Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 4 Apr 1962

Vol. 194 No. 8

Committee on Finance. - Vote 49—External Affairs.

Tairgim:

Go ndeonófar suim nach mó ná £396,450 chun sláinaithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31ú lá de Mhárta, 1963, le haghaidh Tuarastail agus Costais Oifig an Aire Gnóthaí Eachtracha agus Seirbhísí áirithe atá faoi riaradh na hOifige sin (Uimh. 16 de 1934, lena n-áirítear Deontas-i-gCabhair.

Le cead an Cheann Comhairle, tá fúm an Meastachán le haghaidh Gnóthaí Eachtracha agus an Meastachán le haghaidh Comhar Idirnáisiúnta a thógáil le chéile, mar aon le Meastachán Forlíontach le haghaidh Comhar Idirnáisiúnta.

£594,650 atá sa Mheastachán le haghaidh Gnóthaí Eachtracha (Vóta 49). Is £93,050 de mhéadú glan é ar Mheastachán 1961/62. Séard is mó is cúis leis an méadú seo ná an soláthar breise le haghaidh (1) tuarastal, pá agus liúntas (£61,900), (2) ábhair fhaisnéise (£21,050), (3) costas taistil agus fochostas (£5,600) agus (4) aíochta oifigiúla (£4,500).

Tuairim is leath an mhéadaithe le haghaidh tuarastal, pá agus liúntas, is de bharr an ardú pá a tugadh do státseirbhíseach le déannaí is gá é sholáthar. Tá an fuíollach ag teastáil mar sholáthar breise £20,500 le haghaidh tuilleadh fóirne sa mBruiséil atá riachtanach de bharr ár n-iarratais ar dhul isteach i gComhphobal Eacnamaíoch na hEorpa, agus mar sholáthar nua £9,200 le haghaidh misiúin taidhleoireachta agus oifige consulachta ar shocraigh an Rialtas tamall ó shoin ar iad bhunú i Cópanhágan agus i Hamburg, faoi seach.

Séard is cúis leis an méadú le haghaidh ábhair fháisnéise ná soláthar £15,000 chun dá scannán ar Éirinn a dhéanamh agus soláthar £5,600 chun leabhrán faisnéise ar Éirinn a fhoillsiú. Déarfad focal eile ar ball mar gheall ortha seo.

An chuid is mó den tsuim bhreise (£5,600) atá ag teastáil do sheirbhísí faoi Fho-Mhírcheann B (Costais Taistil agus Fochostais), is le haghaidh na noifigí nua i gCópanhágan agus i Hamburg agus an tuilleadh fóirne sa mBruiséil is gá í sholáthar. Taobh amuigh de sin, tá an meastachán bunaithe ar an gclaonadh caiteachais atá ann faoi láthair, agus costais pé turasanna a ceaptar a tabharfar a chur san áireamh.

Mar adúirt mé, £4,500 breise atá sa Mheastachán le haghaidh aoíochta oifigiúla. Tá an Meastachán seo freisin bunaithe ar an gclaonadh caiteachais atá ann le tamall anuas de thoradh méadú ar líon agus ar chostas na nócáidí aoíochta oifigiúla. Ba lú an soláthar anuraidh ná an méid a bhí riachtanach, faoi mar a thárla. £122,880 atá sa Mheastachán le haghaidh Comhar Idirnáisiúnta. Is £53,630 de mhéadú glan é ar Mheastachán 1961/62.

Tá Cáinaisnéis Chomhairle na hEorpa tar éis dul i méid. Mar sin is mó de £1,300 an ranníoc a bheidh le híoc i mbliana i gcomórtas le ranníoc na bliana seo caite. Is mó freisin an soláthar faoi Fho-Mhírcheann A.2 le haghaidh taistil agus fochostas i mbliana (£5,700) ná anuraidh, agus tá sé ag teacht cóngarach don mhéid a vótáladh i 1960/61.

Ghlac an t-Eagras um Chomhar agus Forbairt Eacnamaíochta áit an Eagrais um Chomhar Eacnamaíochta san Eoraip ar an 1 Deireadh Fómhair, 1961. Ba i leith na dtrí mí a chríochnaigh ar an 30 Meán Fómhair, 1961, a d'íocamar ár ranníoc leis an sean-Eagras anuraidh. An soláthar atá sa Mheastachán seo le haghaidh ranníoca leis an Eagras nua, is i leith na gcúig míosa déag a chríochnóidh ar an 31 mí na Nollag, 1962, a ceaptar é.

Ní raibh sa Mheastachán 1961/62 ach £10 faoi gach ceann de na Fo-Mhírchinn (C.1, C.5 agus C.9) a bhaineann leis na ranníocanna le haghaidh na Náisiún Aontaithe le haghaidh Fórsa Éigeandála na Náisiún Aontaithe agus le haghaidh imeachtaí na Náisiún Aontaithe sa Chongó. £40,000 atá curtha isteach faoi na Fo-Mhírchinn sin i mbliana. hÍocadh £11,354 anuraidh mar ranníoc na tíre seo le haghaidh costas na n-imeachtaí sa Chongó sna deich míosa a chríochnaigh ar an 31 Deireadh Fómhair, 1961. Bhéadh ranníocanna eile a dhéanann £69,855 curtha isteach sa Mheastachán anuraidh de réir an ghná-chleachtais; ach is amhlaidh a bhíodar vótaltha cheana trí Mheastachán Forlíontach i leith Vóta 1960/61. Tá méadaithe de £1,000 agus de £2,200, faoi seach, ar ár ranníocanna le Ciste Leanaí na Náisiún Aontaithe agus le Gníomhaireacht Fhóirthinte agus Oibreacha na Náisiún Aontaithe.

I dteannta an Mheastacháin bhunaidh le haghaidh Comhar Idirnáisiúnta, tá Meastachán Forlíontach ós comhair na Dála chun a chur ar ár gcumas luach 300,000 dollaeir de bhannaí na Náisiún Aontaithe a cheannach. Beidh mé ag labhairt mar gheall air seo ar ball.

I am very glad to report—and I am sure Deputies will share my satisfaction—that it has been possible this year to increase the grant-in-aid for Cultural Relations with other countries to the sum of £13,500. The first grant-in-aid in 1948-49 amounted to £10,000. In 1957-58 and 1958-59, however, it was found necessary, because of the financial situation then prevailing, to reduce the grant-in-aid to a little over £2,000. With the continuing improvement in our economic position it was later found possible progressively to restore the grant-in-aid to its former level and last year the amount provided came closer in real terms to the sum available in earlier years.

Deputies are, I know, conscious of the national importance of disseminating abroad a wider knowledge of our culture. It has important consequences politically and also for our tourist and export industries and the economy in general.

In administering the grant-in-aid, I have, of course, the benefit of the advice of the Cultural Relations Committee which consists of members of acknowledged competence in their respective fields. I wish once again to express my appreciation of the generosity with which successive members of the Committee have put their time and knowledge at the disposal of the State.

The expansion in the activities of the Information Section of the Department is reflected in the provision of £31,850 under Subhead E. This figure represents a very considerable increase over last year's figure of £10,800 and over the average amount provided under this heading in the years from 1950-51 to 1956-57 which was £10,000.

The increase is entirely due to the provision now being made for the first time for the production of films on Ireland and to the impending publication of a high-quality information booklet.

Proposals for two films dealing with economic development and social progress are under consideration and it is envisaged that these films will be completed within this financial year. It is hoped that they will secure a wide commercial distribution abroad and will help to focus the attention of foreign public opinion on modern-day Ireland.

The information booklet on Ireland is designed to present basic facts about Ireland in an attractive and readable format. I have much evidence over many years of the need for a fairly comprehensive small handbook on Ireland, and a wide circulation, mainly through our diplomatic and consular offices abroad, is planned for it.

The production and distribution of the Department's weekly Bulletin, which now has a circulation of about 10,500, will account for half of the remainder of the sum provided for under the subhead. This Bulletin is distributed mainly to newspapers, libraries, foreign Governments and friends of Ireland abroad, and continues to be the principal regular official channel for the dissemination in foreign countries of information on Irish affairs. We have every reason to believe that it is much appreciated by the recipients and fulfils a useful purpose.

It is, of course, also a function of my Department to service the growing volume of requests for information material received from abroad, usually through our offices overseas. Films, books, gramophone records, slides, photographs and other such material are used in this connection.

The Department also makes arrangements, in co-operation with other Departments and State-sponsored bodies, for visiting journalists, film producers and radio and television teams. There is an increasing number of such visitors which reflects increased interest in Ireland abroad and it has brought about an expansion in the Department's activities in this respect.

The increased provision of £4,500 for official entertainment is required because there is a steady increase in the number of distinguished visitors coming to Ireland and in the number of international conferences which are being held here. This development is to be welcomed. Such visits and conferences not only benefit trade and tourism but they also ensure that more people of prominence and influence elsewhere get a fuller and true picture at first hand of the conditions prevailing in Ireland.

Apart from important individual visitors it is expected that a large number of conferences will take place during the current year. Among those already arranged are the following:—

International Variety Clubs Convention: Conference of Royal Institute of Naval Architects; Study Group of Housing Committee of Economic Commission for Europe; Joint European Conference of Econometric Society, Institute of Mathematical Statistics, and Institute of Management Sciences; Conference of British Society of Animal Production; Meeting of Brigade Council of Boys Brigade; International Air Transport Association; Annual Convention of the British Poster Advertising Association; International Union of Journalists; Easter Course of the English Folk Dance and Song Society; Conference of the Confederation of European Soft Drinks Association; Conference of Association of British Travel Agents; International Council of Tanners.

These are all conventions that have already been arranged.

As I have already said, the Estimate contains provision for a diplomatic mission to Denmark and a consular office at Hamburg. I am sure that Deputies generally will warmly welcome the Government's decision to establish diplomatic relations with Denmark, a country with which we share so many political, economic and commercial interests. Indeed, I feel that it is unnecessary for me to speak at any length on the desirability of this step.

Hamburg is, after Berlin, the largest city of Germany and is also the largest port. There has recently been a gratifying growth in our exports to the Federal Republic. It is primarily with the object of further developing our earnings in that country and of helping our economic effort in other directions that the Government decided to establish the office in Hamburg.

As I also mentioned at the outset, the Estimate contains provision for a strengthening of our Mission at Brussels. As Deputies know, our Ambassador to Belgium is also accredited to the European Community. It is of vital importance that we be in a position to follow closely all developments in connection with the application for membership of the European Economic Community, and the additional staff provided is for this purpose.

Last summer during the holiday period, as Deputies may be aware, I arranged that the heads of our diplomatic missions in North America and Europe should attend in Dublin for discussions on ways and means of assisting in the promotion of economic development and, in particular, of increasing foreign earnings, both visible and invisible, and attracting foreign industries to Ireland. In the course of this conference exchanges of view took place with the economic departments, as well as the State-sponsored bodies whose activities extend to foreign countries. It was also possible, with the help of the Department of Industry and Commerce, to arrange a short meeting with representatives of the Federation of Irish Industries and the Irish Exporters' Association.

There has, of course, always been close co-operation between my Department and its offices abroad, on the one hand, and the State-sponsored bodies active in foreign countries, on the other. In this connection I might mention that I was recently happy to lend for a period of some months three officers of my Department to help Córas Tráchtála in carrying out on the Continent for the Committee on Industrial Organisation investigations of the export prospects for Irish industry under Common Market conditions.

Last July the Dáil approved the Convention establishing the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. As the requisite number of ratifications had been deposited by 30th September, 1961, the Organisation came formally into being on that date. The Ministerial Council met for the first time in November. At that meeting the discussion centred mainly on the proposal to set a collective target for economic growth in the coming years in the interests of achieving higher living standards and levels of employment, and of providing more effective assistance by member countries for the development of the less-advanced countries through financial and technical assistance and a widening of their export markets. It was unanimously agreed that the member countries, as a unit, should strive to achieve in a ten-year period 1961-1970 an increase in gross national product of 50 per cent. The rate of economic growth for this country in recent years gives good grounds for thinking that we can make our full contribution to the attainment of this target.

Apart from the Ministerial meeting in November, the OECD has been active since its inception in a number of important fields, and in particular in the field of economic policy. It is, of course, a primary function of the Organisation to arrange for exchanges of views between member Governments about their economic policies and this function is carried out by the important Economic Policy Committee, whose meetings are attended by high level representatives of member Governments, including Ireland.

The Secretary-General of the Organisation, Mr. Thorkil Kristensen, has over the past year been visiting member countries and we were very glad to welcome him here in February when he delivered a most interesting lecture about the Organisation and its principal activities.

In moving the Estimates of my Department last year I referred to our application for accession to the GATT. Deputies will be aware from information given in the Dáil over the past few months in reply to Parliamentary Questions that, at our suggestion, further consideration of this application has been deferred pending developments on our application for membership of the European Economic Community. It is anticipated that the negotiations on our EEC application may well dispose of difficulties raised on the GATT application relating to the preferential tariff arrangements existing between this country and Britain.

In the past year the Council of Europe, through both the Committee of Ministers and the Consultative Assembly, has kept actively under review the means of securing the objectives set out in the Statute with particular reference to the bearing of these objectives on the evolution of the European Economic Community. The Council has also recorded significant progress in a number of important directions.

One of the next most important achievements during the past year has been the great expansion of the activities of the Council in the cultural field. To assist the Committee of Ministers in the formulation of policy a Council for Cultural Co-operation has been established composed mainly of representatives of member states and of the Consultative Assembly. The aim of the new Council is closer collaboration in all fields of culture, ranging from formal education at primary and secondary level to the work of universities and similar bodies in higher education, science and research and from technical and vocational training to out-of-school education (physical education, adult education and sport) and youth activities. Three permanent Committees have been set up by the Council to ensure that its decisions are implemented at all levels. The Council has set itself an immense task but one which should, in time, bear great fruit. We may hope that this new development will prove of benefit to member states in the fields of education and research through a pooling of the experience of each of them in these matters. Such co-operation may also obviate duplication of individual national efforts and result in quicker progress and the more speedy solution of problems.

The past year has also seen the achievement of one of the Council of Europe's most important projects. I refer to the European Social Charter which was signed in Turin last October by 13 countries including Ireland.

The Charter guarantees the social rights of the worker and evidences the will of contracting parties not only to protect these rights but to raise the living standards of their peoples. It includes provisions regarding the right to work under just and safe conditions, the right to social and medical assistance, the right to organise and bargain collectively. Other provisions are aimed at safeguarding families and the position of migrant workers and the special requirements of mothers and children are taken into consideration.

In another part of the social field, that of public health, much progress has been made and two new international agreements will be opened for signature shortly. These are the European Agreement on mutual assistance in the matter of special medical treatment and climatic facilities and the European Agreement on the Exchange of Blood-Grouping Reagents. And in this connection I might also mention Medical Fellowships awarded by the Council of Europe in the allocation of which Irish nationals were particularly fortunate this year, gaining 15 out of the 114 available.

Other Conventions which have been, or shortly will be, opened for signature include those relating to Travel by Young Persons on Collective Passports and the Liabilities of Hotel Keepers. The Government will shortly consider proposals that we become a party to these Conventions as well as to the two Conventions on public health matters which I have just mentioned.

The Council has more recently initiated a study of crime problems. It is hoped to arrange a second Conference of European Ministers for Justice in the Autumn of this year and I have no doubt that this will give both direction and impetus to the Council's work in the sphere of problems connected with crime.

The Council is pursuing its studies of many other matters including legal and financial problems, consular relations, standardisation of laws, and regulations regarding patents on inventions. This work, which is aimed at harmonising the practice of member States in so far as possible at times gives rise to problems of a highly complex nature. However, with the greater development of a sense of common purpose and a growing tendency to adopt a common approach to such difficulties as may arise the Council of Europe is achieving steady progress. In this, I am glad to say, Irish representatives have, as in the past, co-operated fully.

During the year Cyprus was invited to become a member of the Council and signed the Statute in May, 1961. The accession of Cyprus brings the total number of members to sixteen. In addition, Switzerland now sends observers to Council of Europe meetings including sessions of the Consultative Assembly, certain Assembly committees and meetings of governmental experts.

The past year has been one of crisis and trial for the United Nations. On the executive plane it was marked by a continuance of the determined efforts by the Soviet Union to replace the Secretary-General by a "troika" or three-member commission each representing what the Soviet Union regards as the three main groups of states in the world today—the socalled Socialist, Neutral and Western groups. This proposal would stultify the role of the Secretariat and runs directly counter to Article 100 of the Charter which requires that the Secretary-General and his staff "shall not seek or receive instructions from any Government or other authority external to the Organisation" and demands that their sole loyalty shall be to the United Nations itself.

It would be fruitless to enter into the various motives which inspired this proposal, but its immediate cause was unquestionably the determination displayed by the late Secretary-General to ensure that the very confused situation which arose in the Congo in July of 1960 should not lead to that State becoming the cockpit of big-power rivalry and thus a most serious threat to world peace. There is no doubt that the "troika" proposal, if implemented, would carry the power of veto into the United Nations Secretariat itself and, by paralysing the power of action of the Secretary-General, would greatly weaken the United Nations. The crisis was intensified by the sudden and tragic death of Mr. Hammarskjoeld on his last peace mission in the Congo. His efforts in his years as Secretary-General to shape the United Nations as an effective instrument of world peace commanded the respect and admiration of people everywhere. We share the grief of all who mourn his passing, more especially the United Nations, the Swedish Government and his relatives.

The Irish Government have constantly advocated a strong United Nations as the best hope for safeguarding the interests of small nations, and as representing the best prospects for the evolution of world order based on justice and the rule of law. We have also consistently supported the office of the Secretary-General as the organ of the Charter which, in the continuing conditions of stalemate in the Security Council, provides the means of ensuring uninterrupted functioning of the Organisation and of effectively implementing its decisions. The weeks after Mr. Hammarskjoeld's death were a period of great uncertainty and anxiety about the future of this office because of the requirement of the Charter that the Secretary-General must be appointed on the recommendation of the Security Council and the desire of the Soviet Union to impose its own scheme of divided and mutually conflicting authority. It was, therefore, most gratifying that this serious crisis was overcome by the selection of U Thant of Burma as Acting Secretary-General to fill the vacancy. His appointment, without "troika" or veto, as a result of weeks of patient negotiation, will, I hope, prove to be a vindication of the principle of the integrity and independence of the office of Secretary-General; and it is a source of satisfaction that our Permanent Representative at the United Nations was able to play a constructive part in bringing about this result.

In the Congo, where the United Nations is still engaged on its greatest undertaking to date, the past year has witnessed recurrent crises and a sequence of developments of which it has been at times extremely difficult to discern either the real significance or the precise trend. It is hardly necessary for me to record in detail all that has happened there since the matter was fully debated in the House last July. I might, however, refer briefly to some of the salient events during the intervening months.

It is well to bear in mind that for the United Nations the Congo is a national unit. It was so admitted to membership of the Organisation and the many debates which have taken place in New York since July, 1960, as well as the various resolutions adopted in both the Security Council and the General Assembly, have rested on this basis. This means that the competent authority within the Congo, and the only authority which the United Nations can recognise as representing the State, is the Central Government in Leopoldville —which was, of course, the authority that sought membership of the United Nations and that appealed to the United Nations for help.

I do not propose to enter into the complex history of the evolution of the Central Government. Two points may, however, be mentioned. The first is that Mr. Kasavubu was recognised by the United Nations in November, 1960, as President of the Congo and as such entrusted with the powers conferred upon the President by the "Fundamental Law," negotiated prior to Independence and which serves as the Constitution of the Congo pending the enactment by the independent State of its own Constitution. Secondly, under the authority of Mr. Kasavubu, a Government drawn from all parts of the Congo, with the exception of Katanga, was established on 1st August under the leadership of Mr. Adoula as Prime Minister. Mr. Adoula's Government enacted on 24th August a decree requesting the United Nations to implement the resolutions of the Organisation calling for the expulsion of mercenaries; and this decree gave added authority to those resolutions inasmuch as it placed them squarely in the context of the original appeal to the United Nations in July, 1960, which led to the dispatch to the Congo of the United Nations Force.

The events in Katanga in September, which received such wide publicity and led to much controversy, arose out of efforts on the part of the United Nations to protect the 45,000 Balubas Kasai in Elizabethville and to implement paragraph A.2 of the Security Council resolution of 21st February, 1961, calling for the removal of mercenaries. Deputies will be aware that these efforts were not then fully successful and that the matter became a subject of lengthy debates within the Organisation in New York. These culminated in the adoption by the Security Council on the 24th November of another resolution which recalled the many earlier resolutions on the Congo and authorised the use of force, if necessary, to oust the mercenaries. The fighting in Katanga in December stemmed from provocative action against the United Nations forces taken by the Katangan authorities with a view to impending the implementation of the resolution of 24th November.

Concurrently with the counter-action in December by the United Nations forces to redress the position in Elizabethville, efforts were made from many quarters to bring about an understanding between those in charge of affairs in Katanga and the Central Government in Leopoldville. These efforts were successful to the extent that a meeting took place in Kitona in mid-December between Mr. Tshombe and Mr. Adoula, resulting in a Joint Declaration which offered a basis for arrangements whereby Katanga would accept the over-riding jurisdiction of the Central Government. The declaration became the subject of much discussion in Katanga where the Administration was not prepared to accept as binding all of its provisions and, in particular, those relating to the implementation of the United Nations resolutions. Ultimately, Mr. Tshombe agreed to meet Mr. Adoula again, this time in Leopoldville under United Nations protection, and conversations have been taking place between them over the past fortnight.

The situation in the Congo is at present relatively quiet. It is to be hoped that it will remain so and that it will ultimately prove possible to reach arrangements which will permit of all parts of the country working together with a sufficient measure of harmony to enable the really big problems confronting the Congo as a whole to be tackled and solved. In my view, these objectives can be attained with time and patience, and the primary purpose of the United Nations operation in that country can thus be fulfilled. This is the restoration of law and order which are the indispensable pre-condition of peaceful progress in the development of the new State and which are particularly necessary in a State so vast in area as is the Congo and so vitally located in relation to the whole of Africa. Such a result would be the best monument to Mr. Hammarskjoeld, to his penetrating appreciation of the vital importance, not only for the Congo but for world peace, of the creation of stable conditions there and to the sense of dedication he brought to the search for a solution to the Congolese problem. It may, however, be too much to hope that matters will go smoothly forward in the Congo without occasional setbacks; but it is most sincerely to be hoped that we shall not have a recurrence of such deplorable incidents such as the brutal murder in Kindu last November of a number of Italian airmen and the equally brutal massacre of a number of Catholic missionaries in Kongolo in Northern Katanga in January.

This country has, of course, continued to participate in the United Nations Operation in the Congo by making available a battalion of the Defence Forces. As Deputies are aware the Government felt that it would be best to fix a six-monthly rotation for each contingent and this arrangement has in practice worked out very well. I am happy to say that our troops have consistently lived up to the high reputation of Irish soldiers and have acted throughout in a manner which justifies our pride in them. In the latter part of 1961 a company who found themselves cut off in Jadotville, and whose fate was for a time a source of grave anxiety because of the sensational and inaccurate reports propagated by some news agencies and press correspondents, acquitted themselves with great gallantry in extremely difficult and trying conditions without any serious casualties. The Irish people mourn the loss of our soldiers who fell fighting for peace in the Congo but are proud that the Army of today is upholding the best traditions of our race.

The United Nations civilian operation in the Congo continues to make progress in assisting the Central Government in the enormous reconstruction tasks which it faces. This operation constitutes the most massive technical assistance programme ever undertaken by the United Nations. In the present year the United Nations plans to have some 1,000 experts under the aid programme providing a wide variety of services throughout the country and some 2,300 Congolese nationals will be given training, both in the Congo and abroad. The programme is estimated to cost some $16,000,000. The United Nations continues to organise assistance for refugees in various parts of the Congo and for the victims of floods and other natural disasters.

The United Nations has also faced a serious financial crisis in the past year. To meet the situation, the General Assembly has authorised a United Nations bond issue of $200,000,000, details of which I shall explain when I come to deal with the Supplementary Estimate before the House on the question of a subscription by the Government to that issue.

The Government have continued to support the United Nations financially and have taken steps to be as prompt as possible in their payments to United Nations funds. This year the Irish percentage contribution to the regular budget of the Organisation has fallen from 0.16 per cent. to 0.14 per cent. as a result of the increase in membership which now totals 104 members.

The past year has seen the birth of other new States on the African Continent with which we have close links through our missionaries and teachers and by virtue of the fact that many of their distinguished citizens have been educated here. We congratulate them on the peaceful achievement of their independence and we wish them every success in the enormous development tasks before them.

Within the United Nations we have devoted our energies to creating a climate of peace between the nations and to furthering the cause of individual and national liberty.

During the past four years our delegation has advocated measures aimed at preventing a further spread of nuclear weapons in order to give time and opportunity for the evolution of a world order of law and law enforcement. These efforts culminated in the unanimous adoption by the General Assembly last December of a resolution calling for the conclusion of an international agreement by which nuclear powers would not relinquish control of nuclear weapons or transfer the knowledge of making them to non-nuclear powers, and by which the non-nuclear powers would undertake not to make or acquire control of nuclear weapons. We welcome the fact that these proposals have been agreed in principle by both the United States and the Soviet Union; and we are encouraged to hope that negotiations many lead to the conclusion of the necessary "non-dissemination agreements" for signature by both the nuclear and the non-nuclear States. There is, indeed, some prospect that the Disarmament Committee, now meeting at Geneva, will consider the question as both the United States and the Soviet Union have adopted non-dissemination of nuclear weapons as part of their disarmament proposals.

At the last session of the General Assembly, we again sponsored a resolution which was adopted and which called for respect for the fundamental rights and freedoms of the Tibetan people including their right to self-determination. We again supported a further resolution condemning the system of apartheid in the Union of South Africa. However, we voted against the clauses in this resolution— which were, in fact, defeated—calling for the imposition of sanctions against South Africa as we believe that such measures would not achieve their purpose and might lead in existing circumstances to greater hardships on those whom the resolution was intended to assist.

I might finally mention the intervention of our delegation in the debates in February on the forthcoming independence of Ruanda-Urundi. We, of course, warmly welcome this development. We felt, however, that a draft resolution submitted on the subject went too far inasmuch as it required the withdrawl of all Belgian forces by the date of independence. It seemed to us that, having regard to the serious rivalries and potential causes of dissension which exist in Ruanda-Urundi, it would be extremely dangerous to insist on such a step until the authorities of the territories had trained forces available to them to ensure order. We, therefore, joined with Sweden in proposing an amendment to that particular part of the draft resolution. I am happy to say that this initiative led to the resolution being amended and adopted.

I now turn to the Supplementary Estimate which is required to enable the Government to contribute to the United Nations Bond Issue.

The financial difficulties of increasing magnitude and gravity which have confronted the United Nations for several years have now reached the stage where the ability of the Organisation to carry out its primary responsibility and agreed programmes is seriously threatened. The necessity for drastic action to meet the situation was brought to the attention of member states by the Acting Secretary-General, U Thant, on 11th December, 1961, when he indicated that the Organisation was, in fact, on the verge of bankruptcy. These difficulties are occasioned by three factors: (1) arrears on the part of some members in the payment of their contributions to the regular budget but more particularly (2) the refusal of certain members on political grounds to contribute to the cost of the organisation's emergency peace-keeping operations in the Middle East and in the Congo and (3) hesitations, not amounting to refusals, on the part of other members to meet their assessed shares of the cost of these operations.

This has led to a growing deficit which the Acting Secretary-General estimates will amount to $170,000,000 by 30th June this year. It was to meet this deficit and to increase the Organisation's working capital that the Acting Secretary-General proposed, and the General Assembly authorised by a resolution adopted on the 20th December, 1961, a bond issue of $200,000,000. The bonds bear interest at the rate of 2 per cent. per annum and are repayable in 25 annual instalments from the regular budget of the Organisation. They are offered for sale to member states of the United Nations and members of the specialised agencies, as well as to the official institutions of such members. Bonds may also, in certain circumstances, be offered to non-profit institutions or associations. The terms and conditions of the issue make no provision for the sale of bonds to individuals.

The bond issue does not mean that the Organisation accepts that those Member countries now defaulting in contributions to the cost of the emergency operations in the Middle East and in the Congo should continue to do so. At its last session the General Assembly requested an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice as to whether assessments on Member States for these two activities "are expenses of the Organisation" within the meaning of Article 17 (2) of the Charter of the United Nations which reads as follows:—

"The expenses of the Organisation shall be borne by the members as apportioned by the General Assembly."

Under Article 19 of the Charter a member which is in arrears in payments for two full years should not have the right to vote in the General Assembly unless failure to pay is due to conditions beyond the member's control. We have made a written submission to the Court to the effect that assessments on Member Governments for the United Nations Middle East and Congo operations are obligatory.

Having regard to the grave financial situation as outlined by the Secretary-General our delegation voted for the resolution authorising the bond issue. Subsequently the Acting Secretary-General requested all Member States to inform him of their intentions with regard to subscribing to the issue. The Government consider that it would be only consonant with our general policy of support for the United Nations that we contribute to the bond issue. Should funds not be available for the continued financing of the Organisation's peace-keeping operations in the Middle East and in the Congo, the consequences would indeed be serious. Although the proposed solution is not ideal, it will enable the present crisis to be met.

A number of countries have already announced their willingness to contribute to the bond issue. Of these, eight countries are subscribing amounts in excess of their percentage contribution to the United Nations Regular Budget, four countries are subscribing amounts equal to and seven countries amounts less than their percentage contribution. In the case of the U.S.A., Congress has before it proposals for the purchase of $100 million worth of bonds or for the purchase of $25 million worth and the matching of subscriptions by other Governments up to a further $75 million.

The Federal Republic of Germany which is not a member of the United Nations has undertaken to purchase bonds to the value of $10 million. To date, and excluding a United States subscription, twenty-one countries have promised to purchase bonds to the extent of nearly $52 million.

The Government propose to purchase $300,000 worth of the bonds which is $20,000 or 7 per cent. more than the figure corresponding to our percentage share of the Regular Budget of the Organisation. I hope that, in the circumstances outlined, the Dáil will approve this proposal and will consequently adopt the motion.

I move:—

That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration.

There has long been a need for this Government to clarify their foreign policy. This need has become all the more urgent since the Government decided to join the European Economic Community. The Government's position can with fairness be referred to as being ambiguous, equivocal and illdefined. It was reasonable to expect that the Minister this evening would inform the House and the public of the political implications of our adherence to the Rome Treaty and it is noteworthy that there has been no reference in his speech to our joining the European Economic Community, other than the very sparse reference to the financial details arising out of the negotiations.

This omission by the Minister to inform the House amounts to scant courtesy to this Parliament. It is, however, more serious than that. It amounts to a failure in his duty to the public. The public is entitled to know what are the views of the Minister for External Affairs on this important issue. Nearly all the Ministers in the Cabinet have expressed their opinions as to the political implications of our joining the European Economic Community. From the Taoiseach down to the Minister for Lands, we have been informed of the view these Ministers hold on the possible political implications of our joining the Community. The Minister has remained remarkably silent and it has been suggested there is some significance in his silence. It is important that the Minister should give his views to this House and to the country on what he regards are the political consequences both to us in the immediate future of joining the European Economic Community and also in our rôle in the United Nations.

It should be recalled that the Taoiseach has stated that if we become a member of the European Economic Community, it will involve a change in our position in the United Nations. It would have been most appropriate if the Minister had informed us of what he thinks is involved in that change. We are, of course, in this House, accustomed to the particular parliamentary tactics of the Minister for External Affairs. We are used to the sort of introductory speech which we have heard this evening in which there is no statement of policy and no indication of the general aims and objects of the Government. We are also accustomed at the end of the debate sometimes to hear a statement of policy from the Minister after the debate has concluded and when it is not possible for a discussion to take place on his statement.

It may be that the Minister may avail of his right of reply to deal with these important matters. If he does, we can only say that we regret that we shall have lost the opportunity of discussing it, but at the same time, it would be important if he did indicate his opinion on these vital matters. I think it is true to say that before the Government decided to apply for membership of the European Economic Community, a significant change had occurred in the foreign policy of this Government, a change from the position which apparently they had taken up in 1957. The impression was put abroad that this Government regarded themselves as an uncommitted neutral State, unattached to any group or any bloc.

The Taoiseach a couple of years ago made it very clear that he accepted the view which had been put forward from this side of the House for a very considerable time that although we may have been militarily neutral, we were not politically neutral in the ideological struggle. We welcomed this statement from the Taoiseach which he made a couple of years ago in which he made clear that as far as neutrality was concerned, the Government did not regard themselves as politically neutral.

Another important development occurred last year in the reply of the Minister to this debate when he himself stated that he had never used the word "uncommitted" with regard to our particular position in international affairs, and he went to some pains particularly to eschew the use of the word "uncommitted" with reference to our position in international affairs. At column 675 of volume 191, No. 4 of the Dáil Debates he said "I do not ever remember alluding to ourselves as an uncommitted nation." Last year in the course of the debate in that reply which the Minister delivered to this House he again reiterated the point that he was against our joining any bloc or group of states, and it is to this that I want to refer now.

As I have indicated, there has been a considerable shift in the foreign policy of the Government from what they originally intended in 1957, and the Government have now admitted that they do not like to be regarded as an uncommitted State. They have admitted that it is not politically neutral, and we did not—and I think this was of the utmost significance— attend the meeting of uncommitted states which was held in Belgrade last year.

It was last year, on 11th July, that the Minister was replying to this debate. He said that he was not in favour of our joining any bloc or group of states. In fact, as he was speaking the Governments of the Six had obtained by then notification that we had intended to join or apply for membership of the European Economic Community, and on 4th July, a week before the Minister's statement, a memorandum had been sent to the European Economic Commission setting out our desire and our intention to apply for membership of the European Economic Community. When the Minister was making this statement, the position was that, in fact, we had indicated officially our intention of joining one of the most powerful groups and blocs in the world, and we had indicated our intention to apply for full membership of the European Economic Community.

It would be wrong for Deputies or for anybody outside this House to say anything which might be interpreted as endangering in any way our application for membership of the European Economic Community. It would be wrong for us to take every opportunity of criticising the Government's actions in the course of these vital negotiations, but we are entitled to say this, that whilst we sincerely hope that these negotiations succeed, and whilst we sincerely hope that we will become members of the European Economic Community on terms which will be mutually acceptable, if these negotiations fail their failure will be the result of the Government's mishandling of the situation. Is it not true to say that up to last year events in Europe were largely ignored by this Government? Is it not true to say that the effects of important developments on the Continent of Europe went unheeded by this Government?

We are on record on this side of the House as having made suggestions over the past two or three years that at any rate unofficial probings should be made to the European Economic Commission of the possibilities of Ireland's application for membership of the European Economic Community. We are on record as having suggested that it might be desirable for the Government even on the most unofficial level to do what other countries, such, for example, as Denmark had done, to approach the European Economic Commission with a view to ascertaining the sort of terms that it might be possible to negotiate if we decided to join or apply for associate membership of the European Economic Community. These suggestions were ignored.

I have pointed out from time to time in this House that it has been symptomatic of the Government's lack of interest in European affairs that the Minister for External Affairs has never once addressed the Assembly of the Council of Europe in his capacity as Minister for External Affairs since he took up that office in 1957. There were many opportunities which could have been taken in order to help create a climate of opinion favourable to this country which were not taken. There were many chances for the Government through their Minister for External Affairs to put our point of view and to draw a most sympathetic hearing for our problems in the only European Parliamentary assembly of which we are members, namely, the Council of Europe. That opportunity was never taken. The fact is that since 1957 the Minister for External Affairs has not attended the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe and not made any speech to the Consultative Assembly.

I am fully aware of the drawbacks of the Council of Europe and the Consultative Assembly and of its limitations, but it happens to be the only Parliamentary assembly of which we are members. It also happens that there are people attending there of considerable influence in their own countries; and if the Government were properly concerned with our interests in Europe these opportunities would have been taken. In fact, the Government's lack of interest in affairs in Europe is further instanced by the fact that they have ceased to send a Minister as part of the Parliamentary delegation to the Council of Europe. It has been the practice up to quite recently for the Irish Parliamentary delegation to be led by a Minister, and that practice has been dropped. There is now no Minister attending at the Consultative Assembly to lead the Irish delegation. It is the practice in the Council of Europe for other delegations to be represented by a Minister or Secretary of State charged with economic or external affairs.

As I say, I feel that these things are symptomatic of the lack of interest which this Government have demonstrated in these vitally important developments which have been occurring at our doorstep and which are now going to affect our whole economic and political future. Some explanation is due to the House of the manner in which our application was brought. The evidence available to us indicates that the Government has misjudged the economic obligations we would have to undertake if we were to apply for membership, and if our membership was to be acceptable, of the EEC. The Bulletin of the European Economic Community, Nos. 9 and 10, at page 23 refers to the fact that the Taoiseach had submitted to the Community on 4th July a memorandum setting forth the Irish nation's intentions but adding that:

On account of its economic situation and the development plan it was pursuing, Ireland would not be able to accept all the time limits laid down in the Treaty of Rome. The Irish Government, however, intimated to the Council later that its application for membership should be considered independently of this memorandum.

I should be glad if the Minister would give us a little more information concerning that statement. The report put out by the Council of Europe was a little more explicit and from the information which it has been possible for us on this side of the House to obtain, it would appear that the Government had, first of all, suggested that they would require special consideration and special time limits in their application in respect of adherence to the Rome Treaty and that subsequently, within a month, it was intimated by the Government that this original memorandum was withdrawn and that these special considerations were not being pressed.

At this vital point, the Government should give us some information as to what has happened. If the Government have failed to understand what the economic obligations of our membership of the European Economic Community would be, they have also certainly failed to understand the political implications. These political implications were ignored up to the beginning of this year. It will be recalled that the Government last year produced a White Paper concerning Ireland's application for membership of the European Economic Community. There was no reference in this White Paper to the possible political implications of Ireland's adherence to the Rome Treaty. The Taoiseach made a declaration here on 4th July in which he referred to our application to join the European Economic Community. The following week it was pointed out from these benches that he had made no reference at all to the political implications if we were to adhere to the Rome Treaty and join the European Economic Community.

Last year, before it was announced that we had formally applied, it was pointed out from these benches that there were these political implications and the Government had failed to inform the House or, more important still, to inform public opinion as to what these political implications were. I think it is proper to recall to the House how last year after the Taoiseach had announced that we had applied for full membership of the European Economic Community, he dealt through the House with these political implications. He made a full declaration on 2nd August last year which is contained in volume 191, No. 40, of the Official Report, and at columns 2571 and 2572, he dealt in a very wary fashion with the political implications.

He referred to the fact that there had been a statement issued by the heads of Governments recently, which was an oblique reference to the Bonn Declaration. He then went on to say:

As a country which has applied for membership of the European Economic Community we will have the opportunity of participating in the discussions preliminary to the drafting of the new convention. We can, as we understand it, do so without commitment. I do not think that we as a nation should be deterred from entering the road to economic unity through the Rome Treaty by reason of our knowledge that the road does not necessarily end at that point.

He goes on to say in regard to the other countries of the Rome Treaty:

If all these countries join at some future time in an agreement for a political confederation or some other form of political union, will it be possible for us to decide to stand apart from it. We do not have to answer that question now but some day, be it sooner or later, we will be faced with it.

In very guarded terms, he informed the House that there were political developments occurring which might have some significance for us but that we should not be deterred from participating in the achievement of the economic objects of the Rome Treaty merely because of the political consequences which might follow. How different was that statement from the statement the Taoiseach made to the Council of Ministers on 18th January when he stated his desire to emphasise:

The political aims of the Community are aims to which the Irish Government and people are ready to subscribe and in the realisation of which they wish to play an active part.

After his return from Brussels, as we are well aware, the Taoiseach went out of his way, very properly I believe, to inform the public that there were considerable political implications arising from our membership of the European Economic Community. As I have said, nearly all the Ministers have spoken on these political implications up to the time of the speech of the Minister for Lands and since then there has apparently been a closure on this subject, for it has not since been referred to.

It is, of course, impossible for anyone to spell out clearly what the political implications will be but there are certain points which can be established. The first is this: there are in Europe four States, excluding Finland for the moment, who are regarded as neutrals: ourselves, Sweden, Austria and Switzerland. Sweden, Austria and Switzerland have all stated that because of their neutrality, they cannot apply for full membership of the European Economic Community. It appears to the Governments of those countries that in some way their neutrality is a bar to their becoming full members of the European Economic Community. Apparently this does not seem so to the Irish Government. It is of very considerable significance that these countries are not applying for full membership, whilst we are doing so.

It has been one of the more difficult tasks in recent months to get some definite information as to what form the future political co-operation among the Six will be. As we are aware from newspaper reports, there is a considerable divergence of view among the Six themselves in the so-called Fouchet Commission as to the form of the political statute it was decided should be drafted. As I say, it is impossible to spell out with any degree of certainty what the political Convention, if one is signed, will contain; but I think it is possible that, if we become a member of the European Economic Community, we will be involved in considerable political discussions, probably in the field of education, probably in the field of defence, and probably in the field of external affairs.

As a member of the European Economic Community, there will be discussions on a political level in which we will be required to take part and to play our role as a full member of this Community. The mere fact that these things are difficult to prognosticate and that the full extent of the implications are difficult to prophesy should not stop the Minister from indicating to us what these developments will in a general way entail for this country. That they will entail something, there can be no doubt, and it has already been acknowledged by the Taoiseach that our position in the United Nations will change as a result of our adherence to the Rome Treaty.

I should like to make it perfectly clear that I warmly welcome Ireland's adherence to the Rome Treaty. I sincerely hope that the discussions will be successful. I welcome Ireland's participation in the movement towards European unity. I feel that our place is with the other countries of the Six in this most important political development which has been taking place over the past few years. I warmly welcome the political consequences which will flow from our adherence to the Rome Treaty. It is sincerely to be hoped that the economic consequences which must flow can be minimised by the negotiations which will take place and by the steps which will subsequently be taken to prepare us in this country for free trade.

There are certain matters of detail to which I should like to refer before concluding. The Minister has indicated to the House that the Information Section of the Department requires considerably increased finances, mainly as a result of a decision to produce two films and an information booklet. I should be glad if the Minister would inform the House who is writing the script for this film, who is producing it, and who is directing it, so that we may understand the type of film it is proposed to make and who will be involved in the making of it. I should also like to know who is writing this booklet, whether it is the product of the Department or whether it is some outside individual and, if so, who that individual is.

The personnel of the Department of External Affairs needs to be strengthened. For the heavy duties which are now being cast upon it, the Department is inadequately staffed. It is a very poor type of economy to cut down on the staffing of this most important Department. It is right that we should pay tribute to the tremendous amount of work done by a small group of people, in many instances in conditions in which they are heavily understaffed. The officials of the Department carry a great burden, and carry it with remarkable success. The Minister should press his colleagues in the Department of Finance not to engage in false economies by cutting down on the necessary expansion of the Department of External Affairs, an expansion which will have to be brought about if the Department is properly to fulfil the functions which are now being cast upon it.

This House should certainly pass the Supplementary Estimate relative to the United Nations. It is right that we should demonstrate in this practical way our support for the United Nations. It is right that we should show that, even though a small country, we are prepared to pay more than our adequate share of the issue of the bonds. I strongly support the efforts which have been made to strengthen the secretariat of the United Nations. I strongly support the praise that has been given to the work of the late Secretary-General, whose death was a blow to that organisation from which it may, with great difficulty, recover. To my mind, the future of the United Nations Organisation is vital for the peace of the world. Like every other human organisation, it has many imperfections, but it is through the strengthening of the power of the Secretary-General that the best hope lies for strengthening the effective use of the United Nations as an instrument of peace.

As I said at the outset, this annual debate on the Department of External Affairs should provide an opportunity for the Dáil and the public to hear from the Minister, principles of foreign policy, the principles which activate the Government in their handling of our very important interests abroad. It has now become almost monotonous for us on this side of the House to complain of the way the Minister each year introduces his Estimate. Monotonous as it may be, I feel, however, that we are justified in complaining again this year of the fact that the Minister has failed to deal with that which the public is vitally concerned to know, namely, the political implications for this country if we become a member of the European Economic Community. I sincerely hope that, even in a somewhat belated fashion, this matter will be dealt with by the Minister in his reply.

Is mian liom cúpla focal a rá ar an Meastachán seo. Ag breathnú ar na figiúirí a thug an tAire dúinn feicim go bhfuil breis agus £500,000 le caitheamh i mbliana ar an obair thábhachtach seo. Ón dearcadh a thugas ar na figiúirí, is léir dom go bhfuil £93,000 sa mbreis le híoc i mbliana agus tá a fhios agam gur le haghaidh tuarastal Oifigeacha na Roinne, costas teastail agus aithíocta atá an t-airgead breise ag teastáil. Rud eile, tá sé in aigne ag an Rialtas dhá oifig nua a oscailt, ceann acu i Hamburg agus ceann eile i gCopenhagen.

Is léir do chuile dhuine go bhfuil gá leis an Meastachán seo ag an Aire. Anuraidh bhí an-ghá le Roinn den tsaghas seo nuair a bhí saighdiúirí Éireannacha thar lear sa Chongó. Is oth liom a rá go ndearna cuid de na páipéirí nuachta iarracht ar chlaonadh mícheart, cam, a chur ar an nuacht agus bhí ráfla ag dul timpeall go bhfuair níos mó ná 200 dár saighdiúirí bás. Tá eagla orm gur ghlac cuid dár nuachtáin féin leis an ráfla sin, go raibh siad ag cur amach nuacht mícheart i dtaobh a thárla sa Chongó. Chuir na ráflaí sin scannradh mór ar na daoine sa tír seo, go h-áirithe ar na daoine a raibh gaolta leo thar lear san limistéar sin, na daoine go raibh clann acu ann. Chuir sé áthas orainn uile nuair a chuaigh an tAire féin thar lear, nuair a d'fhulaing sé contúirt chun an nuacht ceart a fháil amach agus a thabhairt abhaile go hÉirinn. Táimid go léir anbhuíoch dó agus ba cheart go mbeadh an Dáil agus an tír go léir buíoch dó ar son a rinne sé san am imníoch sin.

Tá trácht sa Mheastachán faoi na pictiúirí seo ar tír na hÉireann agus tá súil agam, nuair atá an tAire ag labhairt arís, go n-innseóidh sé dúinn cén úsáid a déanfar as na pictiúirí úd. Ceapaim gur slí an-mhaith iad chun stair na tíre a chur in iúl dár mhuintir thar lear, dár ngaolta atá imithe i gcéin ach a bhfuil ceangal acu leis an tír go fóill. Tá súil agam go mbeidh eolas ins an iris leabhar atá in aigne ag an Aire a thabhairt amach i dtaobh na bpictiúirí seo.

Tá a fhios ag gach duine fosta go bhfuil an fear atá againn in ár bpríomh áras i Nua Eabhrach ag déanamh go sár-mhaith ins na Náisiúin Aontaithe agus na hoifigeacha atá leis, mar a rinne an tUasal Ó Beoláin. De bharr an obair atá dhá déanamh acu agus atá déanta acu, tá meas agus gradam ar an dtír seo ní hé amháin in aigne na ndaoine sa tír seo ach in aigne na muintire thar lear chomh maith. Dá bharr sin beidh an Dáil ag déanamh obair mhaith an t-airgead seo a sholáthar don Aire chun go mbeidh ar a chumas an obair thábhachtach seo a leanúint i rith na mbliain atá ag teacht.

I think the country will be disappointed to know that during the debate on the Estimate for External Affairs the Minister has not made a statement relative to the Common Market. The Minister must know, as we all do, that it is one of the most important topics in the country to-day. Everybody is interested in the Common Market and the very person one would expect to give information on that subject is the Minister for External Affairs. I join with Deputy Declan Costello in expressing my regret that the Minister has not seen fit to do so.

Apart from that, the Minister gave us quite a comprehensive statement covering many facets of foreign policy and for the first time since I came into the House and since I became a member of the Council of Europe, he referred to the activities of that organisation. I am glad he did that. I note from his speech that the Brussels staff has at last been increased. Throughout the past twelve months we have on this side of the House referred to the fact that though the Common Market was a live issue, though discussions were going on on Ireland's being associated with EEC, we had but one man in Brussels representing Ireland at the Belgian Parliament and representing the country as well at the Common Market. With him there was one assistant. Therefore, we on these benches always felt that the question of negotiating in relation to the Common Market was not being taken seriously. I am now glad to know that there is increased staff. The Minister did not say to what extent it was increased, but at any rate it is an earnest of the fact that something is being done at last.

The Minister said that the request to the Irish Government to become a member of GATT has been deferred at the request of the Government. I wonder if that was a wise thing to do. That is evidenced by the fact that I got a reply to a Parliamentary Question the other day to the effect that there was nothing we could do about trade negotiations with regard to butter because we were not members of GATT—that as a result of the Government withdrawing our membership of GATT we were absolutely powerless to do anything. I would suggest the Minister would take another look at the situation and that we would become a member of GATT because whether we get into EEC or not we can play a useful part as a member of GATT. One thing GATT adherents get is the Most Favoured Nations' Clause. That would apply to us as members of GATT in any trade agreements we have with the United Kingdom. Had we been a member of that organisation when the Minister for Agriculture was conducting these negotiations with Britain, he could have struck a better bargain with regard to butter prices.

On the question of the Common Market, Ireland has apparently made an application to join, subject to the United Kingdom entering also as a full member. The Taoiseach's words were: "If the United Kingdom does not join or does not accept full membership, our application will be withdrawn." In effect, that seems to me to mean that our application will not be seriously considered. Our case, though it may be put, will not be considered because, on the strength of our application on those terms, it is only natural we will not be considered until the United Kingdom negotiations are finished. It is obvious that the negotiations being conducted by the United Kingdom with the European Economic Community are already running into grave difficulties. It seems evident that at a very minimum it will take twelve months before the United Kingdom will be able to decide whether she is able to seek full membership or not. At present she is probing her way and is faced with three difficult problems.

If I refer extensively to the United Kingdom I do so only on the grounds that the Government's application is subject to the entry of the United Kingdom. Therefore, as far as this Government are concerned, we must deal fully with the position of the United Kingdom before we can even be considered. The United Kingdom has first of all to surmount any obligation she has with EFTA Group. That may not be a serious problem. She has also to accept the basic principles of the agricultural policy of "The Six." I tried to extract those principles from the Taoiseach by Parliamentary Question here the other day, but he did not give me any information. He referred me to the Treaty of Rome in the Library, as the Taoiseach is inclined to do whenever he is asked questions relating to the Common Market.

Of course, there have been extensive discussions on agriculture between "The Six" and the other intending contracting parties. Another problem the United Kingdom faces, and which in my opinion may probably prevent her accepting full membership, is the position of the Commonwealth. She has an almost insurmountable problem there. As far as one can gauge the position, until she can solve that question she cannot become a full member. In my considered opinion it is likely she may never become a full member. She may find these difficulties are so great that she cannot adhere to the Common Market.

In the absence of a White Paper and in the absence of any information relative to Ireland's application and our intentions, politically, economically and otherwise, apart from the speech made at Brussels by the Taoiseach some months ago, it would be interesting for this House and the Irish nation to know in the event of the United Kingdom not being able to go in as a full member what Ireland is going to do. Is Ireland going to withdraw her application and go on as she was before in economic isolation? Is she going to seek some form of external association? If the United Kingdom seeks with her Commonwealth some form of external association, what do the Government propose to do? Do they propose to try and link themselves with the Commonwealth external association, or do they intend to sink into economic isolation? Dáil Éireann is entitled to a little information on such questions.

We are repeatedly assured by the Government that we have a special trading agreement with the United Kingdom. We were assured that when a delegation consisting of heads of Departments went to London some six or eight months ago they came back with the assurance that both countries had agreed that particular trading relations existed between them. Not very long after that we knew how firm those trading relations were when our exports of butter were practically excluded altogether. Have we a particular trading agreement with the British? Have we any new or fundamental agreement that safeguards our exports to that country? We have no information from the Government on that point. Since this Government came into office five or six years ago we have no information with regard to the expansion of our trade or the durability that obtains from any agreements made, other than the fact that a special trading agreement exists.

We are in a very difficult position economically. Of course, everything may be all right. There may be some special agreement between this country and the United Kingdom. Perhaps some special arrangement has been come to in reference to the Common Market. It may be that the British Government have given a guarantee to the Irish Government that they will adhere fully to any understanding they have with us to take all we have to sell. But we have no information whatever on these points. All we know is that when the British Government joined up with the EFTA Group we found we were already losing our particular position in regard to bacon exports and to a certain extent, the special terms we enjoyed with regard to exports of fish.

We have no information with regard to the political implications. Since the last general election I have asked only one question relative to the Common Market and no question relative to the political implications. But numerous questions have been asked here which the Taoiseach has answered, presumably on behalf of the Minister for External Affairs. I have read all the replies and supplementaries and, as far as any answers that have emanated from the Government Benches are concerned, I am just as wise now as I was before. Of course, there are political implications in membership of EEC. Of course, there are political implications in the United Kingdom trying to join the Common Market. Of course, there are political implications in the form of external association the Greeks have got and in the application for external association made by the Spanish Government in the past few weeks. Of course, there are political implications in the formation of OECD.

As far as I can see, the major political implications are these. I do not think it is likely we will have a war. I think it is very unlikely anybody would be so foolish as to start a world conflagration now. I do not think the Soviet bloc want one. I think they realise as well as anybody else that it would mean not only the destruction of their enemies but of themselves as well. Of course, there are political implications in the economic force of the Common Market countries, with 185,000,000 people, the second greatest exporters of capital in the world, with a steel production equal to that of the Soviet Union, and exports and trade equal to that of the United States.

About a year ago at the foundation of OECD the Under-Secretary of State of the United States came to Europe and told the Europeans it was the desire of the then President of the United States that the Free World should form itself into an economic bloc for one real purpose, that was, to preserve its freedom and to be a force potent enough to stand up to the challenge given to them by the Soviet bloc countries, including Red China. He stressed the importance of the strength and viability of the association, and the formation of OECD was proposed, which succeeded OEEC. In the new organisation, the United States and Canada joined the European countries, and the idea was to bring in subsequently all the other free countries who valued their freedom and were interested in seeing that the emergent countries were given the help and services they required.

Those are the political implications behind the Common Market. For that reason it is right that the Common Market should be a strong and viable organisation. It is already evident that the United States are ready to play their part in this movement and have already lowered their tariffs. By a movement of that nature they would be able to assist the emergent countries and to give the economic security to these countries that is necessary to help them on the road to democracy. Those seem to me to be the major political implications behind the EEC and all it stands for. I do not know if the Minister or the Government agree with that. Nobody knows what the Government think with regard to these political implications. This side of the House has been questioning them to find out what their policy is and no information has been forthcoming.

The Minister mentioned the Congo. I am glad to know that conditions appear to be quietening in the Congo. Many of us felt very unhappy at one time at the turn events were taking there. One had the feeling that too much pressure was being brought for the purpose of trying to restore unity there. I personally was very unhappy when I knew that Irish troops were in action to try to enforce unity in the Congo itself. I do not think that is the purpose for which they were sent to the Congo. They were sent there to try to preserve law and order. I am happy to know that things seem to have quietened considerably and I hope that we will not have a state of affairs where Irish troops will be taking action to establish by force a central government in the Congo.

It seems to me that is a matter for the Congolese themselves who are not one country. They are a conglomeration of many tribes. The frontiers of the Congo were fixed at the beginning of this century by the Europeans who were there, by what was known as the Independent State and subsequently by the Belgian Government when they took it over. Those frontiers were created by European forces and it seems to me that to try to force them with an army of soldiers into national unity is not the correct policy. I submit that that policy has failed and I think the Congolese people would best be allowed to settle their own affairs.

There are in the Congo Congolese who are white men. They were born and reared there and have been there for three or four generations. They have never been at home and their families have never been at home. They were described as mercenaries. They were white people who happened to be living in the country in the general maelstrom of confusion and it was wrong to describe them as mercenaries. I think wiser counsels are prevailing now and there is a more hopeful outlook than there has been for a long time.

With regard to the political implications of the Common Market, the only attempt made to define them were those made by the Fouchet Committee which did not succeed. There is not full agreement amongst the two contending parties within the Six as to what form of political union there should be. The other five countries want a supra-national organisation and the French want a looser type of federation and that, at the moment, is the political difference that exists. Where they fit together I do not know. My guess is as good as anybody else's because we have no information.

What is the Government policy with regard to Partition? As I know the position, the policy is one of co-operation economically and from the tourist point of view and from several other matters common to the Six Counties and to this country. The Minister made no reference to the matter or to whether there was any easing of the situation generally or to whether that co-operation exists or not. That vital problem should have been mentioned in this House in a debate on external affairs.

We still have many emigrants to Britain and very fine social organisations have been set up in London, particularly by the Catholic Church, to look after them. These efforts have been helped greatly by His Grace, the Archbishop of Dublin, and the bishops on the other side. It should be possible for the Government to give a subvention to keep this good work going. No matter what is said to the conventio trary there are still many emigrants leaving Ireland and it seems to me to be fitting that the Department of External Affairs should make some subvention to assist this great voluntary work.

We sometimes find some difficulty in speaking to the Vote on External Affairs. In present circumstances it seems particularly difficult in view of the fact that there have been hints, and, I say, merely hints of a change in our foreign policy. While we had these hints by various Government Ministers and by the Taoiseach that there will be changes in our foreign policy, we have not had them from the Minister for External Affairs. Naturally, we find the situation somewhat confusing. If any of us attempt to elucidate by way of Parliamentary Question or speech the present policy or the coming changes we are accused of rocking the boat. There are some people in this country who have the impression that if we ask any questions or seek to ascertain the foreign policy of the Government that we should be taken out to be counted.

Last year, the Minister—I give him due credit for it—was very emphatic as to what our foreign policy should be, especially in respect of what has been described as our traditional neutrality. He was pretty forceful in reiterating that the policy was a policy of neutrality which he has pursued in the United Nations and which was pursued by his predecessor.

Recently, it seems from the criticism of various people, not necessarily in this house, that to be neutral is tantamount to being pro-Russian or pro-Communist. For the benefit of those who did not either hear or read the Minister for External Affairs when he would up the debate on the Vote for his Department last year, I propose to quote what he said. The unfortunate thing about this particular debate and about many discussions on Ministers' Estimates is that the introductory speech is purely factual, in many cases, as in this case here tonight, somewhat historical, and I think the Minister has done himself and the country an injustice by not declaring clearly the foreign policy of this Government especially with regard to our neutrality or otherwise. I do not know whether the Minister has any particular motive in that. Last year, in reply to the debate, he made himself very clear.

I want to say that as far as the Labour Party is concerned we—and the Minister knows it—have supported him pretty well in the foreign policy which he has pursued but, frankly, I find myself rather confused in recent times. That confusion began with the speech that was made by the Minister for Lands in some part of Mayo, in February, I think it was, of this year. I commented on his speech because it did seem to me that the Minister for Lands had inferred that membership of the European Economic Community would mean eventually our joining the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. I would be the first to concede that he did not say that in clear and succinct terms but he seemed to be arguing in favour of our membership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation or, if not arguing in favour of it, arguing the case that we would not be accepted as full members of the EEC unless we were to participate in some military alliance, preferably NATO, in view of the fact, as he said—I do not purport to quote him—that all the countries in the EEC happened to be members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

I do not know whether or not that was the Minister for Lands' own speech, whether it was prompted by the Government or whether it was prompted by the Minister for External Affairs as a try-on, to fly a kite to see what the reaction of the country would be. If they were the tactics, I suppose they were legitimate tactics by the Government and by the Minister for External Affairs but I would suggest that if such a kite were to be flown it should not have been flown by one of the Ministers of the Government who have special collective responsibility, especially in such an important matter as, not alone our membership of the EEC, but the foreign policy that we would pursue.

There are people in the country who believe that if one is not exclusively and entirely for the western powers, therefore, one must be pro-Russian or pro-Khrushchev. The Minister has demonstrated, by the policy he has pursued in the United Nations Organisation, that it is possible to be neutral. I do not think anybody believes that either the Minister for External Affairs, this Government or the country are in any way sympathetic towards Mr. Khrushchev, the Warsaw Pact countries, the Communist way of life and all that that stands for. I do not think there is anybody in this world under any impression other than that we in this country, all the people and all Parties, stand for the free and democratic way of life which is totally opposed to the way of life that is sponsored and promoted by the countries headed by Russia and led by Mr. Khrushchev.

People seem to think that membership of the Common Market must mean or should mean our participation in some military alliance, should mean our participation in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. The Taoiseach has said on many occasions here that we have not been asked to join NATO and have made no application to join NATO, and nobody suggests that we should. I always suspect, take with a certain reservation, what the Taoiseach says. By his attitude and the tone of his voice and the way in which replies are couched, there does seem to me to have been some sort of reservation in everything the Taoiseach said regarding the possibility of our becoming a member of NATO or some other military group. As I say, maybe I am over suspicious in that and maybe I wrong the Taoiseach but, in any case, there has grown up in this country, among those who are wont to speak at university colleges and at debating societies the idea that, if you are not on this side, you are on that side. I do not think we have been particularly close to those countries in Europe that have been traditionally colonialist. We have never been particularly sympathetic with those who sought in years gone by to build up empires for themselves, who at the present time seek to preserve the remnants of the empires that those who went before them built up over the past century or two. Therefore, I believe it is possible to pursue a policy of neutrality.

There are many people, of course, who argue that it would be a good thing if we were to co-operate with the NATO, if we were to have nuclear weapons, nuclear bombing sites in this country for the economic advantages that would accrue to the country. Many people are prone to exaggerate the economic effects that the sitting of such weapons would have in this country.

A few moments ago, I said I would quote what the Minister for External Affairs said with regard to our neutrality and with regard to blocs. On 11th July, 1961—Volume 191, Column 675 of the Official Report—he said:

We will take this question, however, of the conference of uncommitted nations. I do not ever remember alluding to ourselves as an uncommitted nation. I think, for the most time, if people read up, I have always alluded to ourselves as an independent nation that believes in the principles of the Charter, that believes in human freedom, in human dignity, in self-determination and self-Government for peoples. We have not been in any bloc. I would myself be very hesitant to join any particular bloc.

Owing to an accident of history, we have evolved as a neutral nation. We have not put it into our Constitution as it is in the Swiss Constitution but the Leaders of the Opposition will remember that when, at the end of the war, an invitation came to Ireland to join NATO it was rejected. When people talk about all the good we could do if we joined NATO, it amazes me. I myself believe that what we would do if a war broke out is of very little importance. The world has plenty of destructive power without the little mite we could add but what we do before a war breaks out to try to prevent a war is of importance.

We have, owing to the accident of history or whatever way you like to put it, been independent, untied, neutral in the accepted sense of the term, in the military sense of the term. It was our duty as a delegation in the United Nations to take full advantage of that position, in order to try to promote the peace, to try to make propositions which countries tied to blocs could not make without committing their bloc.

One of the reasons I am prejudiced against joining a bloc, even if it were open to us, is that once you go into a bloc you must first of all clear every word with the other members before you can even make a speech in the United Nations.

May I respectfully ask if that is still the policy of the Minister for External Affairs and if that is the policy of the present Government? The Minister, in various speeches, in particular on one occasion by way of answer to a Parliamentary Question, talked about the reasons why we would and could not join NATO. The reasons why we did not join NATO were accepted by every Party in this House without exception.

The reply given by the present Minister for External Affairs on 17th May, 1961, was identical with the reply given by Seán MacBride when he was Minister for External Affairs in 1949 and there was no demur from any side of the House on both those occasions. Up to recently, we believed it still stood. If there has been any change in circumstances which would warrant our changing our policy, I think we are entitled to know it.

Naturally, we cannot be as conversant with what goes on in the United Nations, with what goes on in the world generally, as the Minister or the Government. We should like to have the position clear so that those on this side of the House along with those who are Members of the Government and of the Government Party would know where exactly we stand and so that we would not be accused unfairly of rocking the boat or being dubbed as people who would consort with those who are now members of the Warsaw Pact.

The Minister is a pretty blunt man. He does not put a tooth in what he says. I am sure he will make comment —not necessarily in answer to what I say—by way of endorsement, amendment or change on what he said in the Dáil on 11th July, 1961. The House will forgive me if I quote further from the Minister's speech. At Column 678 of the same Volume, the Minister continued:

Apart from that, there are many occasions on which an independent country that has no interest to serve except the good of the United Nations, the support of the Charter and the gradual evolution of a world of law, has great advantages in being free to express its own opinion without committing anybody, and to make suggestions when there are opposition groups at loggerheads. That is a freedom it would not have if it were in a bloc.

In that context, I wonder if the Minister considers that NATO is a bloc. If he did not and if he still does not consider NATO a bloc, I am all wrong: I misinterpreted the Minister's speech and I still misinterpret the Minister's foreign policy with regard to neutrality and the joining of blocs.

It is time, if it is opportune or if the Minister thinks it is opportune, to clarify that position. I should be the first to accept it if the Minister says it would not be right to comment now, that it is not opportune. If he were to say, in view of the fact that the Fouchet Committee are trying to hammer out a military position, that it would not be right for him to make any comment, I would accept it. However, the Taoiseach has protested all along that the Fouchet Committee means nothing, that there is no report from it, no information from it. We in the Labour Party believe that there should be unity not alone in the Dáil but in the country in the very serious matter of foreign policy.

I do not think it is right that there should be any big difference of opinion on foreign policy. Generally speaking, we should be in a position where we trust our Minister for External Affairs and our representatives at the United Nations to promote a policy that they believe is generally agreed or agreed in the majority by the Irish people.

It would be a tragedy if the policy which was pursued by a particular Minister for External Affairs were to be changed suddenly and radically on the change of Government. Mind you, that is very possible. I know Members on this side of the House in the Fine Gael Party disagree violently with the Minister for External Affairs on certain aspects of foreign policy.

In view of the fact that Governments have not been stable in their majorities at least in the past 10 or 15 years, I think the time has come when the Minister or the Taoiseach should take the initiative and establish an all-Party Foreign Affairs Committee. I know that Deputy Lemass is a very proud man: he is proud as Taoiseach. I know that he will say: "We will be responsible for foreign policy. We do not want assistance from anybody." He said that in respect of other things in this House for many a long year but in view of the fact that it is foreign policy and that our spokesmen purport to talk for the whole country I think it should be an agreed policy.

Such all-Party committees have been established in Switzerland, France and other countries. In the United States, they have only two Parties but at least both Parties are represented on what they call their Foreign Affairs Committee. It is inevitable, in respect of the countries which I have mentioned and in respect of most countries, that there should be agreement on foreign policy. This is not the first time I have advocated this. It may be a departure from the accepted practice.

Let me acknowledge that the Minister for External Affairs, through the Taoiseach, over the past two years kept me and Deputy Dillon, as Leaders of our Parties, informed of the general events in the Congo. I appreciate that the information is confidential but the gesture has been well accepted by me, in any case. Furthermore, it indicates to me that if we had more consultation in the matter of foreign affairs we would not have so much confusion. Let the Minister believe me sincerely when I say that as far as foreign policy with regard to neutrality is concerned there is a certain amount of confusion.

That is as much as I want to say on that particular aspect of the Vote.

The usual practice, for the Minister's information, is for Ministers to circulate their speeches immediately they deliver them. But, in respect of his Department, it seems to be very difficult to get the speech. The practice there seems to be to get the speech to Members of the Opposition Parties when the speech has been delivered and, at that stage, it is absolutely useless.

May I ask the Minister a question? The Minister promised last year to have special trade officials sent to the E.E.C. countries to promote Irish trade there. I do not know if he made reference to it in his opening speech. Perhaps, he will refer to it when he is concluding and say if he has done so and, if so, if there has been any progress and if there have been any beneficial results.

I want to place on record my appreciation of the handling of what I suppose we could all term the Congo Affair. We can be proud of the part our country played and of the contribution it made in what now must be regarded as a successful operation. It was very difficult. A situation existed there which many of us here did not appreciate. Some of us did not even have an idea of the size of the Congo, the number of tribes and languages, the personal animosities there and the internal struggles for power not alone in the whole of the Congo but in the various provinces. Our soldiers did a magnificent job and those whom we seconded to UNO certainly did their work very well.

I do not want to dwell on it but I do not think we did too well by one gentleman seconded from the Department of External Affairs, Mr. Conor Cruise O'Brien. It seems to me we let him down badly. We said when he resigned that he was not then a member of the Irish Civil Service and that we had no responsibility for him. No matter what anybody else might say, he followed the policy laid down for him by the United Nations and when he found the position had become intolerable for him, he was forced to resign.

One thing I deplore about this whole business is this: all of us were very worried last year when it was reported that many of our soldiers had been slaughtered or were in danger of being slaughtered in a very short time. We had all sorts of garbled reports, particularly from the British Press, as to the number captured or killed. It was amazing that, in 1962, in order to get the correct information from the Congo, we had to send one of the most important members of the Government 7,000 or 8,000 miles to find out what the situation was. The visit of the Minister for External Affairs was, no doubt, appreciated by our soldiers there but it seemed ridiculous that we could not get information regarding this affair until the Minister travelled such a long distance.

When the first expedition from Ireland was going to the Congo, the Labour Party indicated that we should have some liaison between the Army, UNO and this country but that suggestion was not adopted. I trust that in future if we have to send any Irish forces to any other part of the world in any similar capacity—which God forbid—liaison arrangements will be much better than they were in the Congo.

The Minister has been somewhat remiss in defending this country and its good name against the cowardly attacks made by the foreign Press on our soldiers and on other Irishmen who participated in the Congo operation. A very good—or should I say a very bad—example of this appeared in a British newspaper recently. I think it was the Daily Express. I felt at the time we could have done a little more to hurt that paper for hurting the feelings of so many Irish people and for creating a wrong impression abroad about the behaviour of Irish soldiers. I have as much respect—perhaps more—for the Press generally as anybody. The British daily and Sunday newspapers consider their sales here to be very important and we could have hit them there. It is not good enough that a paper with such a report or such an article should be allowed to circulate in this country.

I do not suggest it should be banned for all time but at least there should have been some retaliation on the part of the Government. It would not have been considered a mean retaliation or an attack on the Press. It was significant that other newspapers did not carry the article. It must be apparent, therefore, to everybody that it was just one of these gimmick stories in an effort to boost circulation and our best retaliation would have been to try to damage its circulation, and I say that baldly.

The last point I want to mention is Partition. We have been very diffident about mentioning Partition for a long time. We are told we are the sore thumb in world affairs, if we talk about Partition. Are we becoming mature or senile? I remember the first occasion on which prominent Irish politicians attended the Council of Europe at Strasbourg when the whole theme of their speeches was Partition. Every member who addressed the Assembly, including Ministers and ex-Ministers, spoke of the injustice of Partition and the responsibility of the British Government and they appealed for help from other countries. Now they dare not mention Partition.

I should like to know what is Government policy in regard to Partition. It is not sufficient to throw out such phrases as "Every opportunity will be taken to raise Partition at the appropriate time", and "It is mentioned periodically to British Ministers" and that sort of thing. We had the situation here for a number of years in which young men decided to take the law into their own hands and use guns and bombs and other things at the Border. Very few in this House —nobody that I know—supported them or commended them for that campaign. Now that the campaign is ended, we are told, surely there is a danger—I do not want to encourage them—that some of the younger generation, from 18 to 25, will start a similar campaign? It may not be the most important problem in the world. There is the Berlin problem and the problem of Red China and all sorts of problems and compared with these our problem may seem pretty small, but it is important.

I do not suggest the Government should start on an anti-Partition campaign throughout the whole world or in the United Nations, but I believe the time has come when we should again stir ourselves to try to ensure that we shall have a 32-county Ireland. We have had many inflammatory speeches about this in the past. Many people in Dáil Éireann at present were elected because of what they said they would do to reunite this country, but unfortunately nothing is being done. Therefore, I think the Minister should, although certainly not in this debate, try to evolve some sort of plan or policy that would encourage the people of the Six Counties to come in with the 26 Counties. Somebody suggested that if we entered the Common Market, the barriers would be so broken down we would, in effect, become one country. I do not know if that is right. Many of them up there will still consider Ulster is British and all that sort of nonsense. The time is long overdue when——

The Six-County Labour Party think that.

The Labour Party in the North have as much to do with the Labour Party here as the Fianna Fáil Party in the North have to do with Fianna Fáil here.

There is a British Labour Party in the North and an Irish Labour Party. The Irish Labour Party in the North do not think that.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 5th April, 1962.
Top
Share