reversed, we would not be in a position to reciprocate such a gesture. I do not know what the apprehension or worry is because nobody seeks to make such a committee a political organ, a political forum or a contentious debating chamber where there will be clear distinctions in relation to where we stand on foreign policy. One of the things which has characterised us as a nation is that we have managed abroad to present a very unified and coherent policy in relation to foreign affairs and, therefore, I fail to see why the Government will not relent on this issue. I was discouraged — indeed disheartened — to hear the comments of the Minister of State, Deputy Calleary, in relation to the official attitude of the Government to the very reasonable thrust, performance and proposal of the former Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Fine Gael spokesman on Foreign Affairs, Deputy Barry.
We have repeatedly tried at Whip level to impress on the Government the genuine need and desire for such a committee and the apolitical nature of our request but we have failed to do so. I wrote this week to the Whip of the Progressive Democrats Party, the other party in Coalition, asking them to do in Government what they maintained was so fundamental when they were in Opposition as a party of 14 Deputies. I asked them to insist and to bring the necessary pressure to bear on the Government to ensure that common sense prevails. They should do the intelligent and reasonable thing, establish a foreign affairs committee.
I distinctly recall in the office of the Government Chief Whip repeatedly setting the Order of Business from the time I was appointed Fine Gael Chief Whip in August 1988 up to the demise of nine members of the Progressive Democrats, being in agreement regarding this committee with the then Progressive Democrats Chief Whip and spokesperson on Foreign Affairs, Miss Kennedy. I repeatedly requested that the Government relent in this regard and we validated our claims, put forward our arguments and showed that there was a genuine need and desire for such a committee. However, the Government did not agree but the Progressive Democrats have a golden opportunity this evening in the House to show that the position they adopted then was not simply posturing in Opposition. They have the clout, strength, conviction and sense of purpose to do their duty, to ensure that they make the necessary impression on the Government to do something positive to set up this committee.
The vote will take place at 8.30 p.m. and even though I have not had any kind of contact with the Progressive Democrats I hope when the votes are counted that they will have done the decent thing by the people who voted for them.
I wish to thank Deputy Higgins for allowing me to share his time. As a Member who has an interest in foreign affairs I should like to play a meaningful role in the formulation of foreign policy, albeit from the Opposition benches.
It is most disheartning that the response of the Government, as expressed in the very banal speech of the Minister of State last night, is, to say the least, dreadfully disappointing. The Minister's excuses were quite unbelievable. He seemed to state that the Members of this House do not seem to have the competence to advise on or influence this country's foreign policy. Deputy Barry, Deputy Michael D. Higgins and others mentioned foreign affairs committees in other Parliaments throughout Europe. The point has been rightly made that there is not a parliamentary system in the developed world as we know it — broadly speaking what we call the white Commonwealth system or the American or the French system, that does not have a very powerful committee on foreign affairs. I will not mention the other European states because they were talked about last night but I do not think anybody mentioned the Foreign Affairs Committee of the European Parliament, one of the most powerful committees of that Parliament. The Irish members of all shades participate very fully in that committee. Another good example is that of the United States of America. At times I am a critic of their foreign policy but in that country there is the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the most powerful committee in the United States parliamentary system. Alongside that is the House Foreign Affairs committee. I would repeat that the Senate Foreign Relations committee is probably the most powerful and prestigious committee in the American parliamentary system.
So prestigious that the Taoiseach visited them.
The primary duty of that committee is, as the Constitution of the United States say, to advise on and consent to the appointment of the American Secretary of State, the American Minister for Foreign Affairs. The area of foreign affairs is the chief area of public policy in the United States. The United States is a huge world power and sometimes we disagree more than we agree with their foreign policies. The foreign affairs committees both of the Senate and of the House, have a major influence in the formulation of American foreign policy. No American chief executive can digress or diverge too far from the thinking of these committees of both Houses. While we might be critical of their conduct of foreign policy there is one safeguard that I and other Members of this House know is there and we cannot take it from them, that American foreign policy by and large reflects American democracy. American democracy via the medium of its foreign affairs committees of both Houses is rooted in the making and carrying out of American foreign affairs.
I cannot see why we should take such an immature attitude or is it that the Minister for Foreign Affairs is so weak that he feels the Members of this House are immature or ill-informed so far as foreign affairs are concerned? I know there is a difficulty in the Government party because, by tradition they have been isolationist and anti-internationalist. Their contribution to the development of a foreign affairs policy has not been great. I do not wish to denigrate anybody but I think that is an objective history of the contribution of Fianna Fáil to foreign affairs policy and the development of foreign affairs in this country.
Nevertheless, we have moved into a whole new set of circumstances. We are now part of a new multi-national consortium of nations, that is the European Community which is growing ever greater in a movement towards integration. Is it not only right and fair to ask that Members of this Sovereign parliament would have a say in those major movements? We pride ourselves on our influence in the world. There is no doubt that Ireland has a major influence in the world. One of the better things I did with my time, when I was younger and had more time and money than I have now, was to travel extensively throughout the world. The amount of goodwill and information abroad about this country always surprised me. I always felt it was something we never fully took advantage of and something we were never fully aware of in this House. The populace outside were more aware of it than the people here who are the legislators. Certainly from a political and a policy point of view we never took full advantage of that goodwill which could reap us all kinds of rewards. One of the reasons was that we did not have the type of public participation in the formulation of foreign policy that was needed because we did not have a committee of elected public representatives of both Houses to make contributions.
One of my major political interests has been emigration. That is surely a foreign affairs issue. In 1988, according to official figures 46,000 people left this country and I am sure the figure was the same, if not greater, in 1989. I believe these official figures err on the lower side. If we look at the last decade it is realistic to say that some 300,000 people emigrated to the United States, the United Kingdom, various parts of Europe, Australia and other places. There are some three million people in this country at present. The number of people, young people of one generation, who have left represents about 10 per cent of the total population and yet there is no foreign or foreign relations outreach to those people.
With Deputy Barry and two other colleagues, I went to the United States last September to talk to the American congressional leaders, to lobby and to plead with them about bringing about legislative changes in US emigration laws that would be favourable to the 90 per cent or more of the Irish emigrants who are out of status there. Everywhere we went we were told there was no great communication at official level between the Irish Government and the United States congressional leaders. They were delighted that people like us went to talk to them. We found ourselves having to go around from office to office and talk to ordinary representatives and Senators from all over the United States who knew nothing about the problem of Irish emigration.
One of the major items on the agenda of a foreign affairs committee, if the Government had the wisdom to allow it to be established, would be a discussion on and formulation of an emigration policy, to be expressed as part of our foreign relations policy. That is one of the other major areas in which we have found ourselves to be so wanting. There is probably a feeling of embarrassment on the far side of the House about emigration but we all know that emigration has been a problem for more than one Government in the last decade. We are not afraid to face up to that fact and we are not afraid to put in place a formal structure where we could discuss and make policies for what is a lost generation of Irish people who have left this country in the last ten years.
There have been, as has been mentioned, all kinds of momentous events in Europe in recent months. More happened in the last six months than perhaps since the end of World War II. There is much that Members of this House would like to have said or would like to have felt they were influencing in terms of policy in relation to these momentous and historic events. Mention was made of a procedure for Dáil questions, for Private Members' time, which we are using now, and for raising items on the Adjournment of the House. I know the procedure we are using now is perhaps the best one because we have a better inter-face across the House and a better statement of policies on all sides of the House. Parliamentary questions are asked on wide-ranging and complex issues but there is taciturnity and secrecy on the part of certain Ministers. I have never got a fully satisfactory answer to any parliamentary question that I have tabled in this House, least of all to any question, and I have tabled two or three, on foreign affairs matters.
The Deputy is not asking the right questions.
That is a rather cheap jibe. Items are also raised on the Adjournment. We raise points on Cambodia and on other places and a structured statement, that may be weeks out of date, is made by the Minister. The proposers of the Adjournment debate usually raise matters which are relevant and up to date because it is usually a reaction to something that has taken place very recently but the Minister replying has a structured, stale statement on which there can be no dialogue across the Floor of the House, no questioning of some outrageous and often very inaccurate statements by Ministers.
Our policy on neutrality has never been fully discussed by Members. I participated in a good debate in the Seanad less than a year ago on that subject but the matter has never been fully discussed by Members of this House. We have not had a forum in which Members could participate in a meaningful discussion on our policy of neutrality. I am aware that there are several Members on the benches opposite who do not agree with the policy line given to them, a line that has been turned and twisted to suit the times over the years. To say the least, our neutrality stance has often been immature. While I do not disagree with our stance on neutrality it is my belief that we could bring a lot more principle into the stances we have taken. I am not referring to principles of convenience to be changed with every whim and wind that blows. I submit that one way of dealing with this would be through a proper committee of the Houses where the issue could be discussed openly and frankly. On such a committee we could, as adults representing our constituencies, our parties and the political philosophy and culture of those parties, put forward our views on neutrality. An Oireachtas Joint Committee which would reflect the political philosophy and culture of all parties would be in a position to update our policy on neutrality, making it more meaningful and less hypocritical than it has been.
Last night the Minister of State suggested that we were seeking to establish a committee that would have extensive powers. He seemed to think such a committee would be dangerous, bad or wrong. In our motion we are not seeking extensive powers for such a committee. We are seeking the right to advise on, to discuss and consider matters of foreign policy. We are seeking the right to influence. It should be remembered that the officials of the Department of Foreign Affairs do not have a monopoly of wisdom in regard to foreign policy. Elected representatives have a major role to play. The people of the island are interested in all aspects of foreign policy.
It is agreed that Irish people are more informed about political and social matters beyond their shores then the populations of most other countries. I represent a rural constituency and hardly a week goes by that I do not receive a letter or a representation from a constituent who is concerned about a foreign affairs issue. I was amazed at the number of people who approached me about the problems in Ethiopia. Some think that people in the part of the world I come from have very little interest in Ethiopia but that is not the case. Last week a constituent raised the civil war in the Sudan with me. Frankly, I had to update myself on the position in that war. That is an indication of the level of interest among ordinary people about what is happening throughout the world.
Deputies and Senators should demand a formal participatory system under which we can influence foreign policy and respond to the feelings of our constituents, irrespective of what aspect of foreign policy they raise with us. It is an absurdity to say that we are seeking extensive powers; we are seeking to put democracy into the formulation of our foreign policy. The Minister questioned why we should seek the responsibility of overseeing the activities and expenditure of the Department of Foreign Affairs. We have every right to oversee the activities of that Department. All Departments are subject to the political control and power of the House. The point was made that they must account for their expenditure activities to the Committee of Public Accounts of which I am a member. It will be no harm if they have to submit the reasons for their expenditure to a foreign affairs committee of the House. They should not have anything to fear or to hide about submitting every detail about their activities to such a committee without threatening State security. We did not ask that such a committee should be given classified information or told anything that might threaten State security. We want a say in the general direction of our foreign policy and in advising on that policy. That is what democracy is all about. We are seeking to put democracy into the conduct of our foreign affairs.
I appeal to the Minister to have a change of heart in regard to this issue. It will not cost a lot of money to put such a committee in place. At the end of the day I am sure the Minister will find that such a committee will be beneficial to his. The Minister has a considerable knowledge of international affairs and I am sure he does not always accept the advice of the officials in his Department. I am not blaming them in any way for their actions but I am saying that the Minister should consider other inputs. The structures of the House are not very good for advising the Minister. Deputy Michael Higgins referred to the Progressive Democrats, the junior partners in the Coalition. Deputy Molloy is on record as saying that we need a committee on foreign affairs. Deputies Harney and Quill said something similar. I appeal to them to support the motion.
I was a Member in the period from 1983 to 1987 when the then Taoiseach, Deputy Garret FitzGerald, established a joint committee on developing countries. That joint committee commenced operations in 1983 and with other Members I spent four very satisfying years on that committee. That was as near as we ever came to having a committee on foreign affairs. In that short time we took a new look at that aspect of our foreign affairs policy. Ireland, because of its nightmare colonial past, has a lot in common with ex-colonial countries in the Third World, particularly those in Africa, Asia and Latin America. There is an enormous amount of goodwill for Ireland in those countries, as we discovered in our work on that committee. In 1984 when the famine in Ethiopia was at its worst the joint committee broke from the summer recess in August after we had seen the horrendous pictures on television detailing the horrific famine in that country. Following that debate we had the Band Aid concerts and fund raising activities to help the starving people of Ethiopia. The initiation of that was the work of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on our relations with developing countries. We did an excellent document on apartheid, and the way the various apartheid laws affect the black population in South Africa. We also reported extensively on the effects of apartheid on the front line states in southern Africa. That, too, was a document which was something of a milestone in the parliamentary work of this House because I think everybody agreed at the time that it was an excellent analysis, done by ordinary Members of this House of a truly explosive situation, a situation that has changed in many ways in recent years. It would be very satisfactory if we were able to reform ourselves as a committee and look at that situation now and compare it with the situation which we looked at way back in 1984 and 1985.
We provided a forum——
That is right. I remember chairing a meeting one night when I first became involved.
The Deputy has one moment left to conclude.
I remember also that one of the last reports we did was on the important area of development of education. In this country there is a great need for disseminating the news and making young people more aware of development needs in the world. On that subject our committee produced a major document. It received a major critical acclaim — if that is the correct term — in the news media. Our committee, on two occasions, sent delegations abroad to visit Irish bilateral projects in Sudan, Tanzania and in Lesotho——
And in Kenya.
That was all part of the work of that Oireachtas Joint Committee.
Acting Chairman
The Deputy's time is exhausted.
There are lots of other things I would like to say but, again, I will finish with my appeal to the Minister that he might soften his rather uncompromising hard attitude on this subject.
Acting Chairman
The Minister is offering.
I understood that I, too, had a slot.
You have taken a half hour on that side of the House.
I would appreciate if you would explain to me why I have been dispossessed of the 30 minutes to which I am entitled on Private Members' Business? I was due to start at 7.40 p.m.
Acting Chairman
I understood you were to come in at 7.10 p.m. but you were not in the House.
May I explain that I was informed today that my slot was at 7.40 p.m. and I arrived in just before 7.30 p.m. in order to be here in time?
Acting Chairman
I understood that you wished to speak at 7.10 p.m. but you were not in the House so I called a Fine Gael spokesperson.
I did not know my time slot was changed or how it was changed. Was an order of the House made?
There was no order of the House made. The Chief Whip, Deputy V. Brady, came in at 7.1 p.m. after Deputy Higgins. He would be entitled to half an hour. He did not take that half hour. He spoke for about ten minutes, therefore the debate came over to this side of the House. There was nobody on these benches except Fine Gael Members and we took the half hour.
Deputy De Rossa rose.
Acting Chairman
Sorry, Deputy De Rossa, but my hands are tied. I understand I have to call the Minister now.
I must insist that I am entitled to a half hour's time on this debate and I insist on taking it. Under the orders of this House I do not intend to be deprived of——
The Deputy is not entitled to it.
Acting Chairman
I was to call you at 7.10 p.m. but you were not present in the House. I will have to ask you to resume your seat.
If Deputy Brady wants to play games——
Acting Chairman
Deputy De Rossa, I will have to ask you to resume your seat, the Minister is offering. Otherwise I will have to call the Ceann Comhairle and ask you to leave the House. I will have to call the Ceann Comhairle and the consequences of that——
Call the Ceann Comhairle if you wish.
Acting Chairman
Will you please resume your seat?
The Chair is on his feet.
I want to speak to this House on foreign affairs——
Acting Chairman
It is not——
But I am being deprived by the Government Chief Whip——
Acting Chairman
I intended calling you at 7.10 p.m. but you were not in the House. Deputy De Rossa, you will have to resume your seat please, otherwise I will have no alternative but to ask the Leas-Cheann Comhairle to take over the business.
It is clear from the debate that has taken place so far that the Taoiseach and the Government have never seriously considered the establishment of such an Oireachtas committee on Foreign Affairs. It is clear from the speech made by the Minister of State, Deputy Calleary, that the Government have never seriously considered the establishment of such a committee.
On a point of order.
Deputy De Rossa, somebody has risen on a point of order.
On a point of order, the Opposition side of the House has had a half an hour, from 7.10 p.m. until 7.40 p.m. The debate, therefore, under Standing Orders comes across to the Government side of the House and the Minister is entitled to commence his speech at this time.
I am insisting that my time was 7.40 p.m. I was here on time for that time slot and I intend to take that time slot.
Deputy De Rossa, you are an experienced Member here.
Please resume your seat for a second.
There is no point. I will ask you to leave the — Deputy De Rossa, I will be asking you to leave the House and you know the consequences of that.
You are entitled to rule as you see fit, but I am entitled to insist on my rights to speak on foreign affairs in this House. I am being deprived by the machinations of Deputy V. Brady, the Government Chief Whip, and I do not intend to be deprived of that right.
If Deputy De Rossa is telling me——
Deputy De Rossa rose.
Deputy De Rossa resume your seat. If Deputy De Rossa is telling me that he is going to insist on his view that he is superior to Standing Orders of the House, he will appreciate that that is not possible. The Chair could not accept that, no matter who is in the Chair, that, in essence, is what Deputy De Rossa is presuming to do. He is peresuming to say that he can steamroll the rules of this House.
The rules are there and the Deputy knows that.
I will explain my position.
I hope he would rather than insist that irrespective of what happens——
Under Standing Orders of this House I am entitled to 30 minutes to make a contribution on this debate. The slot allocated was 7.40 p.m. I was here in adequate time to take up that slot——
The Deputy was not here.
——and I am now making that contribution.
Deputy De Rossa, you have made a statement. You have no right to steamroll the rules of this House and I am sending for the Ceann Comhairle. The House is adjourned.
Sitting suspended at 7.50 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.
I understand from the previous occupant of the Chair that Deputy Proinsias De Rossa was guilty of gross disorder in that he persistently refused to obey the ruling of the Chair on being called upon to leave the House. I now call upon the Deputy to leave the House forthwith.
On a point of order——
Leave the House, Deputy De Rossa.
——I was not asked by the Leas-Cheann Comhairle to leave the House.
On an occasion like this I hear only the previous occupant of the Chair.
I am happy to leave the House because what we are engaged in this evening is a charade and a sham.
The Deputy made it so.
Deputy De Rossa withdrew from the Chamber.
I want to protest at the denial of the right to speak to the Leader of The Workers' Party.
(Interruptions.)
Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael did not want to hear what he had to say and that is why he was denied the right to speak.
(Interruptions.)
Resume your seat, Deputy Sherlock, or leave the House.
I will leave the House and I ask every member of my party to follow me as a protest.
Deputies Byrne, Gilmore, Rabbitte and Sherlock withdrew from the Chamber.
The Government's position in relation to the motion before the House regarding the establishment of a foreign affairs committee was set out last night by the Minister of State at my Department, Deputy Sean Calleary, and was taken up again tonight by the Government Chief Whip, Deputy Vincent Brady. I appreciate the interest of the Members opposite in this question and I fully agree that the machinery available to the House to address the foreign affairs aspects of Government policy should be appropriate.
I must ask that the commotion in the lobbies cease.
I should like to place on the record my invitation to all parties in the House to avail of every opportunity to have debates on foreign policy matters. I would welcome such a discussion. There are many issues on which the Government and the Minister for Foreign Affairs would welcome the viewpoint of the parties and their members and I hope there are more occasions on which issues chosen by the parties opposite will be debated. I would welcome such debates. I am sure the Government would be willing to come to an arrangement with the Whips to provide time for this type of debate which could be by way of Private Member's motion. Some facilities can be afforded to Members so that they can play an active role — I am sure in a positive way — in the ongoing debate which should be taking place on current issues.
I respect the role of Parliament, I am a long standing Member of this Parliament and at every opportunity I have taken great pains to ensure that Parliament is what it must and should be. As I have said, I would be glad to have more discussions on foreign affairs issues. When I was in Opposition and Deputy Peter Barry was Minister for Foreign Affairs I asked — this is on the record of the House — for more time to be allowed debate foreign affairs matters. I am now in the position where I would positively welcome the acceptance of my invitation by the Opposition parties and I will try to see to it that time will be made available for such debates.
Give us our committee then.
The Minister's predecessor once favoured such a committee.
The Government are not of the view that the proposal contained in this motion and the amendments to it are helpful in this context.
I accept that some Members opposite are of a different view. Indeed in the discussions on the motion in this House last night and tonight a number of points were made to which I feel I should reply.
I was saddened to hear, once again, the false accusations about Government policy on Cambodia being brought into this debate. I have on many occasions explained clearly in this House the Government's policy on this question and, especially, our total rejection of the genocidal Pol Pot Khmer Rouge. The Twelve, under the Irish Presidency, have made clear that they share this position and are fully supportive of measures — such as those promoted by the Australian Foreign Minister — which would give the Cambodian people the opportunity to choose their own leaders in free and fair elections and prevent the return to power of the Pol Pot Khmer Rouge.
It would be in all our interests if we had more debates in this House on matters which are of importance, and not just by way of committee, so that we can at least understand each others point of view. If there are differences of opinion on policy these can be teased out by way of debate. I am prepared to do this because I would not like the present situation to continue where, according to the unofficial reports of last night's debate, some Members are still not sure about the position on the issue I have just mentioned.
The question was asked as to why this Parliament, alone of all Parliaments in the European Community, lacks a foreign affairs committee. The House will be aware that parliamentary system and parliamentary procedures vary from country to country. The functions and powers of parliamentary committees and, indeed, of parliamentary committees on foreign affairs vary from country to country. While the question is an interesting one, and no doubt one of significance to some Members of the Oireachtas, I do not believe that we ought to be over eager in our criticism of our institutions and arrangements solely on the basis of international comparisons. The essential question must be whether our procedures, institutions and arrangements serve our needs. I believe they do. In an effort to make sure that they do, I will involve this House in as much debate as this Dáil wants on policy issues.
They are all out of step except ourselves.
Deputy Higgins had his say last evening and I will be referring to some of the comments he made. Perhaps he might give me the truncated time slot that I now have to deal with this important debate.
I have to remind the Minister that he has just five minutes remaining.
I regret that is all I have but that is not the fault of anyone in this House. That I am sure of and that I accept.
It was claimed that the Government's position on this motion, based in part on the frequent sensitivity and confidentiality of diplomatic and foreign policy matters, is offensive to Members of the Oireachtas. The assertion was made that: the Government's position amounts to saying "that you cannot trust the elected representatives to speak about foreign policy". This is most emphatically not the case. There are adequate opportunities available in both Houses of the Oireachtas for Members to raise any aspect of foreign policy of interest or concern to them. I go further than this. There is an obligation on elected representatives to be well-informed on international affairs and the State's foreign policy. But I also believe that a straightforward and clinical dichotomy between foreign policy and the means by which foreign policy objectives are achieved, in other words diplomatic activity, which is best pursued out of the public domain, is not always practicable.
Exception was taken to the reference to sectional interests. I believe this is misplaced. Let me be clear about this and re-state what has been said on a previous occasion. Unlike individual Members of the Oireachtas, Governments cannot allow themselves to be swayed by sectional interests but must take all factors into account in deciding on the pursuit of foreign policy objectives. This is not because sectional interests are, in themselves, wrong or unworthy, but because the Government unlike individual and I emphasise the word "individual", elected representatives have a bounden duty to be directed by broad national considerations.
Likewise there is nothing disrespectful in the use of the word "select" to decribe a small group. My dictionary defines the word select as meaning "chosen for excellence". Does this use of the word present a problem to the supporters of the motion?
I would like to reply to Deputy Higgins' remarks yesterday on not "dealing" with opposition groups, with specific reference to the African National Congress. He referred to "an established principle" and went on to say that "we could deal with the South African Government indirectly but we could not deal with the ANC".
I am not totally sure what the Deputy means by "an established principle" of not dealing with opposition unless he is referring to the generally accepted principle that in international relations governments deal with governments.
This does not exclude contacts with opposition groups.
Indeed, in the case of the ANC, to which the Deputy specifically refers, we have had contacts at official level with ANC representatives over the years. I might also add that ANC President Oliver Tambo was received by the then Minister for Foreign Affairs when he visited Dublin in 1979. Most recently, the Taoiseach last month extended an invitation to ANC Deputy President Nelson Mandela to visit Ireland.
Much was made last evening of the powers, extensive or otherwise, of the proposed committee and whether it conformed to the Netherlands model or to the Danish model or to some other model. The motion provides that the committee would consider such aspects of the Government's foreign policy and, in particular, the Government's official development assistance to developing countries as the committee may select; oversee the activities and expenditure of the Department of Foreign Affairs; report annually to both Houses and make other reports as it thinks fit; have the power to send for persons, papers and records.
This list of powers is significant and, dare I say, extensive. Would the supporters of the motion have it otherwise? Would they wish to have the powers of the proposed committee described as "weak" or "circumvented"?
Deputy Higgins noted in the debate that Ireland last year ratified the two international covenants elaborated on the basis of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The ratification of international legal instruments always entails a full examination of what legislative or other measures may be necessary to allow Ireland become a party to a convention. It is sometimes necessary, for constitutional, legislative or other reasons, to enter a reservation as to the full application of a provision of an instrument.
The Deputy referred to a reservation entered by Ireland on prison accommodation. It is worth noting that Ireland accepts the principles referred to in the Article in question and implements them as far is practically possible. We regard full implementation of these principles as objectives to be achieved progressively.
The question of political and social studies in schools was also mentioned last night. In so far as development education is concerned I should say that considerable progress has been made in including development education components in subjects such as geography, where a significant element in the leaving certificate course covers Third World development issues. Furthermore, my Department have, through their support for the Development Education Support Centre (DESC) and through grant assistance for teachers' in-service courses and for schools materials, encouraged and increased emphasis on development education in classrooms at all levels in the education system.
I regret, a Cheann Comhairle that I cannot deal with this as I would like to. I will conclude by saying again to Deputy Barry and the spokespersons for the other parties who are here that I welcome every opportunity for debate in this House on foreign affairs matters because I think it would be helpful. I want to make one comment on what Deputy Connor said in regard to a visit he made recently to Washington with Deputies Barry and Deenihan. He said that from his contacts there he discovered that there was no official contact between the Department of Foreign Affairs officials and the legislators on Capital Hill——
No. That is not what I said.
Forgive me, I was listening.
I said your Department represented by you and the congressional leaders. That is what I said. There is a big difference.
I have had little enough time to say what I have to say. I heard what the Deputy said.
I know what I said and I insist it is in the record.
I wonder. If I am misreading what the Deputy said I apologise. I want to pay a special compliment to the ambassador and staff of the Department of Foreign Affairs in Washington for what they are doing on behalf of the Government and people of Ireland on Capitol Hill to help those out-of-status young people in the United States.
I want to repeat what Deputy Connor said just now. The Minister is mistaken. Deputy Connor did not say that. In fact I am not absolutely sure, but I was with him in America and I certainly heard him pay tribute to the contacts being built up between the Embassy and the officials there and Capitol Hill. The Minister should not go away with any other impression.
Before I start, I want to put on the record that I think that Deputy De Rossa was totally out of order tonight in interrupting and I am afraid he made a farce of what should have been a useful debate.
I am glad the Minister has taken the opportunity tonight to correct and reinterpret some of the language used last night by the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs. I would have to say that I admired the dexterity of the wielders of the pen in the Department of Foreign Affairs when they reinterpreted some of the words that were used by the Minister of State, Deputy Calleary, last night for the Minister, Deputy Collins tonight with, I must say, good effect, because I would certainly think that the speech delivered by Deputy Seán Calleary, the Minister of State, last night, spoke down to the Members of this House and treated us with almost dismissive contempt as people who had no contribution to make to foreign affairs. It is entirely regrettable that a speech of that nature should go on the record of this democratically elected Parliament at a time when we are constantly hearing speeches from that side of the House — indeed, I make them myself — saying how much encouragement we must give to the democratic process in Eastern Europe. It is very regrettable that a speech like that went on the record of this House last night.
The Minister of State said it is fair to state that many of these negotiations stand little chance of success if conducted in the public eye. We all know that, but that is not what we are talking about when we talk about a foreign affairs committee. We are talking about the opportunity of discussing with the Minister, his representatives and the officials in his Department, aspects of foreign affairs, to get an explanation as to what way certain things are done and to suggest other things that might be done some time in the future. There is no question of this being a star chamber in which Ministers and officials would be paraded in front of a group of parliamentarians to rap their knuckles or to pass motions. A rather insidious phrase crept in later to which I will refer in a second. The idea is not to rap their knuckles or force policy decisions to which they must adhere. Even in the unlikely circumstance of conflict, because of the way committees are formed in this House, the Government have a majority on a committee and therefore any attempt to force a policy decision on the Government would be defeated by the Government majority on the committee. If it is not and the Government lose by some chance of a person being missing or something like that, it comes back here and the Government will put on a three line whip and make sure that does not happen. Therefore, it is a nonsense to suggest that this committee are going to behave in an unreasonable and undemocratic way.
I agree with virtually everything the Minister who spoke tonight said. It is more or less what I was saying myself. The speech tonight was almost an apologia for what was said last night. I am referring to what was said last night to show that it was an unhelpful contribution to this debate. The Minister repeated tonight what the Minister of State, Deputy Calleary, said last night about the opportunities we have in this House for discussion. I welcome every one of these opportunities. I suggested on many occasions when I was where the Minister, Deputy Collins, is now that we do not have enough debates in this House on foreign affairs. I hope to see more. The pressure on the timetable of this House is partly responsible for that lack. Therefore, committees work in a far better atmosphere and far better work can be done by them. I am Chairman of the Joint Committee on Secondary Legislation of the European Communities. The Minister, the Chief Whip and the Minister of State, have said that there would be an overlap between that committee and this new committee were they to be set up. In theory that could be correct so far as affairs relating to Europe are concerned, but there is a big world outside Europe, and certainly we could not debate, except in regard to their effect on the EC, what is happening in Eastern Europe now, whereas we could debate it on a foreign affairs committee. That would be helpful.
The Minister tonight and the Minister of State last night referred to the debate on Cambodia and motions such as that. The problem about such motions is that only statements are made. There is not a real debate there. There are only statements made by certain people in the House in that regard, so it is not satisfactory.
The other example given is parliamentary questions. They are helpful. A great deal of information can be got in that way. Deputies have the opportunity of questioning Ministers about certain things, but again the time pressure is here. I say, somewhat against myself, that Question Time is weighted against those who are not spokespersons for the respective parties because we have the priority questions. When questions on foreign affairs come up next week some time, of the five priority questions put down which will take up 20 per cent of the time I will have three, Deputy Higgins will have one and Deputy Rabbitte or somebody else will have the other and that will be it. On the remaining maybe 100 questions put down to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, about 20 of which will be taken, only a limited number of Deputies will be able to contribute. Therefore, while Question Time is helpful it is not a substitute for a committee on foreign affairs.
The Minister last night mentioned the reports on developments in Eastern Europe. The last published report for that related to the period June to December 1987. The Estimates debate, which used to be very broad ranging and would last for maybe three days for each Estimate, now embraces maybe ten or 12 Estimates pushed into one day at the end of every term and foreign affairs might get three quarters of an hour or, at most, an hour and a half which is totally inadequate.
The Minister of State last night referred to the sensitivity of these other sovereign states with which he has to do business. He said the sensitivity arose because we were dealing with other sovereign states either bilaterally or multilaterally and that they, like us, had an important national interest to defend or promote. That is true; that is what foreign affairs are all about. Every country promotes its own national interest in foreign affairs. Of course, every one of these sovereign states has its own foreign affairs committee. That did not occur to the Minister last night. We are very sensitive about insulting them but they have not the slightest difficulty about insulting us. We have no foreign affairs committee. It is ludicrous.
As we said a number of times last night, we had a committee here between 1981 and 1989 dealing with overseas aid. That was appreciated by all Members of this House whether in Opposition or in Government at the time. To the best of my knowledge Fianna Fáil Deputies who were on that committee and who were then in Opposition made no effort to embarrass the Government of the day. I am waiting to be contradicted by Deputy Owen who was Chairman of that committee. Members treated that committee very seriously. It enabled them to make substantial constructive suggestions and they felt they were making a contribution towards the Government's policy on overseas development aid. I do not see why any Member of this House, if he was on a foreign affairs committee meeting in a much broader sense than just dealing with overseas aid, would behave differently. There is no question of any Member of this House wanting to embarrass the Government when they are dealing with another country but there is every wish by those in this House who want this committee established to have some say in the foreign affairs of this State. We do not want to usurp in any way the Government's role in this matter or the role of the Department of Foreign Affairs. We do not want to dictate policies to Government. We do not want to haul an assistant secretary in the embassy in Peking in here and question him about how much he spent for his lunch the previous day. That is not what is intended.
The Minister tonight and the Minister of State last night went through the terms of reference I listed for this committee, picked holes in them and poked fun at some of them. That is fair; that is politics and I do not object to it. I would do exactly the same if I were on their side in certain circumstances. Let me say that if the principle of establishing a committee on foreign affairs is accepted by this Government — I cannot speak for the Labour Party in this regard and the Labour Party's amendment to this motion is the only one that has been moved — I will be entirely reasonable and open to discussion with the Minister or anybody else as to the terms of reference of that committee. If the Minister will now indicate that he will do that I will withdraw my motion and will have discussions in the next week or ten days with him, with no preconditions, with a view to having that committee established.
Reference was made last night to the cost and effort involved in the difficult period of the Presidency. We are not talking about something that is going to last for only three months. By the time we get this committee established our Presidency will be nearly over. It is now half way through so we are talking about only three months. There is a considerable increase in the Estimate for Foreign Affairs for this year to deal with the Presidency, and whatever costs will attach to running this committee will not take up 1 per cent of that increase.
Like other Members of this House, I thought the condescending, patronising speech of the Minister of State last night was not helpful to rational debate. Leaving that aside, I have been extremely reasonable about this and I am prepared to sit down with the Minister and talk about the matter. I cannot say in advance that I will agree but I am willing to talk to a set of terms of reference which the Minister feels would protect whatever reserves and concerns he and his Department have about this committee. I hope the Minister will accept that and I will then not put the motion to a vote, so that we can be constructive. It would be very much appreciated if the Minister set up a committee of the Oireachtas on foreign affairs.
It is now 8.30 p.m. and unless the Minister wishes to make a short reply, I will proceed to put the question on amendment No. 1 in the name of Deputy Spring and others. I gather that is what is required of me in the silence of the moment.
The diplomacy of silence has spoken volumes.
The Minister has spoken and has made a very generous offer to involve the entire Dáil in a debate on foreign affairs.
That is our right.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 23; Níl, 77.
Tá
- Bell, Michael
- Byrne, Eric.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Garland, Roger.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- McCartan, Pat.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Gerry.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervin.
Níl
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cullimore, Séamus.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Flood, Chris.
- Foxe, Tom.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kelly, Laurence.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lyons, Denis.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, Jim.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- O'Toole, Martin Joe.
- Power, Seán.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Roche, Dick.
- Smith, Michael.
- Stafford, John.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Ferris and Howlin; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Clohessy.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 2:
To delete (2) (a) and substitute the following:
2. "consider all aspects of Irish foreign policy in particular, Irish neutrality, the need for international peace and disarmament, Anglo-Irish relations, the Government's Official Development Assistance to developing countries, and such other matters as the committee may select, and make recommendations to the Government as to appropriate policy positions; and".
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 23; Níl, 125.
Tá
- Bell, Michael.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Garland, Roger.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- McCartan, Pat.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Gerry.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
Níl
- Ahearn, Therese.
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Allen, Bernard.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Belton, Louis J.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Carey, Donal.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Connor, John.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Creed, Michael.
- Crowley, Frank.
- Cullimore, Séamus.
- Currie, Austin.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lee, Pat.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lowry, Michael.
- Lyons, Denis.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, Jim.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Paul.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- Daly, Brendan.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Davern, Noel.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Ellis, John.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- Finucane, Michael.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Flood, Chris.
- Foxe, Tom.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Harney, Mary.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kelly, Laurence.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kenny, Enda.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- O'Toole, Martin Joe.
- Owen, Nora.
- Power, Seán.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Reynolds, Gerry.
- Roche, Dick.
- Sheehan, Patrick J.
- Smith, Michael.
- Stafford, John.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wyse, Pearse.
- Yates, Ivan.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies McCartan and Byrne; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Clohessy.
Amendment declared lost.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 70; Níl, 75.
Tá
- Ahearn, Therese.
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barry, Peter.
- Bell, Michael.
- Belton, Louis J.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bradford, Paul
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Carey, Donal.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connor, John.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Creed, Michael.
- Crowley, Frank.
- Currie, Austin.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Finucane, Michael.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Quinn, Ruairí
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Reynolds, Gerry.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Sheehan, Patrick J.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Garland, Roger.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lee, Pat.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McCartan, Pat.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- McGrath, Paul.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Nealon, Ted.
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Gerry.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Yates, Ivan.
Níl
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cullimore, Séamus.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John
- de Valera, Síle.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Flood, Chris.
- Foxe, Tom.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Harney, Mary.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kelly, Laurence.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lyons, Denis.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, Jim.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- O'Toole, Martin Joe.
- Power, Seán.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Roche, Dick.
- Smith, Michael.
- Stafford, John.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies J. Higgins and Boylan; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Clohessy.
Question declared lot.