Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 2 Jul 1959

Vol. 176 No. 4

Committee on Finance. - Vote 59—External Affairs.

Aire Gnothaí Eachtracha (Proinsias Mac Aogáin)

Tairgim:—

Go ndeonfar suim nach mo ná £284,840 chun slánaithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an mhuirir a thiocfadh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31ú lá de Mhárta, 1960, chun Tuarastal agus Costas Oifig an Aire Gnóthaí Eachtracha agus Seirbhísí áirithe atá faoi riaradh na hOifige sin (Uimh. 16 de 1924), lena n-áirítear Deontas-i-gCabhair.

Le cead an Cheann Comhairie, tá fúm an Meastachán le haghaidh Gnóthaí Eachtracha agus an Meastachán le haghaidh Comhar Idirnáisiúnta a thógaint le chéile mar a rinneadh blianta eile.

I gcás na nGnothái Eachtracha, is é atá sa Mheastachán £427,240. Sin méadú glan de £13,390 ar mheastachán na bliana anuraidh. Is le haghaidh na nithe seo a leanas a mheastar an bhreis a bheith riachtanach: (1) tuarastail, pá agus liúntais do na hoifigigh atá ag fónamh sa cheancheathrú; (2) teileagraim, teileafóin agus postas sa cheanncheathrú; (3) costais taistil ár n-ionadaithe thar lear; agus (4) comhar cultúir le tíortha eile (deontas-i-gcabhair). Mar neodrú go pointe áirithe ar an gcostas breise seo tá le háireamh gur mó de £3,049 an tsuim a luaitear faoin fho-mhírcheann leithris i gcabhair; go bhfuil laghduithe beaga déanta ar na suimeanna a thugann an tír seo mar ranníoc do chomhluchtaí dlíthiúla Idir-Rialtais, agus ar an gcaiteachas i ndáil tuarastal, pá agus liúntas dár gcuid oifigeach thar lear agus i ndáil postais, páigéireachais, teileagram agus teileafón ár n-ionadaithe thar lear.

Tá breis agus ceithre mhile punt de mhéadú sa mheastachán le haghaidh tuarastal, pá agus liúntas sa cheann-cheathrú. Is é is cuis leis sin an méadú tuarastail a tugadh don Státseirbhís anuraidh agus an gnáth-bhreisiú i dtuarastal bliantúil na n-oifigeach bunaithe.

Is deacair an caiteachas ar theileagraim, teileafón agus postas sa cheann-cheathrú a mheas go cruinn mar ní ionann i gcónaí an glaoch ar na seirbhísí seo. Tá méadaithe ar an meastachán i mbliana, ach tá sin bunaithe ar an ráta caiteachais a bhí ann dáiríre anuraidh.

Tá méadú cuíosach mór—méadú £7,000—sa mheastachán le haghaidh costas taistil ár n-ionadaithe thar lear. Is é is bun leis sin gur dócha gur mó a bheidh oifigigh á n-aistriú agus á gcur in ath-ionad agus ag teacht abhaile ar saoire ná mar a bhí anuraidh.

£7,000 an deontas-i-gcabhair le haghaidh Comhar Cultúir i mbliana. Méadú é sin a thugann sásamh mór dom féin, agus a thabharfaidh sásamh do na Teachtaí freisin, tá mé cinnte. Ar feadh a bhfad de bhlianta £10,000 a bhíodh sa deontas-i-gcabhair seo ach de dheasca an crua-chás airgeadais a tharla ann trí bhliain ó shin laghdaíodh é go dtí £2,000 nó beagán thairis. Chuir sin srian linn sna himeachtaí a bhféadfaimís aghaidh a thabhairt orthu agus chros sé ar fad orainn imeachtaí eile a mb'fhéadfadh toradh maith a bheith orthu. Tig linn bheith bródúil as go leor dá bhfuil déanta san iomad gné dár saol cultúrtha, agus ar mhaithe lenár ndeachlú thar lear ba chóir a chur in iúl i dtíortha eile go bhfuil an dul-ar-aghaidh sin déanta. Mar sin is maith ann an méadú faoin fhomhírcheann seo i mbliana. Máidir leis an gcaoi a gcaitear an deontas-i-gcabhair, tá comhairle an Choiste um Chomhar Cultúrtha ar fáil dom agus sin cúnamh ó dhaoine a bhfuil aitheantas bainte amach acu ina raon saothair féin. Is maith liom an deis a bheith agam anois chun buíochas a ghabháil le chuile duine a d'oibrigh chomb fiúntach sin ar an gCoiste blianta eile agus aithním freisin go bhfuil Coiste an lae inniu chomb fial céanna ag tabhairt toradh a gcuid ama agus eolais don Stát.

Is é an cúiteamh is mó atá le lua i gcoinne na breise sa mheastachán ná an t-airgead breise sa leithreas-i-gcabhair. Is é is bun leis sin gur cheadaigh an tAire Airgeadais le déannaí fáltais bheaga éagsula a áirití go n-úige seo mar Fháltais Bhreise Státchiste a áireamh feasta mar chuid den leithreas-i-gcabhair.

Máidir leis an Meastachán le haghaidh Comhar Idirnáisiúnta (Vóta 60), ta an méid, £63,670, le haghaidh ranníocaí do Chomhairle na hEorpa, don Eagras um Chomhar Eacnamaíochta san Eoraip agus do na Náisiúin Aontaithe; agus le haghaidh costa eile a bhaineann leis sin. Is é an Meastachán iomlán £95,470. Sin laghdú glan de £2,500 ón mbliain anuraidh.

Tá laghdú de £1,500 déanta ar rannioc na tire seo le haghaidh costas Chomhairle na hEorpa i leith na bliana seo ach is airde na costais taistil, de £1,200. Rinneadh diluacháil ar an fhranc Francach mi Nollag seo caite. Tagann as sin gur fearr dúinne an ráta iomlaoide atá i bhfeidhm anois agus is lúide an rannioc atáimid a dhéanamh. Is de réir céatadáin seasta nó cuiosach seasta de Cháinaisnéis na Comhairle a riomhtar amach an rannioc sin. Maidir leis an mbreisiú sa mheastachán le haghaidh costas taistil, is rud riachtanach é mar gheall ar chruinnithe breise ag Coisti den Chomhairle Chomhairlitheach agus méadú ar na rátai liúntais chothabhála.

Fé mar a tharla laghdú sa rannioc le haghaidh Comhairle na hEorpa is lú freisin an rannioc don Eagras um Chomhar Eacnamaiochta san Eoraip. Is é meid an laghdaithe sin dhá mhile is céad punt agus is é is cuis leis gur fábharai dúinn anois an ráta iomlaoide i leith frainc na Fraince.

Tá méadú áfach ar na figiúirí i leith taistil agus mion-chostas faoin mircheann seo. £1,150 an bhreis i leith taistil. £280 an bhreis i leith mion-chostas. Ar an airgead a iocfar faoi na fo-mhircheanna seo áiritear caiteachas i leith na n-oifigeach as gach Roinn a dhéanann freastal ar chruinnithe an Eagrais um Chomhar Eacnamiochta san Eoraip agus tá an meastachán bunaithe ar an méid a cheaptar a theastóidh ó na Ranna sin go léir i mbliana.

Maidir leis na hiocaiochtai i leith na Náisiún Aontaithe tá laghdú £2,000 ar an rannioc do Eagras na Náisiún Aontaithe i gcompráid leis an mbliain seo caite. Is é a caitheadh anuraidh £28,650. An tsuim atá luaite an turas seo, chítear dúinn gur gaire i dáirire don rannioc a bheidh le déanamh i mbliana. Tá na mireanna a bhaineann le taisteal agus mionchostais méadaithe de £3,000 agus £150 faoi seach. Tá an meastachán sin bunaithe ar ráta caiteachais na bliana anuraidh móide foráil le haghaidh siosón speisialta den Ard-thionól a fhéadfadh a bheith ann. Ní dhearnadh aon fhoráil mar sin cheana. Tá laghdú de £1,150 sa ranníoc le haghaidh Coiste Leanaí na Náisiún Aontaithe ach ina choinne sin tugadh £1,670 do chiste na dTeitheadh, rud nar tugadh cheana. Sin fo-mhircheann C.7. D'fhonn cabhrú le hArd Choimisinéir na dTeitheach chun deireadh a chur leis na campaí san Eoraip, mar atá beartaithe aige, gheallamar cúig míle punt don chiste sin, agus é a íoc i dtráthchodanna comhionanna i rith trí bhliain.

Iarradh orainn tuilleadh airgid a thabhairt le haghaidh Beartas Chúnaimh Teicniúil na Náisiún Aontaithe agus shocraíomar go méadófaíann ranníoc go dtí £5,000, an tsuim a íoctaí cheana. Laghdaíodh de £5,500 an ranníoc le haghaidh Fórsa Éigeandála na Náisiún Aontaithe, ach bhí sé sin de réir laghdú a bheartaigh na Naisiúin Aontaithe féin sa chaiteachas ar an bhfórsa sin. Ar deireadh ansin tá mír nua de £1,000, curtha leis an Meastachán le haghaidh ranníoc do Ghníomhaireacht Faoisimh agus Oibreacha na Náisiún Aontaithe. Cuid de ghnó na Gníomhaireachta seo cabhrú leis an lucht teithe sa Neas-Oirthear agus iad a athbhunú más féidir. Sin ceann de na fadhbanna is déine atá le réiteach agus ba faoiseamh agus laghdú achrainn don chuid sin den domhan é dá bhféadfaí e réiteach lenár linn.

The events of the past twelve months have done little to relieve anxiety about the present international situation. They have indeed repeated the now familiar pattern of successive crises which only stop short of provoking wide-spread armed conflict, with all its attendant dangers for mankind.

During 1958 we saw, in particular, the development of extremely dangerous situations in the Middle East and in the Far East. Our part in regard to such world problems was to make the best contribution we could to consideration of the issues involved as they arose at the United Nations. In some cases we put forward suggestions of our own aimed at relaxation of international tension, which is the first condition of progress towards a just and stable peace.

As Deputies are aware, the Middle East crisis of last summer, which culminated in American and British landings in Lebanon and Jordan, led to a Special Emergency Session of the United Nations General Assembly in August. The course of events is so recent in our memories that I need hardly recall them now. I should comment, however, that the outcome of the Session was very much more successful than appeared possible when it was summoned. The General Assembly agreed unanimously on a solution, which was supported and indeed suggested by all the Arab countries including those whose differences in regard to the basic issues at stake had been fundamental to the crisis. It was encouraging to see the countries of the area concerned coming together in this fashion to devise a solution for local problems. It was also very encouraging to see the growing realisation by the Great Powers, as demonstrated by the evolution of these events, of the wisdom of restraint in dealing with the affairs of smaller nations.

In my address to the Assembly last August I endeavoured to stress this aspect of the general Middle Eastern situation, urging that establishment of the principle of neutrality for the whole region would be a contribution to peace in the area and in the world generally and that it would create a psychological atmosphere favourable to negotiations for peace in other critical areas. The theme of my remarks was that the Assembly should work to establish the outline of a general settlement in the Middle East, including a reduction of the Arab-Israeli antagonism. I supported the imaginative proposal of President Eisenhower who took the exceptional course of addressing the session for the establishment of a Middle East Economic Agency on the lines of the O.E.E.C. And I suggested in particular that the Arab refugees problem was the greatest single obstacle to lasting peace in the area and that the United Nations should be ready to make extraordinary efforts to break the deadlock on this issue.

It seemed to me that the greatest hope of a solution lay in guaranteeing full compensation to the refugees by the United Nations. The refugees, I said, were entitled to look for compensation to the organisation which some years earlier had taken decisions so vitally affecting them, not as charity but as a matter of justice. The Irish delegate on the Assembly's Special Political Committee developed this suggestion during the debate on the Palestine Refugees question in the Assembly's Thirteenth regular Session which commenced in September last. While the idea has not yet won the necessary measure of support, I believe that it has made some impression on the general thinking on the problem. We must hope that through this or other means arrangements will be evolved to ensure the peaceful and prosperous development of the Middle Eastern area which is still menaced by very serious tensions.

In the context of these Middle Eastern troubles, it is fitting that I should pay a tribute to the part played by the Irish officers who served in the United Nations Observation Group in Lebanon. Their work was a credit to their country and a fine example of the contribution which a small nation can make to the preservation of peace. In the words of Mr. Hammarskjold, the Irish officers "served well the cause of the United Nations."

A wide range of world problems was dealt with by the Assembly's Thirteenth Session. The Irish delegates took their due part in the deliberations of the various Committees. The printed records of the Session are deposited in the Library as they become available and the interventions made by Irish delegates in the various debates were reported in the newspapers of the time. I do not think it necessary therefore to enter into an exhaustive review of the Session's activities.

I should, however, refer to the election of our Permanent Representative at the United Nations to the Chairmanship of the important Trusteeship Committee. This was a significant mark of Ireland's standing in the organisation and, above all, a striking recognition of the personal qualities of the official concerned. It was particularly fitting, I think, that the guidance of the Trusteeship Committee's proceedings should have been entrusted to a representative of Ireland. The Committee's work during the Session concerned in a very direct way the problems attending the evolution towards independence of former colonies and dependencies, the problems, principally, of the great African continent emerging from a long period under European rule and beginning to assert its considerable potential in world affairs. The Committee's Chairman was indeed to say at the end of the Session that the labours of the Committee had been important enough to justify the Session's being known as the "African Assembly."

I should like also to mention briefly the Assembly Resolution calling for the institution of a World Refugee Year. Deputies will be aware that perhaps the greatest humanitarian problem confronting the world to-day is that of the several million people who, through no fault of their own, are refugees from their native countries, driven from their homes, not only by the last great war, but by continuing local conflicts.

It is to meet this problem that the United Nations decided to launch this particular appeal. It is, humanly speaking, of vital importance that the final resettlement and rehabilitation of these people, so long delayed, should now be accomplished as soon as possible, if they are to be saved from apathy and despair. It is the purpose of the World Refugee Year, to call on all citizens, each according to his means, to remember these unfortunate homeless, and to offer all the help they can, so that by the end of 1960 this immense work of Christian charity may be successfully achieved.

As I have already informed the House, the Government have promised £6,000 to the United Nations effort and have further requested the Irish Red Cross to undertake the organisation of Ireland's private contribution to the Year. We know that the Irish Red Cross, with its magnificent tradition of service to humanity, is particularly suited to this task, and we are confident that the Irish people will respond worthily, and that all our charitable bodies and institutions will co-operate with the Society in this effort to the fullest extent.

I now come to what was, from the point of view of the Irish Delegation, the principal feature of the 1958 Session of the United Nations. Our main effort was concentrated upon drawing attention to the dangers involved for peace in the wider dissemination of nuclear weapons. This was the central theme of my address in the Assembly's General Debate and we took steps to develop it further during the First Committee's disarmament debate.

Our initiative on the matter in the United Nations was two-fold, consisting, firstly, of a statement of the problem as we saw it and a concrete suggestion as to a solution and, secondly, of the tabling of a draft resolution designed as a first step towards that solution.

I suggested that the conclusion of an international agreement, by which the present nuclear Powers would remain the sole possessors of such weapons, was an urgent necessity for world peace. I expressed the view that the nuclear stalemate now preserving world peace would cease to apply once nuclear weapons began to come into the possession of smaller countries. A general war could, I argued, result from the use of these weapons by a small State or revolutionary group.

The solution I put forward was that there should be general agreement that no State outside the present Nuclear Club should manufacture or otherwise obtain nuclear weapons. The two elements in this agreement would be an undertaking by the nuclear Powers not to supply such weapons to any other country, and a renunciation of the weapons by all other countries.

My discussions with other delegates showed that there was considerable support for the proposal. In the First Committee, therefore—and this was the second aspect of our initiative in the matter—I tabled a draft resolution asking for recognition of the dangers involved in wider dissemination of the weapons and proposing the establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee to study the matter.

At the conclusion of the debate, the paragraph recognising the dangers involved in the spread of nuclear weapons was voted on separately at our request and was adopted by 37 votes to none, with 44 abstentions. The favourable votes spanned many of the voting blocs in the Assembly. They were a measure of the anxiety felt by a considerable number of countries on this issue and it was particularly gratifying that no country voted against the principle propounded. As I did not wish to press the particular method suggested for dealing with the acknowledged danger, that is, the establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee, I then withdrew the resolution as a whole. It had by that stage of the debate become clear that the Disarmament Commission was about to be reconstituted and I suggested that it should deal with the nuclear restriction question as one of its first items.

We learnt subsequently—and the Australian and Norwegian delegates explained their votes in this sense in the Committee—that many of the delegations that had abstained in the vote on the paragraph in question, did so only because they did not favour the idea of setting up the Ad Hoc Committee. I felt, too, that many Governments had not had time to study the matter and instruct their delegations in the interval between our tabling the resolution and its consideration in the First Committee.

For reasons quite unconnected with our proposals, the Disarmament Commission has not met since the conclusion of the Session. However, the necessity of restricting the spread of nuclear weapons throughout the world has been receiving some attention in the Press and elsewhere. I have been considering how best to pursue the matter at the approaching Fourteenth Session of the General Assembly and I recently requested that the item be entered on the agenda of that Session. Copies of the memorandum which accompanied the request, in accordance with the usual practice in such cases, will be found in the Library.

There is, of course, another current international problem, that of the discontinuance of tests of nuclear weapons, which has a direct bearing on the question of restricting the spread of those weapons. The three-power Conference on nuclear weapons tests has been meeting in Geneva since last October and we must hope that the progress it has already made will not finally be nullified by unresolved disagreement on the points still at issue. Let us hope and pray that the series of conferences being held in Geneva may crack the ice of the cold war and open the way to true peace based on law and justice and the rights of all nations great and small.

I do not propose in these introductory remarks to enter further into a review of the events of the past year although I shall naturally be happy to try to answer any questions Deputies may raise. It would not be fitting, however, that I conclude this statement without a brief reference to the visit which the former President made in March to the U.S.A. It was a high honour for this country that our President should have been invited by the President of the United States to be his official guest. I, who had the privilege of accompanying the President on this historic visit, can testify to the warmth of the reception accorded to him everywhere he went and by everyone he met from President Eisenhower down. And I can also endorse at first hand all that has been written and said about the superb manner in which President Ó Ceallaigh represented our country and the overwhelming success of the visit.

Mr. Cosgrave

I move:—

That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration.

I have always held the view that cooperation is essential among nations if we are to bring about a world order in which freedom and justice will be the basis of international relations. It is therefore important that our policy and attitude should be guided by our own traditions, our history and our culture, which reflect a strong Christian outlook. It is important, too, not to minimise the influence of this country and equally vital not to exaggerate it.

Any action we take should strengthen the power and influence of the free world because any action which weakens that situation is bad and detrimental to the welfare of humanity as a whole. We have laid it down as part of our policy that we would observe the terms of the Charter and that, as well as observing the terms of the Charter ourselves, we would pursue the aims of securing acceptance of the terms of the Charter, however difficult that might be at times, because we recognised that adopting a constructive and independent rôle would reflect not only our traditions and outlook but that, as a result, we would gain in prestige and influence.

I should like, therefore, to join in expressing appreciation of the work which the Irish officers did as part of the special United Nations' Force in the Lebanon. They brought credit on themselves and credit on this country. If, as I say, we adopt this position of independence, we shall gain respect and serve our own interests as well as the welfare of the world as a whole. Difficult questions will inevitably arise, questions on which this country may have to express an opinion or be obliged to vote should a specific matter be put before the Assembly. It is obvious that when such questions occur this country may have to take a decision one way or the other. Some of these decisions might indeed involve us in conflict with some who have been old friends. If such happens, it would indeed be regrettable but it might be unavoidable.

These circumstances are, however, different from what would occur if we took action ourselves and which would result in disquiet in a country or countries which have traditional ties of friendship with Ireland. That is why I believe our attitude on the admission of Red China was a mistake. This country should not take the initiative in a matter which involves us in avoidable conflict with friendly nations and in adopting an attitude alien to our traditions. If the matter came before the Assembly because of its insertion on the agenda we could not prevent its being discussed, but taking a lead on the question is quite a different approach.

It has been said that because national Parliaments discuss questions which at times may be embarrassing to the Government of the day, the same rule should apply at the United Nations. There is, however, a vital difference between the United Nations and the deliberations of our Parliament or, for that matter, of the Parliament of any other Member State or country. The spotlight of world-wide publicity is on the deliberations of the United Nations and the mere expression of an opinion may be interpreted as the foreign policy of the country concerned. The same cannot be said of a debate in the Dáil where the repercussions are unlikely to secure the same publicity, and in any event such a debate could not be interpreted in the same way as an opinion expressed in the United Nations.

The election of the permanent representative of this country to the Chairmanship of the Trustee Committee was a tribute to the qualities which we on all sides in this country know he possesses. The efficient manner in which the deliberations of that committee were carried out under his chairmanship is, in itself, a testimony to his capacity in guiding their deliberations during the last session. I understand on other occasions the committee overran their allotted time-span, and on this occasion for the first time their deliberations were concluded a day or two earlier than was anticipated. The fact that it was possible to achieve that result must, in itself, reflect credit on the manner in which our representative performed his duties.

The part which small countries can play and the role which this country is peculiarly fitted to play have been referred to on many occasions. Quite recently, when the former Premier of Iran spoke here reference was made to the unique opportunity which Ireland has of playing a role which not only reflects our own traditions but also enables us to act as a leading influence in guiding some other countries who have lately secured freedom. Many of those countries have secured liberty more recently than we have. Quite a number of countries in Asia have in the past drawn inspiration from our struggle for freedom. They regard this country as being uncommitted and as being a country devoted to the ideals of peace based on justice, and a country which, because of our long struggle for religious and political freedom, is peculiarly fitted to play a constructive and a useful role in the United Nations. We, therefore, have a responsibility to see not merely that our attitudes and policies reflect our own traditions, but that we measure up to the high standards which these countries expect from us and that we measure up to our responsibilities as I believe we can, as in our own domestic affairs, we have shown our capacity to work a democratic system.

In considering this Estimate, it is essential, I believe, that we should dwell on the importance of having an agreed national policy for the reunification of the country. On many occasions in the past, differences of opinion on this vital matter have prevented progress from being made, or have impeded efforts which were being made to secure advances on the national front. I have always held the view that the policy to be adopted on this question must be decided by the Government, who are responsible to the Dáil, and through the Dáil to the people. While people may express impatience or dissatisfaction with what has been accomplished, the responsibility for deciding national policy can only be given to the Government and Parliament.

It is vital, therefore, that all public opinion should be harnessed towards securing agreement on the national objective of reuniting the country. The fact that up to the present progress has not been sufficiently fast, or that at times it would appear as though no progress at all were being made, is no justification for the attitude of those who say that the Government and Parliament are doing nothing about securing the unification of the country or that they are doing nothing to promote that objective. Anything which promotes better understanding and brings a clearer appreciation to bear on the problems common to both parts of the country, and of the importance, from the point of view of the country as a whole, of having a single Parliament responsible to all sections of the people and promotes, however slowly and however imperceptibly, the reunification of the country, is to be commended.

The measures which have been taken by various Governments since the establishment of the State give no justification for the attitude adopted by people who refuse to recognise the authority and the sovereign character of the Dáil and of the Parliament established here. What we can do to hasten the end of Partition is a matter for decision by the majority of the people. We must calmly and carefully analyse the problems and difficulties and we must apply ourselves to the task of thinking out clearly how they can be removed or minimised. It is, therefore, vital from the national point of view that a great deal of the loose thinking on this matter and a great deal of the talk and the catchcries which in the past may have been emotionally satisfying, should now be shown to be without any real foundation. The problem, however large or however difficult it may be, is to secure from all sections in this part of the country the recognition that responsibility for achieving unity must be tackled on a national basis and that that national responsibility for guiding policy devolves on whatever Government are in office, the Government, in turn, looking for support from the Dáil and the various other organs of the State.

I should like to get from the Minister some idea as to what is happening in the Free Trade Area negotiations. As I understand it, the attitude of the Government is that we are endeavouring to secure an arrangement which will be acceptable to 17 member nations of the O.E.E.C. and that we are not greatly interested in the particular attitude which may be adopted by any of the smaller groupings. To that end, we have endeavoured to direct our energies towards securing the acceptance by the member States of an agreement on as wide a basis as possible. There will be no objection, I think, to that attitude. While it is the ultimate objective, however, very energetic efforts by different groupings—both the six and the seven —are being made. What we fear may occur is that, in our desire to secure an acceptable arrangement on as wide a basis as possible, we may lose sight of the importance of making a satisfactory bilateral trade arrangement with Britain.

I do not want to stress unduly the importance of this matter, but there is now general recognition of the traditional policy of this Party that our trading with Britain is vital to our economy and that it is, therefore, essential to improve these trading arrangements whenever possible. There is a danger that, because of the preoccupation with a European Free Trade Area and the lengthy discussions in regard to it, we may be lulled into a state where, because of our efforts to achieve agreement on as wide a basis as possible, we may neglect to safeguard our own vital interests by not improving our existing trading arrangements with Britain. The fact that a country from which we have had keen competition in the past— Denmark—has recently concluded an agreement on its own is important from our point of view and is a pointer indicating that we should bend all our energies towards endeavouring to improve our existing trade arrangements with Britain and, if necessary, to conclude a fresh agreement.

In connection with our trading agreements with Continental countries, I have expressed the view before that most of these agreements have been in existence now for a number of years. Some of them were made by the present Government. Others were entered into by the previous Government. A number have been renewed or re-negotiated as occasion warranted. In almost every case, we have a heavy adverse balance with these countries. It is time, therefore, to scrutinise these agreements carefully and exhaustively to see what changes are desirable and to consider what action can be taken to improve, if possible, trading balances with these countries.

On many occasions our traders, exporting abroad, find that administrative and other difficulties are placed in their way. While representations may secure the elimination of these discriminatory practices, or may modify the attitude adopted, we must remember that most of our exporters are small individual business concerns. The trader concerned has not available to him an elaborate organisation. If he is faced with administrative difficulties, or obstacles of some other nature, he may lose heart and may not pursue the matter further. It is important from our point of view that we should examine carefully the entire situation. These agreements have been in operation now for anything from ten years down. We have had adequate time and experience in which to observe their working in practice and to see what difficulties exist.

The Minister referred to the increased sum made available this year for cultural relations. I should be glad if he would tell us, when he comes to reply, who are the present members of the Cultural Relations Committee and when they were appointed.

I understand we have now no permanent delegate at Strasbourg. I was urged on many occasions to appoint a permanent delegate there. On one occasion the somewhat impracticable suggestion was made that our delegate there could represent us in a number of European countries. I understand the present position is that we send out a delegate when occasion warrants. We have ceased to have a permanent delegate there for some time. I should be glad to know why the person appointed is no longer there permanently. I should also be glad to know what change, if any, has taken place in the form of the work being done by the Council of Europe.

Before concluding, I should like to express the satisfaction we all feel at the appointment of the new Nuncio to this country, Archbishop Ribieri. He was here many years ago. He has many friends in the country who recognise his great personal qualities as well as his devotion to, and interest in, the welfare of Ireland and the Irish people.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

This is becoming one of our most important Estimates. Events which take place in the world, no matter where, must now have significance for Ireland, even though as a nation we represent a small section of the European community, as a whole, and of the world at large. I welcome the fact that the Minister saw fit this year to give us a statement—a somewhat limited one admittedly—on foreign affairs as a whole. I regret that he made no reference to the free trade negotiations which are taking place. Perhaps he refrained out of deference to his Leader. Perhaps his Leader will make an extensive statement to this House in the course of this debate. I sincerely hope he will.

In his statement on international relations, the Minister confined his remarks principally to the Near East and to the suggestions he had made at the United Nations in reference to nuclear warfare. I do not think anybody would take exception to any suggestions he has made with reference to the support he gave to President Eisenhower in the Near East or, possibly, in his own resolution that he introduced at the United Nations in reference to nuclear warfare.

The Minister said that by 37 votes to none his resolution went through the United Nations, but that there were 44 abstentions. I should like to know from the Minister, when he is replying, if the 37 who were in agreement with his resolution comprised members of the so-called Iron Curtain group and, if they did, and if they were supporting his resolution by word or implication or in any way, if they gave any sort of guarantee that they would live up to the letter and law of the resolution, because I think the world is getting rather tired of empty statements made by this dictatorial and Communist group to the effect that they will support peace plans and anything that will restrict nuclear armament or rearmament as a whole.

I should like the Minister to tell us also who the major abstentionists were and who the major group were who voted for his resolution. It is probably true to say that nuclear armament would be confined to the bigger nations, that is, the nations who are actively concerned with it at the moment. Its extension to smaller countries is restricted in that such nations have not the financial resources to do anything in that line.

The Near East raises the problem that European colonialism as we knew it in the past is moving along. It will no longer be the force that it was or remain as it has existed heretofore. It seems to me that the line of argument we should take is that those countries that are under-developed and that are achieving their own national Governments, such as we achieved, and that are being allowed from now on to conduct their own affairs, are in an extremely fluid position. They constitute what one might call the third force existing in the world to-day. There are the giants of the free world, and thank God for their existence. Thank God, that they are there to preserve for us the freedom that we cherish so much.

There is the group on the other side of the Iron Curtain who, in spite of their mealy-mouthed platitudes, have but one aim in life, that is, to enslave and victimise the world and to root out the foundations that we hold sacred, the Christian foundations on which our civilisation is based. Then there is this third force that is becoming a new group in the world, a force that have not much for which to thank Europe except as far as Europe gave them the foundation of some form of culture. In so far as we can influence the councils of other nations, our attitude should be that the free world should as far as possible give all the energy, resources, know-how, technical skill and financial aid at their disposal to enable these countries to build themselves up. That is the only way by which we shall win back these countries to our side, to enable us to maintain our freedom against the unpleasant force that exists in the world to-day. In its contributions, Ireland should stress that idea with all the force she can command.

In my travels abroad I have noticed that, although we are not a powerful nation and do not seek to conquer anyone or to force our opinions on anyone, our advice is often accepted because we are regarded as a nation with an old tradition in its fight for freedom. We are regarded as being fundamentally the most Christian nation in the world. We are regarded as being on the perimeter of other nations so that we look at things detachedly and, therefore, have a clearer vision than would be the case of a country which might be directly concerned. For that reason the office of Minister for External Affairs is one of the most important in the State at the present time.

Before I leave that question, I should like to say that I do think that the attitude the Minister adopted some time ago in reference to the vote on Red China was unfortunate. I like to be fair to the Minister. I believe that what he actually voted for was misconstrued. I should like to put this point of view to the Minister, for his direction in future. The communist persecution of the Christian Faith has changed in the last couple of years. It was found that direct persecution of Christianity and the prevention of religious services created resistance to the atheistic movement. A far more sinister attitude was then adopted. An effort was made to create confusion within the ranks of the Christian churches and to establish a communist-inspired national church.

The greatest effort has been made in China. Priests and bishops were cut off from their authority. Confusion and discord were created. It was impossible for people in jail and under house arrest to know what was going on. Therefore, I would suggest to the Minister that he should be careful in his utterances in future. He may be sure that whatever he said in support of the case of Red China was allowed to filter through to those people who were fighting a lone battle, cut off from their authority, and that it was represented to them that Ireland, the country that, perhaps, has given more blood, tears and sacrifices to uphold our principles, was in some way sympathetic towards Red China. That may not be true.

As I said at the beginning, I want to be fair to the Minister but I want to put that point of view to him. If he speaks on behalf of Ireland and if he gives any inch at all to that band of thugs—I can call them nothing else— they will misconstrue what he says and he will bring sorrow into the hearts of our faithful missionaries who are bringing Christianity to many parts of the world. I shall pass from that now.

The Minister for External Affairs is the Minister who makes our trade agreements. Many of us who live in maritime counties and constituencies are considerably concerned with regard to our territorial limits. I have endeavoured by Parliamentary Question and by speeches on other Estimates, on which I have been ruled out of order, to convey to the Government that conditions in regard to our territorial waters are in an extremely unsatisfactory state—as far as we are concerned, anyway, on the South-East coast of Ireland and I believe it to be the same in other parts of the country as well.

I have tried to stress the point that I feel that unless we take action to extend our territorial waters we shall ruin the industry dependent on them. That state of affairs has become far more acute in the last couple of years than heretofore. The Minister states he is introducing legislation to amend the base lines. I should like to put it to the Minister that that does not really affect the issue one way or the other. It only means that the marauding trawlers or foreign trawlers will be pushed out a matter of a quarter of a mile, in the majority of instances.

We have these rich influxes of fish off the Wexford and Waterford coasts. all down there. We have had the greatest armada hanging about there, fattening on this return, in the past two seasons. I understand that the United Nations are having a conference next February or March to discuss further the question of territorial waters. They have already had two conferences. My information, such as it is—which I believe to be correct—is that one group are pressing for a 12-mile territorial limit, another group are satisfied with six miles and that no agreement has been reached on that subject. In the meantime, Ireland has a 3-mile territorial limit. Our waters are being fished and overfished and our spawning grounds are in serious danger. I want to put it to the Minister that another fishing season will have come and gone before any further conference has taken place in regard to this vital matter.

I want to ask the Minister if he can see his way to make a bilateral agreement. That is a topical subject nowadays. The Danes have made a bilateral agreement with the British with regard to their territorial waters. The Danes are in the process of making a bilateral agreement with the British in regard to agricultural produce. Why can we not try to make a bilateral agreement, even if it is only a temporary one, even if it will only tide us over the next season? I should like the Minister to tell us if he thinks that is possible and, if it is, I urge him to act with all the expedition he can command. Many people in this country are vitally concerned with the preservation of their rights to obtain a livelihood.

I have asked several Parliamentary Questions with regard to a trade agreement, but I have not yet succeeded in getting the information from the Minister concerned. We have a trade agreement with Britain the duration of which is six months. As I understand it, the agreement is terminable on notice by one side or the other. Our trade is vitally concerned with Britain. Let us have no illusions on the subject. They stand to gain just as much from trade with us as we do from them. Per capita, we are their best client in Europe and probably the world. We are about to spend £10,000,000 on the eradication of bovine T.B. If we spend that sum, what guarantee have we, after all the expense and all the labour, of a perpetuation of our trade agreement? True enough, it is complementary to both countries.

I fail to see why we cannot have a long-term trade agreement. The whole trouble in Ireland at the moment is the question of increasing production. If you increase production you must have a guarantee that you will be able to sell the produce. To put it perfectly frankly, I do not trust the British as far as trade is concerned. We have every reason to doubt their integrity in their trade relations with us over the past few years. At the end of 1956 or early in 1957 there was a catastrophic fall in our livestock prices for the reason that the British were importing meat wholesale from the Argentine. As a result, our farmers went to the markets and came home again unable to sell. At the time, I suggested we might do something about it. Perhaps it was not an opportune time to do that but now things seem to be different.

At present, all the nations of Europe are negotiating with regard to a free trade agreement. It is absolutely certain, come what may, that some form of free trade agreement will emerge in Europe. The original common market, now known as the European Economic Association of the six nations concerned in it, was more or less scoffed at by Britain, to start with. The United Kingdom turned its back on Europe and took no interest. We were behind them, on the other side, here, and we did nothing either.

What happened then? The economic community—Germany, France, Italy, the Benelux countries—came into being as a separate economic bloc in Europe. The United Kingdom was the only major power outside this bloc. Then the British changed their tactics, largely due to heavy pressure which was brought to bear on them by the younger Conservative group within the present Party in power in the British House of Commons. They became whole-hearted adherents of the free trade idea. As the House knows, and as the Minister knows, these negotiations went on. The present Taoiseach attended many conferences there on behalf of Ireland under the Maudling Committee, which came to nothing.

The next move was that we had the Stockholm group coming together. I confess I cannot understand the attitude of this Government. Several nations are now negotiating to start another bloc. The Taoiseach came into this House and in reply, I think, to a Parliamentary Question said that this did not really interest us, that we were dealing only with industry, that we had nothing to get out of it. Surely it interests us? If seven nations, one of them our principal rival in agriculture in Europe, are coming together to negotiate, and if Britain is one of the negotiating media, one of the prime movers in these negotiations, surely we have some interest in these negotiations?

Even if we are not taking part in those negotiations is it beyond our power to send an observer there so that we might know what is going on? That was put very forcibly to the Government by several Deputies from the other side of the House and they did nothing about it. However, the other day the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for External Affairs hastened to London for what they called exploratory talks. In other words they are beginning to see that we may be right, that something was going on there behind their backs, and they went over to find out what it was. So far no statement has been made to Dáil Éireann on the subject. We are no wiser than we were before.

I should like to ask the Minister for External Affairs if he is endeavouring to make a new trade agreement with Britain? Is he endeavouring to safeguard our interests and to see that any bilateral agreement that the United Kingdom makes does not in any way affect our trade which is vital not only to them but to us as well? The Minister should give us some information on that subject.

It does seem strange that in making a statement on foreign affairs the Minister did not refer to Partition. Probably there is not very much he can say on Partition but, occupying the important position he does, he should, when making an annual statement on foreign policy, refer to that question and make it clear to the House what his policy is on this all-important matter.

That again brings us back to the Free Trade Area. I myself cannot envisage any sort of free trade group coming into being in Europe—as I believe it ultimately will; I do not think anybody can gainsay that; we cannot like the ostrich stick our heads in the sand—without its being necessary for every nation that is complementary to that group to be economically powerful. For that reason I believe that the European reaction as a whole to Partition will be that a small country like Ireland cannot afford two Governments. The Minister should allow his mind to dwell on that because there is a ray of hope that out of the unification of Europe, which is vital for the preservation of the free world, may come the unification of Ireland.

Mr. S. Flanagan

Unfortunately I was not present when the Minister for External Affairs introduced this Estimate but I gather from the speeches already made that no reference was made to the negotiations at present going on about the formation of an Outer Seven. I think it wise on the part of the Minister not to make any statement to the House at this stage and I agree with the attitude taken by him that we should not be directly represented at the conference table in connection with this proposal.

So long as the Free Trade Area negotiations were going on under the chairmanship of the British Minister we certainly had to be directly represented. Our interests were vitally involved, the more so because we are an undeveloped country. It is a matter of regret that negotiations never materialised in anything workable. One can only deplore the emergence of smaller groups because they will lead towards division rather than unification in Europe and thus we shall be moving in a direction opposite to that envisaged when the Council of Europe was set up over ten years ago. It will be quite some time before these negotiations conclude and I feel the Minister should not make any very extensive statement on the matter at this delicate stage of the negotiations.

In the course of his speech Deputy Sir Anthony Esmonde again referred to what the Minister for External Affairs said on the question of the admission of Red China to the United Nations. I am not surprised that Deputy Esmonde did so but I very much regret it, and regret also the attitude taken by the Opposition both on this matter and on the matter of the attendance, for instance, of the Minister at receptions to members from countries which happened to be represented at the international conferences. In adopting that attitude I think that Fine Gael are doing a great disservice to the country. It is most important that our people should be educated out of the insular attitude to which they are prone and into an understanding of the changed pattern of the world and the part that Ireland can, and ought, to play in it. By their attitude following the Minister's first speech at the United Nations, Fine Gael did a disservice to the people by giving them a peg on which to hang a completely irrelevant and wrong attitude to what the Minister had said.

Deputy Esmonde, who made a very good speech, referred to the formation of what he called a national church in China. It is true that the Communists are attempting to set up a rival so-called Catholic Church organisation and that they have gone so far as to be able to get so-called bishops to officiate. That is something fearful to think about just as the "human ant" movement which the Communists tried last year was something fearful to think about from another point of view. But surely it is primarily a matter for the Church to deal with this question and for us, as members of the Church, to take whatever kind of steps we can to deal with it, but I suggest that the steps we can and ought to take have nothing to do with our Parliamentary duty and nothing to do with the attitude the State should take in the United Nations on a political problem involving the free world. Surely our attitude, as shown by the Minister, in the United Nations, if properly understood and explained and not misrepresented by mixing up religious with political issues in a false fashion, was a correct one.

The Minister was at pains to point out that the people of Ireland are more opposed by nature and by conviction to Communism than, perhaps, any other country in the world and that no other country had a greater innate detestation of the Communist ideology than we had, but he then went on to deal with the political question and to give what he thought, as the representative of Ireland, was the right answer to the political issue involved.

It would have been a great thing for the people of Ireland had the Opposition supported the Minister on that occasion. Instead of doing so, they put down a motion of no confidence in the House and drummed up a lot of propaganda about the insults that we offered to the Catholic missionaries, including our own in China and elsewhere throughout the world.

It was a heaven-sent opportunity for misrepresentation and it is a matter of great regret to me that the Opposition were so small-minded as to take it and were not big enough to support the Government because, had they done so, I think the rather unseemly debate that ensued in the papers here or, for that matter, in newspapers as far away as America, would never have occurred and the Irish people would have been led along the right path, which is to think in terms of the peace of the world and of Ireland playing her full part in trying to ensure the peace of the world.

It sounds very well to speak in indignant terms about the torture of the missionaries but it is irrelevant and it is unfair. It is also doing a disservice to the people as a whole. I suppose it is too late now for the Opposition to change their attitude but I appeal to them to do so and to recognise that political problems should be dealt with on the evidence, always, of course, keeping in mind that we are firmly on one side in the ideological battle that is going on. Surely that does not have to be said. It should always be understood.

There are a few smaller matters in respect of which I should like to get from the Minister an indication of developments. Over the past few years, there has been considerable simplification of formalities for taking cars throughout the Continent. The triptyque has been abolished in most of the countries on the mainland of Europe. I think I have already pointed out that there was an enormous increase in the number of cars which went into Austria, which, I believe, was the first country to abolish the triptyque and the result of that was a rather dramatic increase in the number of tourist cars entering Austria.

Although I think the position has been under review, I do not think that any final decision has been given regarding the attitude of this country to that question. There are other considerations that apply to an island country which would have to be thought about. I think the correct attitude would be for us to fall in line with the countries on the Continent of Europe and substitute for the car triptyque a simple form of identification such as has been in use in Austria and the other countries which followed Austria in this matter.

As the Minister knows, the Council of Europe recently adopted a resolution regarding maintenance allowances for children. At the present time they are putting through a corollary to that. As the Minister also knows, this matter is of very considerable importance to this country because of the number of people who pass between this country and England and of the very great difficulties of enforcing an order obtained in one country against a person in another country. The result is that great hardship is caused to the children involved. Indeed, this problem is possibly of more importance in this country than in the other countries on the mainland of Europe. I hope the Minister will pursue this matter until such time as the necessary protection is available for these children and orders obtained in one country can be readily enforced in another so as to provide maintenance for children who are abandoned by their fathers.

The broadcasts that have already been made from Radio Éireann in connection with the World Refugee Year have been very good. I am sure the Minister was partly responsible for the fact that they were given. We, as a country, should give every support we can towards providing funds in connection with these activities. I believe that a film is to be made available as well. If that is so and if it is available I hope arrangements will be made to have it shown in the various cinemas throughout the country because I believe it would have a greater impact than the broadcasts which have already taken place.

One suggestion made was that a week should be set aside during which school children would be asked to contribute a penny a day and that the country could be organised on county lines. These pennies, which many are willing to give, would be collected and the amount of money involved at the end of the week would be quite substantial. It is only one of various other suggestions put forward but I think that if we could put any idea into operation, it would help us to play our part in the activities of the World Refugee Year.

Deputy Cosgrave mentioned that Ireland's permanent representative to Strasbourg is not at present living in Strasbourg but is commuting between Dublin and Strasbourg. I understand this was tried as an experiment because it was felt that the representative did not have enough duties in Strasbourg and could be better employed during off periods in the Department at his ordinary work. I do not know what view the Minister takes about how that experiment has worked out; my own feeling is that the representative should be living in Strasbourg, if at all possible. I should be glad if the Minister would let us know whether it is proposed to continue the present arrangement or to revert to the previous arrangement of having the representative actually living in Strasbourg.

Another matter concerns the "Aiken Nuclear Club" proposal at U.N.O. which I understand now has the support of the Socialist Party in Britain. I would be very doubtful as to whether the Minister can depend on the continued support of the British Labour Party on this proposal and I think I had better content myself by saying only that. However, he and his colleagues deserve every congratulation for having put this proposal forward and indeed I do not think I should lose this opportunity of saying that Ireland, during the past couple of years, has played a notable part in the United Nations. As Deputy Esmonde said, we have come to be recognised as an uncommitted country, neutral and fairminded, and have earned a great deal of respect from the parties in opposing camps because of that fact.

To revert to what I said at the beginning, I think Deputy Esmonde and others of his Party should follow that line to its logical conclusion, particularly with regard to what the Minister said on the admission of Red China. If we are to continue to be regarded as a neutral and fairminded country, it is essential that we should continue to make our proposals on a political basis because it is for that that the United Nations Organisation was founded, with the aim of world peace as its ultimate objective. We would be doing a great disservice if in any way we mixed up that aim with other aims, private or religious, which we may have in life. I would therefore appeal to Deputy Esmonde— whom I regard as a fairminded man— not to continue these speeches which I believe do harm rather than good and divide people on matters upon which they should be united; they mislead them in matters which they should understand and on which they are looking for guidance. They can only look to us for guidance on the political level. I do not think that we can say the Irish people are lacking in instruction from their religious leaders and we can safely leave it to those entrusted with the task of giving religious advice to guide the people on religious issues and I have no doubt they will do so.

One recalls the hubbub created about the purchase of the Embassy in Paris and I am sure the Opposition will be glad to know that the premises then purchased is worth two or three times more than what it was at the time it was bought and represents a very excellent investment indeed. The Irish representatives abroad have, during the past 12 months, done very well and I might safely conclude by expressing what I believe will be the feelings of everybody here, that is, that the best ambassador we had during that period was the former President, Mr. Seán T. O'Kelly, who did such a wonderful job when he toured the United States a few months ago. I believe he deserves the best thanks of the people for his wonderful performance during that time.

I congratulate the Minister again on the work he has done during the past 12 months and feel sure that he will continue on the lines he has taken so far with, I hope, greater co-operation from the people on the other side in the months ahead.

Mr. Sherwin

Deputy Esmonde mentioned that the Minister for External Affairs has nothing to say about Partition. When the Italians were trying to unite their country, the man mainly responsible was Count Cavour. He stated that while he did not agree with force, nevertheless he turned a blind eye towards it because it maintained the passion for freedom. He was referring to Garibaldi and others. Likewise, even if we do not advocate such things as force, at least we should agree that we should shout loudly about it for the same purpose of maintaining that passion for freedom. The Minister for External Affairs, however, cares to say nothing.

In my opinion, it is the duty of the Minister for External Affairs to seek protection and security and power for his country and that is his main task. His job is largely a political one. If he makes trade agreements, he does so merely on the instructions of others, such as the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and other matters are dealt with by junior officials. His main job is political—the protection of his country and its advancement and if we have any political claims, his job is to try to get support for them so as to attain our objective. The only objective, politically, that we have is the independence of our country. I am not aware that we seek colonies or have any other political objective. Our prime objective is to bring about the unity of our country.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.