Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 4 Jul 1956

Vol. 159 No. 2

Committee on Finance. - Vote 58—External Affairs (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:—

That a sum not exceeding £286,290 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, 1957, 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.

Mr. D. Costello

I think it will be agreed that the Minister was correct last night in saying that our entry into the U.N.O. would be welcomed by all right-thinking Irishmen. I regard Ireland's entry into the U.N.O. as marking one of the important milestones in the progress of our external affairs. It is very easy and perhaps natural to be critical and disillusioned of the work which that organisation has done in the ten odd years or so since its inception. It is, of course, easy to feel disillusioned at the failure of the realisation of many of the objects, at the length of the debates and the ineffectiveness of a great deal of its work. In spite of all that, we must appreciate that the U.N.O. has had successes, some of which indeed have been spectacular. It has had a remarkable success in respect of the crisis in Korea. It was action by the United Nations which had settled a situation there which had threatened to break world peace. It has had a more recent success, for example, in the Middle East in bringing about a relaxation of the position in that area. That was to a large extent the outcome of the visit paid by the Secretary-General to the Middle East.

Other organisations connected with U.N.O., like U.N.E.S.C.O., the International Children's Fund and many other organisations, have had, if not spectacular results, at any rate real success in alleviating many problems throughout the world. I make these points in order to underline the need for propaganda in this country on behalf of the U.N.O. I would like the Minister to use the information services at his disposal to bring home to our people the work that is being done by the United Nations, so that it can be understood by the people and so that a better public opinion can be created in the work which we have to do in the U.N.O.

The Minister when speaking yesterday gave what I thought the country wanted, namely, an indication of the heads of policy which our representatives would adopt in the deliberations in New York. It is, of course, impossible to bind our delegates on decisions and actions to be taken in very fluid situations and we can only at this stage give a general outline of the purposes which will dictate our actions. The Minister put this policy under three heads. I do not think anybody can disagree with the first, namely that we would try to see that the objects and aims of the charter are upheld at all times and that countries trying to evade the charter and trying to carry out their international arrangements despite the charter, or in defiance of it, will find that Ireland's assistance will be on the side of achieving the objects of the U.N.O.

The Minister also stated that in the second aim of policy we would endeavour to maintain our independence of action in the U.N.O. and on each question that emerges there. I think that is a very laudable objective. The Minister did say, however, that he would not join in any regional groups or blocs that are formed in the international organisations, such as the U.N.O. I do not want now to question the wisdom of that decision but I want to find out whether it should be a rigid one. I have no experience of the work in the U.N.O. but I have a little experience of the work in the Council of Europe.

It seems to me that certain valuable information could be got out of attending meetings of delegates from other countries. It is important that we should maintain our independence but I do not think that attending meetings of Western European groups of countries and discussing the problems that arise in the Assembly would in any way bind us to supporting the decisions of those groups. I think we could get a lot of useful information by attending these meetings with other countries and, as well, we could give assistance to the groups we meet in our discussions. I would not like to see any definite rigid rule made binding our delegates not to attend regional meetings with regional groups.

In the third head of policy, all right-thinking people will agree with what the Minister has said. The Minister, as I understood him, said that our work in the U.N.O. and our vote in U.N.O. should be directed towards supporting our Christian civilisation. I think that that is abundantly clear. That is what we should be doing there. A necessary corollary to that decision and objective was drawn by the Minister last night when he said that we should support the free countries of the world, the western bloc in its endeavours to stop the spread of world Communism. I do not think that there is anything inconsistent in that aim and the second aim clearly maintains our freedom of independence. I think our freedom of movement depends largely on the support that we can give to the western powers in the U.N.O.

As I understood Deputy Aiken last night, he was critical of the Minister on this point and referred to the fact that there were sins committed by nonCommunist countries just as by Communist countries. I think everybody will agree with that. There is not the slightest doubt that the Great Powers of the West have been guilty of actions with which we do not agree or which would not commend our support. But it is wrong to say that because Britain, for example, carries out a certain policy in Cyprus, we should not assist the western powers such as Great Britain and the United States and the lesser powers in Europe in the fight against Communism. This world struggle at the present time is not a struggle between Montagues and Capulets in which we could say "a curse on both your houses."

It is a struggle in which the right is not completely on one side or the wrong completely on the other. It is a struggle in which the scales are well balanced on one side as far as we are concerned and in which our best interests, our culture and our national existence depend on the strength of the western world. We must endeavour to see, by our support and influence in U.N.O., that the western world is assisted.

I do not think it is realistic to use the yardstick which Deputy Aiken mentioned yesterday of judging countries by their attitude to our own problem. We are suffering from the grievous injustice that our country is partitioned against the will of the vast majority of our people and we want to try to get that injustice remedied. I think it is unreal to think that we are going to have the nations of the world flock to our support and it is quite unreal to say that, if they do not come to our support, we will not give them assistance in U.N.O.

The facts are, I think, quite clear. It will take a lot of hard and laborious work on our part to bring home to the nations of Western Europe that they must try to assist us in our endeavour to remedy the wrong of Partition. We cannot remain aloof from supporting them while trying to do that work. In the Council of Europe, at its last session, the question of Cyprus came up. The Greek Government had a very good case to make and it was extraordinary to see what little active support they had for their case, though there was a great deal of underlying sympathy with them from other western powers. It is politics, and international politics, and that is something we have to accept, even if we do not like it. If we are going to judge other countries by their attitude to Partition in this country, we might find ourselves taking sides with the Russians, because, if we can judge by what the British Communist Party says by propaganda through the Connolly clubs, the Russians seem to think that the ending of Partition is a good stick with which to beat Great Britain. I repeat that I do not think that should be the yardstick of our approach to other countries.

We must approach other countries in the U.N.O. on the basis of their general desire for peace and on the basis of their political régimes and of the philosophies which govern their régimes. We must approach them on their respect for the liberty of the person and freedom of religion, and on this basis we can have no doubt as to the group in U.N.O. to which our support should be given.

We must be realistic about U.N.O. It would be foolish to pretend that Ireland will be able to stop world wars, but we hope to be able to help in the struggle to stop local wars, and our voice and vote and influence, if properly used in U.N.O., can assist in bringing about that peaceful condition for which everybody in a troubled world hopes.

The Minister yesterday referred to the work of the Council of Europe. The first thing I want to say is that it does seem to me to be a very appropriate moment to try to give a new impetus to that work. There can be no doubt that the importance and influence of the Council of Europe has declined in recent years and there can be no doubt that the rosy hopes expressed on its foundation have not been anything like realised. There are probably various explanations for that but to my mind the failure of the E.D.C. treaties and their ratification was the turning point in the future of the council, and, to my mind, the failure in securing ratification of these treaties had a considerable influence on the 50 Deputies in the French Assembly who did not vote for them. The failure of Great Britain to give an assurance to the Organisation of Western European Union that she would maintain two divisions permanently in Western Europe affected that decision, even though the assurances were given some time later.

There is no doubt that the importance of the Council of Europe has declined and a reflection of that was a statement by the Minister yesterday that during the year there had only been three meetings of the Committee of Ministers. It does seem to me that, with the present position in world affairs and with the change in the Russian attitude, it is of vital importance that the work of the Council of Europe should be given a new impetus. In the present situation, with the likelihood of Popular Front Governments developing in certain European countries, it is necessary that an impetus be given to the Council of Europe in an endeavour to counteract that tendency and to assist in the fight against Communism.

At the present time, the organisation of N.A.T.O. are searching around for alternatives and it seems to me that the solution is to be found in the Council of Europe. I would ask the Minister to press for more frequent meetings of the Committee of Ministers. The Council of Europe, as Deputies know, is controlled by the Committee of Ministers and the Consultative Assembly is merely a consultative body, with no powers. If Ministers meet only three times per annum and the Deputies meet only nine times in the year, that is not sufficient for a live organisation which the Council of Europe should be. I therefore suggest to the Minister that he should press on his colleagues on the Committee of Ministers the importance of meeting more frequently and of making the Council of Europe a place in Europe where European matters can be discussed.

Another matter of importance arising from the work of the Council of Ministers to which I should like to refer is the question of the release of prisoners held behind the Iron Curtain. We all know that hundreds of thousands of people are held behind the Iron Curtain and are in forced labour camps. In that respect, a good deal of work has been done by the Council of Europe and recently I had an opportunity of meeting representatives of refugee organisations in Germany. They all stated that it was a direct result of the pressure and propaganda, through the Council of Europe and through the Governments associated with it, that many prisoners were released. They were convinced that, if the Council of Europe could give more action in this matter, there would be much better results, and that many more people would be released from these prisons. I would ask the Minister to take that matter up with the Committee of Ministers.

There is one other matter in regard to the Council of Europe to which I want to refer, that is, the question of briefing representatives who go there. I know that the official position is that representatives of the Council of Europe are representatives of Parliament and have no official backing. Be that as it may, there is still no reason why the resources of the Department should not be put at the services of the representatives, if they require them. The Minister's advisers should be prepared to brief the representatives on the work that is to be done at different times. That would be a great help to the representatives.

Deputies who have been at the Council of Europe know how inundated they are with the amount of information and documentation from the council itself. It is very hard, indeed, to know and be informed as to what are the important things and what are the issues to be raised. Our permanent representative in Strasbourg should now be in a position to know these things and to advise the Department. I would ask the Minister to assist Deputies in this regard.

The Minister's remarks on Partition were welcomed and accepted by Deputy Aiken. It is good to see the House unanimous on the approach which we should take in order to ease the differences between the two parts of the country. There is one matter, however, with regard to the Six Counties which I should like to refer to, that is the position of the Nationalist Party in the Six Counties. It is regrettable that the Opposition was, at best, lukewarm about the All-Party Committee that was set up some years ago and which now no longer functions. It seems to me that the Nationalist Party in Northern Ireland requires support, both material and moral, from the South. That support could best come from an All-Party Committee. If the All-Party Committee were re-established, we could assist greatly the constitutional Parties in the North by providing speakers, material and propaganda for them and, above all, by giving them our moral support, which they greatly need, in order to help them in very difficult times.

The last matter to which I want to refer to-day is the question which I raised last year, that is, the question of our emigrants in Britain. The recent census statistics were appalling and demonstrated the tremendous number of our Irish nationals who have now gone to live in England. As a nation, or as a State, we have a duty to these people, even though they have left the country. I believe that the vast majority of them left the country because we have not been able to provide the economic conditions which would enable them to remain at home, and we have a duty to them now even though they are beyond our reach. The consular service in London does a great deal of work in assisting them, but I do not think it is enough. I would like to see Irish centres set up by the Department in the principal cities such as London, Birmingham, and Liverpool which would provide advisory services, such as assistance as regards lodgings, work and conditions in Great Britain.

A number of people, some years ago, set up such a centre which got very good support in Birmingham. This group of people made it quite clear that, in the initial stages, the amount involved would not be very considerable and, after a period of time, such a centre could become self-supporting. I do not think the cost of setting up these centres would be prohibitive and, in view of our duty to our emigrants to assist them in the sometimes difficult circumstances in which they find themselves, I do not think our people would object to paying whatever money is necessary to fulfil that duty.

Mr. Boland

I want to say a very few words about the Council of Europe. I have been there for quite a long time and the one great impression I have brought from it is that most of the western powers represented there are still behaving as if there had been no change in the world. They are still endeavouring to continue the exploitation of Asia and Africa. A small nation like ourselves has the advantage that we can point out to these people that, for their own sakes, they should stop this business and that if they continue to act as they have been acting— bombing Arab villages because they have not paid a collective fine imposed on them, as the British have done—it will not do them any good. They have been acting as if they were back in the time of Lord Palmerston and both the British and French are behaving as if Africa were still a draw farm for Europe.

That is simply playing into the hands of the Communist powers, and if these people do not behave themselves, they will find themselves without the assistance of either Africa or Asia which they could have, for the asking, at the moment. They are acting very foolishly and we have been pointing that out to them. I have noticed the Danes, another small nation like ourselves, pointing out that this thing will have to stop, if these people do not want to play into the hands of the Communist powers. These people in Western Europe have been exploiting the people of Africa for centuries. Western Europe has been enriched by the loot extracted from Africa, both by Britain and other countries of Western Europe. That has got to stop.

These people have become conscious of their own rights and small people, like ourselves, are able to point out to the larger countries that they have got to stop this career of exploitation. It may not be well received from us, but we have got the right to say that in the Council of Europe. I contend that the people of countries like ours will always have a common meeting ground on questions like that. When it comes to the exploitation of other peoples, our voices will always be raised against it.

I mentioned this matter to a British representative on the Council of Europe. I asked him why the British persisted in this attitude of exploitation. He said he was a member of the Labour Party and that he did not know, but he told me to ask some of the other members. They did not know, either. I told them that, unless they changed their tactics and ceased to exploit the countries they are still exploiting, they would turn the scales against themselves. That is the big menace now before the world, and our representatives, when they go to the U.N.O., should bear that in mind. For the purpose of saving our western civilisation, these people have got to face the facts of the situation and not behave as if they were back in the time of Lord Palmerston, when a barrel of powder, or a charge of grapeshot, would settle all matters.

If these people continue to act like that, they will have the whole of Africa and Asia against the Western States. That is the big menace that I see. I want our representatives to be able to put that point of view before the Council of Europe and to warn these people that they are running the danger of putting the whole of Africa and Asia against them, unless they mend their ways.

Mr. McQuillan

The two main points dealt with in the Minister's opening statement were our admission to the United Nations and the part that we intend to play in that body, and, secondly, the problem of Partition. I regret very much that I found his statement to be most unrealistic. I feel that the brief the Minister brought into this House could have been prepared, in part at any rate, by the British Foreign Office. As regards the remainder of it, dealing with the situation in Europe and in Russia, I believe his statement was only trotting after the Skibbereen Eagle. I think his breathtaking pronouncements on the changes that have taken place in the Kremlin and the conditions which existed in Russia must have caused consternation to the gentlemen in authority there at the moment. The Minister proceeded in his opening remarks to warn us all about the changes that have taken place in the Kremlin and pointed out that we must be eternally vigilant if we are to maintain our Christian way of life.

I do not know exactly what the Minister proposes to do about that. I think he is not being realistic or straightforward in this House when he makes such a statement and when criticism is levelled at these people because, at the same time, we are prepared to send high level deputations to meet representatives behind the Iron Curtain. I understand that, in a very short space of time, Bord na Móna and other public bodies here are to send deputations to Russia to study economic matters there. We cannot have it both ways. If we are to benefit from the experience that the Russian engineers have gained in the utilisation of peat and so forth, why must we criticise the people in charge of that country?

Having dealt a body blow to the Russian administration, the Minister proceeded to roam the Middle East and North Africa. Here I felt the brief the Minister read out was identical with the briefs prepared for Sir Anthony Eden on the problems that face the British Government in the Middle East and North Africa. Having dealt with North Africa and the Middle East, the Minister went on to say: "These problems are under examination by my Department." What exactly does that mean? Is it an oil interest that is worrying Ireland in the Middle East? Have we got colonies in North Africa about which we are worried? I want to congratulate Deputy Boland on his remarks in regard to certain aspects of the treatment meted out to the unfortunate natives in Africa and in the Middle East at the present time by the colonial powers, be they Britain, France or any other country. It is for that reason I say that the Minister's opening speech was completely unrealistic.

As far as areas like North Africa and Cyprus are concerned, I have heard nothing so far from the Government or from the Minister for External Affairs deploring the treatment meted out to members of religious communities in Cyprus and the leaders of the Church there, be it the Greek Orthodox Church or any other Church. No criticism and no protest was made by this State or by the Minister's Department. Yet 12 months or two years ago, we were flooding the world with protests about the treatment meted out to bishops behind the Iron Curtain. Why could we not adopt that same attitude towards the treatment meted out to the bishops who are not behind the Iron Curtain? Is it because we are so closely associated with Great Britain that we are afraid to tread on her toes? Is it because we are afraid to pull the lion's tail that we are afraid to make a protest about the scandalous and horrifying manner in which human beings in Cyprus and North Africa are being treated at the present time? Because it does not take place behind the Iron Curtain, we have not the courage of our convictions and we do not condemn it. If we are to be realistic in external affairs and have the respect of the small nations of the world, we should offer our criticisms equally of all nations, no matter on what side of the Iron Curtain they are, that do not give a fair deal to the ordinary human being.

The Minister dealt with our entry into the U.N.O. I am glad that Ireland has been accepted as a member of that organisation and I am glad for one main reason. I believe that we should utilise our position as a member of that organisation to try and secure the reunification of our country through the means at our disposal in this organisation. The Minister for External Affairs and the Taoiseach have pointed out that we would let no opportunity pass on which we could raise the problem of Partition. That is most gratifying. I hope that the Taoiseach and the Minister for External Affairs really mean that. It is very hard, of course, when you are dealing with legal people, men who are able to interpret and twist words that for the normal people have only one meaning. We find that the Taoiseach himself has stated that we are not going to be a nuisance in the U.N.O.—that we are not to raise Partition at every opportunity.

I think that the financial implications in regard to our commitments in the U.N.O. are pretty heavy. Therefore, I do not think we should be sending representatives, whether they are on a permanent basis or otherwise, to the U.N.O. just for the sake of listening to the other nations protesting about their problems. The Minister went on to state that, in our position as a member of the U.N.O., we would stay clear of all blocs. I presume that to mean we will pursue a completely independent course in that body, but again I find myself rather suspicious of that statement of the Minister that we will stay clear of all blocs, because he tempers that statement very shortly afterwards by saying we belong to the great community of states made up of the U.S., Canada and Western Europe. He said our national destiny was bound up with theirs. He said our aim should be to strengthen the influence of this group in the U.N.O.

Having first stated that we were to stay clear of all blocs, he proceeded, in that paragraph, to tie us in with what he described as the nations of Western Europe. I note he leaves out Great Britain; he says: "The U.S., Canada and Western Europe." Why not be frank and say that, as far as we are concerned, Western Europe also includes Great Britain? If our aim in the U.N.O. is to strengthen the influence of this group, is it not plain that our aim also is to strengthen the influence of the British Government in the U.N.O.? Does that mean that our efforts will be to strengthen Britain's influence when she takes strong and remedial measures against those people who do not want to accept her rule?

All this question of Western Europe and the situation there is cloaked over with the beautiful idea that Christianity is in danger from the menace behind the Iron Curtain, Communism. I think if we are realistic and look at the state of France and of Italy to-day we will find that the danger of Communism is coming from this side of the Iron Curtain as well. If we look at Italy we will find that the Communist and semi-Communist or Socialist Party—the two Parties combined in Italy—have gained an influence and sway even at the local elections. It was very lucky that there was not a Communist Mayor appointed in Rome recently.

The situation has changed in Western Europe. The pronouncements of the French Government in recent months have shown that they are realistic, that they are not satisfied with domination by either the U.S. or Great Britain on matters of foreign policy. I think we should be realistic too, and that when the Minister says we will not tie ourselves to any bloc, he means what those words say.

Next week, we will have a distinguished visitor coming to Ireland, the leader of the Indian nation. I think there is significance in the fact that he is coming here; I think the leader of the Indian nation would like to discuss with Ireland's leaders what our attitude will be in the U.N.O. I think he is the only foreign leader ever given the privilege of coming on the floor of this House; the Dáil thought so much of him as a leader in India that he was brought in and given the privilege of sitting in this House. India and Ireland are closely associated in the particular aspirations involved in their efforts to get freedom from Britain. India has pursued a courageous path in spite of the pressure brought to bear on her by both the Communistic and capitalist states in recent years.

She has decided India comes first and she is prepared to deal with each aspect of future events according as it will benefit India as a nation. I think it would be hard for us to find a wiser line to take than that taken by India— that is, to stay clear of all blocs. It is all very fine to talk about principles in international affairs. There are no such things as principles in international politics to-day, and as far as Ireland is concerned, our aim should be to ensure that while we are a member of the U.N.O. we will not allow ourselves to be used or soiled by association with nations who are just concerned with keeping what they have or with trying to keep down other unfortunate nations.

In the course of his remarks, the Minister dealt with the problem of Partition. I am not going to deal with it in any detail now. The Minister's speech was the same as every other speech made here during the last 15 years; there was no hope of solution for the problem. To my mind, no real attempt is being made to solve Partition. Even on this question of economic co-operation, we have not even been alert enough to take the initiative on the question of the use of atomic energy. I believe that when the offer came to Ireland that we would get the benefit from America of atomic energy for peaceful purposes, we should have straightway asked the Six County Government to co-operate with us on that. We should not have waited to discuss the problems at this end. The initiative on all matters of co-operation should come from this House, from this side of the Border. If the Northern Government refuse to meet us and reciprocate, there is very little we can do about it. But at least we should make the gesture of friendship and co-operation. There is very little hope of its coming from some of the gentlemen in the North.

The only aspect of Partition that I should like to mention here now is that dealing with a legal aspect. I should like the Minister to deal with this aspect when he is replying. We are now about to take our place as a member of the U.N.O. Our main object should be to expose the evils of Partition and try to seek support for the reunification of our country. Our representatives in the organisation will have very strong legal grounds, apart from the strong moral grounds, on which to lay their case for the solution of Partition. Our representatives will be dealing with the most highly skilled legal men in the world. We must have our legal position clarified when we take our place in the U.N.O.

Mr. S. Flanagan

It was clarified in 1925 by Cumann na nGaedheal.

Mr. McQuillan

That brings me to the 1925 Boundary Agreement.

Mr. S. Flanagan

That is what did it.

Mr. McQuillan

I am speaking now completely as a layman with no legal training. During the past three years, I have spent most of my spare time reading and studying the situation that led up to the signing of the 1925 Boundary Agreement. I am dealing with the situation as I find it. The 1925 Boundary Agreement came about as a result of the 1920 Act. Until that agreement was passed there was no such recognised legal territory as the Six Counties as constituted to-day. It was in 1925 that this House coldly and calmly signed an agreement with the British Government handing over for all time their rights to the Six Counties as such.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy seems to be going into detail on the question of Partition.

Mr. McQuillan

The question of Partition arises on External Affairs.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair agrees, but the details into which the Deputy is going are not relevant.

Mr. McQuillan

I have no intention of going into the matter in detail. It would take hours and I am merely skimming the verges of it. When the Unionist Party representatives in the Six Counties go to an international meeting they ask our representatives or the representatives of foreign countries why the Irish representatives are moaning about Partition when they actually signed over the Six Counties themselves for all time. I have not touched on the moral and the national issue at all. There is no doubt with regard to the justice of our claim but before we go to talk in the U.N.O. with these highly skilled legal people, it behoves us here at this stage to ensure that there will be no loopholes for these legal men to shoot down or to delay the hearing of our case.

Will the Minister for External Affairs tell us what measures were taken by any Government here since 1925 to repudiate the 1925 Boundary Agreement which handed over the Six Counties? What Act was passed in this House to repudiate that Agreement? If no such Act of repudiation was passed in this House would the Minister say if it is necessary or desirable that this House would formally take a decision repudiating the 1925 Boundary Agreement?

Mr. S. Flanagan

The Constitution did that.

Mr. McQuillan

Deputy Flanagan is a legal man but, with all due respect to him, I do not think I would take his legal opinion as being final on this very grave issue. Deputy Flanagan knows perfectly well that there are legal men in the North who are as well trained and as skilled in their profession as the most highly trained legal men we have here. There are legal men in Britain who take the view that no repudiation of the 1925 Boundary Agreement was made just as legal men in the Six Counties take that view. A clearer and more honest way of dealing with the position would be if we passed a simple, one-line Bill in this House before we took our seat in the U.N., stating that Dáil Éireann formally repudiates the 1925 Boundary Agreement.

Before I conclude, I would like still to urge on the Taoiseach and the Government to give further serious consideration to the admission of the Six-County representatives. I have no time whatever for irresponsible raids in the Six Counties. I have no time whatever for certain individuals in this State who have not the guts to produce an economic and social policy in conjunction with their alleged military policy. It is regrettable that so many fine young Irishmen are being misled by these mysterious gentlemen in the background, but from now on more and more of the youth of to-day will be attracted into such organisations. It is very hard to criticise them because there is no alternative being offered to them by this House. There is no attempt being made to solve the problem of Partition by constitutional means. It is no good saying: "Have patience. It will come in time." That is no answer to the young men of the present and future generations, especially when it comes from men of the older generations who were prepared to sacrifice their lives in order to ensure the freedom of this State. That is why I would urge on the Government the desirability of reconsidering their decision on this matter of allowing the Six-County representatives to take their rightful place in this House.

The only other point I want to deal with is as to what exactly are the functions of the Department of External Affairs in regard to foreign trade, and so on. As far as I can see, at the present moment, the Department of External Affairs is constituted on the same lines as the Foreign Office and we are trying to keep up with the Joneses on this question of standing in international societies, cultural and educational activities, and so forth. That is all very desirable but there is a great deal of tightening up in finance: There is a shortage of money here for capital development purposes. There is a shortage of money for the expansion of industrial projects. We have even reached a stage that in regard to the E.S.B. and Bord na Móna, two of our most important industrial concerns, the money available for their expansion is very limited. In fact the situation with regard to both of these State bodies will be critical within the next 12 months as far as the labour supply is concerned.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.