I think that every Deputy in the House who may be inclined to criticise some of the expenditure on this Department must realise that no other Estimate presents such an easy target for uninformed or for perverse criticism as this does. The amount of money intended to be spent is set down definitely. It is definite and there can be no gainsaying the figures. The national advantages to be gained from the expenditure are, on the other hand, quite indefinite. They are not tangible except for the benefits that accrue to trade. It is one of the functions of the Department and of its representatives abroad to have an eye generally to the advantage that can be gained for the country in any respect, not merely in culture but in trade. If tourism can be advanced it is the duty of our representatives abroad to keep an eye to that also.
However, even the advantages that accrue from activities in these particular directions are not such that one can put one's finger upon them and say: "That advantage is clearly worth the expenditure of so much money." I have had in the past to defend expenditure in that Department and I have found myself with the difficulty that, while the expenditure was clear and definite, the advantages were far from being so definite.
However, when expenditure has reached the very serious figure, between Votes 58 and 59, of practically £560,000 for the year, the time for serious consideration has arrived. Our entry into U.N.O. has meant, this year, the provision altogether of a sum of £116,000 odd additional to the expenditure that would have to be met if we were not members. That is a serious addition. I think I am right in that figure; there is £78,000 in Vote 59 and £38,500 in Vote 58, making a total of £116,600. There may be some other items but the least sum is £116,000. That is a serious addition to the expenditure on External Affairs.
I think we ought to see whether we could not offset in some way, by economies in other directions in the Department, that increased expenditure. I am one who approves of the action of the Government in continuing the situation which we created, when we were the Government, by applying for entry to U.N.O. I think it was desirable in the national interest that we should be in that organisation and that, being in it, we should meet the obligations which membership entails. Therefore, I take it this expenditure has to be met.
We ought to do our best to see that every penny that is spent is spent wisely but we must not lose the ship for the ½d. worth of tar in the matter. The attitude that I took in the years before the war was this: I saw the expenditure in the Department rising until we were at the £90,000 a year figure, including the expenditure our membership of the League of Nations entailed. It looked then as if it would not be long until we had reached the £100,000 per year figure. That was before the war. We had not reached that figure actually by the time the war started but I did think, even then, that we should not of course have representatives in each one of 50 or 60 countries in the world community. Seeing that we could not have representatives in all these countries, we should, I think, adopt a selective principle; we should choose the countries where it was obvious to everybody we should be represented, and that we should not starve our representations there from giving us the full benefit of their activities.
It was clear that such a selection should be at the highest level; that we should first of all be represented at the Vatican, that we should be represented in the United States, that we should be represented in Britain and, perhaps, in France which is the door, by air to Europe in general. The suggestion was that we should be represented in these places at ambassadorial level but that, in regard to representation in other countries, we should be very careful not to begin until we were quite satisfied that these were, I might say, essential.
As a small country we cannot have all we desire; just as the private individual with limited means, we must allow our desires to be unsatisfied where it is not feasible to satisfy them. I think I mentioned that we should be represented in Britain, seeing that our trade with Britain is so great. There are, of course, other reasons for our being represented in Britain as well. In 1947-48, the expenditure figure, I think, had reached £153,000 for the Department of External Affairs for the year. It is now £560,000. I believe that after the 1947-48 period there was a period of indiscriminate expansion. Be that as it may, the time has now come to consider again what we can do. Having established representation in countries. abroad, it is a very difficult thing to withdraw that representation. Consequently, care should be taken before we start. I had hoped that, now being represented at Strasbourg which, in a sense, was intended to be a sort of European capital, it would be possible for the Minister to get into conversation with some of the other small countries. Other small countries have the same financial difficulties in these matters as we have. I had hoped that the Minister would see whether it were not possible to make Strasbourg a general representation clearing house for Europe so that representation in some of the other smaller countries could be managed mainly through Strasbourg. Strasbourg, after all, is in a very central situation and I think it should be possible for the small countries to come together and see if they could not reduce expenditure by working through Strasbourg.
I made that suggestion last year. No proposal for limiting expenditure can be made without having certain disadvantages associated with it, but the time has come, I think, in which we should consider very seriously this question of economising or limiting expenditure in certain directions in the Department of External Affairs so as to compensate for the increased expenditure which will arise now by reason of our membership of U.N.O.
We are now members of U.N.O. and members of the Council of Europe. I do not know whether any attempt was made to see whether some arrangement could be made with some of the smaller countries in order that expenditure might be diminished by working through Strasbourg.
There is another matter which naturally occurs to one if one does any fundamental thinking on this matter. The whole system of representation in the capitals of various foreign countries arose at a time when communications were extremely difficult. Now we have the radio, the telephone, the airplane and so on and the question arises whether representation in these countries is absolutely essential. I know a case could be made for quite a number of countries in which we are not represented but, even as regards Paris, if we were driven to it and found that the amount of money we had to provide for External Affairs was too great, we might even have to think of Strasbourg as covering France. However, I would regard that as a very extreme step because France at the present time is really the air door to Europe as far as we are concerned. I do not know whether the Government considered the Strasbourg suggestion. The Minister did not refer to it; he has possibly looked into the matter and found that it was not feasible from our point of view or that these other countries were not willing to co-operate and co-operation by other countries would be necessary.
In regard to U.N.O. itself I thought at first that it would be possible to combine representation at U.N.O. with the ambassadorial position in Washington. I do not know if there would be any objection taken by the United States to, that. There might be. In any case, having given it considerable thought, I came to the conclusion that it would not be wise to try to combine the two positions. America is in a very special position in our regard and as long as the seat of U.N.O. is in the United States it is desirable that we should have at the seat of U.N.O. a representative who will be able to give his whole attention to it. Our ambassador in Washington, because it is the United States, where there are so many of our people with whom we have contacts of various kinds, has also a full time job. If we were cutting down, I do not think we should cut down by trying to combine the two offices although, as I say, that is one of the thoughts that would first strike anybody who has a passing acquaintance with the problem and is looking for economies.
I did come to the conclusion that when we were members of U.N.O. we ought to play our part there and take full advantage of our position and that if we want to concentrate on doing that, we would require to have a whole time representative there. In passing, I would like to support what was said by Deputy Aiken yesterday and say that I do not think a more efficient person could have been chosen than the representative who has been chosen by the Government, a very able officer who has already experience both of the United States and the League of Nations elsewhere. Therefore I do not think we should look for any economy by trying to combine the ambassadorship in the United States with the permanent representation at U.N.O.
There is perhaps only one other suggestion I can make for cutting down expenditure. As most Deputies in the House are aware, we in the Fianna Fáil Party were opposed to the News Agency when it was started. When we succeeded the other Government we felt, however, that since it had been started it should get a chance and that we should not be or appear to be in any way against that agency because we bad opposed its establishment. It was started against our advice but the desire of the Minister and of our Government at the time was that it should be given every chance to prove its usefulness. I must say that I was always sceptical about its value. I know an ordinary news bulletin coming from External Affairs would be useful but I was always doubtful in my own mind. Whilst I assented to the idea of giving it an opportunity of proving itself I am not satisfied even now that that agency, now costing £35,000 a year, is in our circumstances value for the money. Perhaps the Government might hold quite a different opinion but the fact that a different opinion is held does not as far as I am concerned matter. What I mean is that I am quite prepared to think that there would be a view taken which would be different from my own but after all, once we get over the half million figure it becomes very serious.
Every Estimate has increased on account of the diminution in the purchasing value of the monetary unit but taking the average to-day the number of units required for a particular service, the purchase of a certain quantity of goods, for example, the consumer price index has not gone up since 1938 much more than two-and-a-half times. I am quite willing to admit that in the case of External Affairs, we must consider how the monetary unit, the £ sterling, stands in relation to other currencies, particularly the dollar, because it has been devalued in relation to the dollar. Therefore, if you were taking a proportionate increase, you would have to take more than two-and-a-half times for External Affairs. If things were only at the same level as before the war, you would have to multiply the expenditure by about three times, let us say.
As I have said, the expenditure has gone up since 1948 from £153,000 to £560,000 estimated—that is, from there 50,000s to 11 50,000s. My argument about the two-and-a-half and the three applies rather to the 1938 figures. The appropriate figures for 1948 and the figures just given should be one-and-one-third, not two-and-a-half. The cost of living figure is now 134—134,43 I think—and that is slightly more than one and-the-one-third. I would be willing even to take the factor 2, double the 1948 figure. It was then £153,000. It was that figure of £153,000 that we were beginning to be anxious about; the corresponding figure to-day would be, let us say, £300,000 or £350,000, but it is now £560,000.
While then, as I have admitted, there is no Estimate which can lend itself so readily as a target for uninformed or perverse criticism, I think the time has come when we shall have to consider whether there are not definite economies which we can secure. First of all, we ought to set our face against further expansion unless we can see some very definite and immediate tangible result from such expansion. In addition, we should consider some of the suggestions which have been made, such as combining representation at Strasbourg or getting rid of the News Agency. It is all right to have the News Agency for the purpose of compiling a departmental bulletin; that is an entirely different matter.
On the question of the possibility of combining representation abroad to an even greater extent than is done at present, there are, I think, possibilities there. In relation to external trade, we want to expand our exports. From that point of view there is no doubt but that permanent consuls would be more valuable than honorary consuls, if we could afford them. I have always been of the opinion, however, that we have not utilised the honorary consuls to the fullest extent possible.
We are thoroughly conversant with the position in so far as the U.N.O. is concerned and we are not against our entry into that organisation. Nevertheless, I think it would have been desirable that we should have had a general discussion on the obligations and the advantages inherent in our membership of that organisation. When the Taoiseach announced that we had been accepted as members of the United Nations, he pointed out that I had indicated what the advantages and disadvantages were likely to be, what our obligations and duties would be, what we would hope to gain and the fact that I had proposed to the Dáil that we should apply for membership. He indicated that successive Governments had not seen fit to alter that decision. That is true, but I am anxious that the members of the present Dáil should be fully alive to the obligations involved and that, through discussion here, the country at large would be equally alive to those obligations.
Now, membership of such an organisation is a splendid thing so long as one thinks only of what one has to gain. Difficulty arises only when one has to fulfil one's obligations. We could easily find ourselves again in the position in which we found ourselves as a Government in relation to the League of Nations. I am glad that the Minister has said that we accept our obligations and we intend to live up to our obligations. There would be no sense in entering into such an international organisation unless we were prepared to do that. It is essential, however, that the people's minds should be conditioned to a proper realisation of what these obligations involve.
When we were accepted as members of U.N.O. the Taoiseach pointed out that our obligations as members would not be so onerous as might appear at first sight. Certain interpretations had been made which rendered our obligations less onerous than they might reasonably have been expected to be at the time when we first applied for membership. It is well that all these things should be discussed and this is the first opportunity we have had for such discussion. Indeed, I think there might be a little more discussion on this Estimate in that direction than we have had so far.
With regard to the policy of the Department, we are fortunate in the fact that there is no serious fundamental difference between the members of this House, irrespective of Party, in relation to policy generally as outlined by the Minister. If the policy outlined is implemented, there is not much with which we can find serious fault. The Minister is perfectly right in maintaining his independence.
Deputy Aiken seemed to think that there was a commitment in advance in certain directions and that it would not be possible to preserve an open mind when certain decisions came to be taken. I hope an open mind will be preserved. The only way in which we can play our part effectively in such an international organisation is by being determined that we will deal with each question on its just merits and will not become members of this bloc or that bloc. We must be prepared on each occasion, as each issue comes up, to vote, or decide, in accordance with our own outlook upon life, our own conscience, our own outlook upon international affairs and our own interests in so far as our interests may be directly concerned. To do anything else would be a very, very serious mistake.
We were able to play quite an effective part in the League of Nations in the past, and it must be remembered that membership of a world organisation, such as U.N.O., is much more valuable for us than membership of the more narrowly constituted Council of Europe. We were not able to play a generally effective part in the Council of Europe. For instance, when the question of a United States of Europe, with a federal constitution and so forth, arose, I felt we would be very unwise to enter into such a federation because our representation was so small it was inevitable that it would be practically ignored. Indeed, some of the issues that affected us most deeply were in fact ignored at the Council of Europe. We did not, so to speak, fit in. Our position in the League of Nations was quite different and I am certain it will be quite different, too, in U.N.O. In U.N.O. there will be a large number of small States, and States that are not so small, too, which will be inclined to work in a direction which we would regard as wise both from a national and an international point of view. I believe that, given a choice of membership of the Council of Europe or membership of U.N.O., we can although Europeans play a vastly more important part in U.N.O., than we could in the Council of Europe.
