At this meeting we will consider the 1999 Estimates for the Department of Foreign Affairs, Votes 38 and 39, and Supplementary Estimates under both Votes which were referred to the Select Committee by order of the Dáil earlier today. On behalf of the committee, I welcome the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Andrews, and his departmental officials. A suggested timetable for consideration of the Estimates has been circulated. Is that agreed? Agreed. The Select Committee will discuss Supplementary Estimates under the relevant subheads when those are being considered. I ask the Minister to make an opening statement on Vote 38, Foreign Affairs, and subheads A and B of Vote 39, International Co-operation. That will be followed by statements by the main Opposition spokespersons, after which there will be a general discussion within the agreed timetable.
Estimates for Public Services, 1999.
Vote 38 - Foreign Affairs.
Vote 39 - International Co-operation.
I thank the Chairman for his welcome. Will I deal with Vote 39 separately or will I deal with Votes 38 and 39 together? The problem is that ordinarily the Minister of State would be here and I have explained to the Chairman and the committee why she is absent.
In the circumstances it would be better if the Minister dealt with them together. Some of the subheads in Vote 39 are divided but it would be better to deal with both in full, including the Supplementary Estimates.
I agree. As the Chairman indicated, we are considering the entirety of Votes 38 and 39 at this evening's session. The situation is a little more complex than normal because the select committee is also considering two Supplementary Estimates. The first deals with subhead F1 of Vote 38 and relates to an increase in the funds for peace and reconciliation projects in response to the Good Friday Agreement. The second deals with subheads E and H of Vote 39 and with additional emergency assistance for Kosovar refugees.
I propose, with the chairman's permission, to speak first on Vote 38 and its accompanying Supplementary Estimate. As is traditional, I will make some references to matters covered by subheads A and B of Vote 39. These relate to funding for international organisations, principally the UN. By agreement I will address Vote 39 matters which relate to Ireland's contribution to overseas development aid immediately after the conclusion of Vote 38. I understand the Kosovo Supplementary Estimate will be dealt with at that stage.
The Estimate for Vote 38 amounts to £70,332,000. The bulk of this is taken by the administrative budget which amounts to £62,391,000. The remainder of the Vote amounts to £7,941,000 and funds programmes which promote peace and reconciliation in Ireland, encourage the development of cultural relations with other countries and support Irish citizens overseas. The committee will appreciate that it is the administrative budget which enables the Department to carry out its core policy-making functions at home and representational functions abroad. The administrative budget in 1999 will, inter alia, cover the establishment costs of our new embassy in Ankara and of the consulates general in Edinburgh and Cardiff. It will also absorb the initial establishment costs of the new embassy in Mexico and, when finalised, the arrangements for an office in Ramallah on the West Bank. A small mission may also arise from our proposed chairmanship of the Council of Europe.
I would like to highlight briefly the principal policy issues which the Department of Foreign Affairs is currently addressing. As regards Anglo-Irish issues, the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement is a continuing priority for my Department and myself. During the past year substantial progress has been made. This must not be overlooked or minimised, despite the continuing and very grave difficulties we face. Some of the many highlights include agreement on six meaningful North-South implementation bodies and the establishment of a Human Rights Commission in Northern Ireland.
Less tangibly, but equally importantly, there is now a level of contact, and a developing understanding, between the political parties in the North and political leaders North and South, which not long ago would have been unimaginable. I am determined to encourage reconciliation and mutual understanding in Northern Ireland and throughout the island, which is why I have moved to increase to £2 million the reconciliation fund of the Department, the Supplementary Estimate which I hope the committee will approve.
Despite all the progress made and although we are on the brink of success, implementation of the Agreement faces the most serious difficulties. I continue to believe that its vision of peaceful partnership is achievable. It cannot be a mirage. It is clearly what a large majority of the people desire and it is what they have voted for, though we must acknowledge, and as far as possible seek to assuage, the misgivings of a large section of the Unionist community. We have, together, come a long way. However, we have not yet completed the journey.
I am sure the sectarian nihilism which seeks only to destroy can be withstood and overcome, though I am fully aware of the fear and suffering it brings, above all, to isolated and vulnerable families and communities. The failure to resolve the Drumcree issue is also negative not just in itself and in its impact on the people of the area but in its overall effect on the political climate. The most serious challenge we face is that which strikes at the heart of the Agreement. If some way cannot be found to bring the parties together in an inclusive executive, none of the institutional or constitutional elements will enter into force.
The two Governments, led by the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister, are absolutely determined to do all they can to achieve devolution between now and the end of the month. We see no value in continuing to delay or postpone the moment of truth. There are various ways in which, in line with the Agreement and the commitments parties have made under it, sufficient reassurance can be offered and sufficient trust created to allow the institutions to be set up. Clearly this will involve political risks all round. Both Sinn Féin and the Ulster Unionist Party will need to go beyond their stated positions. They can do so in an honourable way consistent with their core requirements of certainty and confidence. The rest of us must do all we can to guarantee that commitments are honoured.
It is profoundly in the interests of both communities, as it is of all the people of Ireland and Britain, that the Agreement is allowed to work. It can secure peace, build partnership and stimulate prosperity, and its failure would not offer either side a preferable or even a palatable alternative. It would be wrong for Unionists to think that, in frustrating it, they would be able to return to a more favourable situation when all the evidence of past decades shows the futility of rejectionism. It would equally be wrong for republicans to think their objectives will be advanced more easily in a climate soured by political failure.
The two Governments cannot compel consensus. We can take much of the strain but not all of it. Others must fulfil their responsibilities. There will never be an ideal moment for all those involved to jump together, but there is no reason, with determination and courage, this cannot happen now. That is what we are working towards.
Irish foreign policy is today confronted with new challenges and ever more complex political problems. At the forefront of our attention has been the enormous human tragedy of the conflict in Kosovo. With our EU partners, we are resolved that the policy of deportation and destruction of a people must fail and that those who planned, authorised and executed it must be held personally accountable and brought to justice before the International Criminal Tribunal at The Hague. We have strongly supported the efforts to bring about a political solution and welcome the recent breakthrough. With the adoption of the United Nations Security Council resolution, the way is now clear for implementation of the settlement. We are looking at ways in which the Government can contribute to this process,including the possibility of participation in KFOR, the UN force in Kosovo.
We will work with our EU partners to address the humanitarian crisis and plan for regional reconstruction through the stability pact for south eastern Europe. The challenge for us now is no longer simply the achievement of our objectives for Kosovo but to ensure peace and stability in the entire Balkan region and to strengthen the international system which faces its greatest challenge since the end of the Cold War.
While much of the recent focus has been on the situation in Kosovo, we have continued to pay close attention to conflicts in other parts of our world. I recently visited East Timor where the hope of a peaceful future for its people has again been under threat. While I was there, I learned that the population of the capital, Dili, was being subjected to intimidation and violence by armed groups of pro-Indonesian militia who were rampaging through the city. I was able to show the Indonesian authorities that this violence was being carried out in their name, and they have since moved to stabilise the situation. I remain committed to supporting the right of the East Timorese people to decide their future and have welcomed the agreement at the United Nations on a process leading to a plebiscite on 8 August this year, a process which the Government actively supports, including through the provision of gardaí.
We remain deeply concerned at the long running impasse in the peace process in the Middle East. During President Arafat's recent visit, the fervent hope was expressed that the process can now be swiftly revived in the aftermath of the Israeli elections. Together with our EU partners, we welcomed the Palestinian decision to defer the declaration of a Palestinian state at this sensitive time. We continue to support the peace process through our contribution to UNIFIL and development assistance to the Palestinian people. I pay tribute to our Defence Forces who are our international peacekeepers, who have sometimes paid the highest price in the cause of peace. We recently lost one of our peacekeepers and serious injury was caused to another. I sent the condolences of the Government to the Defence Forces and to the family, and I do so again.
We have seen that many conflicts are local or regional but also that some may have the potential to develop into wider conflagrations in which weapons of mass destruction may be used. As technology advances, so sadly does the ability to kill and maim people. It is for this reason that Ireland, together with several other like-minded countries, launched the New Agenda, an initiative to focus attention on the lack of progress in nuclear disarmament. This initiative received broad support in the United Nations General Assembly last year, and we are preparing for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference next year. We have also been active on conventional weapons. Ireland was one of the core group of countries whose efforts led to the Ottawa Treaty banning anti-personnel landmines. Last month I attended the first conference of the signatory states in Maputo. This treaty represents a breakthrough in tackling one of the obscenities of our era.
One of the most enduring features of the conflicts of which I have spoken continues to be the appalling violation of human rights. Concern for human rights has always been a central tenet of this country's foreign policy, and this is reflected throughout the work of the Department of Foreign Affairs, especially the work carried out by the Department's human rights unit. The unit promotes human rights concerns in all aspects of our foreign relations, including through Ireland's recent chairmanship of the UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva.
Ireland will assume the six month rotating chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe between November 1999 and May 2000. A successful presidency is viewed by the Government as a foreign policy priority. To prepare for the presidency, a resident mission, to which I referred, has been established in Strasbourg. One of the key tasks likely to face our chairmanship will be the role to be played by the Council of Europe, working with the EU and the OSCE, in post-conflict rehabilitation in Kosovo and the surrounding region.
The question of future security and defence arrangements in Europe also continues to be a major issue for debate. The key question for Ireland remains how best to enhance our ability to contribute to regional and international security while safeguarding our neutrality. In this context, conflict prevention and peacekeeping are seen as core activities for security co-operation in the framework of the Amsterdam Treaty and the evolving security architecture. We will play a role in these activities through our membership of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, through EU-WEU co-operation and, we envisage, from the second half of this year, through Partnership for Peace.
I wish to address some of the more important issues arising in the EU context which have significant implications for our country. On Agenda 2000, the outcome of the Berlin summit represents an equitable agreement which takes account of the concerns of all member states and to which they all contributed. From Ireland's point of view, our essential concerns were addressed in a realistic and balanced manner. The agreement meets the objective of ensuring an adequate reform of the CAP while taking account of the need to preserve rural communities and to prepare the Union for the next round of WTO negotiations. The overall balance of the deal recognises the central role of agriculture in the Irish economy.
On Structural Funds, the agreement takes account of our key concerns. Our regionalisation proposal was accepted, ensuring continued Objective One status for part of the country. We secured adequate transitional support in terms of volume and duration for the rest of the country which is graduating from Objective One status. In addition, we secured continued eligibility for the Cohesion Fund until a mid-term review in 2003, despite strong opposition from several member states. We are extremely grateful to receive continued EU support for the peace process. The European Union has offered consistent support in this area and continues to do so.
Ireland supports the EU enlargement process which will ultimately lead to the accession of the new democracies of central and eastern European countries as well as Cyprus and Malta. We have adopted a positive approach to the negotiations. The Cologne European Council noted with satisfaction that the accession negotiations gathered further momentum during the German presidency. Ireland recognises that the achievements of the central and eastern European countries call for a generous and open response from the member states of the union. For our part, we are fully committed to doing what we can to assist the applicant countries in meeting the conditions for accession by sharing our expertise and experience with them in a practical fashion.
The timely completion of the Agenda 2000 negotiations, the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam and the momentum present in the accession negotiations facilitated a decision at Cologne on handling unresolved institutional issues which must be settled before enlargement. An intergovernmental conference is to be held next year to cover the size and composition of the Commission, the weighting of votes in the Council and the possible extension of qualified majority voting in the Council. By leaving an opening for discussion of some other closely related issues, the German presidency sufficiently reconciled the narrow and broad approaches to the Intergovernmental Conference for preparations to begin. The decisions meet Ireland's concerns.
Over the next 18 months or so, the process will have important implications for Ireland's position and influence as a small member state vis-à-vis the Union’s institutions. It will be in our interests to facilitate such adaptations as are required to enable the institutions to function effectively in an enlarged Union. We want to do this as much as possible without incurring loss of voice. Following an unsettled period in inter-institutional relations, the Union now has a newly elected European Parliament and it will soon have a new Commission under a strong reforming President.
We should not lose sight of Ireland's efforts abroad in support of its economic interests. Ireland has a small, open economy which is critically dependent on foreign trade and in which inward investment plays a major role. Our interest lies in ensuring an open trading system in which Irish exports can compete on world markets. For its part, the Department of Foreign Affairs aims to secure an international environment within which trade and investment can flourish and to build relations with other nations as a basis for the development of mutually beneficial business.
Embassies and consulates abroad are keenly aware of Ireland's economic interests in their host countries and take every opportunity to develop them. In Ireland's approach to promoting foreign earnings and inward investment, co-operation between the representatives abroad of the State agencies and embassies and consulates plays a fundamental part. If this co-operation is to work smoothly, there needs to be an understanding of the different roles of the various State agencies and embassies. I am holding a seminar for ambassadors in September to explore these issues.
The foregoing is a brief overview of the issues for which the Department of Foreign Affairs is responsible and which touch on the vital interests of this country. Where vital interests are concerned, people naturally focus on the economy and the need for a modern and efficient infrastructure to underpin it. However, with increasing globalisation all economies and States conduct their businesses in an international context. They cannot succeed in a competitive environment unless they are out there learning and evaluating and have the capacity to influence the decisions that count for Ireland. The diplomatic network plays a key role in furthering both our political and commercial interests internationally.
Economies can operate only in conditions of peace, security and basic consensus. The Department of Foreign Affairs makes a significant contribution in the pursuit of these goals, not only on the island of Ireland but also in the world's principal fora. I pay particular tribute to Department officials at all levels at home and abroad in this regard for their contribution to their country. The Department also delivers important services to citizens at home and abroad. It aims at all times to deliver excellent service in a cost effective manner and succeeds in this in large measure through the unstinting efforts of a very dedicated staff. I should be grateful for your support for the Estimates proposals before us.
I now turn to Vote 39, the Vote for International Co-operation. The Minister of State, who has delegated responsibility for this area, is today in Pretoria, accompanying the President at the inauguration of President Thabo Mbeki.
I place on the record my personal high regard for the manner in which the Minister of State has discharged her brief on development aid. Her defence of its resources, her commitment to their growth, the profile she has given the area and, above all, the degree to which she has motivated public opinion on the Kosovar refugee issue all point to an exceptional commitment to her brief.
I am pleased to have this opportunity for an exchange of views with the committee on the allocation for this year for Vote 39, which is the source of funding for official development aid, ODA, and a number of other aspects of international co-operation. Our deliberations today will focus on the basic allocation for Vote 39 and on a proposed Supplementary Estimate to enable the Government to respond adequately to the situation in Kosovo.
I particularly look forward to today's proceedings as it is fair to say the committee has set a high standard in discussion of development issues. It is possible to make a direct connection between the volume and quality of the committee's work and increasing levels of public understanding of development issues. Increasing public understanding of development issues may be linked, in turn, to the unprecedented growth in Irish ODA.
According to our best estimates, official development assistance, the sum of the official aid transfers from all Irish Government sources in 1999, will reach £178 million, which could be as high as the equivalent of 0.35 per cent of GNP. In volume and percentage terms this is a record for Ireland's expenditure on aid. It is particularly apt that we should reach this level of contributions in 1999, the year we commemorate the twenty-fifth anniversary of Ireland's aid programme.
On bilateral aid we will spend almost £99 million. On multilateral assistance we will spend £76 million, including almost £15 million for debt relief, and there is a provision of £3.4 million for administration and miscellaneous items. While in the circumstance of rapid GNP growth the remaining steps are daunting, the Government nonetheless remains committed to its interim target of reaching 0.45 per cent of GNP for ODA by the year 2002 on the way to the ultimate UN goal for all donors of 0.7 per cent of GNP.
Development assistance is a core element of Ireland's foreign policy. A principle underlying that policy is that all our legitimate interests are best served by a strong focus on people in developing countries, including in particular an undeviating emphasis on poverty reduction and respect for human rights. In the Revised Book of Estimates the amount shown for the International Co-operation Vote, Vote 39, is £112,690 million. With Oireachtas approval of a Supplementary Estimate to be considered today, this will increase by £6.393 million as a result of the Government's decision to provide an extra £6 million in 1999 to assist the Kosovo refugee crisis and £0.393 million to augment the resources of the Refugee Agency. Thus, the total for Vote 39 in 1999 will be £119.083 million, an increase of £8.761 million on 1998.
As Deputies will know, the main element of ODA is contained in this Vote. For clarity, I should explain that not everything in this Vote counts for aid purposes. Subheads A and B cover regular budget payments to a range of international organisations of which we are members. Only one payment, for UNIDO, paid from subhead A, is included in ODA statistics. Neither do subheads H nor I count for aid. The subheads which count for aid purposes are C, D, E, F and G, covering the bilateral aid fund, APSO, aid contributions to the EU and UN and assistance to emergency situations. Their total in 1999, including the extra amount for Kosovo, is £110.274 million.
I mention this figure because it is the basis for an agreement in Government, more specifically between the Minister for Finance and myself, for increasing the amount provided in this Vote for aid in 2000 and 2001. Under that agreement an amount of £136.4 million will be provided in 2000 and £159.2 million in 2001. That means that in this three year period a total of £406 million will be provided for aid purposes through this Vote. When one considers that the same element of the Vote stood at £16 million in 1992, one can see how far we have come.
I will turn briefly to some of the elements of the Vote. The first one, a matter I know to be of concern to Members, is the debt issue and, in particular, the crushing burden of debt carried by under-developed countries. In recent months, we have witnessed a new international resolve to ease the heavy burden of debt in many developing countries. While existing mechanisms to alleviate debt have been useful, clearly a great deal more needs to be done. Ireland is committed to assist in this problem as witnessed by the debt relief package approved by the Government last September. In addition to mobilising more than £31 million for debt relief, it was agreed that debt issues should become an integral part of Ireland's overall overseas development co-operation strategy. In addition to providing bilateral debt relief of almost £10 million to two of the priority countries for Irish aid, Mozambique and Tanzania, £15 million has been committed to the joint World Bank-IMF Heavily Indebted Poor Countries, or HIPC initiative, while £7 million has been allocated to the IMF's Enhanced Structural Adjustment Facility, or ESAF.
There has been some criticism of our decision to contribute to ESAF in the context of the debt package, some of it from the NGO community. Their concerns are real, particularly with regard to the IMF's past lack of flexibility in some areas and a lack of consultation with civil society. However, the approach has been fundamentally evaluated and that review notes that reform "will generally have positive effects on growth and income distribution." The board of directors of the IMF has responded positively to the evaluation and have stated their intention to draw operational conclusions from the issues raised. The IMF has also initiated a consultation process with civil society on "Distilling the lessons from the ESAF Reviews". Our approach is that the debt issue must be tackled, that we can play a proactive role in putting in place a just and equitable mix of policies, but we can do so only if we are in - if we are contributing.
The Government, in agreeing the debt relief package, also adopted a number of fundamental principles to inform our future national policy on debt. These include a commitment to encourage greater transparency in the workings of the IMF and World Bank and to encourage the IMF in particular to take full note of the social impact of its policies at the design and implementation phases of its macroeconomic and structural adjustment programmes.
Ireland, in common with other donor countries, makes annual voluntary contributions to a range of UN agencies in line with the importance we attach to the development work of the UN. As our aid programme expanded in this decade, we have steadily increased our voluntary contributions to the UN development agencies. As a result, Ireland now features in the category of leading donors in per capita terms to some of the larger UN agencies. Our contributions cover the broad range of UN activities, including poverty alleviation, human rights, assistance to refugees, democracy building and electoral reform, education and training, health, humanitarian relief co-ordination. environmental protection, trade and enterprise promotion, and international action against drug abuse. The largest share goes to the three principal UN development and relief agencies: the United Nations Development Programme, the United Nations Children's Fund and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. We also contribute to a range of smaller UN agencies. Our aim has been to assist as many deserving organisations as possible.
Recent years have witnessed a significant increase in our level of funding, particularly in the area of human rights. This reflects the importance Ireland attaches to the promotion and protection of human rights and our wish to support the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson. I am conscious of the need to ensure that all UN agencies perform effectively and use their funds as efficiently as possible. One way of contributing to this aim is by our membership of the executive boards of these agencies and we have a policy of actively seeking such membership. Ireland currently serves on the executive boards of UNDP/UNFPA and UNHCR.
I will now turn to the bilateral aid element of the Vote. The main aim of the core value underpinning our aid programme has been a concentration on assisting the poorest of the poor, with particular emphasis on basic health and primary education in a number of priority countries in sub-Saharan Africa. For assistance of this kind to be effective it has to be enduring, and the best way to achieve this is through forging partnership relations with the countries concerned. Working with governments and local groups has been a long-term policy of Irish aid since 1974. Poverty alleviation is at the heart of our work and Irish aid is heavily weighted towards the least developed countries with an average per capita income of around $200 per annum. The six priority countries, Lesotho, Zambia, Tanzania, Uganda, Mozambique and Ethiopia fall into this category. The aid provided is concentrated on the provision of basic needs, primarily health care and access to basic education and clean water. About 30 per cent of Irish aid is allocated to these basic social sectors.
Ireland is a contributor to EU aid programmes, the fifth largest donor in the world. If one adds the individual aid programmes of member states to the EU's efforts, the EU is by far the largest provider of development aid in the world. The EU pioneered the now widespread concept of development partnership, acknowledging that the relationship between donor and recipient is best managed through a genuine and long-term partnership between the two sides. The long running series of Lomé agreements governing relations between the EU and African, Caribbean and Pacific countries since the 1970s, is an example of what can be achieved. In the EU mandate for negotiating these agreements Ireland consistently championed the case for enhanced treatment for the least developed countries by the EU.
Irish aid has maintained the capacity to respond quickly and effectively to humanitarian emergencies which often arise without warning. The most recent example of this in this generation is the unparalleled situation in the Balkans. The political settlement means that the refugees and internally displaced can begin to return to their homes as soon as the necessary conditions exist to ensure their security and safety. The UN humanitarian agencies estimate that about 1.5 million people in total will be in need of continued emergency assistance until the end of 1999 and beyond. The immediate priority is to gain access and provide assistance to the internally displaced in Kosovo where 650,000 people are thought to be living in very difficult conditions.
The second priority is to manage the return of the refugees in an orderly way. The UNHCR has arranged to distribute accurate and objectiveinformation to the refugees and internally displaced regarding conditions in Kosovo, the repatriation process and the specific procedures for return. Timing is crucial given the very harsh Balkan winter. The humanitarian agencies must ensure adequate protection as well as providing basic needs such as shelter, water, food and health care.
In addition to the immediate humanitarian response, the rehabilitation and reconstruction effort in the region will require a massive injection of funds from the international community. For example, it is estimated that at least 50 per cent of the houses in Kosovo have been badly damaged or totally destroyed. Since the start of the crisis, Ireland has contributed £2.6 million in humanitarian assistance to the region. In addition, by this week we will have received more than 1,000 Kosovar Albanian refugees under the UNHCR's humanitarian evacuation programme.
At its meeting of 1 June, the Government agreed to the tabling of a Supplementary Estimate of £6,392,593 in respect of the costs associated with the provision of assistance to the region. Of this amount, £6 million is required to augment the funds provided in subhead E of Vote 39. The subhead covers emergency humanitarian assistance and the Vote covers international co-operation. These funds are in addition to the original provision of £6 million for emergency assistance in 1999. The increased funding will be used to finance the expenditure related to the humanitarian assistance activities associated with the response to the Balkan crisis of 1999.
The remaining £392,593 is required to supplement the resources and staffing of the Refugee Agency which is co-ordinating the reception of the Kosovar refugees in Ireland. The agency is funded through a grant aid under subhead H of the Vote for international co-operation. In this context I wish to comment on NGOs and their valuable role in developing and motivating public opinion in the cause of the poorest of the world. Ireland is well served by its NGOs. Over a number of generations they have built up an outstanding reputation for quality aid and for its early and effective delivery to the most needy. In Biafra, Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia, Rwanda and now Kosovo, they have been at the forefront of the provision of assistance to those in great need. We have an excellent partnership with these organisations which we support at the level of 15 per cent of the aid budget, complementing in a fruitful way the generous funding they receive from the public.
While we remain concerned and are deeply touched by the plight of the Kosovar Albanians, we must not forget the suffering of many other vulnerable people. Many African countries are experiencing severe food shortages this year, including Sudan, Somalia and Angola. Other countries such as Honduras and Bangladesh are trying to pick up the pieces following devastating natural disasters last year. Similarly we must not lose sight of the fact that prevention is the best cure. Thus, the main thrust of Ireland's development co-operation programme will continue to be on measures which promote long-term development in low-income countries. Such measures can support the efforts of developing countries to take charge of their own destinies and reduce the risk of emergencies arising in the future. In this spirit I am pleased to request the committee's support for the Estimate proposals.
I thank Deputy Gay Mitchell for allowing me to speak in the slot properly reserved for the Opposition spokesperson. Having regard to the Minister's comprehensive statement Deputy Mitchell might need a little time to consider the implications and important elements outlined.
Chairman, I note that the Opposition spokespersons will have ten minutes each. May I have ten minutes for my opening statement?
When it comes to the PfP the Deputy is the Opposition.
Then I will make it eleven minutes. I welcome this opportunity to respond to the comprehensive, tolerant and positive presentation of the activities of the Minister, the Minister of State and the Department of Foreign Affairs. What emerges from this presentation is that Ireland is consistently involved in partnership, wherever it is appropriate, in building on the principles by which we have always been guided and in taking initiatives in a range of areas which have enhanced the respect in which we are held internationally.
The Minister gave a generous and tolerant presentation. I hope the day will come when our fellow Irishmen in Northern Ireland will be able to debate issues around the world as we are privileged to do today. There is no reason they should be forever confined to engaging in the political issues affecting only themselves. Rather they should have the opportunity which we are privileged to have and they are well qualified and have the personnel, resources and commitment to do so. If that day comes, it will enable them to see in a balanced and more comprehensive way, the seriousness or the difficulties they face at home.
We are more conscious now than ever before of our inter-dependency. We are impatient for the day when our fellow Irishmen, of whatever tradition, will have the opportunity of making contributions similar to those we make, and have been privileged to make, particularly in recent times. I am conscious that many distinguished members of the Minister's staff from Northern Ireland have made a very considerable contribution over the years to our positive and enlightened approach to foreign policy. For that reason, I hope our colleagues in the North, who are currently addressing these difficult issues, will see that the consequences of agreement for them and the next generations will be enormous. They will be enormous in terms of universal respect and in terms of the new standing and status they would receive here and elsewhere. There is no reason we, in this room, should be in a better position than they are to make that contribution. Those who are working so diligently at official and Government level should redouble their efforts to reach a conclusion in these critical weeks. If we were merely to address ourselves to the issues which divide us in any part of Ireland, we would not ever realise the potential of what unites us. Neither Deputy Mitchell nor I will ever return to the divisions which previously existed in the this part of the country which, in many ways, were even deeper than those in the North. Those who have worked consistently towards the achievement of agreement should be able to realise the fruits of their labour.
Obviously, the SDLP and the Official Unionist Party are centrally engaged in this process and have difficulties to address in the resolution of the problems they face. I hope they will not feel they have to look over their shoulders at anyone else in arriving at conclusions which are in their interests and those of the people they represent. David Ervine and his supporters have come a very long way in the approach they have adopted to their people's future. It would have been unthinkable three or four years ago to hear a representative of the loyalist movement in Northern Ireland speak in the forgiving, confident, determined and positive manner in which Mr. Ervine and his associates have spoken in recent times. That is a major breakthrough which I hope will, in future, be rewarded with more than the relatively small vote they received in the recent European election. It is important that we signal our appreciation and admiration of their courage and commitment which will play a major part in the process.
I have had the privilege over the past 12 months of travelling a little more than I normally might. On the most recent occasion, I travelled to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia with our chairman. I also visited Canada and Australia. Ireland's standing has not ever been as high as it currently is throughout the world. The Minister may be somewhat impatient with me as he cannot easily cope with such praise. It is a matter of pride that Ireland is so respected. A delegation of Canadian parliamentarians visited Ireland in recent days. Our common work in regard to the Ottawa Treaty and what the Minister referred to as the "obscenity of the landmines" does not go unnoticed. Wherever human rights are abused, our voice must be consistently heard. As a result, we will succeed in attracting others who support our position on landmines and the new agenda the Minister is pursuing on the lack of progress on nuclear disarmament. That agenda dates back a long way in Irish foreign policy and I would like to think that the latest efforts are in line with a consistent pattern which has been pursued by successive Ministers and by the Department of Foreign Affairs over the years.
It is a cause of great satisfaction for the people that the Government, reflecting the views of all parties, took the unique decision to refuse to issue visas to the Yugoslav football team in order to avoid offering any kind of solace or comfort to the brutal leaders of the Yugoslav regime. We were not prepared to engage in a sporting activity - something which is usually very agreeable - while people in Albania and Kosovo were being subjected to brutal suffering. The response of political parties and the Irish people proves that even if we think sport should be above politics, there are occasions when even greater principles come into play. I applaud the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation on their actions in that matter. The evident support of Opposition parties, through the tabling of questions and motions in the Dáil, meant we were ad idem on this important issue. Perhaps our decision may have had some small effect on the reconsideration of the activities of that brutal regime.
The Minister referred to the wonderful work being done by NGOs. One of the most encouraging developments in recent times is that many of our highly qualified young people, who could earn a great deal of money here in Ireland, are currently engaged in voluntary work. That says a great deal about their idealism.
In the course of our consideration of the Estimates procedure, I thank the Minister and his officials for the courtesies extended to me as Opposition spokesperson on foreign affairs. I also pay tribute to the officials of the Department who, although they run a small diplomatic service, are disproportionately successful in their activities. From the time I spent in the Department, I am aware they work very hard and have a very good sense of humour which matches their work rate. It is important for us, as elected representatives, to put that appreciation on record on behalf of the people we represent.
I will make two brief points about Northern Ireland and North-South relations. I do not wish to say a great deal about Northern Ireland. I think it best at this stage to encourage those involved to move as both Governments have been trying to do. We are where we are in relation to Northern Ireland and the island generally because of irredentist views held by different groups of people. When we think of stubborn blind views held by people, unfortunately we are inclined to think of Unionists and of the Democratic Unionist party in particular. We need to look more and more at our own irredentist attitudes. We must be prepared to open our minds as we enter the third millennium. We are very self-congratulatory about our neutral position and our contribution to the world. This is a changing island and these are changing islands. The reason we did not join NATO in 1949 was partition. Now people want a referendum on Partnership for Peace. This has been voted on already by those who included broad powers in the Constitution and because we have already approved a number of treaties, including the Amsterdam Treaty. This is a criticism of the public. We have a soft option public and soft option public representatives who wish to cash in on the soft option public. They are doing the same in Northern Ireland and we are no different on this side of the Border. It is time we started raising issues, explaining matters to people and giving them leadership. We should have spelled out our views on the Partnership for Peace issue before the European elections. We should have told people what it is about and that we are taking the decision because they have mandated us to do so. A further referendum would run completely counter to the referendum on the Good Friday Agreement, the Amsterdam Treaty and all the other treaties.
What question would one put in a referendum? Should the question be, "Should we join Partnership for Peace or should we not join Partnership for Peace?" If the people vote "yes", then we could negotiate anything. If we ask should we join Partnership for Peace under A, B and C and the people say "yes" and we find that the conditions are not best suited to us, will we have another referendum? I am surprised to hear some very decent people and churchmen making this point. It is time this was spelt out. I am strongly in favour of law and order, as I have said in the Dáil on several occasions. This is not because I am a right wing Deputy - I certainly am not - and there is nothing in the voting record of the Dáil to show that I am, but because it is a matter of social justice. Who suffers when there is a breakdown of law and order? Those who will suffer will be old people living alone, women - because they are raped - and children who cannot go to the corner shop for a message. Law and order is a matter of social justice, so is security and defence. I challenged the humanitarian organisations who came before this committee, to come off the fence and say whether they would support peace enforcement to deliver humanitarian aid, and they said they would take a raincheck on the issue. This country, as one of the wealthiest nations in the world, must, as a matter of social justice, ask itself what is its contribution to defence and security and to saving people from the sort of genocide suffered for a decade by people in the former Yugoslavia. Before we point the finger at people in the North and say they do not want to change their ways, perhaps we should look at ourselves.
Will the Minister agree that it would be beneficial to commission a study north and south of the Border, reporting to the First Minister and the Taoiseach, on the possible areas for beneficial co-operation throughout the European Union? We should set priorities North and South in areas of mutual agreement. I would like to see such a study carried out.
On Irish aid, will the Minister say if a value for money audit has been carried out on APSO, when the last such audit took place and what measure of success is used in relation to APSO? In relation to the 0.7 per cent of GNP contribution to development aid which has been set by the UN and which is not being met, I appeal to the Minister to legislate for this. No matter what multi budgetary measures are put in place, every year the Department of Finance will put down absolute amounts of money and the Minister, or whoever replaces him, will not be able to go beyond that. We need to legislate and put in place a different procedure for accounting to the Oireachtas, through this committee, for expenditure other than the annual estimates procedure. We will then be able to press other countries to meet their 0.7 per cent commitment. However, we must keep our head down because we do not meet the target either, and it is time we did. If we were to achieve the target of 0.7 per cent by the year 2007, I estimate it would cost in the region of £700 million. This means in the region of £85,000 million would be available to be spent at home. The Minister is aware of the situation. He knows that children are dying in large numbers because they do not have basic medicines while we are achieving large budgetary surpluses each year. The Minister should legislate for this and leave behind him this milestone before he rides off into the sunset - I wish him well when this happens.
On national departmental twinning, I would like to see the Department of the Environment and Local Government twinned with a department in a particular country and the Department of Health and Children twinned with a department in a different country. Different Departments should do this on a national or regional level. This would bring the experience of the Departments to these countries. Local authorities in this country could twin with cities or regions within areas. This would bring them expertise in housing, water management and so on. We should become much more pro-active. This country has something to offer and is one of the few countries with a tradition of famine. We can rely on our history and experience to build on this work.
I would like to see the lay-out of the estimates changed. I would like to see a line in the estimates for NGOs and a line for missionaries so that we could see specifically what money goes to these organisations. I believe they give better value than bilateral aid, particularly from Government to Government.
On debt relief, it has got to the stage where countries are repaying debt with money that should be going to their health services. We should not wait for a decision by international organisations such as the World Bank or the IMF. The European Union, as a regional organisation, should set up a regional debt commission to examine on a country by country priority basis the extent of the debt relief. We should not wait for this to be done internationally, because it will not happen.
I will refer to European security and defence and, in particular, the appointment of Javier Solana and all that indicates in terms of changes coming our way under the second pillar of common foreign and security policy, and the indications from Cologue about the direction we will be taking. We can do two things: we can keep our heads down and let others make the rules, in which case we will find ourselves in the same position as those who did not join EMU in the beginning. If we are forced to join later, we will have to take on the rules as written by others. If there is to be a security-defence entity within the European Union, either a merger of the Western European Union with the EU or the abolition of the Western European Union and the evolution of a security and defence entity, then the article 5 commitment in the Western European Union treaty, or something similar, will present the greatest difficulty for Ireland. If that were a protocol of any future treaty, it would suit our best interests because it would give us the choice of opting in or out on a case by case basis. Even if we do not intend to join in the beginning, our strategy should be to see that any treaty changes, either within the Western European Union or EU treaties, include a protocol in relation to article 5 because at a future date we might wish to avail of this. I ask the Minister to assure the committee that this country will press ahead with EU enlargement without further delay. Of course we will become a net contributor and this will have implications for us, but the implications of instability in Europe will have a greater down side for this country. Some 60 million Europeans lost their lives in the first half of this century. The whole purpose of the European Union is to create stability and ensure there is lasting peace and that no more lives are lost. We cannot have prosperity if we do not have peace and stability. I ask the Minister to press ahead with enlargement. We need to enlarge the EU as much as applicant states need to join it.
Will the Minister confirm to this committee that no matter what happens there will be one European Union Commissioner per member state after the Intergovernmental Conference on enlargement? It is an absolute prerequisite in my view. The House of Representatives in the United States is based on population. The Senate has two representatives per state. Alaska is treated the same as New York. It is nonsensical to talk about having only ten or 15 Commissioners. We are not running a spare parts factory, we are running a political entity which must be acceptable to members states. Ireland has 15 MEPs. If that number is reduced as the Union expands - it is already very small - where will we be if we do not have a Commissioner
I can confirm that we will have a Commissioner.
Is the Minister interested in that post?
No, I will leave the public domain.
Does our joining Partnership for Peace have implications for the Estimates? How are we progressing with our campaign for a seat on the Security Council? What is happening with regard to UN reform? What are our priorities for our Council of Europe Presidency? Why has the information services Estimate increased by 63 per cent? Does the Minister agree that Kosovo and Serbia need a martial aid plan? Have steps been taken by Europe and others to put in place a martial aid plan? What is the intended role for Ireland, if any, with regard to KFOR? I would appreciate if the Minister would address my questions. I support the Estimates because we get good value for money from the Department of Foreign Affairs. However, I urge the Minister to ensure he and the Secretary General of his Department, who is the accounting officer, has in place adequate checks and controls to ensure that we are getting value for money in the areas of expenditure. We are dealing with large amounts of money and they have to be accounted for. I would like to hear that there are proper value for money audit procedures in place.
I welcome what we are doing in the international co-operation areas. Deputy Mitchell was not present this afternoon when Axel van Trotsenburg attended. He works for the heavily indebted poor countries and he brought us up to date with what they are doing. He stated that there are 40 countries that need assistance. The Minister has allocated £7 million in the Estimates for the World Bank to relieve the heavily indebted poor countries.
When we have carried out good humanitarian work we should be able to fund and staff a hospital in the same area. I have been making this suggestion for a long time. I do not know if the setting up of a hospital is under the remit of the Minister for Defence or the Minister for Foreign Affairs. There are many of retired FCA people who would love to help establish a field hospital in these areas. My brother was a member of the FCA's medical corp for 50 years. On one occasion he said that many retired people like himself would have been prepared to support and establish a field hospital.
The Deputy said that his brother was in the FCA for 50 years. What age was he when he retired?
Like many people he lied to the organisation about his age. He was 16 years old when he joined the FCA when he should have been 17 years. He retired at 65 years of age because he had reached the rank of commandant. The point I am trying to make is that he had a lot of medical experience. We could do a lot of good work in the medical area.
I pay tribute to the NGOs. Sometimes Departments consider NGOs to be a pain in the neck. I know one NGO who is very enthusiastic. I am delighted there are people like him because they are people with a conscience, they speak out loudly and will never be satisfied no matter what you do. That is the correct approach. When it comes to humanitarian work it is good to have people to tell you that you can never achieve enough. They keep pushing people. We are fortunate with our NGOs because they are all doing terrific work.
The Minister and his officials are probably fed up listening to me praise the Passport Office every year. The personnel who work there are most co-operative, particularly when the constituents of Members of the House apply for an emergency passport in order to visit an ill relative or when they are simply late applying for one. Does the Passport Office make a profit and, if so, how much? Passports cost £45.
A passport costs £10 in Britain and Northern Ireland.
If the profit we make in the Passport Office was ploughed back into the Department we could reduce the cost of the passport.
Would it be possible to make it semi-autonomous while still under the remit of the Department of Foreign Affairs? If that were possible, it would mean the office would have its own fund instead of funding it through the Department of Finance. It would also mean that the cost of a passport could be reduced and that the money could be used within the Department. It is shocking to hear that money that is not spent in a particular year is returned to the Department of Finance because there is so much more that the Department could do with that money. Will the Minister make a brief comment on this issue in his reply?
There are a number of other areas I would like to have commented on. I congratulate the Minister and his officials on the manner in which they have kept Ireland's profile so high. Again, I pay tribute to the work of Irish people and people involved in armies in foreign lands who have represented Ireland brilliantly. We are very proud of them. Our soldiers are always ready to move out. The Irish Army gets a great sense of encouragement and pride from the fact that it has served its country well, that it is respected and is doing a worthwhile job.
With regard to what Deputy Mitchell said about Partnership for Peace, I sometimes feel that the media does not project what we are trying to do in a fair light. It tends to be more engaged in getting political arguments going between people of different political persuasions than getting the message across that PfP is something of which we should be part. It does not highlight the fact that PfP is doing excellent work and there are no problems.
There was a certain misrepresentation when we called for a referendum. The qualifying words were that if it was found to infringe on our neutrality we would have a referendum. That is something which I intend to check out. There is no need for a referendum because it is open to anyone who feels we are infringing on neutrality by joining PfP to go to the courts of this land. It will be interesting to see if some of the organisations who spoke out against it will take the legal route. I am satisfied that PfP does not infringe on our neutrality. The sooner we join the better. I am glad an announcement will be made in the autumn and that there is all-party agreement on the issue, with the exception of a small number of people who see virtue in being negative.
I compliment the Minister on his positive contribution which covered the range of activities of his Department. I am glad the Minister outlined the progress which has been made in implementing the Good Friday Agreement. The international agreements have been signed; the First Minister Designate and the Deputy First Minister Designate in the North decided the number of departments to be established when the executive is formed; and legislation has been passed by the Oireachtas and Westminster on the establishment of the North-South implementation bodies.
I raised with the Minister the need to site the headquarters of the new implementation bodies in the Border region. The Minister and this committee will be aware that region in particular suffered serious economic hardship over the 30 years of conflict. Both Governments have stated that, in order to underpin the peace process and build on the political agreements which have been achieved, it is necessary to make economic progress in that region. It would be a vote of confidence in the Border areas, North and South, to establish implementation bodies' headquarters there. With six new bodies being established, I presume three will be located north of the Border and three south of it. A central Border location such as Cavan would be ideal as a headquarters for even one body. I hope the Minister and his officials will look favourably on this request.
In correspondence from the Six Counties in recent weeks, there is unease about the situation at Drumcree and the Garvaghy Road. The Minister and his officials have been working with different groups to reach consensus. I hope the efforts of both Governments to avoid what could be a troublesome situation in the marching season will continue.
Before I ask the Minister to reply, I will avail of this opportunity to mention the situation in Kosovo. With the adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 1244 on 10 June, the international community gave its approval to proposals for a political solution to the Kosovo crisis. I welcome the adoption of such a comprehensive resolution. It is, however, important to make two observations on it. It took nearly 80 days of conflict before the resolution was adopted. If President Milosevic had accepted the Rambouillet accords, the disastrous 80 days of war could have been avoided. The blame, therefore, for the countless atrocities, the unspeakable torture of the Kosovar Albanians, regardless of age or sex, and the destruction of property lies squarely on the shoulders of the indicted President of Serbia.
Evidence of recent days shows us that we should not harbour any illusion that the carefully crafted Security Council resolution will be easily implemented on the ground. The obstacles are numerous and complicated. Many of the militias actively involved in the attacks on the Kosovar Albanians have been reabsorbed into their Serb communities and are being passed off as normal law abiding citizens. The spiteful scorched earth policy of the departing Serb forces has left a bitter taste. Preventing the KLA from engaging in warfare with the Serbs, in spite of the undertaking given by it to that effect, will be very difficult. The understandable determination of the displaced Kosovars in Albania and Macedonia to return to what remains of their homes before mines have been cleared poses a risk of a significant increase in casualties. The lack of a properly functioning civil society, under the control of a properly trained civil service and police force, creates the risk of anarchy. It is imperative that measures are taken as a priority to address these issues.
As the Serb forces abandon Pristina, we are again faced with incontrovertible evidence of what we have long suspected, that the Serbs have been guilty of widespread mass executions of innocent citizens who have been buried in mass graves. We had hoped that similar horrors which took place during the Bosnian conflict earlier in the decade would never be repeated, but the evidence to the contrary is compelling.
Arguments have been made that NATO should not have intervened in Kosovo on the grounds that the people who live in the western Balkans have been at each other's throats for centuries and that the problem is so intractable that intervention is doomed to failure. I beg to differ. For 80 days we have seen evidence of rape, physical abuse, forced labour, semi-starvation, psychological torture and plundering. The victims of these horrors were not just able bodied, healthy adults, the same treatment was meted out to elderly and sick people, pregnant women and young children. This is barbarity reminiscent of the middle ages, yet it is happening in Europe and we cannot remain indifferent to it. Not to have intervened would have prolonged the suffering of the Kosovar Albanians and perpetuated the discrimination against them.
I am confident that it took NATO intervention to teach Milosevic a lesson and I trust he has truly learned it. I hope that in the Herculean task of finding a definitive solution to the crisis in the former Yugoslavia, expediency does not replace policy when it comes to dealing with Milosevic. I recognise the difficulty of moving forward without his co-operation, but the fact that he has been indicted as a war criminal should never be forgotten. Hopefully the proposal that support for the reconstruction of Serbia following the war will be conditional on Milosevic standing aside will gain ground among the people of Serbia and will lead to his withdrawal from the scene and ultimately to his trial.
I welcome the significant demand made by the influential Serbian Orthodox Church yesterday that the Federal President and his Government resign in the interest of the salvation of his people so that new officials acceptable at home and abroad can take responsibility for the people and their future as a national salvation Government. Support at political level from the main and other opposition parties for this position is also welcome.
I regret the Russian attitude to the effort to find a solution to the Kosovo crisis has been less than helpful, with its unilateral occupation of the area around Pristina airport. While one can fully understand the need for the Serbs, who have always lived in Kosovo and who took no part whatsoever in the ethnic cleansing of Kosovar Albanians, to enjoy the protection of their traditional allies, the Russians, in the event of possible retaliation by their Albanian neighbours, this could have been arranged with the agreement of the NATO countries involved in the arrangements for the departure of Serb forces and the repatriation of the expelled Kosovar Albanians.
In spite of current difficulties and risks, it is necessary to look to the future. The international community must give substantial humanitarian assistance to the people traumatised by events in Kosovo, it must co-operate in the rebuilding of Kosovo and Serbia, politically and economically. The European Union has a special role to play in binding the countries in the Balkans closer to itself so that the threat of war in the area will be removed forever. I hope Ireland will make a meaningful contribution to that process.
The Minister, generously, visited East Timor recently. He is one of only two EU foreign ministers who have visited that country and he had some unpleasant experiences there. While he was at a meeting, a number of people very close to him were murdered.
This committee recently heard from three people who spent some time in East Timor, one visited Dili only, but the other two travelled for a period of seven or eight weeks throughout much of East Timor. Their descriptions of what is happening there are appalling. The Minister is being optimistic in thinking that the proposed plebiscite of 8 August will take place and will be a meaningful democratic exercise. There is not the slightest possibility of that happening and the United Nations should either send in between 10,000 and 12,000 well armed troops, as this committee has suggested, or call off the proposed plebiscite. The entire area is under the direct control of the Indonesian army or of militias who are directed and armed by the Indonesian army. The Minister mentioned the Government's proposal to send gardaí to the area. I hope they are not sent because unarmed gardaí would not last 24 hours there. If they are sent outside Dili they will be open to attack and will be killed.
Catholic Church sources sent out a communiqué from East Timor on Monday, 14 June which shows that things have not improved since the Minister was there. The communiqué includes the following:
Authoritative Church sources say that horrific atrocities in the interior of East Timor make it impossible for a fair vote to be held on August 8 as scheduled. . . . .There is too much fear for this to be a free expression of the people and it is better to postpone the referendum. The militias are practising terrible acts of violence every week. They have just carried out atrocious acts in Lolotoi and Bobonaro. They cut off people's ears and force them to eat their own ears. They have put live people into bags and have thrown them into the ocean. The UN is only in Dili, the Church official emphasised. They have not established a presence in the administrative posts in the territory and people everywhere live in a climate of fear. Officials of the Indonesian ministries of foreign affairs and defence are always with the UN people and accompany them wherever they go. The Indonesian officials always see everything and listen to everything that is being said to the UN officials.
Last week Church sources said that 70 per cent of East Timor is living under the oppression of the militias whose actions are being orchestrated by the Indonesian army. There are numerous human rights violations and threats against the population. In remote areas where relief agencies have not been allowed to enter, people are suffering hunger, thirst and sickness, especially tuberculosis. There are 37,000 internally displaced people as a result of militia operations in East Timor and recently, 8,000 have been forced to flee to West Timor.
I will briefly refer to the situation in Tibet which was discussed earlier today with the parliamentary delegation from the People's Republic of China. It is frightening to see what is continuing to happen in Tibet. The repression of the Tibetan people is intensifying. It is estimated that there are now more Chinese than Tibetans in Tibet. The religion, culture and ethnic identity of the Tibetan people is in the process of disappearing. The number of political prisoners maltreated in custody is growing. Torture, especially of Buddhist monks and nuns, is continuing apace and the manner in which the country is being treated is appalling.
We look with particular concern at Kosovo but it is important to remember that the situation in Kosovo is not nearly as bad as that which existed in Bosnia and that, in turn, was not remotely as bad as the situations in Rwanda and Burundi. We are inclined to pay more attention to atrocities which happen near our own country. We should try to equalise the value of all human beings who are suffering. The awful crime of the end of the 20th century, ethnic cleansing, is the new name for what happened during the second world war and which many of us thought would never be repeated. This crime is being repeated in Europe and in many parts of the world and it is a great tragedy that this is so.
The Government, I am glad to say, proposes that Ireland join Partnership for Peace. This is in accordance with the recommendation of this committee, which was agreed by an overwhelming majority. The Government should play a more proactive role in the debate on this subject. I am disturbed to read, in the correspondence columns of newspapers, a totally one-sided debate which is completely removed from reality. One would think that planes with the letters PfP written on them were dropping bombs with PfP written on them, on Serbia every night. Partnership for Peace has 42 members, including almost every country in Europe, apart from very small countries which are often referred to as statelets. To the best of my knowledge, no member held a referendum on the question of joining Partnership for Peace and most states regard membership as a matter of no great significance as far as their neutrality or diplomatic alignment is concerned.
Membership is helpful to the countries involved, all of whom responded very positively, as this committee heard from the ambassadors of four neutral European countries. It is impossible to hold a referendum on membership of an organisation which presents members with 70 or 80 alternatives or any combination of those. The Department should abandon its neutral and anodyne stance on the matter and explain the reality of membership. Otherwise, the completely false public perception which is being built up will create great difficulties for us.
The question of whether to join Partnership for Peace is a small problem and a small obstacle for this country compared to the decisions we will have to make in the context of European defence and security and in the context of achieving a common foreign and security policy within the Union. We are isolating ourselves in a most unreasonable way and in an almost perverse way if we allow public debate to be dominated on this matter in the way that it has been, particularly in recent months.
I congratulate the Minister and his Department on a successful year's work in many diverse fields, especially in the Northern Ireland context where the work is extremely difficult and the prize and importance of it all is major, and equally throughout the world, where a small and relatively inexpensive foreign services gives very good value.
I note from the Estimate that the figures are not very high and I do not think there will be an opposition within the committee to voting the necessary money. The Estimate for fees from passports for this year is £16 million. That service is excellent. It used not to be but it is now. People do not complain about the cost of that service as much as they used now that it is good.
It is worth reminding ourselves and, I am sure the Department will bear this in mind, that the British and ourselves are the only two member states of the Union that do not have national identity cards. This puts our citizens to considerable expense in that they must have a passport, which is quite unnecessary, when they travel within the Union. That is not compatible with a Single Market or a single area. It is not compatible with the Schengen Agreement or the idea of that agreement which, I hope, will expand within the Union. We should not allow our policy in this to be dictated to us by the expediency that is forced on us by British policy. British policy is one that is not in accord with the spirit of the European Union. We should assert ourselves in that respect so that our citizens can pass as freely and as cheaply between the 15 member states as can citizens in 13 of those member states. If there are no further contributions, will the Minister reply to the points raised?
I will deal with the points in the order in which they were raised by members. Deputy O'Kennedy's contribution was more of a statement than a series of questions. I pay tribute to him. He is a former Minister for Foreign Affairs and had a number of other portfolios. He is currently Joint Chairman of the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body and he has made an enormous contribution in that area. I appreciated his remarks on the reference to the difficulties we have had with the Yugoslav football team. I appreciate his expressions of support. We had the unanimous support of the Houses of the Oireachtas on the action we took in that regard. At no stage did the circumstances change to the point where the Cologne conclusions supported the Government in the direction it took. I would like the matter brought to closure and the match between ourselves and the former Yugoslavia to be revived and in due course entered on the list of commitments in the context of the competition in which that match must be played.
I also appreciate the comments Deputy O'Kennedy made about the non-governmental organisation and, more particularly, the role played by young people throughout those organisations. I do not underestimate the wisdom and the advice given by the people who might not necessarily be described as young people. They have made and continue to make an enormous contribution.
Deputy Mitchell asked a question about a North-South study. He asked about the possibility of commissioning a study together with the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland, which would examine the benefits North and South of our common membership of the European Union. That is a valuable idea, which I would be happy to discuss further with the Deputy. He will be aware of the six implementation bodies, which Deputy Smith mentioned. A special EU programmes body will play an important role in developing greater North-South interaction in the European context and, perhaps, we could consider the Deputy's idea in that context. I would be happy to discuss the matter further with him. It is a good idea and should be pursued.
A number of Deputies, including the Chairman, Deputy Mitchell, queried the cost of Partnership for Peace. Participating states in Partnership for Peace are responsible for their own costs. As with any area of activity, joining it would involve administrative implications. However, there are not any mandatory contributions arising out of participation. I do not wish to stray into the domain of the Minister for Defence, but I recall the Taoiseach stated that it is not the Government's intention as a result of joining Partnership for Peace to change the level of defence spending.
The benefit of partnership to peacekeepers was also raised. Partnership for Peace will enable our peacekeepers to remain abreast of preparations for the new type of peacekeeping, that is, training in humanitarian aspects of peacekeeping and it will enhance the ability of our peacekeepers to work with those of other countries as was pointed out by the Chairman. We will also be able to share our peacekeeping skills with a wide range of countries. It is the Government's policy to stay in the mainstream of peacekeeping and we want to ensure that our Defence Forces will have a full voice in preparations for peacekeeping missions. We do not want Ireland to be absent when matters in which we have a legitimate interest are being discussed.
On membership of the Commission, the Commission in the context of the Intergovernmental Conference was raised by Deputy Mitchell who, as a former Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, had a considerable part to play in this area. I pay tribute to him for his role in that regard. In the context of the Intergovernmental Conference, which will be held next year, details of the mandate are to be worked out during the Finnish Presidency in the second six months of this year. We will continue to uphold the basic principle, the right of each member state to nominate a member to the Commission. This is a position the Taoiseach and I have made clear in the Council and in bilateral contact over recent months in the run up to the Cologne European Council. I will meet officials of the Finnish Presidency and I will discuss that point with them. The Taoiseach has given special importance to this matter. I reassure Deputy Mitchell we will not let go of that.
Deputy Mitchell also raised Ireland's chances of election to the Security Council. If it is on the basis of effort we will succeed. I pay tribute to the staff of the Department of Foreign Affairs who have devoted themselves to giving effect to what was set out in the White Paper by the previous Government. Membership of the Security Council was a matter of that Government's foreign policy and as its successors we are pursuing that.
Is the Minister optimistic?
Yes. I am very optimistic despite the late run by Italy. Securing election to the Security Council will not by easy, particularly as Ireland's regional grouping has become increasingly competitive. Each of the 185 member states in the General Assembly is entitled to vote. The old pattern of block voting which characterised the Cold War era is now a thing of the past and each vote must be sought on an individual basis. The UN now has 30 more member states than when Ireland last sought election to the Security Council 20 years ago. Ireland is competing against three states, Norway, Turkey and Italy, which have considerable though different strengths as candidates. However, with a well-planned and adequately resourced campaign, Ireland, which already has a strong and positive profile in the UN, has a reasonable chance of success. We will have the full support of this committee and the Houses of the Oireachtas.
When will the election take place?
In October 2000 for membership in 2001 and 2002.
Deputy Mitchell also asked about reform of the United Nations. The UN reform agenda covers an extremely wide range of areas within the UN system, from reform of UN institutions to Security Council reform. To be effective, agreement on reform issues must have the support of the majority of United Nations members. Some progress has been made in the past year on measures to increase the effective management of United Nations activities and programmes and achieve greater policy coherence. The Secretary General also appointed a Deputy Secretary General last year to oversee the reform programme.
However, on key issues such as Security Council reform where the interests of all United Nations member states, large and small, are affected, it has not been possible to reach agreement. Negotiations are continuing on this and other major reform issues requiring General Assembly approval. Progress in reform across all sections has been consistently hampered by the continuing United Nations financial crisis and arrears problem, with many developing countries viewing the reform exercise as a pretext for budget cuts.
Deputy Mitchell also asked about twinning Departments. This is a matter for those Departments. We can learn from others. For example an Irish official from the Department of Foreign Affairs is in the Finnish Foreign Ministry. It is a useful suggestion which we will consider and discuss with colleagues. I might add that a memorandum was submitted to Cabinet in early December 1998 seeking approval for Ireland to conclude a framework agreement with the Commission, paving the way for Ireland to become a party to the twinning arrangements mentioned by the Deputy and for Irish public officials to participate in twinning in the candidate countries. The memorandum was approved by the Cabinet in mid-December 1998.
The applicant countries see Ireland as a model because of the obvious benefits. Requests for Irish assistance in twinning have been received from Poland, Slovenia Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Lithuania. To date, Ireland has had one twinning proposal accepted in respect of agriculture in Poland and others are being examined. Irish civil servants have begun to take up assignments under twinning and we expect this process to be developed further in the near future.
Deputy Mitchell also mentioned the possible merger of the EU with the Western European Union. The Cologne declaration avoids prejudicial language on this issue and I draw a distinction between including in the EU the crisis management functions which exist in the Western European Union and full integration of the Western European Union into the EU. We could consider bringing some of the Western European Union's peacekeeping and crisis management structures into the EU framework. This could be useful in making the EU better able to make informed and timely decisions. However, full integration of the Western European Union into the EU raises the issue of the Western European Union's article 5 clause to which the Deputy adverted. This is an automatic mutual defence commitment which binds members of the Western European Union only. This clause would not be compatible with our neutrality. Ireland, the other neutral countries and some others see no need to bring this into the EU debate. It is simply not central to what the EU is trying to do, which is focusing on peacekeeping and crisis management and not issues of mutual defence.
On the issue of APSO and value for money, raised by Deputy Mitchell, the decision by the board of management of APSO to undertake the qualitative audit of its operations was an innovative, courageous and challenging initiative with the backing of the Department. It is the first time an agency in the development sector in Ireland has conducted such a study of its own performance. The report contains a wealth of information, much of which reflects positively on the organisation. It also identifies areas where there is room for improvement, as would be true of any organisation. The board of management of APSO has fully accepted the aspects of APSO's performance identified as needing attention and has already initiated the follow-up process.
The Deputy also asked what is meant by social accounting. Social accounting aims to measure and account to stakeholders the extent to which an organisation has achieved its objectives and realised its values. Social accounting therefore seeks to measure quality. It is a voluntary self-assessment process.
Deputy Briscoe raised some very good points on the issue of passports and I am grateful to Deputies Briscoe and O'Malley for their kind remarks about the Passport Office which is now running smoothly. The feasibility of making the Passport Office an autonomous agency is being examined, as outlined in the Department's 1998 strategy statement. There is a precedent in other countries and it was suggested in a report of a joint working group of the Department of Finance and the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General.
Further improvements are outlined in the Passport Office customer service action plan which will be implemented. The plan covers the two year period to November 1999. Notices with details of current service standards are on display in the public offices in Dublin and Cork. Electronic display units informing customers about properly completing their applications will be erected in both public offices in the coming weeks. In the Dublin office, facilities for greater privacy for conversations of a sensitive nature have been provided. Large print versions of the application form for customers with reading difficulties are being made available. The first meeting of a consultative panel representative of customers took place on 3 March 1999.
On the justification for charging three times the cost of providing the service, passport fees are regarded as revenue and go to the Exchequer. They are not part of appropriations in aid of the Vote of the Department of Foreign Affairs. As with revenue raising charges generally, there is no direct link between the level of passport fees and the cost of providing the service. This a sore point with me. Money earned for the passport service should be put back into the passport service and not sent directly to the Department of Finance. If that causes the Department of Finance difficulty, so be it. That is my view and I see no reason to change it.
The Chairman, Deputy O'Malley asked how the standard fee for a passport in Ireland compares internationally. The fee for a standard ten year Irish passport is £45. When allowance is made for differences in the period of validity of passports in different member states, this ranks sixth in the cost of standard passports in the European Union. However it should be noted that in Italy, where the standard passport is cheaper than in Ireland, a Government tax of approximately £25 per year is also imposed for travel outside the European Union. When account is taken of this, the cost of an Irish passport ranks seventh in the EU. Persons under 18 or over 65 years of age can get a three year passport for a reduced fee of £10.
Deputy Ardagh raised a question in the Dáil about the application of fees to the disabled. The Passport Office displays a generous attitude to disability but there are still improvements to be made regarding the disabled and the officials are examining the matter. Deputy Ardagh's question was met with the seriousness it deserved. I thank him for mentioning the passport agency. The income of the Passport Office was £11 million and the costs £3.75 million.
With regard to Deputy Brendan Smith's question on the North-South implementation bodies, I understand he is seeking location of an implementation body in his constituency. This is fair. Decisions have not been taken in headquarters on the location of the implementation bodies. Account has to be taken of a number of factors, including particular requirements stemming from the nature and activities of the implementation bodies and the location of staff - North and South - currently carrying out these functions.
The proximity of Dún Laoghaire to Holyhead.
: I will have to do something about that. An excellent car ferry terminal was constructed and I am in the process of putting other facilities there.
: This is irrelevant to Votes 38 and 39.
There are a number of potentially suitable locations in both jurisdictions and Dún Laoghaire will be examined in that context. Since all decisions in this are a matter for the two administrations North and South, it is not appropriate for me to pre-empt the outcome of the decision-making process by elaborating on the details of the possible location. I will positively consider the Deputy's request.
Ballyjamesduff.
Virginia, Kilnaleck or any other village in County Cavan.
Is there absolutely no shortage?
No.
Deputy Smith wanted to know what the two Governments are doing about the situation in Portadown. The Department of Foreign Affairs maintains close contact with the Garvaghy Road Residents Coalition in the aftermath of the Rosemary Nelson murder. When I met the Northern Secretary we reiterated the view that progress could only be made by way of a process of dialogue and accommodation. The Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, have been involved in encouraging the process. The Government regularly raises the situation in Portadown in the framework of the Anglo-Irish intergovernmental conference. This is an ongoing process and the Government continues to emphasise the importance of the rule of law and the necessity of reaching an accommodation through local dialogue. I am grateful for the support of Deputies and the views expressed on the work being done by the Anglo-Irish division in the Department of Foreign Affairs.
The Chairman, Deputy O' Malley, made a strong intervention on Kosovo. In my statement to the House yesterday on the outcome of the Cologne European Council I referred to the positive developments that have taken place. The Chairman referred to the provisions of the UN Security Council Resolution 1244 adopted last Thursday, 10 June. This is only the beginning of a long, complex and costly process. At Cologne the EU confirmed its commitment to a leading role in the reconstruction efforts in Kosovo. It can and should play a leading role in the international transitional administration which will be an essential part of the civil implementation process. We fully support these efforts.
I pointed out in the Dáil yesterday that the Kosovo crisis has regional roots and effects and that the destabilising effects of the crisis are widely felt throughout the region in political and economic terms. These will not disappear until progress to a settlement in Kosovo is under way and additional measures are taken to stabilise the region and set it firmly on a new course. In this regard the stability pact for south-eastern Europe will have a central role. Its objectives are to enhance peace, stability and prosperity in, and co-operation between, countries in the region. It was approved by the EU, UN, US, Russia and a wide range of countries and organisations on 10 June. The European Council made it clear that the former republic of Yugoslavia can participate when it has met the conditions of the international community, not only with regard to Kosovo but also on progress on democratic freedoms and respect for the rights of minorities. The former republic of Yugoslavia should take the necessary steps to bring about its participation.
An immediate priority is to ensure the safe return of refugees and the protection of the civil population in Kosovo. Security Council Resolution 1244 has authorised a large peacekeeping force, KFOR, in this regard. Planning for the full assembly and deployment of this force is under way and it is clear that a number of non-allied nations are interested in participating in KFOR. Ireland has sought access from NATO to planning and logistics briefings for this force and we have given consideration, subject to Government and Dáil approval, to the question of participation by an Irish contingent in this force, probably in a transport-logistics capacity.
The Chairman spoke of the justification of NATO action in Kosovo. The common position of the EU in relation to Kosovo is that in the face of extreme policies and repeated violations of the UN Security Council Resolution the use of the severest measures, including military action, was necessary. The international community is contending with a case of overwhelming humanitarian necessity against the stark background of what happened in Bosnia.
The UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, commented that it was tragic that diplomacy had failed but he said that there are times when the use of force may be legitimate in pursuit of peace. The priority now is to move beyond the divisions in the community caused by the Kosovo crisis and work to build a just and lasting peace throughout the region.
Regarding the indictment of President Milosevic, I have made clear my full support and that of my EU colleagues for the international tribunal. The tribunal is bound to work by its own rules and this includes deciding whom it will indict on the basis of its assessment of the evidence available. It is not appropriate for me to interfere in this process.
The Chairman raised the question of further assistance by the Government to Kosovar refugees. I am aware of the humanitarian challenges in the region that will continue to confront us over the coming months. Whatever the political outcome the international community will have to continue to provide for the immediate needs of the thousands of people who have been denied the most basic human rights and who live in difficult conditions. We must also plan for the harsh Balkans winter in the Kosovar camps. To date only limited access inside Kosovo has been allowed to the International Red Cross and the UN agencies. There is no doubt that conditions are appalling. The main priority must be accorded to the return of refugees in safety and dignity. At the same time we must respond effectively to the humanitarian needs. Substantial funding is required and I have outlined the contributions we have made.
I thank the Chairman for his remarks of support to my intervention in East Timor. It was a difficult experience but I was accompanied by officials. We saw, at first hand, the matters to which the Chairman adverted. I will bring his views to the attention of the Secretary General of the United Nations, if this committee has not already done so, in order that the consultative process proposed may be re-examined for early August. The terrible events he has described are consistent with what I saw.
With regard to Tibet, I am sorry that I did not have the opportunity of meeting the delegation of the People's Republic of China during the course of their visit. Unfortunately I was engaged in a matter related to the northern part of the island. Since diplomatic relations were established with the People's Republic of China in 1979, Ireland has recognised the Government in Beijing as the sole legitimate Government of China. This is known as the one China policy as a result of which we accept that Tibet is an integral part of China. On the other hand we have strong evidence that the human rights of the Tibetan people have, over many years, been severely abused by the Chinese administration in Tibet. The Irish Government has, accordingly, made strong representations to this effect at the highest level to the Chinese authorities on every occasion. We would, therefore, oppose any financial or other assistance to the Chinese Government, the result of which might prove to be detrimental, as a fundamental right, to the liberties of the people of Tibet. In this regard large movements of the Chinese Han people into the Tibet autonomous region could well be viewed as an attempt to alter the demographic balance of Tibet and would, accordingly, be classified as an infringement of the basic rights of the local population as outlined by the chairman. I do not think there is much more to add.
The Minister missed two points.
Yes. I apologise for that.
The Minister covered most of the message. I have a problem in that I have a meeting at 8 p.m. which I must attend. Why is the provision for information services up by 63 per cent? With the permission of the Chairman, will the Minister forward a note on his priorities for the Council of Europe Presidency?
I can let the Deputy have a note on those two points.
Perhaps the Minister will tell us about the 63 per cent increase now since we are approving it?
The precise issues which will be on the Council of Europe agenda when we assume that Chair will be affected by political developments. However, the following issues are likely to be the key tasks facing our chairman. First, the shape of Kosovo. It is expected that following a negotiated settlement to the crisis, the Council of Europe will play an important role in post-conflict rehabilitation in Kosovo and the surrounding region. The Council working with the EU and OSCE can help restore stability to the region. The elements for the Council contribution have been identified. The Kosovo crisis provides a challenge to the functioning of the international system in the post Cold War era.
Perhaps the Minister would forward a note on his priorities? Will he explain the 63 per cent increase in information services?
On the information service, the provision of £396,000 in this subhead shows an increase of 58 per cent on the 1998 outturn of £250,000. I understand that the increase was granted to cover preparation for a new edition of facts about Ireland and running embassy websites. The remainder of the allocation is used to assist foreign journalists, who report in Ireland in the preparation of information material on Ireland.
Are those facts about Ireland available to Members on CD?
I understand they will be. The service provided by the Department and the Internet is excellent.
Will Michael Collins appear inthis edition? There was great difficulty sometime ago when he did not appear in a particular edition.
I would be anxious to assist in that regard.
Some time ago this committee passed a resolution on genocide asking that the United Nations charter be amended. According to the charter, one cannot interfere in the internal affairs of a member state of the United Nations. I asked that it be amended except where that state gets involved in a war of genocide against its own people or a minority within that country, and the Department of Foreign Affairs sent us many notes explaining the extreme difficulty of getting something such as this through the United Nations. Only one amendment had been carried and I think a two thirds majority was required to get it through. As we approach the end of the century, the United Nations has a responsibility to be more affirmative in dealing with genocide. When I put down this motion, I had in mind the genocide in Rwanda. Apparently the United Nations could not intervene in that state because of the rule of the charter. This is something which our Government should work on and, if possible, present as a motion, even if it has no hope of success. At least we are following through on something about which we believe very strongly, that is, that wars of genocide should not be committed within the boundaries of any state that is a member of the United Nations.
I am very grateful to the Deputy for his intervention. As the Deputy properly points out, it is a difficult and complicated procedure. I will certainly bring the Deputy's views to the attention of our ambassador at the United Nations. It is a very good idea. The Deputy will appreciate that the difficulties are immense. I saw the effects of genocide at first hand in Rwanda and Somalia. Throughout the world generally, the inhumanity of man to man is terrible and genocide is an appalling breach of human rights. At the Deputy's request, I will bring it to the attention of our representative at the United Nations. However, I would not be optimistic about an immediate resolution in terms of the Deputy's suggestion.
I think the Department has a copy of the resolution passed by this committee.
Yes.