Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 18 Dec 1990

Vol. 404 No. 1

Supplementary Estimates 1990. - Vote 39: Foreign Affairs (Resumed).

This year has been an exceptionally active one for Ireland in the international sphere. Our role of presiding over the Council of the European Community during the first half of the year entailed a special responsibility for the progress of business within the Community and also participation on the Community's behalf in negotiations and contacts with a large number of other countries throughout the world. I think we acquitted ourselves with distinction in this role and that we can take pride in what was achieved in the Community under our Presidency.

This was the fourth time that Ireland has assumed the Presidency of the Community. While each of these periods made its particular demands, the pace and intensity of negotiation were recognised to have increased greatly by the time the 1990 Presidency began. The reasons for this were, of course, the development of the Community since the adoption of the Single European Act and, more recently, the developments in the Soviet Union and in Eastern Europe which have affected profoundly the relationships of European countries to one another and to the rest of the world.

A report has been prepared and has been circulated to all Deputies which details the progress made at the various meetings of the Council during the six-month period. The major themes of the Presidency are by now well-known to Deputies: the unification of Germany and the programme of assistance to the countries of Central and Eastern Europe; the implementation of the Single European Act, with particular reference to the internal market and the social dimension; economic and monetary union; political union; creation of a people's Europe, notably action on the environment, organised crime and drugs, free movement of persons; the Community's external relations, including those with EFTA, Latin America, Asean, the Lomé countries and the Arab world; European political co-operation on issues related to security and co-operation in Europe, developments in the Middle East and South Africa.

Work on these themes involved virtually every member of the Government. The Council of the European Community met in many different compositions during the period, apart from the regular meetings of the Ministers for Foreign Affairs, Agriculture and Finance which are held once or even twice a month. Other Ministers met once, twice or three times during the six-month period, as required. These were Ministers responsible for consumer affairs, culture, development, education, energy, the environment, fisheries, health, industry, the internal market, research, social affairs, social security, telecommunications, tourism, transport and immigration. The work culminated in the meeting of the European Council in Dublin Castle in June, under the chairmanship of the Taoiseach.

The completion of the single market in 1992 will have far-reaching implications for economic and social development and many of these are the subject of legislation adopted under the Irish Presidency. In total 26 new measures were adopted in this field and 11 common positions agreed. The Taoiseach has already pointed out, in reporting to this House, that this achievement constitutes a record for any Presidency and that two-thirds of the measures required for the Single Market had now been agreed. Some of these measures have particular significance for Ireland; each one of them is a contribution to the completion of a project which has been justly described as the bedrock of European integration.

The creation of an economic area without internal frontiers ensuring the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital and underpinned by economic and social cohesion and other accompanying measures is an essential foundation of economic and monetary union and of political union. The social dimension of the Community is of particular concern to this country and the Irish Presidency gave significant impetus to work on the implementation of the Social Charter by securing agreement on a timetable for the priority proposals still to be examined. Specific measures were adopted on health and safety of workers and on training, on the exchange of young workers and on assistance for the long term employed.

Progress towards economic and monetary union was discussed in detail during the first half of the year and agreement reached on the commencement dates of the Intergovernmental Conference which will deal with this central issue. That conference was formally inaugurated by the Heads of State and Government who met in Rome last Saturday following the European Council which took place there on 14 and 15 December. The Taoiseach will shortly be reporting in detail to the Dáil on that conference and on the outcome of the European Council.

The people's Europe is a concept that draws attention to the crucial importance of promoting the rights, freedoms and welfare of the individual citizen. In the words used at the European Council in Dublin in June, it "seeks to ensure and bring home in a direct and practical way the benefit of the Community to all its citizens". In this context, the protection of the environment has been found to be of great importance to the individual citizen. The dangers of a deterioration in the physical environment have been highlighted over the last year by the serious environmental problems revealed in the industrialised areas of Eastern Europe. The Community has been coming to grips with these problems. Environment Ministers from both Eastern and Western Europe met in Dublin in June, at the invitation of the Irish Presidency and agreed that the new European Environment Agency would be a pan-European agency open to all. The declaration on the environment adopted by the European Council sets out an agenda for the community in this vital area over the coming years.

It is essential to ensure that a Europe without internal frontiers is protected against terrorism, crime and drug trafficking. Throughout the Irish Presidency, the high-level co-ordinators' group pressed ahead with their work to combat drug abuse. The group reported to the European Council and made certain recommendations in regard to prevention of drug abuse, the suppression of drug trafficking, nationally and internationally, and the control of trade in chemicals used in refining drugs. Consultative arrangements with the United States and Canada have now been agreed. Priority action is now expected to combat money laundering.

While the Community is proceeding according to the agreed timetable with the completion of the single market and the other work envisaged in the Single European Act, it must also respond to the developments taking place in the rest of the world. Over the last year, these developments have been many and varied: constitutional changes in the Soviet Union, peaceful revolutions in Central and Eastern Europe, the final year of negotiations in the present round of the GATT, the movement towards reform in South Africa, continuing concern about the situation in the Middle East, rapprochement with Iran, a worsening of the plight of the least developed countries in Africa and elsewhere, accompanied by concern about their ability to meet their international debts. These developments set the themes for the Presidency in the area of external relations. Some of them were foreseeable well in advance; others made more rapid progress than expected, requiring of the Community a similarly rapid response.

The advent of German unification, which changed the actual composition of the Community and its borders, was crucial. It was recognised at an early stage that this would form a principal focus for the six-month period. Early in the year, the Taoiseach called a special meeting of Heads of State and Government in Dublin for April to deal specifically with the issues arising for the Community from the very rapid pace of events in Central and Eastern Europe.

The dramatic changes in Central and Eastern Europe permitted the development of a new set of relationships in Europe in an atmosphere of greatly reduced tension. The European Council in Dublin welcomed those developments wholeheartedly.

It was an important objective of the Irish Presidency to strengthen the role of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe — CSCE, thus paving the way for the successful summit which took place last month in Paris. Among other points, the Charter of Paris, agreed at that summit, recognises that security in Europe is the direct concern of all 34 participating states, irrespective of whether or not they belong to a military alliance.

The political relationship between the European Community and the United States was significantly developed during the Irish Presidency. The meeting between the Taoiseach and President Bush in February established the framework for regular meetings between the two sides.

It was necessary to address a wide range of other political issues during the Irish Presidency — the Middle East, South Africa and nuclear nonproliferation.

The special meeting of Heads of State and Government in Dublin in April confirmed their commmitment to political union, and the June European Council took the decision to convene an Inter-governmental Conference on Political Union — a decision of obvious significance, which was built on at the Rome European Council of last week. That council set out guidelines for the conference which, like the Inter-governmental Conference on Economic and Monetary Union, has now met for the first time, holding its opening session in Rome on 15 December, immediately after the European Council.

The supplementary funding sought today is for the Foreign Affairs Vote, but I would like to draw your attention briefly to some internal changes in the Vote for International Co-operation which I know will be of interest to the House. The drawdowns by the European Commission in respect of the European Development Fund and subscriptions to international organisations such as the UN and OECD were lower this year than anticipated. I am pleased to tell you that this has enabled significant transfers of over £0.6 million to the Disaster Relief Fund. These have been used to make substantial allocations for Ethiopia and Sudan in particular. Overall, the position for 1990 will be that over £1.3 million will be spent on disaster relief for developing countries, or double the original allocation of £0.65 million. Of that total, £0.415 million has been allocated for Ethiopia, £0.310 million for Sudan, £0.125 million for Iran and £0.1 million for Angola and Mozambique. Allocations have also been made for Peru and Cambodia and for the repatriation of refugees to South Africa and for repatriation of refugees who fled from Iraq and Kuwait.

For 1991, as Deputies will be aware, the Government have allocated £43.2 million for Official Development Assistance, an increase of 26 per cent over the 1990 allocation. As a percentage of GNP, ODA provisions will rise from 0.16 per cent to 0.18 per cent of GNP. The main reason for the increase is funding for countries most affected by the Gulf crisis. Over the last couple of years, we have carefully ensured that we have met all our aid commitments. In 1991 we will be able to expand our activities a little, providing inter alia food aid for Egypt, one of the countries most affected by the Gulf crisis, a very large increase in funding for UNICEF and some new projects in our priority countries — primary education in Tanzania, primary health care in Sudan and rural foot bridges in Lesotho.

I commend the Supplementary Estimate to the House.

The Minister of State has just introduced a Supplementary Estimate which seeks approval for an additional £497,000 to run the Department of Foreign Affairs. Yet the Minister did not refer once in his speech to Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland affairs or the talks with Mr. Brooke. He repeated the claim made earlier in the year by the Taoiseach that he was responsible for a whole range of measures, including the reunification of Germany. I am sure the German people will be forever thankful to the Taoiseach — they will probably build shrines to him and light candles — for reunifying their country. He keeps making the claim that that should set an example for us on this island: if Germany can be reunited after 40 years, then we should do the same. However, he does not take into account the fact that the vast majority of people in Germany wanted reunification while at least one million people in the North of Ireland do not want to unite with us. Until such time as he faces that reality there will be a problem.

As I said there was no reference in the Minister's speech to Northern Ireland, Anglo-Irish relations and in particular, the decision handed down by the Court of Appeal in London yesterday on the Birmingham Six. I would have thought that this debate today would have been an ideal opportunity for the Government to say precisely what they are doing and what pressure they are bringing to bear on the British Government to see that this farce which has gone on for 17 Christmases does not continue.

There is a universal view — I use that term advisedly — that in fact the stringing out of this appeal is not serving British justice and that the Government should use every opportunity, both publicly and privately, to say to the British Home Secretary and Prime Minister — I understand the Taoiseach met him last week, while the Minister for Foreign Affairs is to meet the Foreign Secretary — that they must bring the rules that they brought to bear in the case of the Guildford Four to bear in the case of the Birmingham Six. I would have thought that this debate presented the Minister of State with a perfect opportunity to put that on the record of this House. I regret very much that neither he nor the Minister saw fit to come into the House to put that on the record.

The Minister is attending a meeting of the Council of Ministers.

I have referred to that fact already. I note that there was a saving of £1.3 million in the subhead on salaries. Why could this not have been applied to overseas development aid? I am aware that the classic response from the Minister would contain the words of the Department of Finance that we do not transfer funding between subheads, that any savings must be handed back, perhaps for reallocation, but the fact remains that the Minister has said that there already have been transfers between subheads. For example, he has transferred £0.6 million to the disaster relief fund. Therefore this £1.3 million could be applied to overseas development aid to top up their miserly contribution and increase the amounts Fianna Fáil have provided since coming into office. I have not noticed any improvements despite the advent of the Progressive Democrats who when on this side of the House were very vocal in their demands for an increase in overseas development aid. However, since they joined the Government I have not noticed any improvements either in the outturn for last year or in the Estimate for next year in the amount being made available for overseas development aid.

The Minister made the point that he has increased significantly the amount of money available and stated:

For 1991, as Deputies will be aware, the Government have allocated £43.2 million for official development assistance, an increase of 26 per cent over the 1990 allocation... The main reason for the increase is funding for countries most affected by the Gulf crisis.

Strictly speaking, that does not represent overseas development aid. It is a once-off increase to help countries such as Jordan and Egypt and refugees from Kuwait. It is not development aid to help Third World countries develop their economies to allow them to compete and find a place in the rest of the world. It is a once-off increase and it is false to say that it represents an increase in overseas development aid in 1991. That is something we should do. This is not overseas development aid and should not be referred to as such by the Minister.

In relation to the European Community, it has been stated that what happened over the weekend flowed from the achievements of the Irish Presidency and the decision to set up two inter-governmental conferences which had their initial meetings last Saturday in Rome. I must again point to the fact that the Irish Government did not put a paper before either conference outlining what their views are on anything. We are the losers in that regard. The Minister for Finance has said that he is very disappointed that the Irish view was not reflected in the draft document on monetary union produced by the Commission for the intergovernmental conference. It is not reflected as the Irish position is not well known because the Minister did not put forward a paper. Neither did the Government tell the House or the Commission what their views on political union are and that will be a major concern for the people of this country well into the future.

The Irish position should have been debated in this House, and a paper should have been produced and presented to the intergovernmental conference with the authority of the Parliament behind it or will the Government make up the policy as they go along? That is not an adequate response to what will be a huge step both for this country and Europe. Will there be a federal Europe or a union of twelve member states?

The Irish position should be on the table and debated in this House so that we will know what the Government are going to say behind closed doors. We do not know what they want or what their position is. Do they want a federal Europe or a united states of Europe or a much looser arrangement along the lines of a Single European Act Mark II with majority voting, increased powers for the Parliament and the Commission being more answerable to the Council of Ministers? We have not heard what they want. We have not been told what their position is in any of the debates held in this House, of which there have been precious few.

When it was raised with the Taoiseach or the Minister for Foreign Affairs they sidestepped the issue and used put off phrases such as the Irish Government's position is well known and that they will be pushing it in the interests of the Irish people at the intergovernmental conferences throughout 1991. Their position could not be known as it has not been outlined to the House or adopted by it. Individual members of the Government may have their individual views on what they would like to see come out of the intergovernmental conferences but that does not represent the Irish view and is the view of one part of the Government. We would like to know what the Progressive Democrats think. Our experience in the past has taught us that eventually the Government think as they do because they force their will on the Government.

In conclusion, I wish to repeat the plea that I have made both to the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs in my capacity as Chairman of the Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities and that is to let the Government make provision for a two day debate in this House on a paper to be produced by the Government outlining their views on monetary and political union to be presented at the intergovernmental conference. That is the least we deserve. This is extremely important. How do they propose to protect this Parliament in the decisions that will be made in Europe in the future? We are the elected representatives of the people and this is the Parliament of the people and we should be the first to know what the Government propose to do and how they view the future of the people of this island.

The Supplementary Estimate we are now dealing with on Foreign Affairs arises out of our activities during our Presidency of the European Community. The overruns are significant and reflect a certain lack of accountancy skills in assessing at the beginning of this year the additional expenditure that would be required in running a very active Presidency. Certainly the overrun at 25 per cent in the amount allocated for travelling and incidental expenses this time last year arises out of a great deal of activity which should have been expected as we approached the Presidency.

The overruns only reflect the tip of the iceberg as this Estimate on Foreign Affairs will not take into account the huge costs which arose as a result of gardaí being taken away from very worthwhile and necessary work and the presence of members of our Defence Forces who were badly stretched on Border duties. The cost involved will not be reflected in the Estimate. Nevertheless, the Minister has given a long list of the various activities with which this relatively small country had to deal on assuming the Presidency of the European Community. I should like to have heard the Minister pay a very worthwhile tribute to the staff of his Department, the staff here and those who have served overseas, particularly in Community countries. During the four Presidencies which we have held since our accession to the EC, they have performed magnificently and compared well with the staff of any of the other Community countries, including the larger ones. It would be wrong for the Minister to suggest that the three previous Presidencies were in some way less active. I was president of the Environment Council on one occasion. I can assure the Minister that those three Presidencies were equally successful. Much of that success was due to the very high quality staff in the Department of the Environment who have served us abroad, particularly in the Community.

A number of areas of activity received a great deal of publicity but due to the lack of debate in this House we have not had the opportunity to tease out the effects of our Presidency in particular areas. The Minister mentioned the social charter and I would certainly like to debate in this House the effects of that charter on this country. It has been badly watered down by the influence of Great Britain and the document which has finally emerged is much weaker because of the need to take on board the pressures exerted by Mrs. Thatcher and her Ministers during discussions on this matter in the past year. The document originally presented and that finally agreed are very different. The machinations during the discussions made it a much less significant document but it is, nevertheless, important and we must welcome it, even in its diluted form.

We cannot but be concerned about the effect on peripheral regions of Economic and Monetary Union. There has been a lack of real criticism by our Government and there has been a lack of debate in this House on the effects of the Single Market and Economic and Monetary Union. We seem to base all our hope on the fact that we have a lower rate of inflation than most Community countries, but we also have the highest level of emigration, the highest level of unemployment and we remain the most isolated country in the Community. The point about Ireland's isolation is highlighted by Britain's more permanent contact with the Continent which will be achieved as a result of the Channel Tunnel. We are already experiencing the rundown of employment, the devastation of our young population in many rural areas and the lack of any hope in Government statements issued since our Presidency. I hope we will not simply go along with the big boys in the European Community and assume that because we seem to have got the finances right the deep-seated social and economic problems can be overlooked.

The Minister is correct in indicating that problems will arise from the removal of boundaries and frontiers. He did not mention the problem of AIDS and drug abuse but I hope the boundaries will remain to the extent that we can keep a close watch on the drugs godfathers who will have much easier passage. I hope the Minister will ensure that the health of the citizens of the Community will be strengthened as a result of greater unity. Each Community country seems to have a different approach to the spread of AIDS and I would hope for the development of a concerted view.

We all regard with some satisfaction the unification of Germany. Normally when the Community is expanded to include 16 million people years of debate and discussion have taken place to produce an evaluation of the effects on other Community countries. The 16 million people living in the eastern part of Germany seem to have been brought into the Community without any such evaluation. I hope we will hear more on this subject.

I underline what the previous speaker said about ODA. We must regard ourselves as a Community for this purpose. ODA has been reduced from 4.5 per cent in 1980 to 2.7 per cent in 1990 of the total EC budget. This is a scandal. Although a £100 million package of aid for Russia has been agreed, this seems to have taken away from the urgency of dealing with worldwide problems of famine and deprivation, particularly in the Third World. I hope Ireland will always be to the forefront in demanding increased support for these countries and that the desire to help Russia in an undoubtedly difficult period will not dilute our aid to the Third World. I would ask the Minister to ensure that this will not happen and that the problems of the Third World and the Lomé countries will always be high among our priorities.

We do not intend to oppose this Estimate. There are many significant problems we could raise but I hope the budget debate will provide that opportunity.

Obviously ten minutes is not adequate to deal with international relations and I would hope to touch on three or four areas which I regard as being of particular importance. One of the most glaring omissions in Oireachtas procedures is the absence of a Foreign Affairs committee. It is urgently needed, specifically because we are facing a situation arising from the Gulf crisis which is unprecedented and which this House has not yet debated. We are facing a deadline on 15 January which could result in this country being involved in supporting a war in the Gulf. There does not seem to be the urgency I would expect in relation to this issue. Our Constitution states quite clearly that to declare war or to support war this House must pass a resolution to that effect. This House has not even debated the issue. Yet we recess tomorrow until the end of January. If there was never a need before there is now a clear need for a committee to examine issues like these that will arise more frequently in the future because of the major changes that have taken place in international relations, in international security and this overall area of debate. More and more these call into question Irish neutrality which urgently requires re-evaluation to ascertain in what way it can be rendered more relevant to the new position prevailing worldwide.

When this matter was raised less than two weeks ago, on 6 December, at Question Time, the Minister for Foreign Affairs promised that there would be day-long debates once a month on foreign affairs. On the face of it that was a very generous and welcome offer in so far as it was a recognition that foreign affairs need to be debated on a more regular basis. Clearly a formal debate in this House is not the way in which these critical issues which need to be addressed and teased out can be done. The formal procedures in this House do not permit the to-ing and fro-ing of addressing the minute details of issues relating to the Gulf or, for instance, issues relating to political or monetary union. We need a committee to deal effectively with those issues. The effect of having monthly debates in this House simply will be to harden positions, to have posturing and, in fact, could be seen simply as a monthly release of hot air which would do nobody in this House any good.

Hear, hear.

The absence of this committee is more clearly highlighted than ever arising from the position we face in relation to the Gulf. As a House we have made no effort to influence the people who have a say in whether or not there will be war in the Gulf. Judging by the Taoiseach's response to my question this morning on how we intend to respond, it is quite likely we will have an emergency recall of the Dáil — I hope it does not have to happen — but it is possible that, on 15 January 1991, we will be sitting here trying to tease out what should be our attitude to the appalling nightmare that would result from the failure of Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait. It is extraordinary that spokesmen for the American Administration do not regard war as the nightmare scenario but they regard a partial withdrawl from Kuwait by the Iraqis as — what was the phrase they used — a doomsday situation. What would they do? They could not plausibly launch an attack if there is partial withdrawal. Yet they cannot plausibly back down from their demand that the Iraqis pull out of Kuwait. As far as I am concerned, and I am sure the majority of Members of this House are concerned, the nightmare, doomsday scenario is that a shot should be fired at all in the Gulf. War in the Gulf is unnecessary, is uncalled for and would be a catastrophe for millions of people in the Middle East and, indeed, right around the world.

The other issue on which I wanted to touch is overseas development aid. All parties in this House agree in principle that our overseas development aid should be substantially increased, that serious efforts should be made to reach the target set by the United Nations in the early seventies. Rather than reaching that target we, as a State, have skipped back from the provision we made five or six years ago. Given that there is agreement in principle by all parties in this House, given that it is an issue which, by and large, does not divide the House politically, it would make sense for representatives of all parties to sit down with the Government representatives and work out a strategy on how we should increase our overseas development aid on an annual basis until we reach the target of 0.7 per cent of the GNP within a reasonable period, say within five or six years. Five years is being sought by the agencies here who deal with ODA. I have written to the leaders of all parties in this House, including the Government parties, making this suggestion. I hope there will be an early positive response to my request. I seriously believe there is little point in our shouting at one another across the floor of this Chamber in relation to this issue when we could sit down sensibly and work out a strategy.

Acting Chairman

I must now ask the Deputy to conclude.

I will conclude by making two points, one in relation to overseas development aid. The people outside this House have shown their generosity and would welcome a combined, co-operative approach on the part of all Members of this House to this issue.

I wanted to deal with the question of Northern Ireland. However, I will conclude on this point: given that the majority of parties in this House indicated, in the debate on Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution, that they saw a need to change the Constitution, perhaps progress could be made in that direction in 1991. We should endeavour to ensure that nothing in our Constitution will stand in the way of a political arrangement in Northern Ireland which can bring about peace.

Barr
Roinn