Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 12 Jul 1955

Vol. 152 No. 5

Committee on Finance. - Vote 58—External Affairs.

Minister for External Affairs (Mr. Cosgrave)

I move:—

That a sum not exceeding £260,700 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for External Affairs, and of certain Services administered by that Office (No. 16 of 1924), including a Grant-in-Aid.

I propose, with the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, to take the Estimate for the Department of External Affairs, Vote 58, and the Estimate for International Co-operation, Vote 59, together, as has been the practice in previous years. The Estimate for the Department of External Affairs for 1955-56 submitted at £391,000 shows a net decrease of £12,000 on the figure for 1954-55. This decrease is attributable in the main to a reduction in the Irish News Agency subvention.

The headquarters salary sub-head shows a decrease of £2,250 due chiefly to a reduction in the number of counsellor and third secretary posts. The salary sub-head for representatives abroad is increased by £3,000. The increase is due to the fact that provision is made for part of the year for the posting of a permanent official at counsellor level at the Council of Europe in Strasbourg. The provision included for this item is £3,600 and includes estimated expenditure on office assistance. A reduction of £900 is shown in sub-head B (3)—postage, stationery, telegrams, and telephones— in respect of offices abroad.

The Irish News Agency sub-head at £35,000 is lower by £10,000 than last year's figure. This has been made possible by the fact that in 1954-55 an additional advance of £10,000 over the amount provided (£45,000) for that year was made to the agency for the specific purpose of liquidating liabilities carried from previous financial years. This additional advance was met from savings on other sub-heads of the Vote. Other sub-heads of the Vote are unchanged.

I am sure I am reflecting the sentiment of the whole House in expressing deep satisfaction at the remarkable recovery of His Holiness, Pope Pius XII, from the serious illness which beset him last December. At the same time, I think that all Deputies will join with me according to our custom in welcoming His Holiness's representative here, his Excellency the Most Reverend Monsignor Levame who has succeeded his Excellency the Most Reverend Monsignor O'Hara as Apostolic Nuncio in Ireland.

One of the first matters of which we must take note, in any survey of the events in the outside world with which our people is concerned is a tragic fact: the fact that, despite a certain easing in world tensions, religious persecution continues to oppress mankind over great areas of the globe. We deeply regret and deplore religious persecution wherever occurring and whatever form it takes. Our history is evidence of our determination to secure religious and political liberty. In the past the generations fought for one as strenuously as the other and indeed the fight for freedom was also often a fight for the Faith. It is, therefore, possible for our people to appreciate and sympathise with those in many lands who are forced to make heavy sacrifices for religious liberty and the freedom to practise the Christian religion without dictation. I know that I speak for the House and the country when expressing the fervent prayer and hope that the sufferings of all those afflicted may be eased, and that the statesmen of the world who are so soon to meet to attempt to alleviate the causes of international tension, may attend in particular to the need for safeguarding religious freedom if a true and lasting peace is to be made.

The apparent improvement in the relations between the great powers is a welcome advance on the situation which has existed since the beginning of the Cold War. Those in a position to know consider that for some time there has been a perceptible improvement in the relations between what is known as East and West and this change has been reflected in the circumstances which made it possible to arrange for the forthcoming conference at Geneva. These "at the summit" talks offer a better prospect for a lessening of tension. Peace-loving peoples can only hope that the deterrent effect of such an immeasurable catastrophe as war with modern weapons would entail will prevent the recurrence of another war. We look to the great nations faithfully to discharge their duties as trustees for humanity and civilisation. While Ireland has no great material strength or wealth we can make a contribution towards the cause of world peace.

I shall have something to say in a moment about the problem of Partition in itself but at this stage I should like to refer to it in the context of our external relations generally. There is no conflict whatever between the pursuit of Irish unity and a policy of co-operation with peoples who, like ourselves, have a Christian and democratic way of life. A greater consciousness of our share in the common destiny of these peoples need not mean any abandonment of our claim to unity —for that we can never abandon. It is in reality the alternative— isolationism—which would mean the abandonment not perhaps of our formal claim to unity but of any hope whatever of achieving it. This country cannot be united until its people are united. Isolation or aggressive policies tend to divide us more and more fundamentally from the majority of our fellow-countrymen in the Six Counties. On the other hand, the more we direct our activities towards playing a part suitable to our means and geographical position in the solution of the great problems that confront Western Europe as a whole, the more it will become apparent to the people of the Six Counties also that their destiny is one with ours just as ours is one with the peoples of Western Europe.

Most of us in this House who have given serious consideration to the great problem of Partition will agree that it is a problem for which there is no quick solution. Spectacular actions and "stunts" of various kinds do not bring us nearer to a solution: they take us further away. We who desire real unity in this country— which must in the long run be a unity of minds—know that we must work for it by methods which have nothing novel or spectacular about them.

We must, in the phrase of an Ulster industrialist, promote "more neighbourly relations" between the two sections of our people. That is a necessary step towards unity. Neighbourly relations come by working together and we are already working together, as the House knows, on several joint undertakings or cooperative projects—the G.N.R., the Foyle Fisheries, the Erne hydroelectric scheme and, more recently, my colleague, the Minister for Education, announced a scheme whereby pictures will be loaned from the gallery in Dublin to the Belfast Art Gallery. I should like to see more projects of that kind and also more joint projects of a social and cultural kind. It is good, for example, that more and more Ulster Protestants are coming down here on holidays, meeting their co-religionists and seeing for themselves that this is a free country, and that the fears of "Catholic persecution" which have long been inculcated among them are groundless and absurd. It is good that a non-political and non-sectarian body like the Irish Association should be doing its unobtrusive and valuable work encouraging contacts between Irishmen who may be politically divided but share a consciousness of being Irish. I hope, by the way, that I will not damage this body by praising it here and that some Unionist spokesman may be moved to "take the harm off" my remarks by adding his approval! We welcome also the signs in a certain section of the Unionist Press, and among some influential Unionist politicians, of a more broad-minded and enlightened spirit—a rejection, in the words of one of them, of the idea that the minority must be "kept down" while the majority remain "top".

That, unfortunately, is not the whole story. There are still some very dark spots of bigotry and discrimination in the Six Counties. One of the most useful things we can do at present, in the interest both of those who are suffering from this discrimination and also of that goodwill among Irishmen which must precede eventual unity, is to shed a clear but dispassionate light into these dark places. This my Department is endeavouring to do, as a most important part of its general task of making the facts about Partition known abroad. For example, we recently published, in our Bulletin, a résumé of the facts about the discrimination of which the Mater Hospital in Belfast has been a victim. This publication led to a condemnation of the Unionist actions in an influential London periodical. The discrimination against the Mater Hospital has also been the subject of severe criticism by the leading Unionist newspaper in Belfast itself. Publicity of this kind does help those who, inside the Six Counties itself, would like to see injustice remedied and the foundation laid for happier relations among Irishmen. Our task seems likely to be a long one but there is no need for us to despair about its outcome.

Ireland took an active share, during the period under review, in the work of the Council of Europe, in accordance with her traditional policy of playing the largest possible part, which our situation allows, in fostering good relations between States, particularly in Western Europe. As an earnest of this policy, and in compliance with the wishes of the Consultative Assembly, financial provision has been made under sub-head B (1) in the External Affairs Vote for the establishment in Strasbourg of a permanent representative to the Council of Europe during the current financial year.

As the House is aware, the Council of Europe consists of two main organs; the Consultative Assembly which is the deliberative organ, and the Committee of Ministers (and their Deputies) which is the executive organ.

It is not proposed at this time to review the debates and conclusions of the Consultative Assembly's Sixth Ordinary Session in 1954 as these were the result of the independent initiative of the Assembly representative for which my Department can claim no credit apart from providing expenses and travel facilities for our representatives. I would like, however, to put on record my appreciation of the work done in the Consultative Assembly in 1954 by members of both Houses of the Oireachtas, of all political Parties, both in the Assembly itself and in the less publicised but no less important committees and working parties; and to stress the fact that resolutions and recommendations of the Consultative Assembly continue to constitute the mainspring of the activities of the Committee of Ministers, which I now propose to review briefly.

These activities find their most concrete expression in the conventions and agreements which the member States of the Council have framed and signed. Since the foundation of the Council in 1949, seven such conventions and two agreements have been signed. Two of these conventions were signed during the past year and others previously signed were ratified and came into force.

Ireland was awarded two out of 16 Council of Europe Fellowships in 1954 of which one was given to a refugee resident here.

A recent recommendation by the Committee of Cultural Experts will shortly lead to the meeting at Dublin of a working party of the Council of Europe Cultural Experts to examine the technical aspects of the microfilming of the unpublished and out-of-print catalogues and indexes of the manuscripts and records in the libraries and archives of member States.

During the year Irish representatives participated in the work of the social and public health committees of governmental experts, whose reports are under consideration by the Committee of Ministers; and in a conference of civil aviation experts to prepare for a European civil aviation conference next November.

As in previous years, the Irish contribution to the United Nations Children's Emergency Fund is given on condition that it will be expended by UNICEF on the purchase of Irish goods for distribution abroad. To date the contributions have been spent mainly on purchases of condensed milk and margarine.

As members of the O.E.E.C. we help to fashion an effective instrument for bringing the countries of Western Europe together and assisting in the solution of their economic problems. The aim of the O.E.E.C. is to achieve co-operation in all economic matters between its members and so improve their economies. The progressive removal of quantitative restrictions on trade between its member countries continues to be one of the foremost objects of this organisation. In February, 1951, the liberalisation target had been raised to 75 per cent. of all imports on private account for each member country, with a "consolidation" figure of 60 per cent. in each of the three main categories (agricultural products, raw materials and manufactured goods).

On the 14th January, 1955, the council of the O.E.E.C. decided that the overall liberalisation figure should be raised to 90 per cent. with a figure of 75 per cent. at least for each of the three main categories. This decision was to come into effect as from the 1st April of this year, provided that France had by that date attained a level of 75 per cent. liberalisation of her total imports on private account, with 60 per cent. at least in each of the three categories.

The decision also provided for the position of member countries which, owing to balance of payments difficulties or for reasons of national importance or equity, were unable for the time being to implement in full the new measures of liberalisation. Ireland's decision to accept this was conveyed to the organisation with an indication that the Government interpreted "reasons of national importance" as used in the decision in regard to non-fulfilment of the new measures to include reasons of economic stability. The decision entered into effect on the 1st April, 1955.

It was decided at a meeting of the Council of Ministers of the O.E.E.C. held in Paris on the 13th and 14th January, 1955, to establish a ministerial committee for agriculture and food with the following functions: (a) to examine periodically the problems of member countries relating to agriculture and food; (b) to examine the effects upon agricultural and food problems of questions and proposals of general character under discussion in the O.E.E.C.; (c) to agree on measures to be taken by Ministers within the limits of their national competence and, whenever decisions binding on the Governments are necessary, to submit appropriate proposals to the council. In this manner the "Green Pool" was associated with the O.E.E.C. and the Food and Agriculture Committee of that organisation was consequently abolished.

At the same time it was arranged to enable Spain to participate in the work of the O.E.E.C. on questions relating to agriculture and food and an agreement to this effect was subsequently signed by the O.E.E.C. and the Spanish authorities. The first meeting of the Ministerial Committee for Agriculture and Food was held in Paris on 9th March, 1955, and the Minister for Agriculture, representing Ireland at this meeting, was elected to the vice-chairmanship of the committee.

The history and outcome of the negotiations with the Government of the United States concerning the disposal of the moneys in the Grant Counterpart Special Account was reviewed in the Dáil on the 16th December on the occasion of the introduction of a motion seeking Dáil approval for the agreement of 17th June, 1954, with the American authorities. That agreement set out the general purposes for which the funds were to be used. Separate sub-agreements were to be concluded for the implementation of the specific projects for which the American authorities had given their approval and three of these sub-agreements were brought to a successful conclusion in March. These sub-agreements related to (a) a scheme for the eradication of bovine T.B.; (b) a scheme for the pasteurisation of separated milk in creameries, and (c) a scheme for the subsidisation of the delivery costs of ground limestone to farmers.

The other sub-agreements referred to in the Dáil on the 16th December last are in course of negotiation and it is hoped that some of them will be signed during the next few months. Tribute must be paid to the unfailing help which the American Ambassador and his staff have given to us in the preparation and negotiation of these agreements. During the year, trade negotiations took place with the following countries: Spain, France, Germany, Finland, Sweden, Norway and Belgium.

As the House is aware, Ireland first applied for membership of the U.N.O. on the 2nd August, 1946, but in company with several other qualified states including Italy, Austria and Portugal the application has been repeatedly and effectively blocked by the Soviet veto in the Security Council. A special meeting of the organisations to commemorate the tenth anniversary of the signing of the charter was held last month in San Francisco and for the first time since its foundation an Irish observer was nominated to attend a meeting of the organisation. I nominated an observer not only as a compliment to this special occasion in the lifetime of the organisation but also as an indication of our continuing desire to take our rightful place in the councils of the world.

Mr. de Valera

I should like time to study in detail the rather extensive survey which the Minister has given of our external affairs and our relations with them. The part that particularly struck me was his reference to isolation and that the existence of Partition did not carry with it the implication of isolation. I do not think anybody was under any misapprehension in that regard. Partition existed at the time of the League of Nations; Partition existed at the time in which application was made for entry into the U.N.O. I do not think there has been any difference in policy in regard to co-operation between other nations and between any of the Governments that have been in office here. We have always realised that we were one nation among many and that as far as physical resources were concerned our resources were not very great.

We also realised that small as were our physical resources there were spiritual ones which were of great value and we never doubted that our nation, though a small one in the material sense, could play a very important part in international affairs. It was for that reason that from the very start, back even in 1919, we made it clear that we were willing to cooperate in a real League of Nations, and for that reason we did our best— various Governments did their best— at Geneva, and if there was failure of the League of Nations to achieve its fundamental purpose of maintaining world peace, certainly no one of the representatives from this country could be blamed for that in so far as they could do their part to warn nations of the dangers ahead and to lead nations on to the path of peace.

It was with that view also that we wished to join the U.N.O. We were prevented from becoming a member by, as the Minister pointed out, the veto of one power and those who were immediately under that power's influence. We did not at any time withdraw our application. Neither did we renew it. It remained there and it was for the organs of the United Nations to decide whether we should become members or not. I must say that occasionally, when it was quite evident that the United Nations was not a group of nations having a common object in agreement, I often thought that had we been members we might have had seriously to consider whether we should continue as members. The one argument for continuation was that it was better that they should have opportunities of talking to each other anyway and that no matter how acrimonious it might be from one side to the other, that nevertheless, as long as they had opportunities of discussions whether these were amicable or not, there was a possibility of finding understanding of some sort.

When the Minister mentioned isolation, therefore, I was wondering precisely what was in mind. I do not think anybody here will deny that we were right when we preserved the neutrality of this country during the last war. I think it would have been very foolish for our people to have entered into that war. In every war fought, those who are fighting will always find good and moral reasons for the fight. The fight against Germany was put on that basis and I am perfectly certain, that, if the world does not learn wisdom and if there are to be future wars, there will be no dearth of good causes which the war will be supposed to further.

A small nation has to be extremely cautious when it enters into alliances which bring it, willy-nilly, into those wars. As I said during the last war, the position was that we would not be consulted in how a war would be started —the great powers would do that—and when it was ended, no matter who won, suppose the side on which we were won, we would not be consulted as to the terms on which it should end.

Isolation, then, or co-operation has to be distinguished as to whether we mean it on the non-military or on the military plane. On the non-military plane there is always possibility of agreement except, I might point out, that, on the economic side, for instance, in the Council of Europe, it would have been most unwise for our people to enter into a political federation which would mean that you had a European Parliament deciding the economic circumstances, for example, of our life here. For economic and other reasons we had refused to be satisfied with a representation of, say, one in six, as was our representation in the British Parliament. Our representation in the European Assembly was, I think, something like four out of 120 or some number of that magnitude. That is, instead of being out-voted on matters that we would have regarded as of important interest to us by five or six to one, we would have been out-voted by 30 or 40 to one. We did not strive to get out of that domination of our affairs by outside force or we did not get out of that position to get into a worse one. But, there again, we were anxious to co-operate to the fullest extent that was consistent with our liberty to look after the fundamental things that were necessary to our continued life as a nation.

One of the things that made me unhappy at Strasbourg was that I saw that, at the first meeting, anyhow, of the Assembly, instead of trying to get co-operation and to provide organs for co-operation, there was an attempt to provide a full-blooded political constitution, that there were members there who were actually dividing themselves into socialist parties, and so on, as they might do in a national parliament. As far as we are concerned, whilst we wish well to all those who think that it is in their interest to do that, we certainly felt that we should not be committed as a nation to do it. A nation much more powerful, with her associated States, than we were was chary of that and I, for one, felt that we would not be wise as a nation in entering into a full-blooded political federation.

But there are interests which we have in common with other countries. Of course, everybody will admit that peace is one of the outstanding interests and that everything that we can do to foster peace in the world we should do. We have economic interests in common too and there is no reason in the world why we should not co-operate with any organs that are set up for economic co-operation provided that that economic co-operation is consistent with our own reasonable wellbeing.

Partition was specifically mentioned by the Minister. I agree—it is not the first time I have said it—that Partition will not be solved by force. I agree also with the Minister that the best line to pursue is the line of co-operation to the utmost extent.

I was interested in the Taoiseach's offer to meet the Prime Minister of the Six County area and I was hoping that something might come of that. I realise, of course, that the Prime Minister in that area put up antecedent conditions which made it impossible for the Taoiseach to accept. I did not see any reply from the Taoiseach in that sense but that is how I interpreted the situation. I think it a pity that there should be any antecedent conditions imposed by one side or the other.

We had a situation like that to face back in 1921 and, no matter how we may differ as to their ultimate result, negotiations would not have been possible were it not that we finally got agreement that both parties should meet to explore all the possible avenues for a solution and that there should be no attempt by either side, at the start, the very beginning, to impose conditions. I was expecting, in fact, that the Taoiseach or the Minister for External Affairs on behalf of the Government—it would have been the Taoiseach, I suppose, under the circumstances, as it was a matter between the two leaders of the Governments— would have said that if there was to be a meeting it was clear that neither side could impose, as a condition precedent on the other, some condition which was clearly fundamental as far as the other side was concerned.

I think it would be well if there was a meeting between representatives of the two Governments, as a first step, anyhow, to try to provide for greater co-operation. I believe that it is on these lines that we can hope for success. I do not wish to dwell on the matter any further, but I agree with the Minister that there is no contradiction whatever between our maintaining our right to the unity of our country and the question of co-operation with other nations.

As I have said, we have to be careful once there is a suggestion of entering into arrangements which involve military alliances. I have lived through a certain number of these situations. I remember that, in the First World War, numbers of Irishmen were induced to fight in that war, voluntarily to enter it, in the belief that by so doing they would establish closer relations with their brothers in the northern part of the country, and that, as a result of the war, the unity which was so desired by our people and the liberty which was so yearned for by our people would come. Those of us who lived through it saw the failures on the part of Britain to implement the pledges that were given, not merely the failures on the part of Britain, but the ultimate failures of those who were associated with Britain to fulfil the pledges with regard to self-determination, and so on.

During the last war we were again asked to enter that war, so that, having entered it, by co-operation with Great Britain and with our fellow countrymen in the Six Counties, Partition would be ended. It was a very important matter for the Government at the time and, both as Minister for External Affairs and as head of the Government, I particularly had to consider it. To the representatives of Britain who came to see me on the matter, I pointed out that on a former occasion our people had been led to make tremendous sacrifices and that they were cheated in the end. I indicated that there was always an easy way out for those who wanted to get an excuse for failure to implement any pledges, whether they were implicit or explicit, in the future—and that is the suggestion that, as it was put in these times, Ulster must not be coerced.

That phrase always appeared to me to be a phrase which hid the fact that a large part of the people of that area which has been cut off are being coerced and if there were to be no coercion on anybody there might then be a principle which men could reasonably stand by and could appear to stand by as a matter of conviction. But it was quite a different thing when, on the plea of not being coerced, of liberty from coercion, these same people who demanded liberty for themselves were, in fact, coercing a considerable minority themselves—in fact, a bigger minority, relatively, than they themselves would be in the country as a whole.

I pointed out that the majority of the people of Derry do not desire to be partitioned from the rest of the country. I pointed out that the majority of the people in the County of Tyrone and the majority of the people in the County of Fermanagh did not wish to be separated. I pointed out that these were areas immediately adjoining the Twenty-six County territory. Not merely that, but I also pointed out that substantial portions, corresponding to the old parliamentary constituencies which were established without the special purpose of gerrymandering that you have now—the old constituencies of South Armagh, South Down and East Down—together constituted a majority in a very large portion of the Six Counties cut off.

I pointed out that if we were to do what was done in separating the Six Counties from the remainder of the 32, if we were to be given the same basis that they were given, we could to-day, on the same basis, have four out of the six counties cut off because you could take a bloc of four of the six counties and in that bloc there would be a majority—it would be a slight one, I admit, but it would be a majority— in favour of association and union with the rest of the country. In fact, the population around Belfast and its immediate neighbourhood for 20 to 30 miles has arrogated to itself the right to coerce the people who have a majority in a large portion of the area under their control. However, the plea or the cry that Ulster must not be coerced would be used entirely in the future as it has been used in the past as an excuse for those who do not wish to honour any pledges that might be given as regards any return for Irish co-operation in military matters, in war.

I do not know what precise significance has to be attached to the Minister's phrase, but if it simply means that it is not right to suggest that we wish a policy of isolation, a policy of keeping apart as if we alone existed on this planet, then, of course, that is common sense and everybody agrees with it. However, if there is behind it a suggestion that we should enter into warlike combinations, then I think we would want to watch our steps very carefully indeed. Our history is there with a warning finger to us as to what is likely to happen if we do it. I know all the arguments that would be put forward, but we ought, at least, to learn something from our past and I hope that those warnings from the past will be borne in mind by the Government.

With regard to the other activities with which the Department have been engaged, I congratulate the Department on what appears to be a year of considerable activity. I am also glad that they have established a permanent officer at Strasbourg. I always thought one might go a little bit further. The cost of the maintenance of separate embassies in a number of European cities is heavy for small nations. One of my hopes was that there might be some co-operation amongst the smaller States to considerably diminish these expenses by some form of co-operation through a centre such as Strasbourg. I know it is easier to say that and think of it in general terms than it is to work it out in detail. Circumstances and details might be very complex. There are certain countries with which we have, and need to have, very direct contact and, with these, we should strive to have independent representation. With regard to others, our immediate interests, if I might put it that way, are not so great and it should be possible to find other countries who are in a similar position with regard to some of these countries. If that were so, then I think the small countries could come together and see whether, by some form of co-operation in Strasbourg, they could not diminish the expenditure on independent representation.

Everybody realises that we need to have, in the first place, special representation at the Vatican. That is equally true in the case of the United States. It is true also, probably, in respect of Britain and France and, to a certain extent, it might work out that we would need it in Germany also. The moment I begin to speak in this connection I see the difficulties, because it would be immediately pressed that we should have representation for Spain, Portugal, and so forth. Notwithstanding that, and realising fully the difficulties there would be in securing any form of co-operation which would diminish expenses, I think the matter ought to be examined. However, the best way of examining it is to have a representative at Strasbourg. If it is to be regarded, in some sense, as a sort of capital for a Europe that desires some form of federation or very close political co-operation, I think that is the place at which it would have to be worked out.

I suggested previously that we should try to see whether we could not use Strasbourg to make contacts with some of the other countries, countries where we did not want immediate direct representation. I am naturally not going to ask our Party to vote against this Estimate. I think the Minister was wise in giving us the survey he gave us, and, as I said in the beginning, I would like time to study it in detail, because I think that, from our experience in the past, we might be able to contribute some constructive criticism with regard to the details.

Mr. MacBride

I should like to thank the Minister for the survey he gave of the Department's activities in the course of the year and also for the brief review of departmental policy in regard to some matters. I should like to join with him in paying a tribute to Most Reverend Dr. O'Hara, who was the Papal Nuncio here for some years, for the work he did here. We all regretted his departure and it is only right that those views should be expressed in the House, and that we should also express our appreciation of the work now being done by the new representative of the Holy See, Monsignor Levame.

There are very many things covering a wide field that I should like to discuss on this Estimate, but to do so at the end of the session is not readily feasible and I feel that we should, if possible, during the course of the year, try to arrange for an occasional debate on foreign affairs. This is particularly essential because, by and large, we, as a nation, have not yet evolved a foreign policy. A foreign policy can only be evolved over a long period of time and, so far, by reason of a number of different factors, we have not evolved a constant foreign policy and it would be well that in the next few years we should try to think more in terms of foreign policy for the country.

Modern developments in transport and means of communication, radio and so on, have reduced the distance which separates this island from the rest of the world, and, even if it were desired to maintain a policy of complete isolation, this is no longer possible in the world of to-day. It becomes, therefore, more and more important that our public generally, and particularly the members of this House, should take a wider interest in the foreign policy of this country. I should hope that if we had a number of discussions on foreign policy during the course of the year, it might be possible gradually to evolve a constant foreign policy, based on the constant requirements of this country, and that it would be possible to do so outside of the field of Party politics.

I share generally the views expressed by the Leader of the Opposition in regard to military alliances. I do not think the Minister's remarks with regard to isolationism were intended to suggest that he or the Government contemplated any military alliances. I would find it hard to conceive of any military alliance in present circumstances which would not in some way involve a virtual guarantee of the territorial claims of Britain within our own island. It would be, I think, next to impossible for this nation to enter into any military alliance or treaty obligation which would, in effect, guarantee to maintain the territorial status quo, whereby a portion of our nation has been split away from the rest and attached to Britain. This does not mean in any way that we should adopt an isolationist policy in other respects, but I think it would be, shall I say, practically political suicide for the Government to consider an alliance which would in any way involve a guarantee of the existing territorial claims that Britain makes on Ireland. However, I do not think the Minister's words were intended to convey that such an alliance was contemplated.

The Minister also dealt briefly with the question of Partition and I, too, welcome the work which the Irish Association has been doing. I think that is valuable work. I agree generally with the statements made by the Leader of the Opposition in regard to Partition, and I am glad that there is a virtually unanimous view in the House on that issue—at least, on that issue in so far as it denies the right of Britain to occupy portion of our country against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the Irish people.

I propose to say very few words in regard to Partition on this occasion. The only matter of regret so far as I am concerned is that neither the present Government nor the previous Government have yet been prepared to consider any proposals whereby some opportunity would be afforded to the elected representatives of the people of the Six Counties to enable them to express their views and to participate in the discussions of this Parliament. I feel that, as an interim measure, steps should be taken to enable those who are elected by the people of the Six Counties and who wish to form part of this State to participate in our discussions here. I do not propose to press the question any further to-day, as I think it is a matter for a separate discussion, but I should again like to appeal to the leaders of the Fine Gael Party and the Fianna Fáil Party to reconsider that possibility. It is a step which would be the first gradual step towards the creation of an all-Ireland Parliament.

There are many other things I would like to say in dealing with this Estimate here to-day. To do so, however, would take time and might also detract from one other matter which, in my view, transcends all other matters in this moment of the world's history. The Minister referred to the fact that a conference was going to take place in a few days' time—on the 18th of this month—in Geneva, between the leaders of the four major parties in the Western World at least—the United States, France, Great Britain and Russia.

We cannot, of course, influence the course of the discussions that will take place at this conference by a mere expression of opinion in our Parliament; yet we, as most small nations, are vitally interested in the outcome of the conference. Upon its outcome may well depend the survival of our civilisation, if not the survival of humanity and the world. If we cannot ourselves directly influence the outcome of these discussions, we can at least let our viewpoint be known, in the hope that it may ultimately lead and join with the opinion of other nations who share our viewpoint.

In this situation, we—perhaps better than most other nations—are in a position to voice views which go to the basis of the present world conflict. Our struggle for survival—for the survival of our nation and for the survival of our religion—coupled with our complete lack of any imperialistic ambitions, perhaps enables us to take a more fundamental view of the issues that confront the world to-day. More important still, the universal belief of our people in Christianity and therefore in the ultimate function of mankind, should make it possible for us to make a contribution to the discussions which are now beginning, which may seep through the consciousness of mankind. Nations and statesmen are inclined to discuss the present day problems on a day to day basis and are inclined to approach them on the basis of power politics and on the basis of materialism purely and simply. That approach, in my view, is really a form of escapism. It fails to take into account the real dangers of the present situation.

I would like us to be able to send forth from this country a message of encouragement to the conference which is about to take place, a message of encouragement which would emphasise the essential moral and ethical basis of the problem which confronts the world. In my view, the problem arises because of the fact that while we have made tremendous progress in the course of this century, in scientific development and in material development of all kinds, progress which was undreamt of even at the beginning of this century, we have made that tremendous progress on a material plane and we have failed to realise that, unless progress of this nature is accompanied by an equivalent strengthening of the moral and ethical basis which binds society together, it is going to bring about a complete destruction of our civilisation. We have reached the stage now when, if the views of people in the world who know or should know are to be accepted, not only is our civilisation in danger but also the survival of mankind itself.

To face that situation, unfortunately, the moral and ethical sense of responsibility of Governments and people is probably weaker than ever before. It would be my hope that at some stage it should become possible for us, for our Government, to try to stress that viewpoint; and to join with other nations who share the same viewpoint, in trying to bring about a realisation of the immensity of the problem which now faces humanity. At least some attempt would thus be made towards bringing about a realisation of the importance of developing among the people of the world that sense of moral and ethical responsibility without which apparently humanity is unlikely to survive.

I am sure that many members of the House have read over the week-end the statement which was issued by a number of leading scientists from different quarters of the world. It had apparently been signed by the late Professor Einstein before his death. The report suffers, of course, from one main defect—that it considers the problem of nuclear warfare purely from the materialistic concept. It separates the question entirely from the spiritual and ethical basis of the problem, and to that extent it suffers from a vital defect, but, be that as it may, this is a report prepared by and containing the considered views of scientists who probably are not Christians or have little or no belief in Christianity, but nevertheless men of eminence in their own sphere. These scientists do not mince words in this report, and I think are only expressing the views of other scientists in so far as the actual physical danger which faces the world in the event of another war.

I have indicated that the report has many shortcomings because of its purely materialistic approach, but there are some passages in it which, I think, are worth quoting so that they may be available if required. In the course of their statement they say:—

"The general public, and even many men in positions of authority, have not realised what would be involved in a war with nuclear bombs.

The general public still thinks in terms of the obliteration of cities... No doubt in a H-bomb war great cities would be obliterated, but this is one of the minor disasters that would have to be faced. If everybody in London, New York and Moscow were exterminated, the world might, in the course of a few centuries, recover from the blow. What we now know, especially since the Bikini test, that nuclear bombs can gradually spread destruction over a very much wider area than had been supposed."

They then go on to point out that the present H-bombs are 2,500 times more powerful than the bomb which was dropped on Hiroshima. They say:—

"Such a bomb, if exploded near the ground or under water, sends radio-active particles into the upper air. They sink gradually and reach the surface of the earth in the form of a deadly dust or rain. It was this dust which infected the Japanese fishermen and their catch of fish.

No one knows how widely such lethal radio-active particles might be diffused, but the best authorities are unanimous in saying that a war with H-bombs might quite possibly put an end to the human race. It is feared that if many H-bombs are used there will be universal death— sudden only for a minority, but for the majority a slow torture of disease and disintegration."

They then deal with the views of different experts, and make this comment:—

"They depend only, so far as our researches have revealed, upon the extent of the particular expert's knowledge. We have found that the men who know most are the most gloomy."

As I have indicated, this statement was issued by a number of world famous scientists. Lest it might be suggested in criticism of the views put forward by these particular scientists that they were influenced purely and simply by a materialistic approach to the problem, that they were possibly exaggerating the menace which faces the world, I should like to draw the attention of the House to a statement recently made by the Commissioner of the United States Atomic Energy Commission who himself is a distinguished Irishman, a distinguished Irishman who has rendered many services to this country in the past— Thomas E. Murray. His approach is a different one. It is the approach of a man who, like ourselves, believes in the vital importance of Christianity, who believes that without that, without belief in Divine Providence, we can achieve nothing.

In the course of this statement made recently by him he stated:—

"Prayer is the one and only force by which man will ever receive the inspiration, the courage and the strength to enable him to direct nuclear forces towards a better and more abundant life. Human prudence is not enough to cope with the situation created by man's discovery of atomic power. Even if the goodwill of every person on earth could be counted upon, the help and direction of the Divine Guidance is needed.

Nothing in the history of the human race has prepared us to cope with this awesome situation. The world has not only had no time to adjust, but hardly time enough to comprehend. Yet time is running out. Man must quickly recognise his atomic dilemma and make the superhuman effort to resolve it. Before the testing of the forerunner of the present H-bomb, scientists had speculated on the possibility of world destruction through nuclear reactions. After the test, they knew that the possibility could be triggered into actuality."

In conclusion he says:—

"The essential ingredient to atomic survival is a broad base of informed and interested civilians. It is the only way in which we can cope with the immoral fatalism that considers war ‘inevitable'—with the folly that professes unconcern over man's darkest threat."

I quote Mr. Murray's statement to the House because I regard him as one of the people in this world who probably has the most modern knowledge as to the progress so far made in regard to nuclear power, and also because I would regard him as probably having a closer approach to our viewpoint than the approach held by the scientists who issued their report, from which I have quoted, over the week-end.

Apart from the difference of approach, the conclusions are the same. Indeed, they are conclusions which to a large extent the present Holy Father, Pope Pius XII, prophesied nearly 12 years ago at the time the first atomic bomb was released. On the 2nd June, 1943, Pope Pius XII in an allocution made on his own feast day, said:—

"We, who from the beginning, have done what was in our power to induce the belligerents to respect the laws of humanity in aerial warfare, consider it our duty for the good of all to plead once more for their observance. At the moment when the spectre of still more horrible instruments of destruction and death rises to try the souls of men, it is not superfluous to warn the civilised world that it walks on the edge of an abyss of unspeakable misfortunes."

Six months later on Christmas Eve, 1943, the Holy Father said, when dealing with the same questions:—

"We see indeed only a conflict which degenerates into that form of warfare that excludes all restriction and restraint, as if it were the apocalyptic expression of a civilisation in which ever-growing technical progress is accompanied by an ever greater decline in the realm of the soul and morality... The most bloodstained pages of past history are pale in comparison... every human sentiment is being crushed and the light of reason eclipsed."

I have dealt with the question to-day because I feel that inevitably in the world there is a tendency to avoid facing these issues. I think there is born in all of us a certain degree of escapism—a desire to avoid thinking of the unpleasant things in life, the unpleasant problems that face the world or one personally but, as Mr. Murray, United States Commissioner on Atomic Energy, pointed out the essential necessity at the moment is a broad base of informed and interested public opinion.

For these reasons I think it is well that we here should give some thought to these questions and seek in our own way to emphasise the essential moral problems involved in the present world situation. We naturally all hope, as the Minister said, that the talks which are about to take place will lead to a situation in which all conflict will be eased but, unless the settlement arrived at is a settlement which recognises the importance of developing higher sets of moral and ethical responsibility, it will only be a short-lived settlement. I found that there are divided views as to the present situation. Some believe that the present easing of the international situation is due to a genuine realisation by the Russian Government in particular that war would threaten the survival of humanity. Others believe that the present détente is merely a technical one in order to prepare for some offers which would ultimately lead to a greater encroachment in Germany.

I am not in a position to judge between these two conflicting sets of views. All we can do is to hope and pray that the détente is a genuine one brought about by a realisation of the gigantic threat which now faces humanity. I would ask the Minister and the Taoiseach to consider the possibility of expressing more persuasively and more coherently than I have sought to express here to-day the feelings which we, in Ireland, have as to the need for the development of that sense of moral and ethical responsibility without which our civilisation cannot survive.

Mr. Desmond

There are but a few points which I wish to mention very briefly in this Estimate. First of all, I am sure there is no need for any of us to dwell on the matter mentioned by Deputy de Valera in connection with this country's position in the matter of military commitments. I believe there is no need for us to dwell on that. I believe we are 100 per cent. united that such would never be the case. Accordingly, I think, we can by-pass that matter.

My second point also concerns one mentioned by Deputy de Valera and on which I agree with him. When speaking, Deputy de Valera mentioned the matter of a permanent appointment at Strasbourg and our connection with the various countries through our Ambassadors. I remember a year or two ago when Deputy Aiken answered a question I put down in connection with these matters. The lack of information available in connection with our membership of organisations such as U.N.O. was mentioned. While we are still on the shelf in connection with our application for membership of that organisation—we do not know whether we will be admitted or not—it is most important at this stage that the Government should inform the general public as to what our possible commitments may be. The tragedy of the matter a year or two ago was that Deputy Aiken, then Minister for External Affairs, said it would be too complicated to prepare that information by way of booklet; that it would be too awkward, too difficult and too expensive. I and the Labour Party believe that the general public should know of any possible commitments instead of our spending our time here engaged in academic discussions as to what in our personal opinion may be right or wrong. Surely it is only through the Government giving information on which the public can base its opinions that we will be able to come close to understanding the question as to whether or not it is wise for us to clamour for admission to some of these international organisations.

As regards the suggestion in the statement of the Minister—with which Deputy de Valera and Deputy MacBride and I agree—in relation to the appointment at Strasbourg, I believe if we were to look up the Book of Estimates we would find that over a number of years back the amount of money spent in connection with our embassies would be completely out of proportion in relation to the countries in which we are represented.

Even at this stage it is well for us, who are in the Labour Party, to know that others who could not see our side a few years ago realise now there was a certain element of justice in the case we put up. We must consider the enormous amount of money spent through the establishment of embassies and in particular—naturally I am not objecting to our association with them—in America as compared with what is spent in European countries. Deputy MacBride has gone to great trouble to explain, in regard to the important discussions that may be taking place at Strasbourg in the next few days, what he believes and what many of us believe to be true. The tragedy is that these discussions will be confined to a few nations whose interests will not be based on very high standards. They will be based on international, materialistic and imperialistic viewpoints and unfortunately our connection with foreign countries through embassies is far greater and far more evident with these countries—in the West of course—than it is with some of the small but very old European countries.

I believe it is essential, even at this stage, that when we are joining various associations with which we are making contact on the international plane we should try to get as closely as possible associated with the views of other small European nations. If we do that, and establish a greater sense of understanding with the smaller nations, we may be doing a far better thing for the world as a whole than by following in the path of some of the larger nations who only want us because it suits them. So long as we are associated with these large nations we shall not be able to change them from their materialistic international points of view. I do not think there is any need to dwell further on this matter.

There is one item to which I wish to draw attention. It has been discussed here year in year out and it is of importance to our own country, and that is the possibility, through discussions that have been taking place through the Department and others, of the extension of our territorial waters. If other nations can spread their nets, surely three miles is a bit small for us. I would ask the Minister to have this matter pressed, if possible, to a satisfactory conclusion because, connected with it, is, perhaps, to a certain extent the economic survival of a small portion of our people, those who depend through fishing on a better field of activity and better protection.

The other item—and I will try to discuss it as briefly as others, but I must mention it—is Partition. Nobody can say but that each and every one of us here discussing this matter to-day is discussing it in as calm and as cool and as honest a manner as possible. I wonder what is happening to-day in another part of the country on the 12th July? I appreciate as much as anyone here—as I have said in public time and time again—and respect members on both sides of me here for all they did, but it is because of our everyday associations with the people and because of our own worry at times— because it is a worry—at the fact that 30 or 35 years have elapsed and we have got no further that I raise the matter here. I am not saying for a moment that this is the fault of our statesmen here in the South, but when we are told about friendly association and all that, we must remember that that friendly association, as we know this evening, is probably forgotten on the 12th July in the North.

I do not want to take the discussion any further nor make it awkward for the Minister or the Government or for the Government that was in office before us, but we are getting nowhere. It must be quite obvious to everyone that no matter how friendly we become we cannot take the political and bigoted spots off a bigoted leopard. I believe Deputy MacBride is right in his view that we should open the doors to any of them who want to come down. I am not saying for a moment that the doors of Leinster House should be open only to Nationalist or Labour members. Let any of them who want to come, come. If we believe in an Irish Parliament for Irish people, then surely we must be prepared to say: "Here is your Parliament and its doors are open to you." Otherwise, we are only deceiving ourselves. We want no trouble here. We know here that if there is an argument in Egypt or trouble in Tunisia, the big nations will come with their bodyguards to protect the people, but we are here for 35 years and we never insulted any country—in fact we have gone out of our way to be friendly because our belief is based on true moral standards. Is it because we are trying to be honest with everyone that the whole lot of them are laughing at us and saying we are fools?

I do not want to expand any further on that or to delay any longer on this subject. We have gone as far as we can go; we have tried to be friendly and tried to get co-operation from Britain and America, and we hear of the Irish in America during the election time but they are forgotten afterwards. I would say to the Minister and the Government as a whole that one step to take us further on our way would be, as Deputy MacBride mentioned, and as I now repeat, to open the doors and see if any of them are genuine enough to move towards this part of Ireland. We may then get somewhere and we may be in a better position to discuss international affairs when we have put our own house in order.

Mr. D. Costello

The Minister, in my opinion, is to be congratulated on what seems to me to be one of the most realistic and courageous statements made in this House on the question of Partition for some years. It is refreshing to see the near unanimity in the House on the use of force as a possible solution for the undoubted evil of Partition. It is a healthy development in our affairs to find that we have in this House very near unanimity that the use of force is not the means by which, politically, our country can be united.

The imposition of Partition on our country was, of course, one of the greatest of the many evils which Great Britain imposed on us. The fact that it is an evil, however, does not permit us to use evil means to end it. Whatever about the morals of ending Partition by force, a subject on which I am not competent to judge, it must be obvious to everyone that politically Partition cannot be ended by coercion and until that fact is fully appreciated the ending of Partition will not come about. We have very nearly reached that position on this side of the Border and the near unanimity that we have is, in my view, a step forward towards the time when we may have this great evil remedied.

I appreciate that such views may be difficult to bear on the part of Nationalists in the North who are suffering from undoubted injustices and it may be very difficult indeed for them to hear us preaching patience to them but that is all we can do. Believing as we do that force is no solution, all we can do is to ask them to have the courage of patience until the time comes—and it must come—when the logic of the situation brings about the ending of this wrong.

It is desirable that the Minister's Department use such means as are at its disposal to make known to the world the wrong of Partition and to make known to the Governments of the world, so that we can enlist their support, that we have a grievance here. It is right that we should use the means of propaganda to bring our case before the forum of world public opinion, but I would like to strike this note of warning, that propaganda like every other action must be subject to the virtue of prudence and that the law of diminishing returns sets in very early indeed when people are complaining about their wrongs.

We must be wise and prudent, therefore, in the way in which we make use of our propaganda machinery towards bringing to the notice of world opinion the injustice of Partition. Anybody who has had experience in the Department of External Affairs and in the political assemblies of which we are members will realise that the surest way of doing away with any sympathy that one can get and the surest way of hampering the progress towards enlisting support for your cause is by overdoing your case and by representing it too often and making yourself a nuisance. With that warning in mind I think, nevertheless, the Minister's Department is perfectly correct in making legitimate use of such opportunities as may come of bringing to the notice of Governments and to the notice of peoples of the world, by means of the public Press and radio, the injustice which we are suffering.

I cannot see, as the Minister has stated, why we should not develop a policy of peaceful co-existence between the two Governments, north and south of the Border. Again it seems to me to be a legitimate development of our position here. I have full sympathy with the view expressed by Deputy Desmond. It must be a very uncomfortable and galling thing indeed to be a Nationalist on the 12th July but if we are realistic and if we appreciate that force is no answer to the problem the logic of the situation inevitably leads us to the line of action whereby we endeavour to break down the prejudice of the people in Northern Ireland who are at present supporting the union between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We must not be influenced in our policy by extremists on both sides of the Border. We must not be influenced by anything that may be said by an extremist Orangeman on 12th July. I believe that there are many hundreds of thousands of genuine Protestant and Presbyterian people in Northern Ireland who could be won to our point of view but it will take time. If we appreciate that the question of Partition can only be solved in time and by patience, by peaceful co-existence and co-operation between the two Governments, we can hasten the day when it will be ended.

The Minister has pointed to a number of successful experiments in co-operation between North and South. That co-operation has been welcomed by the most extreme spokesmen of the Northern Ireland Government. I think it could be greatly extended in many spheres. In one small sphere, the legal sphere, there are many examples of, perhaps, minor matters of procedure but none the less important in the ordinary day-to-day lives of many of our citizens both north and south of the Border, in which governmental co-operation could bring about coordination. On the question of economies, too, I feel sure that there must be many fields open for co-operation and above all in the cultural field. We must all welcome, therefore, the recent development announced by the Minister for Education.

The time may easily come when another approach such as has been made some months ago towards a meeting of the heads of Government could be made. It is indeed to be hoped that such a meeting between the heads of Government would have the support of the Opposition Party. I feel that questions of verbiage have been got over before and they could be got over in this case and that if an effort was made the heads of Government, with, I am sure, some good results could meet to discuss common problems.

Reference has been made in the course of this debate to Ireland's rôle in the Council of Europe. There is a certain tendency in this country to underestimate the importance of the Council of Europe and in particular to underestimate the rôle that Ireland can play in the Council of Europe. While there is no doubt that the work of the Council, and especially of the Assembly, has been a great disappointment to many people, and while there is no doubt that there has been in recent months a certain air of lassitude about the work of the Assembly, it cannot be denied that the Council of Europe has done a tremendous amount of work towards bringing about a greater unity between the peoples of Western Europe. In the debate in Strasbourg last week the French Foreign Minister pointed out that the solution to the Saar problem between the Governments of Western Germany and France was arrived at on recommendations of a rapporteur of a committee of the Assembly of the Council of Europe. Similarly, the Western European unions of the coal and steel interests are now realities born out of the Assembly of the Council of Europe.

We must appreciate that the Council of Europe is the only world political assembly in which we have representation. We are barred from U.N.O. by reason of the Russian veto and, apart from our membership of certain specialist organisations, the Council of Europe is the only political organisation in which we, as a country, can express ourselves and gain influence and prestige for our nation. The common burden of complaint from the members of the Assembly for the last couple of years has been that the Committee of Ministers has not met frequently enough. It is generally and unanimously agreed by parliamentarians who go to Strasbourg that the work of the Assembly has been retarded because the Ministers have not co-operated; and it is generally known that the British Foreign Office view is certainly one of antagonism, or, if that is too strong a word, of indifference at any rate to the Council of Europe, and that has acted as a marked brake on the work of the Council.

With the support of the unanimous Assembly and with the support of a number of the Member Governments of the Committee of Ministers, I think our Government could gain support, prestige and influence for our country by pressing for more frequent Ministers' meetings of the Council of Ministers. The Council of Ministers has met, I think, only twice in the last year and, in the year before that, either once or twice. For the immense amount of work that is there to be done and for the great number of recommendations that have been sent up from the Assembly to the Council of Ministers that is much too infrequent. The Council of Europe was meant to be and could be the framework within which a common Western European policy could be worked out. It has not been used that way and foreign Ministers seem to prefer to go to any capital in the world and visit any town except Strasbourg when trying to settle the troubles of the world.

As I say, I think the Minister would get co-operation not only from the Assembly but from many of the foreign Ministers of small countries like ours if he pressed for more frequent meetings of the Committee of Ministers. I do not think we need fear what Deputy de Valera referred to, namely, the political federation of Europe. I do not think we need fear that by co-operating in the Council of Europe, by playing a more active part in that Assembly any of our national sovereignty will be reduced.

I know there are strong views held by federalists in the Council of Europe, but the brake is there, emanating from all sorts of sources, and it will be a long time before any significant reduction in national sovereignty will be achieved by the Council of Europe. Until that time comes, we, I think, can take a much more significant part in the affairs of the Council of Europe than we have been taking heretofore.

Looking over the records of the Council of Europe one thing that has struck me is the number of times our representative has abstained from voting on matters which do not directly concern us. I think that is a wrong attitude. I think in many cases an abstention in Strasbourg is regarded as a polite way of saying "No" to a resolution and, although we are not vitally concerned with many matters which come up for discussion and which have to be voted on, I think we should show our general goodwill towards the work of the Assembly by voting for things which we believe are good but which may not vitally, or at all, affect us.

I want to refer now to the question of our emigrants in Great Britain. It seems to me that the Department of External Affairs could do much more for our emigrants in Great Britain than has been done heretofore. Emigration is a political and an economic fact, which we may deplore but which we cannot ignore. The figures show that thousands of people go to England every year and settle in the big industrial towns, creating huge centres of Irish population which are not catered for from our resources. While we must welcome the work that is being done by the Hierarchy of the two countries in trying to help the spiritual and material needs of these emigrants that should not stop our Government taking steps on its own initiative. I understand that a very large petition was signed by many thousands of persons in Birmingham a year or two ago requesting assistance from the Department of External Affairs for their plight.

The Irish Embassy in London is not capable of dealing with the problem, no matter how it may try, and it seems to me that we must now set up and organise centres in the big towns like Birmingham and Liverpool, as well as London, to which our emigrants can go and in which they can be informed of proper lodgings and will not find themselves at any rate lost in the great morass of British industrialism. That is work which will require expenditure by the Department of External Affairs, but I do not think there is anybody here who would object to helping our emigrants who, through no fault of their own, have had to leave this country; and it seems to me we have an obligation to our citizens who have had to leave this country through no fault of their own.

In conclusion, may I say that I agree whole-heartedly with what the Minister said in relation to isolationism. Neutrality does not mean isolationism. Yet, in many cases, it has been considered here that if we remain neutral we have no further obligations to Western Europe. I think we have. It is not correct to say that we can be ethically neutral in the present world struggle. It is not correct to say that people can doctor up their wars by putting false ideas before the minds of the public in order to try and get support. It is not correct in this struggle at any rate, whatever about the past. We can have no doubt where right is and where wrong lies in the present world struggle and we have a duty to try and help in every way we can the forces of the West. My own view has been that militarily and strategically our assistance to the West would be negligible and that as a small country our proper course is to remain neutral but that does not imply isolationism and it does not get away from the obligations which we have towards our fellow Christians throughout the world. We have a lot to give them and a lot to learn from them and I think the Minister's speech has indicated that we are setting forth now in the right direction.

Mr. McQuillan

Though I disagree with many of the things said by the last speaker, I want to say how pleased I am about his remarks regarding the conditions of our emigrants and the problems affecting them in Britain. It was one matter with which I expected the Minister for External Affairs to deal in a very comprehensive fashion in this House. I do not intend to delay the House talking about the evils of emigration because the House and the country is nauseated by the talk that has gone on for years past about this very grievous problem while nothing whatever is being done to solve it.

However, in view of the important pronouncements of the Irish Hierarchy and of other learned people in this country about the conditions of our emigrants and about the necessity of giving guidance and help to them, I think it is only right that the Department of External Affairs would cooperate with these voluntary bodies in an effort to improve conditions for our people who have to leave this country. The Hierarchy are going to do their part in the spiritual field but assistance in the spiritual field is, I think, not enough. We in this House have a responsibility to these people, seeing that we have been charged with the task of providing employment for them in this country; in view of our failure in that regard it is our essential duty to see that whatever we can do to help them when they go across the water will be done and that the necessary action to do so will be taken.

I believe it is not too much to ask the Department of External Affairs and the Minister to carry out an investigation into the conditions under which our emigrants are living at the present time in many of the major industrial centres in Britain. If that investigation is carried out immediately there will be no great need for an intensive investigation, because many facts are already known to the Department. I think it would be quite easy to set up in these major centres of population bureaux that will give advice on housing, on work and on where religious instruction can be given and received and on any other matters of importance to our people there. Most of the young people who leave this country are between the ages of 17 and 25 years. Many of them from rural Ireland had never been in the City of Dublin even before they emigrated so it is easy to realise the feelings of fear which prevail among them when they go to work in large cities like Birmingham, Liverpool or London.

If these young people come to Dublin they will have friends or relatives to meet them with whom they can stay. Some Deputies may say that they have friends and relatives in the big cities across the water as well. Many of them have, but many also have not, and very often when they go there they depend on some bureau that has no connection with this country to advise them about employment. Very often that employment is anything but good in any sense of the word for those young people.

The expense involved by the Department of External Affairs in extending help to these people should not be taken into consideration at all in view of the fact that we are not spending the money here in this country to provide the necessary employment and thus to keep these young people at home. Surely we should have enough conscience left to do our part with regard to these people abroad. We hear in this House, day in day out, prating about ethics and morals and we are advising other nations what they should do. I think we should turn the spotlight on our own nation for a start and how we treat our people here and on the conditions under which they are expected to live. There is an air of unreality about this debate.

Listening to some of the speakers here one would get the impression that this country should have been invited to the parley at the summit which is about to take place. During the debate I began to think that the influence wielded by this State was almost as great as that of any of the great powers. I have listened here to-day to a long dissertation on morals and ethics and on the dangers of warfare by atomic means and by the H-bomb. I think we are like the Pharisee in the temple talking about these things. I think it is just too bad that this small nation or portion of a nation has the audacity to turn around and give lectures to the nations of the world on morals and ethics. There is the well-known saying that people should mind their own business and look after their own business first before they begin poking their noses into their neighbours' affairs.

When you poke your nose into your neighbour's affairs it is not often appreciated by the neighbour and I think that the less political preaching we do at our neighbours the more they will think of us in the future and the better we will be doing for ourselves. There has been some talk about isolation and I was very glad to hear the ex-Taoiseach picking on that particular point as of great importance as far as this nation is concerned. The young speaker who has just finished, Deputy Declan Costello, more or less let the cat out of the bag as far as his outlook, and, apparently, the outlook of the members of his Party is concerned on this question of isolation or, shall we say, neutrality. I do not know whether Deputy Costello was speaking on his own behalf or whether he was acting as spokesman for his Party when he took part in a recent debate down the country and when he made it quite clear that in his view this small nation should line up with one or other of the two major powers in this looming conflict.

It is very hard to know from the statement of the Minister for External Affairs what he really means by his reference to isolation. There are people in this country and elements in this State who make no bones about giving up our neutrality and who would have us line up with one side. I think we have a lot to be thankful for that we did not do it in the last war. I do not want to deal in any great detail with it but when I hear Deputies saying that there is no doubt on which side right is in this coming tussle I should like to say that I think there is an awful lot wrong on both sides. I think there is an awful lot wrong in the mentality that allowed the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and other such deplorable actions to take place.

I think that as far as Ireland is concerned she should keep her nose out of the business of other nations and try and look after her own business first. There is no question or doubt that we are not doing that and if we are able to put these brilliant minds, who are setting their brains to solve international problems, to solving the problems affecting the country here we would be doing much better and would be doing a very good day's work for the country from any viewpoint. Reference was made here to the work our representatives are doing in Strasbourg in the Council of Europe and the subsidiary bodies appointed by that Council. I do not know what they are doing precisely.

Now and again we get a word of information as to the work this Council and these committees are doing, but I do want to sound a word of warning, that I hope none of our representatives on any of these committees, through love of the West of Europe, will do harm to our industrial position or our industrial future in dealing with the problem of the liberalisation of trade. If we accept the viewpoint of many of these nations that there should be liberalisation of trade up to the extent of 90 per cent. what is the use of talking here about developing our resources in Ireland? We are an undeveloped nation. We must take the utmost precautions before allowing ourselves to take part in any agreement on those lines. Were it not for the fact that our industries were heavily protected over the last 25 or 30 years, we would not see the industrial development that we have to-day, small and all as it is. Any steps that might be taken by European countries to free trade should be very carefully considered before we allow ourselves to take part in any such agreements.

I know for a fact that, as far as Germany and other countries are concerned, for every £1 worth of goods that we send to them, we import £3 worth. If that is the type of liberalisation that we will get, I do not think it is of very great benefit to this country.

We need to develop our natural resources. We want to see an end to emigration. We want to see full employment. These things cannot be achieved unless the utmost protection is given to the development of our resources.

The main point with which I wish to deal in connection with this Estimate is the problem of Partition. It is rather tragic that, while we are discussing Partition and External Affairs here to-day, many of our people in the North, the very best of our people in the North, are whacking the big drums and swearing undying loyalty to the Empire at the present moment.

We have had talk here from time to time about co-operation between North and South. To-day the Leader of the Opposition spoke about the desirability of a meeting between representatives of both Governments and suggested that it was desirable that there should be a meeting between the Premier of the Six Counties and our Taoiseach, to discuss matters of importance to both parts of our divided territory. I shall not deal with this matter at any great length and I shall not reopen old sores but I will say that it is a bit late in the day for some people in this House to talk about that type of co-operation and to talk about meetings to be arranged on that level. If we cast our minds back and trace Irish history, we will find that provision was made in the 1920 Act—whether we disliked that 1920 Act or not—for that type of co-operation which the present Taoiseach is now asking from his opposite number across the Border.

Under the 1920 Act it was suggested that a council would be set up representative of people on both sides of the Border, that that council would discuss matters of the very greatest importance to our economy both North and South, that that council would deal with fisheries, transport and the rights of minorities. It would be most desirable that we should have some such council to-day to protect the rights of minorities. That right was there under the 1920 Act. What happened?

It is all very fine for Deputies, in this House and outside, to lay full blame on Britain for imposing Partition on this country. If Britain imposed Partition on this country, she got plenty of help from people in this House in order to have it nailed firmly on the country.

I do not wish to rake the ashes of the Treaty but I will say that Michael Collins, Arthur Griffith and all the other signatories to the Treaty never for one moment visualised that Partition would exist to-day. If they had, I am firmly convinced that the Treaty would never have been signed. I am convinced that when these men signed that Treaty they did so in the belief that when the Boundary Commission would be set up, as a result of the findings of that commission, within a short space of time Partition would have disappeared in Ireland. I do not believe for one moment that they could have been intimidated by anybody in Britain to sign that Treaty if they felt for one moment that Partition would be as permanent an establishment as it is in political life in Ireland.

The great tragedy, of course, lay in the fact that these men were not there to guide developments in Irish politics for a further period. Those great men died, men of lesser ability took their place and the tragedy can be seen in the boundary as it is to-day.

We cannot deny that Partition was imposed on this country but we should examine the records that are available with regard to what took place after that Treaty. The belief of Collins, Griffith and all the other patriots of that time was that when the Boundary Commission would be set up, as a result of their findings, at least two counties would opt back with the Twenty-Six, that portion of two others would do the same, that, on economic grounds alone, the remaining territory could not exist as a separate unit and that within the space of a few years the entire Six Counties would be back with the Twenty-Six.

What happened? We saw very little happening between 1921 and 1925, but in 1925 there was a very black page imposed on Irish politics. I do not intend to deal with it in any detail here to-day because I intend at a later stage to give the house an opportunity to discuss it in a longer debate. I will say that those Deputies who here, to-day and on other occasions, bewail the injustice of Partition must have very short memories indeed. They should remember that, although Britain imposed Partition, many of the Deputies of this House endorsed Partition and signed away, under the 1925 Agreement, for all time—in a legal fashion, at any rate—the Six Counties from this country.

If we are going to be serious and take practical steps about ending Partition we will have to undo one wrong, at any rate, to start the ball rolling. I believe that, in international law as it stands, if this question of Partition were debated before any legal assembly we could be confronted with records showing that, as far as we were concerned, we had endorsed Partition and had signed away these counties and that it was done in this House by a majority of about 70 Deputies to 18. I want to say that the present Opposition were absent from this House at that particular stage. I think it was illegal that the 1925 Boundary Agreement was ever allowed to go through —and the first thing that should be done here is to repudiate that 1925 Boundary Agreement.

Having done that, the next move should be the one suggested to-day both by Deputy Desmond and Deputy MacBride, and that is that, after that has been done, the doors of Dáil Éireann should be opened to the elected representatives of the North. There is no use in our talking about ending Partition if we are going to close the door here on our neighbours and prevent them from airing their views about conditions as they exist up there. I do not care who comes down here, whether it be Basil Brooke or anybody else: they are all welcome. It would be a grand think if Basil Brooke came down here even to criticise. At any rate, the first move lies with us. There is no use in asking the unfortunate people in the Six Counties to take all the steps necessary to reunite them with us.

I am mentioning all this because there are people outside this House who are looking for guidance and who want to see practical steps taken. There are people outside this House who dislike the idea of physical force but there are other people outside this House who do not put a tooth in it and who maintain that physical force is the only way by which that Border will go. If we are going to put an argument that will appeal to the public against that section, we shall have to show in this House that we are serious about ending Partition and that we are determined to take practical steps to do so. Even though there might be a great deal of trouble in the official sense and in the red tape sense as regards the rights of northern representatives if they came in here, they would be much less trouble than the trouble that is liable to take place if that is not done.

I appeal to this Government, as I appealed to them 12 months ago, to reconsider the application which was made to allow the Northern representatives to sit here. If they reconsider that application in a favourable fashion then it will save me and it will save this House the embarrassment of having to discuss at great length the problem I have already mentioned, namely, the repudiation of the 1925 Boundary Agreement.

Mr. A. Barry

I am intervening in this debate to make what I hope will be one of the shortest speeches I have ever made. I may say that I only enter this debate because of the Minister's forthright and courageous reference to Partition. Every one of us, I think, has been impressed by the progress that has been made in even the slight measure of co-operation that we have had with the people in the Six Counties. I would ask the Government to consider three questions which, if considered favourably, would, I think, resolve a lot of the piety of some of our speeches on Partition:—

(1) Would the Government consider the appointment of a trade commissioner in Belfast and ask the Northern Government to appoint one here?

(2) Would the Government consider a special preference for goods of Six County origin?

(3) Would the Government insist that our ships be built only in Belfast shipyards?

If affirmative answers could be given to these three questions, we would have moved a very long distance on the road which we all desire to travel.

Mr. Bartley

Like the last speaker, I intend to be brief in my remarks. I just want to deal with a matter to which Deputy Desmond has referred. The matter to which I wish to refer is much nearer home than any of the subjects which have been discussed. It is only, in fact, slightly external. The question was referred to very briefly by Deputy Desmond and it is the new delimitation of our territorial waters.

I am interested in the new delimitation of our territorial waters particularly from the point of view of the fisheries. I had, on a few occasions, questions to the Minister on the matter. It seemed to me that, on the last occasion on which I put a question to him, the Minister thought I was a little too insistent on the matter. If I did seem insistent it was because of the fact that before the change of Government, the fisheries end of the matter, so far as I could make out, had been adequately dealt with. All that the Department of External Affairs had requested them to do had been done, the main job being the drawing of a new map in the closest conformity possible with the decision which had been given in the case of Norway versus Britain—the arbitration on the Norwegian claim.

Deputy Desmond referred to the question of the extension of the three-mile limit. Four miles are allowed to Norway but I do not think there is any great merit in the number of miles unless you are able to do, in fact, what the Russians have done and go to 12. I do not think that is possible at all. Some country in South America has made a claim for 200 miles for whale fishing. However, the three-mile limit is the one commonly applied. The important thing about it, however, is not the number of miles but the base line from which you measure the miles.

I understand that the four miles for Norway has been conceded internationally for a very long time. The question that arose in Norway was also not the number of miles but the base lines. The one thing that has emerged from the hearing is that the British point of view about tangents connecting curves is now not necessarily the way you draw base lines and that, in fact, you can draw straight lines between all the points that are permanently over water or appear at low water. The main thing which I want to put before the Minister is not any one of these things.

There are a few things in relation to our case in the matter which I think it inadvisable to refer to now, but what I would ask the Minister is this, that in whatever negotiations he sets up— and these negotiations will have to be with Britain, in the first instance—the talks that took place between officials 25 or 26 years ago will not be the basis of the new talks, that anything that transpired then will now be discarded by our spokesmen and that the new talks will begin on the new basis created by the decision of the International Court of Justice in the case between Britain and Norway.

I do not think anybody in this House ought to encourage people to go out on the rampage about increasing the number of miles. That is a wild goose chase, in my opinion, and will not achieve anything. We know that, so far as Britain is concerned, she is not going to give us much trouble in the matter of fishery limits. It is quite another consideration that will be present to her mind and, in fact, some of our fishery limits, as drawn by Britain and as still recognised by Britain, even though she has left this country for the past 30 years, do overrun our territorial limits. That is the position along one stretch of the coast.

These talks which took place 25 years ago did not take place between Ministers and I hope the Minister will say that he will regard concessions which may have been made at that time as having been withdrawn, that our rights now rest on the principles of international law set up by the decision referred to and that we will claim our full rights under them. If we can protect the new area of water which I believe we will get under that decision anyway adequately, I believe that a very important step will have been taken towards extending the exclusive waters of Irish fishermen.

Mr. Cosgrave

I should like to say that I appreciate the manner in which the Estimate has been approached and, in particular, the suggestions made from all sides of the House concerning a number of matters. These suggestions I will have examined. The reference I made at the beginning to isolationism was in some way or other interpreted as conflicting with our determination to remain free from any military alliances, but this I think is difficult to follow in view of the specific wording of my original statement. I said, having referred to the fact that there was no conflict whatever between the pursuit of Irish unity and a policy of co-operation with peoples who, like ourselves, have a Christian and democratic way of life that a greater consciousness of our share in the common destiny of these peoples need not mean any abandonment of our claim to unity—for that we can never abandon. It is in reality the alternative—isolationism— which would mean the abandonment not perhaps of our formal claim to unity but of any hope whatever of achieving it.

So far as this Government is concerned, we are taking the view that we should play as full a part as is possible within our resources, either in European co-operation or in any world organisations of which we are members. I think Deputy de Valera considered that the remark I made in some way or other implied criticism of the policy of his Government. I have no doubt that a great number of people are familiar with one of the taunts which is levelled against this country by critics outside—that we tend to sit in a backwater and refuse to take our appropriate place in international affairs. Deputy de Valera himself remarked that we had over the years, both in the League of Nations from the time we were admitted in 1923 and in various subsidiary bodies under that organisation, as well as since, played whatever part we considered appropriate wherever possible.

The fact that we have representatives attending the Council of Europe and the O.E.E.C., which at present are the two main bodies of which we are members, is, I believe, a clear indication that we are prepared to play a part suited to our resources and our influence in world affairs. We endeavoured to become members of the U.N.O., and our application still stands, but, because of the use of the veto, we have so far been refused admission.

When people criticise the part Ireland is playing in world affairs, they might liken us to great powers and consider that we should play a greater part, or that we should attempt to adopt a rôle that we have not got the resources to carry out, or, alternatively, should adopt a rôle quite out of place for a small country. On the other hand, it may be that a number of these critics expressed that view because they want to criticise and refuse to acknowledge that we are playing a not insignificant part in a number of these organisations.

The only strictly political organisation we are members of is the Council of Europe—both the Consultative Assembly and the Committee of Ministers. We are a member of the O.E.E.C. which is mainly concerned with economic matters and we are members of various other technical bodies of one sort or another which fall to be dealt with by other Departments which are directly concerned, but, in all these bodies on many occasions, Irish representatives have played an appropriate part. In the case of the International Labour Organisation, we have played a part which is probably far greater than might be expected on the basis of our resources and our population, and, in the case of this body, the Director-General on one occasion was an Irishman, Mr. Phelan.

In various ways, therefore, it is obvious that we are playing as full a part as it is possible to play. At the same time, if we were to drift into any isolated position, we would weaken our effectiveness in these organisations and weaken our contacts with Western Europe, as well as with those countries with which we are associated who have a democratic way of life and who think along the same lines as we think.

While we are not indifferent to the outcome of the forthcoming talks or to the conflict of ideas which exists between East and West, we at the same time appreciate that it is not possible for a small country to go beyond what may be reasonably expected of a country situated such as we are and with our resources. As many Deputies have said here, this country has a great Christian heritage. Our people can exert great influence through the spiritual strength of missionaries both in Europe and elsewhere and it is through their work that it is possible to exert an influence beyond any material strength which we have. Nowadays, as Deputy MacBride mentioned, great powers decide—as indeed they always did—on the basis of strength, possibly more at the present time than ever before.

The significance of the power of nuclear weapons is borne in on us by statements similar to those which were made over the week-end by the scientists who expressed certain views. At the same time, it is appropriate that wherever possible we should indicate that while we regard material things as having a place we have, above all, a spiritual and a Christian heritage. We should endeavour, through our people abroad, to exert an influence on those who may be in a position to have an impact on affairs and guide world movement along lines which we consider are the right lines. I believe it is quite obvious that we are playing a reasonable part in world affairs and that we will continue to exert an influence on them wherever possible.

Deputy Desmond referred to the fact that we have a great number of embassies abroad and he felt that we were committed beyond our means and beyond our resources. It is not possible to say offhand that we should be represented in some place and not represented in some other place. He appeared to suggest that because we have representatives in the United States and in Canada and in some of the more powerful countries we are in some way detaching ourselves from Europe and are not adequately represented among the smaller nations. I think that with very few exceptions, we have a representative in every European country outside the Iron Curtain.

As the Leader of the Opposition mentioned, it might be possible to consider some arrangement whereby double accredition or joint representation would be possible. There are objections to that, because it entails two offices in any case and in some cases it means unnecessary travelling for the representative where he is a Minister or a Consul. Also, most foreign governments dislike the idea of double accredition. On the other hand, looking at the actual size of our trade or the strength of our Irish people in some of the smaller countries, we have, if anything, more representation in smaller European Countries than can be said to be the case in either Britain or America, where there are large numbers of people of Irish descent, where we have big trade interests and other interests as well.

Deputy Declan Costello and Deputy McQuillan raised the question of emigrants in Britain. This matter has been the subject of serious consideration over a long period. It is easy to suggest that we should take some steps to assist our people in Britain, but when you examine the matter it is not possible always to see what can be done. As the House is aware, we have an embassy in London and the Ambassador and his staff are at the disposal of the Irish people in Britain at all times, and they endeavour to assist wherever possible. There is such a large Irish population in Britain at the moment—there are over 750,000 Irish-born people there—that it is not easy to see how assistance can be given effectively, while keeping the cost within reasonable limits. It has never been the practice to assist directly people who are in poor circumstances, those who have become destitute in any country where there is a large Irish population—in America or Britain. It is true that we provide assistance for people found destitute in European countries where we have not a large Irish population.

This is a difficult problem; in many respects, it is a social problem and in other respects probably even more a moral problem. I know that I express the views of people on all sides of the House when I say that we appreciate very sincerely the co-operation which has been taking place over recent months and which has resulted in a pastoral by the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster as well as the pastoral last Sunday by the Irish Hierarchy. I believe that that co-operation between the two Hierarchies will go a considerable way towards easing the problems and providing enlightenment for Irish people who go to Britain, both as to the things to be avoided as well as where help and assistance and succour may be found. Without very careful consideration of the other aspects involved, it would not be possible to take the steps which were suggested by Deputy Costello and Deputy McQuillan.

Deputy Desmond and Deputy Bartley raised the question of territorial waters. That matter has been under consideration for a considerable time, but it is not one which can be settled easily. While discussions have taken place, there is no territorial limit agreed all round between different countries. Some countries, by virtue of ancient rights or ancient claims, have wider territorial limits. So far as most countries are concerned, the three mile limit is still the maximum. It is true that there has been an alteration in the basis of measurement, but because of the complexities of the problem— because of the fact that in some cases, to adopt what has been generally agreed to as the new method of measurement would involve a reduced limit while in others it would secure an extension—the Government decided that it was better to wait until the international court had decided on a number of matters at present engaging its attention before coming to a decision.

There have been widely conflicting claims by a number of countries. Some are claiming not only a three, four, five or six mile limit, but a 12 mile limit, while others are claiming what is described as the sea shelf. We felt that, with all these complexities in the situation, it would be as well to await a decision by the International Court, at the same time realising that whatever decision is taken the important thing from our point of view and that of our fishermen is to see that we make the limits which are adopted effective. So far as most of our fishermen along the west coast or in the north in Donegal or in the south around Kerry and Cork are concerned the principal problem is to see that the existing fishery limit is adequately protected so as to meet their needs. Therefore, we did not feel it desirable to exert a claim which it might not be possible to sustain on the one hand or, if made, to provide at the same time adequate protection for the fishermen. Consequently, we thought it better to wait until the International Court had reported, and then to consider the matter in the light of its decision.

Vote put and agreed to.