Committee on Finance. - Vote 49—External Affairs (Resumed). – Dáil Éireann (17th Dáil) – Thursday, 5 Apr 1962

Committee on Finance. - Vote 49—External Affairs (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

"That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration."—(Deputy D. Costello.)

Mr. Cosgrave

The announcement by the Minister that it is proposed to produce a film and a booklet to publicise the country will be generally welcomed. I should be interested to know who is making the film and what particular facets of life it is intended to cover. I should also like to know if it is possible to indicate at this stage who is publishing the booklet and if it will be regarded as an official Departmental publication. One important matter which should be considered is the necessity for publishing a factual booklet giving up-to-date information and as far as possible conveying an accurate picture of economic, social, cultural and other matters.

In matters of this kind, the best propaganda is to adhere strictly to facts. Indeed, the most effective publicity for the country in a matter of this sort is to ensure that whatever is published is published as a factual representation of conditions. I assume that these matters will receive attention in the compilation of whatever booklet is published but it is important to emphasise the desirability of ensuring that the factual representation of conditions as they exist is the best possible propaganda and indeed the only line which we should follow in publications of this sort.

It is natural that this year a great deal of interest should be focused on our application to join the European Economic Community and in discussing this Estimate, it is natural that we should consider not merely some of the matters which have been the subject of discussions here previously but some of the wider issues which not alone will affect this country but European as a whole, in the event of the European Economic Community achieving a wider membership.

The idea of the European Economic Community is generally considered to have emerged from the failure of France to ratify the European Defence Community in 1954. Subsequently, in 1955, a number of countries—the Six—met at Messina and evolved from that meeting the concept of the European Economic Community. Undoubtedly, that concept had received much support in different countries. The underlying agreement between the various countries of Europe is far greater than any differences which separate them. They all inherit the same Christian and cultural traditions and these traditions exert a powerful unifying influence. The strengthening of that influence at present is essential.

Western Christian civilisation depends to a great extent on the maintenance of a strong and united Europe. The most significant development in recent years has been the European Economic Community and while in this country and in Britain, most attention is being focused on the economic aspects of the Rome Treaty, the same is not true of a number of European countries. Indeed, in some of these countries, the political aspect, and the possible political consequences have received more attention and are regarded as having much greater significance than the economic implications. It is only natural that here and in Britain the economic questions should have, up to the present, predominated, because in view of the close links between our economy and the British, any economic changes would have widespread repercussions.

On the other hand, if we examine some of the speeches and statements made by the representatives of other European countries, we see that the emphasis is on the political rather than the economic aspects. Professor Hallstein said that the reasons for establishing the Common Market are largely political and that represents to a very considerable extent the German view. M. Lucien Faure said that the implications of the Rome Treaty were not merely economic but psychological and political as well. If we look at the preamble to the Rome Treaty, we see that it calls for the establishment of a closer unity between the European peoples and in the last paragraph, it says that the signature nations are resolved to strengthen peace and liberty by the pooling of resources. If we take into account the words of the Preamble and the statement made by the representatives of West Germany and France, we realise the political potentialities and aspirations of those who not merely framed the Rome Treaty but are now members of the European Economic Community.

It is true that up to the present the political terms have not been clearly defined. The Committee known as the Fouchet Committee has been considering that aspect of the matter. Indeed, the further political development of the European Economic Community depends on the deliberations of that Committee. But no matter what the ultimate agreement reached by that Committee as set out in clearly defined terms may be, it is obvious from the terms of the Rome Treaty and the discussions which have already taken place that the political framework of the European Economic Community will be vital for Europe and the free world.

It is a fact that up to the present less attention has been paid to its political aspects. It may be that the Government have no more information than appears in the newspapers but it does seem to me that public opinion on the matter and public awareness of the concept of a united Europe would be strengthened by making available whatever information is available and by directing attention to these aspects of the matter. As well as the economic considerations, which will have far reaching effects not merely on Europe but on our own trading position, the political implications involve to a very considerable extent the defence of the free world against Communism.

This country is not and never has been neutral in the struggle between the East and the West. We have expressly stated in the past that in the great ideological conflict which divides the world today, our attitude is clear. By tradition, culture, geographical position and our natural inclinations, we belong to the great community of states headed by the United States, Canada and Western Europe. Our destinies are indissolubly bound up with them. It is in our interests that that group should remain strong and united.

The development of the European Economic Community was a consequence of the failure of the European Defence Committee. The effort by the various European countries to reach agreement in order to defend the things which they value and the freedom which they enjoy is implicit in the Rome Treaty. While less attention is being paid both here and in Great Britain to these aspects of the matter, the same is not the case in a number of European countries. It is, therefore, for this country as well as for others a very big step to become members of an organisation which at present embraces only six countries but which, if it is extended, will embrace a great many more. In 1956 I had the opportunity of speaking at a gathering in Queen's University, Belfast, and I said there that isolationism is not an innate Irish characteristic; that, indeed, we can forget that the very birth and existence of the Irish State owned as much, perhaps, to the pressure of world, particularly American opinion, as to the sacrifices of those who shed their blood for it at home, and while up to recent times we had been predominantly occupied with other matters, nevertheless, this country at the earliest opportunity played a part as a member of the League of Nations. Once we were elected a member of the United Nations, we continued to play a part in contributing to the maintenance of the organisation and, where possible, to the maintenance of peace and to the extension and development of the rule of law wherever we could make a contribution towards it.

One of the attributes which was generally recognised as part of the skill of the late Franklin Roosevelt was that he led the U.S. by speech and policy to a position in which the participation of the United States in the last war had the overwhelming support of the people of America. Undoubtedly, that line of policy was brought to a head by the Pearl Harbour events but if we remember the attitude of the United States, its isolationist mentality, the policy of Roosevelt was a very powerful influence. One of the advantages which the policy initiated by Roosevelt had was that it softened up the United States for the eventual plunge. While it was sparked off by other events, the climate of opinion had been created which made the ultimate step much easier.

As far as the application of this country to join the European Economic Community is concerned, the Government has had the distinct advantage of a generally favourable climate of public opinion. It is, I suppose, only natural that some people look with doubts and misgivings on the possible consequences of that action, but by and large there is a general recognition, which transcends party political considerations or sectional interests, that the ultimate destiny of this country could be much better served by being in the European Economic Community, certainly if the British join it, than by remaining outside it.

We have in this respect the compelling truth of the statement made by his Lordship Most Reverend Dr. Philbin. I do not purport to quote his actual words, but the meaning of them was that we could remain outside the E.E.C. and enjoy a lower standard of living but if we wanted to achieve the standards which a modern society aimed at we had no option but to join it. That coupled with a remark which his Lordship made subsequently on a Telefís Éireann programme, was, I think, most significant. Commenting on the things which, as far as this country is concerned, we had achieved or succeeded in doing, he said that provided we valued a matter sufficiently highly we had demonstrated our ability to succeed. His reference was to the firm grasp which this country and her people had on the Faith despite centuries of persecution.

I believe there is a general recognition that as far as the E.E.C. is concerned undoubtedly there will be problems; that, indeed, many of these problems and difficulties are impossible to foresee or foretell accurately; that if the concept of the Community as envisaged in the Treaty of Rome is realised fully in practice it will involve changes and alterations, not merely for this country but for Europe, of a kind never before seen and which will have repercussions in different directions, in ways which render speculation only guesswork.

On the other hand, we realise that to the other countries who have either joined or are considering joining the European Economic Community, the purpose of the Community is in the main twofold—political, in order to unite Europe to remain an effective force in the struggle against Communism; and economic, in order to strengthen the economic and social fabric of the members of the organisation not merely to provide a higher standard of living but also to enable these countries to withstand the consequences of the activities of the Soviet Union and its satellites.

While undoubtedly this country has played its part and is capable of asserting an influence on world affairs, we must, as I said previously, preserve a sense of proportion. We are a small country and we will have a continuous fight for economic survival. But given proper leadership and direction we have the ability and, I believe the tenacity, to win through. The fact that we are one of the smallest countries in Europe, and that we will be one of the smallest countries in this organisation if we become a member, means we should not assume roles or attempt to fulfil functions appropriate to countries with much greater resources or bigger populations.

At the same time, because of our history, tradition and the reputation we have already achieved, we are fitted to play a special role in certain spheres. We have recently played an important part in trying to restore order to the Congo. There is general satisfaction at the manner in which our soldiers conducted themselves there and of the high standard which they set in discharging their responsibilities. It reflected credit not merely on themselves but on the country. Representing a small country that had only lately achieved freedom, a freedom which some of the soldiers concerned had in earlier years fought to secure, it fell to their lot in different circumstances to serve the wider interests of peace and stability in a country newly emerged from political domination. That it was possible to participate as one of the United Nations units in the Congo was, as I have said, due to the fact that we are a country that has won the respect of the emergent nations, regarded as a country with no ulterior motives, a country which, in common with many other small countries, has a vital interest in the preservation of peace and the establishment of order.

Probably an even stronger factor than our reputation as a country that had fought for freedom, that had only recently secured the right to govern ourselves, is the work of Irish missionaries and Irish teachers in these emergent countries. Indeed, if the name of this country is honoured and respected among these nations, it is probably due to a very considerable extent to the work of Irish priests, missionaries, nuns, nurses, teachers and so on who, not merely in recent times but for generations, have played a great part in developing these countries, in training them, in educating the people in them, in serving their interests and, indeed, in bringing them to the position in which they are in many cases able to run newly founded States in an efficient and competent fashion.

However, in considering the contribution this country has made and the part we have played, it is well to reflect on the very considerable burden which that entails for this country, both physically and financially. The fact that so many units have gone to the Congo was welcomed not only by the units themselves and the personnel involved but by the country generally. At the same time, there have been some tragic losses and there was and is very great sympathy with those who suffered as a result of the death or injury of soldiers serving there.

We, as a small country, have borne our full share of the obligations laid down by the General Assembly in our financial contribution as a member of the United Nations and it is hardly reasonable to expect small countries or States to carry the burden of those countries who have fallen into arrears and who are defaulters in the matter of the maintenance of adequate financial support for the United Nations.

Some months ago, when the Secretary-General announced that the United Nations was in danger of having to default on its commitments in respect of the Congo and other obligations, it came as a shock to learn that that was due to the default of certain Member States in not paying their contributions both on time and in full. I was glad to learn from the Minister's statement that the Government here had made a written submission to the International Court of Justice on the question that had been referred to it by the General Assembly on the interpretation of Article 17 (2) and I should like, if possible, to get some further information on this aspect of the matter.

As I understand it, the General Assembly requested an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice as to whether the assessments on Member States are properly regarded as expenses of the Organisation within the meaning of Article 17 (2) which lays down that the expenses of the Organisation are to be borne by the Members as apportioned by the General Assembly. I take it that, assuming the advisory opinion is in the affirmative, some further action will be necessary by the General Assembly, that the Assembly can decide to allow a Member in arrears for two full years to vote in the General Assembly or otherwise. While we have made a written submission, obviously this is a matter which affects other countries as well as Ireland but which particularly affects small countries because, proportionately, the burden and the obligations involved press more heavily on them. This is a matter in which it is desirable to secure the agreement or the co-operation of other countries in getting a decision from the Court. If necessary, representations could be made verbally as well as in writing to ensure that this matter would be fully considered and that, if an affirmative decision is given, we in common with other countries would endeavour to have appropriate action taken by the Organisation.

It is, as I say, satisfactory to note that we have made a written submission on this matter, but so far as one can gather, one of the defects in the Organisation at present is that a number of countries, undoubtedly some of the greater countries like the United States, are bearing more than their share. Indeed, as is known, Western Germany, which is not a Member, has assumed responsibility. But, world peace and the interests of a world organisation depend on the support of all its Members and not merely on having the burden carried by a few or by those who are so minded because the decisions taken conform to their views and conflict with the views of those who refuse to pay.

The Russians have in the past endeavoured by various means to disrupt the Organisation. It is not necessary here to go over the efforts that were made at the General Assembly and elsewhere to disrupt the Organisation, to smash its effectiveness, and so on. Having failed in that effort, they have now adopted, in common with certain other countries so minded, the attitude of refusing to pay their share of the contributions in order to defeat the objectives of the Organisation.

We, as I say, in common with many other countries, have a vital interest in securing that the decisions of the United Nations are made effective and so far as lay in our power, we have made an effective contribution in that regard.

I notice from recent discussions in the United States Senate that there are misgivings there about the obligations which the United States have been asked to assume. While receiving general support at present, the fact that the United States Government decided to take up some bonds was nevertheless the subject of queries and reservations by some of those who spoke when the matter was considered recently in the Senate. The importance for smaller countries to ensure that a decisive opinion is secured is undoubtedly very considerable because whatever opinion is given will probably inevitably involve action by the General Assembly in order to impose some sanction against those who refuse to bear their appropriate share of the contributions.

I should like to ask if the Minister, when making representations to the British Government on the recent immigration legislation there, drew their attention to the terms of Article 48 of the Rome Treaty. As Deputies are aware, one of the principal aims of E.E.C. is to bring into effect the free movement of workers within the member States of the Community. Article 48 declares that the free movement of workers shall include the right of any nationals of the member States to accept an offer of employment anywhere in the Community. So far, I think it is not clear whether that right includes a general right of immigration. As I understand it, the wording "shall include" corresponds to the French word "comporte" and such expressions may be regarded as exhaustive rather than conclusive. It is a basic principle of the Treaty that there shall be no discrimination on the grounds of nationality and in that context it means that there must be no discrimination as regards wages or other conditions of work.

Undoubtedly, neither Britain nor this country is at present a member of E.E.C. but, in view of the fact that both countries have applied for membership, this aspect of the matter is one which is worthy of consideration in any representations which will be made by this country concerning the proposed immigration legislation.

I have in the past on many occasions expressed a view—I am glad to say it is a view which appears to be more widely shared in recent times—rejecting the idea of force as a solution of the problem of Partition. Deputies on both side of the House welcome the recent announcement that those who advocated force as a means of solving the unnatural division of the country had now decided to abandon that policy. The fact that there is now a general recognition of the futility of that policy, the fact that there is a realisation that that policy did not achieve anything but what was contrary to what those who supported it had hoped for, is a general indication that there is a greater realisation of the need for co-operation and collaboration in order to achieve the unity of this country.

I have always held the view that what we can do to hasten the end of Partition is a matter for decision by the majority of the people and the Government responsible to the Dáil for carrying out national policy. The fact that that is generally recognised is a satisfactory advance. It is natural enough that many of those who advocated a different policy in the past or who believed in the possibility of success by other means may feel disappointed, may feel, as a great many people may feel, that because Partition has not been ended, advances have not been made or that the adoption of a less spectacular policy is unlikely to achieve results.

We have to make a continuous examination of the difficulties of the situation and we must analyse these difficulties and calmly and without any rancour or ill-will, consider the various aspects of the problem and then apply ourselves to the task of thinking out clearly how the difficulties can be removed or surmounted.

On many occasions in the past, as was said here, efforts were made either in international organisations or at gatherings in this country, or indeed at meetings in Britain to make speeches to achieve publicity, all of which on particular occasions seemed a self-satisfying achievement. But we have to decide whether these efforts, which may be emotionally satisfying, which may, for a time, secure the headlines, did in fact achieve any worthwhile advances. In fact, on particular occasions, they confuse and obscure the realities of the problem and lessen the ultimate chances of a solution.

Once we reject the idea of force for solving this problem, we have to consider all and every other means available to us. The fact that the country is not united, that the Government and Parliament here enjoy responsibility for only 26 of the 32 counties, is regretted and resented by everyone in the country. On the other hand, it is well to recognise what has been achieved and what has been accomplished. In the past, when we were struggling to achieve freedom for this part of the country and, when it was achieved, it was often said—and the results elsewhere indicate—that once an advance is made, it is far easier to make further advances, that you have to make a start and, having made it, it is easier to keep going. I believe that on various levels in the community—cultural, sporting, economic and others—it is possible to co-operate and secure the co-operation of the people in the North in order to ensure that the benefits which flow from that co-operation will be felt by people in both parts of the country. One of the curious notions that arose in the past was that if publicity was achieved that was a gain. These spectacular actions very often did harm rather than good. Publicity is useful and advantageous if it wins understanding and sympathy, but if it antagonises people and puts us in an unfavourable light it is a drawback rather than an advance.

That does not mean that we should at any time abandon our claim, our exertions or our demands for a united Ireland. The greater part of the work for the unity of the country must be done between Irishmen in both parts. At the same time, we must get the goodwill and co-operation of British interests and of the British Parliament and Government. When we look at the problems that have been solved, the advances that have been made in other countries and, in some respects, at the enlightened approach some British statesmen have shown to these problems elsewhere, we realise a great deal has been accomplished.

The fact that there are still certain cases in which the same enlightened policy is not being adopted is a criticism of and a reproach to successive British Governments. Partition is one of these. There are others to which we need not refer. Yet, if we take a critical view of the policies and actions that have been taken and, before adopting a particular line of policy, if we examine it to see if it will hasten rather than hinder the ending of Partition, and having decided what is right in the national interest, then get behind it the united efforts of all sections of the people, I believe we can ultimately achieve the objectives we all desire.

It is certain that ultimately unity will be achieved. It may take longer than some optimists thought. On the other hand, we have seen more intractable problems involving larger populations and conflicts of language, race and religion greater than exist here, where workable and satisfactory solutions were achieved. Tenacity, determination and unity supported by the country as a whole achieved in the past liberty for this part of the country. If we can bring to bear on this problem the same determination, the same desire to work for the objective of ensuring that the unity which will result will be unity that has the support and co-operation—indeed, the allegiance—of those who live in a united country, then we can realise that it is in the interests of this country and of all sections of our people that the policy which was recently abandoned and which was rejected on many occasions by the electorate, harmed rather than helped the object which we wished to achieve.

We can also take heart from and find succour in the fact that it is possible to achieve unity of purpose because of the way in which the national opinion has been expressed on this and other matters. We have here now a basic acceptance of the same fundamental aims and objectives that the wider unity and co-operation envisaged for Europe entail, which are regarded as an essential prerequisite of the defence of the free world, the maintenance and stability of the Christian heritage and tradition which we hold dear and of which, in common with other European countries, we are a part. Undoubtedly, our countrymen in the North have also inherited this and are anxious to see it flourish, and so we can now look forward with reasonable confidence to a satisfactory settlement of a problem which, although difficult, and one which in the past caused a great deal of trouble and misgivings, can ultimately be settled in a manner reflecting credit on all those who are either labouring, or have in the past laboured, to achieve the unity of this country and play a part in a united Europe whose interests are vital not only for this country but for peace among men.

Mr. N. Lemass

There are a few points I want to make particularly on some remarks made last night. I heard Deputy Esmonde say that he hopes that Irish troops will take no part in forcing the Central Government on the Congo. He went so far as to say that the Congo is not a country at all but a conglomeration of tribes. May I remind him that the policy of the United Nations which has been followed in the Congo and endorsed in this House is, as will be seen in Volume 186 of 23rd February, 1961, to preserve its unity, territorial integrity and political independence, protect and advance the welfare of its people and safeguard international peace.

That is the policy that is being followed in the Congo and I do not think that Deputy Esmonde, in what he said last night, reflected the view of Fine Gael. At least, I hope he did not. He reminds me of some British members of Parliament who apparently were interested only in certain financial implications and were trying to protect what apparently were good tax arrangements which they had made with one or more of the leaders there. That view was expressed very quietly but, nevertheless, when the words are considered, they remind one again of the people who gave lip-service in the United Nations to the Congo policy, while, at the same time, they did everything they could at home to obstruct it. It is pleasing to see that it now seems likely that these objectives will be achieved and it appears the operation will be a success.

We are gratified that it has been done with the minimum of bloodshed. We are grieved that Irish blood should have been spilled in the achievement of this high ideal. Everyone in the House has sympathy for the relatives of those who suffered. We are also very proud of them and we feel that the nation owes them much because they have helped us to become more firmly established in the eyes of the world as a nation which is prepared to play its part in the achievement of world peace.

Deputy Esmonde's remarks last night put me in mind of the fact that the political adviser of President Tshombe of Katanga is a United Nations official from Greece. He is Constantin Stavropoulos — I hope I have pronounced it correctly—and a rather amazing fact about him is that he has established quite a name for himself as being very good at playing chess with himself. Deputy Esmonde expressed concern about the political implications attaching to our application for full membership of the European Economic Community. Deputy Costello, while agreeing with our application, was also concerned about the political implications.

Deputy Corish made a long contribution not on what various members of the Government had said in this regard but on what he thinks they were thinking when they were saying something else. He gave a quotation from the speech of the Minister for External Affairs on this Estimate last year. I think such a statement should be accepted as Government policy and if Deputy Corish had any doubts about other statements, he should have quoted them instead of relying on what I think was a very fanciful imagination.

My personal view is that the idea of starting with economic integration and proceeding to political integration in Europe is sound. The same idea was shown to be sound in the experience of Germany in the 19th century. The idea of progression from economic to political integration was the intention of Robert Schuman of France when he proposed a European coal and steel community in the years after the war. It is reasonable at this stage to assume that it is more than likely that President De Gaulle will devote himself more particularly to European affairs, once the problem of Algeria has been settled. That settlement, I am glad to say, also seems to be near and President De Gaulle's influence in this matter will then be greater than ever. There may be difficulties along the way to political integration in Europe but in view of the great aim to be achieved, such difficulties should be tackled with patience.

In regard to foreign policy, I believe the independent line we have been taking up to this on various aspects need not be interfered with for many decades, but at the same time, my view is that there are only two great powers left in the world today, the United States of America and Russia, and that any other country would be foolish to try to have a completely independent foreign policy, without a certain amount of consideration of the policies of other countries in similar circumstances. Our policy should be the same as that of other European countries, that is, a policy of increased co-operation and co-ordination.

Many people are concerned about the position of our workers in the event of our joining this Economic Community. It is true that there is some anxiety that some people may lose their employment in industries which are geared entirely for the home market and are not in a position to expand or re-equip themselves to compete with foreign competitors. It is also true that the industries which will survive will enable the workers to have a higher standard of living, and that is a very noble objective.

The United States of America are aware of what is developing in Europe and they are also considering a substantial reduction in their trade barriers. President Kennedy is seeking from Congress a more or less free hand in regard to the cutting of tariffs and a more liberal trade between America and various countries in Europe and elsewhere. While that may be taking a leaf from the European book, we can take a leaf from their book. I believe the Government must move in whatever resources they have available to cushion the impact of a reduction in our tariff walls and give assistance to workers and firms.

In America, there are proposals, I understand, that if a factory worker loses his job through the removal of a trade barrier, and if he can show that he has worked for at least one and a half years in the previous three years, and has worked 26 weeks out of the previous 52 weeks—it is not legislation yet—he should be paid up to 65 per cent. of his average weekly wage for the previous three years, for up to one year. Also, if he is on short time, it is proposed to make certain grants available. In the case of an industry being affected, it is proposed to make assistance available in the way of technical aid, financial aid and tax reliefs.

We must examine what has been done in America and elsewhere and the Government must assess as nearly as possible what effect it will have on individuals and on some of our industries. Having assessed that—and I believe that work is already in progress—a fund should immediately be created in order to pay such reliefs. I suppose that for a number of years anyway, we will still have an emigration problem.

Last year, we had a Supplementary Estimate for the opening of a mission in Nigeria. This year, it is proposed that a mission should be opened in Denmark. That is a very good thing. I have referred here before and, if not, I now refer to one place where we have no apparent contact at all and no means of looking after our citizens, that is, the Channel Islands, which are very near to us. There are 5,000 Irish people, I understand, resident in Jersey,. We have no agreement with the authorities regarding sickness or unemployment benefit. Such agreements exist with Continental countries but in Jersey if an Irishman is laid up his maximum relief in Jersey will be 12/6d. a week, with no allowance for a wife or dependants. There are no Irish representatives living there and if a man loses his job, or if he runs short of money, he will be deported to Southampton.

I believe we should take a very serious look at the Channel Islands not only from this point of view but also because I understand they are potential importers of peat moss and potatoes and surprisingly, although we have all heard of Jersey milk, there is, particularly in Summer months, a shortage of milk, butter and eggs. I understand large quantities of these are imported from France, as distinct from Britain. With the currency position as it is, I cannot see why we should not get the bigger share of this market. The demand would appear to be small but there is a large tourist trade passing through.

One other comment which I should like to make arises from a remark made to me some time ago by an American friend. His view was that the Irish status in America has reached its zenith principally because we are one of the two countries in the world which have paid all their bills. Last year we agreed, to help the United Nations financial crisis, to pay our contribution six months in advance. Deputy Cosgrave referred to that in his speech to-day. We should not be shy in letting people know we will always pay our way. I believe Finland and ourselves are the only two countries completely paid up. I am told our neighbour Great Britain has some debts with America dating back to the first World War.

In regard to the increase in the amount required for information material, I understand it is proposed to prepare some film material. I meant to raise this question on the last Estimate but I think it is appropriate to raise it here. On Irish television, when a programme finishes before the scheduled time, there is a gap to be filled and we occasionally see a film of interest from Canada. These films are free to Irish television. They are educational and entertaining and I believe if we had a series of films such as these we would find many television stations throughout the world only too happy to have copies of them in their libraries to use them on occasions such as I have mentioned. Whether this would be done by External Affairs, whether there should be a special allocation from the Department of Industry and Commerce, the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, or whether the Television Authority should pay I cannot say. I do not know which way it should be organised but I am convinced that this type of work should be undertaken. There is no doubt that the visual and sound effects of television create a much deeper impression on the average person who would not sit down and read about Ireland or buy a book to find out what Ireland is like, and that includes the handbook.

I was very glad to hear the Minister say that there are not only more distinguished visitors coming here from time to time, which reflects our increasing prestige, but that a greater number of conferences will be held. In this regard further examination should be made of suitable conference halls. In Liege, in Belgium, I understand the Government virtually built a city to try to make it the cultural centre of Europe. The result is that every year tens of thousands of people arrive in that country to discuss one subject or another. If further developments could take place in regard to buildings and accommodation for people attending conferences I believe it would pay off handsomely.

That is all I have to say. We can be very pleased with this Estimate. Our policy in external matters has helped to increase our esteem and standing in the world and as long as we continue the way we have been going Ireland will stand much bigger than her actual size in the eyes of mankind.

Mr. Sherwin

I was present yesterday and listened to the Minister and to Deputy Declan Costello and I heard Deputy Cosgrave this morning. Quite a number of Deputies fight shy of this Estimate probably because they do not understand European politics and economics. I am no expert either but certainly I take an interest in European politics. At least I do that. In addition, I read like anyone else. Listening to Deputy Cosgrave, I am satisfied that he makes a very frank and honest approach to the problems and to what was said by the Minister, but it appeared to me that Deputy Costello was very provocative and kept baiting the Minister on what our political commitments were. It is wrong to bait the Minister or the Taoiseach or anyone else in respect of our political commitments. We are faced with an economic problem and we could be left outside unless we handle our problem correctly. If we were left outside this community we would suffer. As has already been said it would put us back a hundred years.

In this world people do not give you things for nothing. They only give you something because you are some advantage to them. If we are going to be accepted it will be because in turn we will be of some advantage to them. Perhaps, the only advantage would be that we would be able to assist them politically. If we are faced with the question of having to commit ourselves politically to gain economic advantages, we have no choice. What those political commitments will be we do not really know. We only know there will be commitments but to try to drag the matter into public and create a scare so that public opinion will rise up against the Government is a dangerous approach because if it frightens the Government from agreeing to political commitments, it might result in the European Community crying off us.

If we are going in because there is advantage to us, we may have to pay a little for the advantage. What we may have to pay we do not know. I take it that the Government are anxious to commit this country as little as possible. It is a kind of poker game but it is not fair to keep harping on our political commitments. In this world, you cannot be one hundred per cent. right. It reminds me of a book by President Kennedy in which he said that very honest people never get a a chance to do good because the public are weak and the honest people can be misrepresented. He said that in the effort to do good, they might have to do things that they would be ashamed of in other circumstances, but the aim was the ultimate good.

We are trying to gain economic advantage from membership of the Common Market and we may have to commit ourselves but the Government should not be baited because of that. Some years ago, we said we would not commit ourselves because of Partition but then we were not faced with this particular problem. The Opposition should try to understand the problems of the Government and the country and should ease off on that matter and try to help the Government. The Opposition are entitled to question the ultimate effect of the Common Market especially its economic aspects but they should stop baiting the Government.

In regard to UNO, they are not so united from what we hear. One part is pulling against the other. We are committed to do certain things in the Congo on the orders of the UNO. I wonder would our association with the European Economic Community and our political commitments there conflict with our commitments in the Congo and our efforts as directed by the United Nations? We know that if you have a certain group of people forming a bloc in their own interests the people on the outside will form a bloc in their interests also. If we go into the Common Market, will the Congo become part of some other bloc and will we be in conflict with the very people we are helping out now, Mr. Adoula and the Congolese Government?

There are arguments as to whether the Congo is a state but what was handed over to the United Nations was simply what the Belgians grabbed so there is no use in saying that the Congo as such is a state. Whether Mr. Tshombe has a right to set up a separate state I do not know.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I fear that does not arise on the Estimate. The Minister has no responsibility for the political situation in the Congo.

Mr. Sherwin

He has so far as he is a party to our men being there. He has some indirect responsibility for the fact that our troops were used to force Mr. Tshombe to come and talk to Mr. Adoula.

Mr. Dillon

We are administering the Congo. We are a member of the United Nations and of the Security Council.

Mr. Sherwin

It might turn out that we are creating a Frankenstein in creating a state that might turn out to be 100 per cent. Communist. A large undeveloped continent like Africa is certain to be a prey to Communist propaganda because there are so many people in it who have nothing. That was the reason for what happened in Russia. A few had everything and the remainder had nothing and heads had to fall before matters could be righted.

Another matter in which I take an interest is that of Partition. Deputy Cosgrave has expressed his opinions and I have my opinions. I am prepared to agree that the sort of force we are aware of can only mean a complete wastage of the national effort and can only further divide our people. But I do not agree that force is not the remedy. I only agree that the sort of force of which we have been reading is not the remedy.

In the past year or two certain problems were solved only by force. Tshombe had talks with Adoula because we "knocked the lard" out of him and made him do it. In Goa the problem was solved only by the Indian troops marching in and the problem of slavery was solved only by force after 50 years. However, force by small nations will not succeed. No force can succeed at this stage unless it arises out of some great break-up.

I am not convinced that those people up there will, of their own free will, ever agree to come in with us. They are the ruling clique and those who claim to be different from us wish to preserve that because they gain advantage from it. They are like a very large Masonic order. Everything comes to them and theirs. If there was unity, they would have to share with the rest of us and it suits them to perpetuate the present set-up. Who amongst them would agree to end a problem which would mean a loosening of such a set-up? It is only a crazy man that would agree to it.

It so happens that the real dividing line is religion. The members of a particular religion up there have a monopoly. They monopolies everything, whether it is getting a house or getting a job and only an insane man would agree to ending a situation that suits them so well. If we are to end this situation, it can only be done when there is some sort of general upheaval in which Britain becomes weak and we shall be able to walk in. Force solved the American conflict and it has been said that every man who died in that fight saved the lives of 10,000 others because their efforts and their sacrifices preserved the American continent as a world power. Otherwise, America would now be like Europe. But because America sacrificed money and blood, she remains as a world power and as a bastion in support of a free world. Accordingly, sacrifices do solve problems.

I want the Minister to tell us if there is any possibility of getting an understanding with the British about young people, particularly young girls, entering Britain without their parents' permission and without an assurance that they are going to jobs. I read yesterday in a newspaper—it was nearly a year old—the story of a murder trial where a young girl killed a person who had got her to become part of an act in a striptease club. She was acquitted and she gave her story to one of the English newspapers. Her object was not to blackball this country but she told all about initiation into these clubs. She said practically all of the girls in them were Irish. These girls leave Ireland at the invitation of some young people already engaged in that work.

It is not enough to say that we have hostels here and there throughout Britain where these girls can stay. The problem facing us is that one young girl engaged in that sort of thing invites her pals over. There should be some arrangement with the British through which any girls under a certain age must produce a pass from a member of the Garda saying that they have their parents' consent before they are allowed to enter Britain. This is a major problem because it is only a short step from engaging in this work to the streets. It should be a major concern to the House and I hope the Minister will make an effort to remedy it.

Mr. Tully

My main reason for contributing to the debate is to correct some of the false impressions which might be created by some of the speakers this morning on what Deputy Corish said last night. Anybody who listened to Deputy Corish knows that what he said was that we in the Labour Party, and indeed the people of the country as a whole, are entitled to know what is the policy of the Government. We feel that a policy statement on the political implications of the E.E.C. is something which is long overdue.

It is not good enough to say no decisions have been taken yet by that Community and that discussions will take place. Surely the Government know what has happened and what we are leading up to? Deputy Lemass said Deputy Corish quoted one statement and that the rest of his contribution on this matter had come from a vivid imagination. It came from a number of vivid imaginations but they belonged to people on the benches opposite. They made a series of after-dinner speeches recently, culminating in the glorious one by the Minister for Lands since which he has not said anything at all. Apparently he has had his knuckles rapped and he will be a good boy.

The Minister for External Affairs has not made any of these statements. He is a very wise man, an astute politician and he obviously felt it was a very good idea not to say anything so that he could not be either quoted or misquoted. His colleagues have been flying various types of kites which have all come down in their hands and for the past few weeks, we have not heard anything at all. I think the Minister might let us know where he thinks we stand in this matter, because, after all, he is the person on whom we depend most to get this country a fair deal.

We in the Labour Party are as anti-Communist as any other Party in the House, but that does not mean we will walk with our hands over our eyes into the camp of somebody who also shouts he is anti-Communist. I was amused to hear some of the speakers this morning and last night talking about the danger of a war and where it was likely to start. All the speakers could see only two big powers in existence—Russia and the United States. They forgot the existence of

Mr. McQuillan

Fianna Fáil have always made hay out of wars.

Mr. Tully

I do not know what kind of hay will be made out of this.

Mr. McQuillan

There are not as many asses left in the country now.

Mr. Tully

Deputy Lemass knows very well there is a bigger danger of a war between Russia and China now Communist China.

than between Russia and the West and I feel sure that the Minister, who is very well in touch with these matters, knows it, too.

Mr. N. Lemass

Adenauer thinks it.

Mr. Tully

The Deputy is in good company then. As far as the Common Market is concerned, let me reiterate what Deputy Corish said because I think some people, deliberately or otherwise, misinterpreted what he said. Deputy Corish pointed out that since Britain had applied for membership, we had no option but to do likewise. There is nothing wrong with that. Following that, he said that if Britain is accepted and we are accepted, then at least we shall know where we are going. But I would not be as optimistic as Deputy Lemass is about the question of employment, because do not forget that if we are left, if Britain is accepted for membership and we are not, we shall be in a shocking condition. If both Britain and ourselves are accepted, the position in respect of employment here will still be pretty bad. There is no doubt about that.

It is quite correct that the people retained in employment here, and particularly the employers who are able to remain in business, will do very well. There will be plenty of money for those who remain, but for the others there will be just nothing because the employment will not be there. Certain changes must take place not alone in industry but in agriculture in order to compete successfully with the other E.E.C. countries. That will result in increased profits for those in industry but an awful lot of people will lose their jobs and will have to go away. Let us not turn our backs on that. I feel sure the Government Deputies know it as well as we do. We must face up to it. It would be far more honest to tell the country, as far as we can see it, the situation we are facing so that we can be prepared for it when it comes.

Somebody said the free movement of men will interfere with the effects of the Immigration Bill the British are now putting through. Of course it will. If the Common Market becomes a reality for Britain and this country, the free movement of men will make a joke of any attempt to clamp down on emigration from this country. A man must have a job. Everybody knows how easy it is to have a job in England at present and I assume that that position will continue as it has done for a considerable period.

The question of Partition has been raised here. While I agree that it would not be right to say that somebody can get a couple of hundred people together and because they are armed with revolvers or guns, or even the most modern weapons, they can take over the North and end Partition overnight. From my own experience, I say that Partition will remain as long as the economic situation remains as it is. One of the greatest obstacles to building up the sense that we are one nation which we must build up among the ordinary plain people in Northern Ireland is the wide divergence between social and health services in Northern Ireland and in the Twenty-Six Countries. If one talks to any of the ordinary people in the North, no matter how nationalist they may be or how anxious for a united Ireland, in theory, they will be honest enough to admit that they would not be prepared to come down here and sacrifice what they have got.

We have heard here about the flesh-pots of the Empire. It is simply a bread and butter policy. As long as the present situation in regard to social and health services continues in the North, no matter who is paying for them, and which are not available here, it will not be possible to get the mass of the people in favour of coming into a 32-County Irish Republic.

I do not know whether we shall see in this decade, or in the next decade, the end of Partition. I do not even know whether the Taoiseach is very optimistic about the question of ending Partition when the Common Market becomes a reality for us. I assume that there will be common tariffs and free movement of men, money and materials. Then we would be going a long way towards making the Border ridiculous. That is reasonable enough but whether that will finally end Partition, I do not know.

I would say, however, that when dealing with an Estimate such as is now before the House we should try to deal with it in an objective way. I do not know whether the press cuttings to which Deputy Sherwin referred, describing court cases in England 12 months ago, are any assistance in the matter or not. Personally, I do not believe they are, but I do believe that if Deputies are prepared to address the House, as some Deputies have done, in an objective way, no matter whether the Minister is on their side of the House or on the opposite side, their contributions will be of assistance to the Government and the Minister.

Mr. Crinion

I was glad to learn from the Minister's speech that his Department has been co-operating with State bodies and other Departments to promote trade. That is what we expect of our representatives abroad. I do not know how far the Minister has explored the possibility of obtaining markets for our agricultural produce on the Continent of Europe. There is an agricultural attaché in the Irish Embassy in London. I should like to see such attachés in the Embassies on the Continent, particularly in view of the possibility of our entry into the European Economic Community. I hope that the Minister, when replying to the debate, will indicate the extent to which he is pushing the sale of agricultural produce abroad.

Many Irish people when travelling abroad avail of the help given by our Embassies. The Paris and Rome Embassies were havens to Irish pilgrims in 1950, when many Irish people had their first taste of foreign travel. These two Embassies did untold good work for these travellers, who, outside the members of their particular groups, met very few people who could speak English. Some of them when they became rather lonely for Ireland went to the Irish Embassy, where they were received with open arms.

I am glad to note that proposals for two films featuring our economic development and social progress are under consideration. From my travels abroad, I realise the tremendous interest there is in Ireland. The people I met knew very little about our country and the school books used in some countries paint a not very favourable picture of Ireland. The distribution abroad of the proposed films should do a great deal to dispel false impressions of this country and should arouse curiosity and a desire to visit this country. I am also glad to know that the Department issue a weekly bulletin which has a circulation of about 10,500. That also should do a great deal of good, but such bulletins very often do not reach the ordinary people who might come to this country for holidays. It came to my notice that the Danes are under the impression that the people of Ireland all had red hair and that this is a very poor country. There should be publicity to dispel these erroneous ideas.

The films on economic development in Ireland should show the countries of Europe what we are doing and encourage foreign industrialists to set up industries in this country and thereby help to relieve unemployment.

There is no better way to encourage tourism than by having international conferences. I notice that quite a number of conferences will be held in Ireland this year and I compliment the Minister and his Department on their farsightedness in encouraging such activities. Ireland is a good centre for such conferences and the delegates who attend them gain a good impression of the country, which is the best advertisement we can have.

I am glad that a new Embassy is to be set up in Denmark. Denmark has many associations with Ireland— perhaps, going back to 1014, not always as happy as we would like— but we are comparable in our way of life and in our outlook. We are competitors in the same lines of agricultural produce. The fact that the nearest embassy to Denmark was in Stockholm created certain difficulties in business and other matters. With the opening of the Irish Embassy in Denmark, a good deal of information will come forward to our Department of Agriculture. I see that another Embassy is being opened in Hamburg. I think Germany has opened more factories in Ireland than any other country. Those Embassies will transmit information on the good work we are doing here under the Programme for Economic Expansion, the fruits of which will be shown in the years to come.

Mr. P. Hogan

(South Tipperary): We in this country have for a number of years in external affairs been pursuing a policy of neutrality, so much so that it can almost be described now as a traditional policy. There was never complete neutrality: I suppose one could describe it as a quasi-neutrality during the last war. Lately, there seems to be an element of change. The matter first seemed to arise when it was suggested that in order to become a member of E.E.C., it was necessary to join NATO. Our Taoiseach said that is not so, but, later on, comments were made that, in general, as between East and West, we could not adopt a neutral position.

Later, the Taoiseach did a little bit of research work. Several speeches had been made some years ago to the effect that we would have to preserve an isolationist attitude because membership of NATO was repugnant to our anti-Partition principles. But, recently, he has admitted for the first time that he has read the articles of association of NATO. He now finds that they are no different from what appear in the articles of association of the United Nations and, apparently, there is nothing repugnant to our anti-Partition principles in these articles of association whatsoever.

It is these changing aspects which have perhaps caused the battery of questions in this House over the past few months. There has been a strange difficulty in securing any definite, concrete answer. Neutrality had almost been made an article of faith by Fianna Fáil. Perhaps they now find it difficult to say: "We want to change face."

It is completely logical for people to change their attitude in changing conditions. It is only fair to ask and to be told, if the attitude is being changed, why it is being changed and where we are heading. A simple calculation on these lines, I think, without entering into too much detail, could be given to us and to the people as a whole.

I think I am entitled to ask the Minister if what I might call our traditional policy—our neutrality, our isolationalism, whatever word you like to put on it—is now being watered down and diluted; if we are to await a policy of political expediency or political expectancy. In a small, poor, weak country like ours, there is nothing to be ashamed of in adopting an attitude of political expectancy or political expediency and in trying to do the best we can to meet conditions as they arise.

As regards ourselves and the United Nations, last Autumn, our Minister for External Affairs visited the Continent. There, I presume, he was made completely aware of the conditions existing at that time. Shortly afterwards, there were very unpleasant developments, unpleasant for this country. It seems strange to me that the Minister at that time, if he found an explosive situation likely to arise, did not, in the circumstances and in view of the reports which he must have received, immediately repair to the United Nations and put these difficulties before them and, at the same time, recall our seconded diplomat and replace him in the interval by somebody who would be able to work by virtue of the change in a less contentious atmosphere. Instead, our Minister allowed the matter to drift and, when this particular diplomat had extended himself, as I believe, beyond the limits of diplomatic usage, at a very inappropriate time, when we were beginning our negotiations with E.E.C., all he would say to a newspaper correspondent was that he did not necessarily agree with the opinions expressed. Our Minister almost played the part of a silent cypher. All he went as far as doing was partly to repudiate his former officials. All that difficulty could have been avoided by firm, intelligent, anticipatory actions by the Minister for External Affairs. We must hope these occurrences will not be repeated.

In foreign affairs, I wonder have we ceased our flirtation with Red China? There is a tremendous difference between the East and the West, a tremendous unbridgeable gulf between the Oriental mind and ours. I have been to many different European countries. I have been to China and for a short while I was in Japan. There you feel for the first time that you are really in another world. You never seem to get any contact or come in any way to grips with the evasive Oriental mind. Our whole tradition and orientation is European and towards the English-speaking world, and I think it is a disservice to this country to engage in these mild flirtations in which the Minister for External Affairs has been so wont to indulge in the recent past.

I want to say a word about Irish emigrants to Britain. Would the Minister see if something more cannot be done to follow-up our emigrants when they leave this country? I suppose— in fact, I am almost sure—we have the highest emigration rate in Europe, and apart from the limited efforts which voluntary organisations are able to make in large cities in Britain, sufficient help is not being given to our young people when they leave our shores. Many of them are very ill-equipped to fend for themselves. Probably, we have a poorish type of export-population, ill-equipped to meet the conditions of industrial England. I ask the Minister to consider setting up some kind of small liaison office in some of the large towns or cities to act as a bridgehead between his Department and the various charitable organisations in Britain. I would also ask him to consider whether we should not introduce some kind of emigration agent.

Mr. Dillon

There seems to me to be a failure on the part of the Minister to concentrate on the fundamental question of what are the vital interests of this country in our foreign policy. To me it seems the vital interests of our country are not very dissimilar to the vital interests of any other sovereign state in the world in which we live. The first is to multiply the number of our friends in the comity of nations and the second is that the world should not be involved in an atomic war. There is not very much we can do about the second; there is a great deal we can do about the first.

Since the present Minister for External Affairs first attended the United Nations meetings he has taken a very active part and busied himself about many affairs in the name of this country. I have no doubt he was actuated by the best possible motives but I have always believed that the best test of policy is its results and I am sorry to say that the impression grows upon me that our foreign policy is the foreign policy of the Miller of Dee who used to say: "I care for nobody and nobody cares for me."

When I look back to twelve years ago, when I was a member of the Irish Government, we had a great many friends in the world. There were a great many nations we knew to be our friends and who were glad to proclaim themselves to be so. How many are there, now? If Deputies search their minds honestly today where can you say: "There is a nation which is avowedly our friend?" Living in the troubled world in which we live, it is surprising how frequently that lack of friends may constitute a very serious problem for us.

I think the Minister has been much preoccupied with African affairs and saw himself at some stage as a kind of acceptable spearhead of moderate opinion in Africa and even hoped that his influence might moderate the more extravagant aspirations of some of the would-be leaders of a pan-African movement. I think he has discovered by bitter experience that, so far as the African states are concerned, they are not much interested in our Minister's activities. In so far as they have been able to take advantage of some of his démarches, they may have done so, but in so far as his influence is concerned to direct their activities, it is virtually non-existent, but the effort to acquire that position of associate quasi-representation with the emergent states in Africa has been made at the expense of alienating other nations whose goodwill might mean a great deal to us in the very difficult negotiations which must confront our Government in connection with our entry into the Common Market.

Many people are inclined to make a lot of heavy weather about the Common Market, but the free passage of men, money and goods is not a new concept. In my lifetime, I have seen it flourish and I have seen it die. I saw, as a small child, pictures of Joe Chamberlain thundering on the platforms of England with a loaf in his hand trying to persuade the British people that the protectionist loaf was no smaller than the free trade loaf, and I saw the concept of the free passage of men, money and goods triumph at the general election of 1906 in Great Britain when her interests seemed apparently at that time irrevocably committed to free trade. Yet in the disturbed economic climate of the twenties and thirties, the Hawley-Smoot tariff party in the U.S.A. and the tariff advocates in Great Britain and Europe killed free trade, and it is only now that the peoples of the free world are revolting against the shackles put upon them by tariffs and quotas and rejecting the economic self-sufficiency follies of Fianna Fáil in Ireland, of Hawley and Smoot in the U.S.A. and the protectionism of the right wing Conservative Party in England.

The British people rejected it for themselves 55 years ago in the famous election of 1906. We are simply going back to the economic sanity from which the world departed in the economic stresses of the 1920s and 1930s.

I welcome that and I believe it is manifest for all to see that every step in that direction has brought immense economic advantages to the people of Europe. It is the dramatic character of those economic advantages that has induced the Conservative Government in Great Britain to accept the fact that it is in the interests of her people to share in the benefits of this return to economic sanity and has persuaded the Fianna Fáil Government of Ireland to jettison their entire economic and political past and acknowledge that we also must participate in this return to economic sanity, in the picturesque words of the Tánaiste, lest we dwindle into an insignificant island on the western fringe of a dynamic Europe.

I have said that I do not propose to harass—and that this Party does not propose to harass—an Irish Government engaged in delicate negotiations for the entry of this country into the European Economic Community with a multitude of hypothetical questions. It would be easy for us to formulate each week a list of hypothetical questions and address them to the Minister for External Affairs and the Taoiseach, if we wanted to do so, but we do not believe any useful purpose is served thereby and we believe the multiplicity of such questions could create a virtually impossible situation for any Government or Government Party charged with responsibility for the kind of negotiations which will have to be undertaken.

I want to reiterate what I have said before in regard to this matter. That forbearance on our part imposes a corresponding obligation on the Government to do their utmost to keep the Dáil and the country fully informed of any significant developments in the situation from time to time. I am bound to say that so far I feel the Government have provided reasonable information within the limit of its availability to them.

When we have faced the fact that there will be political implications and when we contemplate the nature of what they are likely to be, we have to remember that without the economic advantages of membership, if Great Britain should join, it would be very hard for this State to survive at all and that one very significant limitation of any possible political obligation which ultimate full membership of the Community will involve is that whatever those obligations may be, they must be formulated in such form as to be acceptable to the sovereign Government of the United Kingdom, the Republic of France, the Republic of Western Germany, the Republic of Italy, the Kingdom of Holland, the Kingdom of Belgium and the Kingdom of Denmark.

If a political formula emerges from these negotiations that is acceptable to every sovereign State in Europe it seems to me to suggest an undue degree of solicitude on our part that we should shy away from what we are agreed is necessary economic development on account of such political obligations, acceptable to every sovereign State in Europe and which I believe must ultimately be formulated with a view to their being acceptable to an even wider category of sovereign States than those included in the European Community.

We therefore take the view quite confidently that we should proceed to membership of this Community and the sooner we are a member of it, the sooner our influence can operate to make its development acceptable to the fundamental principles in which we believe. In that connection, I think it is important to remember a matter to which I referred in my opening observations. We are a small, relatively weak nation and we have not the power to coerce our enemies.

It is, therefore, trebly important that we should multiply the number of our friends with whom our influence will count for something. In the very intimate association of the community of nations into which we are entering the more friends we have, the better it will be for Ireland. Therefore, I would suggest to the Minister, when he is contemplating making hand springs for the edification of the 104 nations now constituting the United Nations in New York, he ought to remember that the vital interests of Ireland are not primarily in Africa; they are primarily in the community of nations we are in the process of joining. Our power to influence that community in its present form or in any expanded form which the future may provide, when the United States of America, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and, indeed, all freedom-loving democracies become associated with it, will be largely determined by the number of our friends there. It is there our vital interest lies, not only for the welfare of Ireland but so that our influence can be deployed better to encourage that great economic community, which I hope some day to see effectively deploying its common resources for the defence of Africa and of South America against the seduction or aggression of the Communist bloc, which is solicitous either to seduce or conquer these two continents.

It is the vital interest of Ireland to remember that, unless an economic power can be constituted in the world strong enough not only to defend itself against any aggression mounted against it but disposing of sufficient resources to resoue Africa from the threat of chaos and disorder, largely deriving from problems of inadequate development, economic, social and political, the Communist powers will certainly move into Africa. If they succeed in doing that, it will be only a matter of time until they move into the continent of South America. Should they successfully achieve that, then the United States herself would be threatened, and on that day the independence of Ireland would be in desperate jeopardy, because it is on the integrity of the United States and her survival that the survival of every free society in the world depends.

I, therefore, suggest to the Minister that whatever attractions the role of defender of Africa in the United Nations may have for him, he should remember that, taking the longer view, the vital interest of Ireland is that our freedom should survive in the world. One of the best ways in which we can serve that is by trying to influence our friends, whom we should seek to bind to us by ties of friendship in the community in which we are entering, to do what is necessary to protect Africa from Communist absorption in the knowledge that, should we fail, then South America will be in desperate danger, for it also stands in need of help, and that if it should fall the United States would itself be besieged; and on that day the vital interest of our independence would be itself in jeopardy. Therefore, I urge on the Minister to realise that in the world in which we live it is not open to Ireland to follow a policy, which I choose to describe as that of the Miller of Dee. We cannot afford to say we care for nobody and nobody cares for us. Our aim should be to multiply the number of our friends and use our influence upon them to ensure that events conform, in so far as we can influence them, to the vital and fundamental interests of our own people and nation.

I have said deliberately that the second vital interest to a small country such as ours is that there should be no atomic war. I often follow with interest the Minister's series of resolutions about limiting atomic weapons and so forth. There is a strange paralelism between the plan advocated by him and that advocated by Mr. Rapacki. The Rapacki Plan has been now ardently adopted by the Soviet Government in Moscow and is being urged as part of the disarmament negotiations in Geneva. We ought to face one fact. If there were no atomic bombs in the world to-day, Europe would be governed from Moscow. We might as well face that. You may be certain of it by the simple process of counting heads. The Soviet Government can deploy forces on the continent of Europe of such power that no combination of states in Europe would be able to resist them. The only thing that keeps Moscow behind the Iron Curtain is the knowledge that if by force she tries to pass it, she will precipitate herself into an atomic war. If America ever disassociated herself from the fate of Europe without the detonation of the smallest atomic weapon, the Soviet forces could conquer Europe without the slightest trouble. We all hope that war will disappear from the world and that people will give up the use of force. I suppose it is a good thing to cherish that dream of Utopia, but at the same time it is important to keep our feet upon the ground.

I want to re-emphasise what has been said from these benches by several Deputies that in their view there is no neutrality between the Cominform and the free nations of the world. In justice it must be conceded that the Taoiseach has now declared that on behalf of the Fianna Fáil Party in express terms. I think he felt constrained to do so in the terms he did owing to the atmosphere of misapprenhension much of what the Minister for External Affairs was doing in the United Nations had created. I rejoice that that now seems to be, since Deputy Tully has spoken, the unanimous categorical foreign policy of all sides of this House.

In international politics we must ask ourselves what are the fundamental interests of Ireland. That is what we ask our Minister for External Affairs to serve, the fundamental interests of Ireland, and every other Minister for External Affairs he meets is looking after the fundamental interests of the country he is representing. That is his purpose, to deal with the fundamental interests of Ireland. We should all ask ourselves what are the fundamental interests of Ireland and how best they can be served. I tried to outline what I conceive them to be and how best to serve them. The thing that should preoccupy our Minister for External Affairs when engaged in diplomatic activity is the fundamental interests of Ireland. Ghana must look after itself and every other country must look after itself. I am suggesting that the fundamental interests of Ireland are best served by collaboration with the other nations of the European Economic Community to help Africa. I have been seeking to outline how best that can be done.

I always hear with dismay representations such as those made by Deputy Lemass that we should send a representative to look after the multitude of Irish emigrants in the Channel Islands. It is true that 250,000 of our people have emigrated in the past five years, most of them young. It is true that now there are nearly that number of young people of Irish birth seeking their livelihood in Great Britain. I have said on previous occasions, while one does not want to create any undue admiratio, it would be wrong to ignore the matter to which Deputy Sherwin referred today. I have referred to it before and it is my duty to refer to it again. I fully appreciate the difficulties but there should be some proceedings available to us, either in the domestic field or in the immigration field, to protect young girls from going to Great Britain without any preparation for the world into which they are going.

It is a shocking thing to learn that girls of 15 or 16 years of age are going to Britain at present without a job, without any proper arrangements being made for them to be looked after and only too often with catastrophic consequences for themselves. They have no experience of life in a big industrial city like London, or Birmingham, or Manchester or Liverpool and they can very easily fall into bad hands, with resultant disaster. Many of us wonder why these problems arise, particularly now. There has always been emigration. The answer is simple—because the character of the emigration from this country has completely changed. In years gone by, nobody went from this country to America without having a relative waiting on the docks to receive them. No girls at all went who did not know where they were going and without having some family connection representing some family background into which they were absorbed on arrival in America.

That has completely changed and a great number of boys and girls are going to England now without having any family or friends to meet them. I have heard shocking stories of girls arriving in Liverpool without being too well aware of where they were and not knowing where to turn or how to look for a job. They simply arrive with a portmanteau in their hands and walk out on the streets and Providence only knows what happens to them. I have heard distressing stories of what happens to them in London, Birmingham and Manchester.

I do not think this is a problem to which we can afford to close our eyes and which we can refuse to acknowledge as a problem. Whether we should go to the length of ensuring that girls should not travel to England below a certain age without some provision being made for their reception or whether we should set up some organisation in Britain to cater for them, I think the time has come when we will have to face the problem and make up our minds that some action is called for in the future to put an end to something that not only could be an appalling tragedy for the girls themselves, but greatly reflect on the good name of the country which permitted them to go unprepared into such places.

I hope our negotiations for entry to the Common Market will proceed and prosper. I want to say one word in that regard on a matter on which I think we require reassurance, though I recognise that it may be a future Minister who may have to give it to us. There must be, and there will be some economic dislocation in consequence of the entry of this country into the European Economic Community. I do not think it is going to be of a catastrophic nature because I think there is a time lag for the elimination of protective duties but there will be some dislocation and I think now is the time, before these troubles come upon us, to complete plans and make provision for two kinds of cases.

One is the case of people who, on the strong advice and at the urgent request of our own Government, have invested their money in industrial undertakings which were never designed to compete in the world market but which were designed to trade under the high protection of tariffs and quotas where these were necessary. Some of these industries will not survive and I think we ought to face the problem of fairly compensating people who have suffered intolerable losses as a result of the destruction of their livelihood.

What is infinitely more important is that it is going to be more difficult but none the less urgent that we should make alternative provision for the people who are making their living in these industries. Nothing is more difficult than to make an equitable provision for a man who has spent 25 of the best of his working years in an industry which closes down. That man is now 45 to 50 years of age and for him to change may be virtually impossible. There are also the younger men who have acquired particular skills and who find that these skills are no longer marketable here and who are faced with the problem of going abroad or of acquiring some new skill in Ireland.

We should make it manifest now that when the times comes, no side of the House contemplates throwing these people on the scrapheap or relieving ourselves of the responsibility to see that the new trend in our economic life will not involve these people being forgotten. I believe that if that were done judiciously and authoritatively many of the anxieties which at present surround the whole business of the disturbance of our economic life would disappear.

The free passage of men, money and goods has long been dear to my heart. I rejoice to see the world adopt it and I am happy to think that this country, retrieved from the economic follies of Fianna Fáil, is in the van of progress towards this desirable goal.

Mr. Byrne

I wish to make a very brief intervention in this debate for the purpose of reiterating a plea which I made to the Minister on previous occasions. Deputy Dillon and others have referred to our young people who emigrate to Britain and who get into trouble there. I want to impress upon the Minister that he has a responsibility to the parents of these young people. There are, in Britain, several splendidly inspired and led voluntary organisations catering for the welfare of our newly-arrived emigrants. Their efforts are considerably restricted by reason of their lack of money.

On a previous occasion when I asked the Minister to accept in principle the idea that his Department has an obligation to our young people who have to emigrate, he said that the question of catering for this problem was best left in the hands of these voluntary organisations. I entirely agree with that view. It has been the constant policy of the Department over several years to treat the problem in that way, but these organisations are inspired by considerations of Christian charity. Their zeal cannot be replaced by any official act and their efforts deserve to be assisted financially by the Irish State.

Many people do not realise the extent to which we are under an obligation to these organisations. Every train arriving at Euston Station is met by members of the Legion of Mary. The same is true of arrivals at other main stations in big English cities. Sometimes raw boys and girls can be a prey of evilly-disposed persons. I agree we should not attempt to set up any bureaucratic body to replace the efforts of these zealous organisations but I do want to impress upon the Minister that financial help should be given them.

The Minister told me on a previous occasion that it was impossible to give financial grants to organisations of this nature because in dealing with State funds, the Comptroller and Auditor General had a function in the matter, that he would not sanction the provision of funds when they could not be entirely accounted for. I do not accept that view. After all, the Estimates for Public Services contain provision for innumerable grants to societies such as the Zoological Society, the Royal Irish Academy of Music and the Institute of Management. It is unfortunate that the efforts of the people I speak of are so often dissipated into petty fund-raising activities—penny raffles and sixpenny pools.

I am aware that the Minister recently appointed a welfare officer to the Irish Embassy in Britain whose function, as far as I know, is to effect a liaison between the various county associations. His function would appear to be more social and cultural than anything else. If I am wrong, I would be glad if the Minister would elaborate and tell us what work is being done in that connection by the Embassy. Some time ago, the Commission on Emigration and allied problems referred in passing to this question and recommended, in principle, that funds should be made available for an emigrant welfare bureau in Britain if one was to be established.

On previous occasions here, I have cited other references which I do not propose to quote again. A very strong denunciation of our policy on this problem was made by Christus Rex, the Maynooth College publication. I could refer also to statements made by the Dominican priests in Blackfriars in reference to the problem of drunkenness among Irish emigrants in Britain and pointing out the deplorable fact that 50 per cent, of the cases in respect of disorderly conduct in London courts on Monday mornings are cases in which Irish people are involved.

We must all have great sympathy with our young people who find themselves in a strange environment where Christian standards have very largely lapsed. It is unfortunate to find Irish country lads, who never before touched a drink, sometimes emigrating to Britain, and, because they have no other choice in the matter of social intercourse, going to public houses and drinking too much and too frequently. There is a great need for social centres in Britain. The voluntary organisations to which I have referred are only too anxious to set them up, but money is needed. If the Minister were prepared to say that he would put down a £1 for every £1 raised by these organisations, a start could be made.

I would again ask the Minister to accept the principle that the Irish nation has an obligation to its emigrants and a particular duty to the parents of young people who have to emigrate to find employment. The vast majority of our emigrants fit in fairly well in British society, in American society and in other countries to which they emigrate. Accordingly, the problem I am speaking about relates to only a small minority of our people abroad. The extent to which our people are acceptable in foreign countries is a tribute to their character, their integrity and ability. In respect of Britain, it is also encouraging to find an amount of goodwill towards our people.

We are all aware that during the past year Britain has introduced a Bill to control emigration. We can congratulate ourselves that we have succeeded in avoiding that control so that our people will continue to be admitted to Britain without hindrance. There is, of course, in the British Tory Party a very strong anti-Irish bigoted opinion. At a certain stage it looked as though that section would swing the day against us. It is much more influential and in sympathy with the Six County Government than we sometimes care to admit. In so far as the Minister for External Affairs was involved in certain negotiations in connection with that Bill and in so far as he may have had to make a certain commitment, if it proves necessary for him to introduce legislation here to prevent this country being used as a backdoor for people of other nationalities to find their way into Britain, the Minister can be assured that he will get full support here even though we despise anti-racial policies. But our obligation is first and foremost to protect the right of our people to enter Britain and if that means the introduction of legislation, the Minister is entitled to get an assurance that such legislation will be supported in this House.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

There is one matter to which I should like to draw the Minister's attention. It is that in this country at the moment we have a number of refugees. The Minister must be aware of the fact that at the moment those refugees, many of whom spent a considerable time during the war in internment camps, are covered by a scheme of compensation. When making their claims for this compensation, being provided by some international Convention, I would ask the Minister to consult with officials of his Department with a view to assisting such refugees to compile the necessary information to obtain the certificates which will enable their applications to be considered.

This is a matter for the Department of Justice. I understand the Minister for Justice is actively interested in assisting such refugees. I am reliably informed that great difficulties have been experienced. The persons concerned in this country have consulted the Garda Síochána from time to time in order to obtain advice from them and have written to public representatives. They are really at sea. The Department of External Affairs has a certain obligation to advise and assist and I would ask the Minister sympathetically to consider assisting such refugees as are anxious to come within the scope of the compensation likely to be made available for such persons as those who during the war years spent some time in a concentration camp.

I want to avail of this opportunity to refer to the very discreditable press reports in relation to the conduct of our soldiers in the Congo. I do not know if that matter has been referred to earlier in the debate by any other member. It is the duty of the Minister for External Affairs and of every member of the House, no matter to what Party he belongs, to see to it that no section of the British or international press will discredit or belittle our soldiers who have carried out their duties efficiently, capably, with distinction and merit in Africa, particularly in the Congo.

Every section of the Irish community, naturally, was shocked at the outrageous, belittling and scandalous press reports that were deliberately designed to discredit the United Nations forces in general who were doing their best to bring about peace and restore order. A section of the British press took it upon themselves to concentrate on the Irish troops and splashed their scandalous, dirty, scurrilous headlines all over the world in an attempt to discredit not only the Irish soldiers but the United Nations. The Minister for External Affairs should give a lead on every possible occasion in nailing the lie contained in such unwarranted, scandalous, malicious, false and misleading press reports, designed to discredit our soldiers and, in turn, the operations of the United Nations.

I want to say for the records of this House that every Deputy who goes to the trouble can very readily obtain information concerning the conduct of our troops in the Congo. It has been stated by the chaplains who accompanied each battalion that not alone have our Irish troops in the Congo discharged their duties with credit but they were a shining example and as each battalion left, they left behind them a fine example for the Africans and others who came in contact with them to follow.

Whether Deputies think it worth while to refer to the scandalous activities of sections of the British press in this regard, or not, it is only right that we should let the wielders of these poisoned pens know that we in this country regard with contempt and disgust their efforts to discredit our men who have given such a glorious account of themselves. I am sure the Minister for External Affairs will say on every possible occasion that what has been written about our soldiers by the users of these poisoned pens are falsehoods and that these reports were an effort to undermine the operations of the United Nations, in addition to discrediting the Irish.

Everybody knows that after 40 years of native Government, we have reached the stage when, thanks be to God, the influence of the Irish abroad was never so high. It is right on such an occasion as this to pay tribute to our countryman, Mr. Boland, for the manner in which during his term of office he reflected great credit on this country internationally in the discharge of his duties as President of the General Assembly of the United Nations. Tribute should also be paid to the officers who led our men in the Congo.

While a small section of the British press may try to belittle our influence abroad and to discredit us, they are not likely to succeed, either now or in the future. As Deputy Dillon rightly pointed out, our efforts should be to increase the number of our friends abroad, to make our influence greater and wider, to boast of our background. In every country in the world from the earliest days, Irishmen have set a good example by their bravery and courage on the battlefield and their achievements in building up religious, cultural and educational standards. That is something of which we can boast—a thing which those who attempt to belittle us could never do. Our Minister for External Affairs at every available opportunity should make it known that the press reports to which I have referred are not only false and misleading, but malicious, damaging and scurrilous. They are probably attributable to jealousy because of the success of Irishmen as leaders in the United Nations forces and other influential Irishmen in many parts of the world today who have reached the heights of success.

We should come out openly and determinedly on every possible opportunity against Communism. I think that a glorious opportunity rests with our Minister for External Affairs to come out broadly against Communism and to come out bravely and courageously and openly against the powers of Communism. We have nothing to gain by being on nodding acquaintance or friendly terms with Russia, Red China, or any of the countries behind the Iron Curtain. We are probably one of the oldest and greatest Catholic countries in the world today. In our own small way, we have been responsible for doing more to spread the faith and Christianity in the world than any other nation.

Our Minister has a golden opportunity, with the fine Irish tradition which he has behind him, of saying that Irishmen are coming out openly, publicly and courageously behind the free nations to support in every possible way the efforts of the United Nations, Britain and all the free nations against Communism.

People may speak of wars of the past and of wars to come. It is common belief that if another war comes it will be a war against Communism and the free blocs. Surely the question of where Ireland stands in that regard is clear to everyone? That is why our Minister for External Affairs has had and still has a glorious opportunity of coming out and joining in any crusade which is possible to combat the forces of Communism in the world today.

Mr. J. Brennan

Even to the extent of joining NATO?

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Whatever the Minister for External Affairs and the Government in their wisdom feel is necessary to combat Communism should be undertaken without delay. The growth of Communism is of very great dimensions, even in Europe. That is why I feel that, as our contribution towards an attack on international Communism, our Minister for External Affairs should give the lead in that regard and associate himself in every possible way with the activities of the free nations.

Having regard to the vast numbers of our people who are forced to leave this country for employment in Britain, I fear that many of them are going unprepared for what awaits them. Some effort should be made to protect, in particular, young girls who are forced to emigrate and who have no friends or relatives in Britain. There is ample evidence that many of those young girls fall into the hands of evilly-disposed people. No matter how good may have been the home in which they were brought up in Ireland, I feel that, with those dangers abroad, they are likely to fall into temptation.

The Minister for External Affairs ought to set aside a particular section of his Department to deal with ways and means by which Irish emigrants may be advised and assisted, particularly in the big industrial areas of Britain. Again, some system could be arranged between the Irish Government, through the Department of External Affairs, and, say, the Ministry of National Insurance in Britain whereby, if Irish emigrants are stranded, they may know where to go for assistance or advice.

At present, our emigrants have no place to turn to for assistance or advice. Even if they were sent leaflets to the effect that in the event of being stranded they could call to the local labour exchanges in Britain, it would be a good thing. It is desirable that there should be some arrangement between the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance in Britain and the Department of External Affairs here to assist our Irish emigrants. If it reached the stage where there was a grant to be paid by the Department of External Affairs to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance in Britain for the purpose of having that service available for all our emigrants, it would be a good thing.

It is regrettable that many of our young boys and girls who go over there find that, through some reason or other, they need either advice or money. It is regrettable that they have no place to turn to. I have known cases, as mentioned by Deputy Byrne, where charitable organisations, in particular, have done much good work. I am aware of the marvellous work the Legion of Mary have undertaken in Britain in relation to our Irish emigrants. Very great credit is due to those voluntary workers who have done so much. Efforts ought to be made to put public money to the benefit and use of our emigrants in Britain in cases of emergency.

I know quite well that it will not be looked upon with great favour to endeavour in any way to restrict emigration from this country to Britain. Indeed, if there were any question of even the British attempting to restrict the free movement of people between here and there, because of our geographical situation and because of the great assistance that Britain has been to this country in the provision of work for our surplus boys and girls who cannot obtain it at home, I feel strong opposition would be shown.

I have often wondered whether it would be wise for the Minister for External Affairs to consider at least having an age limit for the emigration of young girls unless it can be proved to the satisfaction of the Department of External Affairs that they are going to near relatives who will undertake to be responsible for their care, guidance and maintenance. There is a great responsibility on the Department of External Affairs in this regard. I feel that our Department of External Affairs have been too taken up entirely with the African difficulties while we have difficulties involving many tens of thousands of our own people in Britain, although the Minister has not referred to it.

We have not seen in public statements from him whether his Department are actively interested in this matter. Something should be done and the only way it can be done is to seek the co-operation of some Department in Britain that already has the organisation there, that already has offices and centres in the various towns. I think the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance would be the most suitable if arrangements could be made in this connection. There is a crying need for assistance in this regard. I hope something will be done about it.

We have a permanent representative in the United Nations in New York. We have an office and a staff. I have often wondered if it is really necessary for the Minister for External Affairs to be absent from this country for such long intervals. Generally speaking, it does not meet with the approval of the Irish taxpayers that the Minister for External Affairs should have a staff and should have representatives and that he himself should leave his post as Minister for External Affairs and leave this country and spend such an extraordinarily long time out of this country. The expense, indeed, is not so terribly great but it means that a Minister is absent from his post, is absent from Parliament, when, at the same time, he can very competently be represented at these conferences by highly qualified people.

Our experts of the Department of External Affairs, every Deputy will agree, are probably the most highly efficient in the world. That has been generally recognised and we have proof of it in the recognition that Mr. Boland received in the past. They are as highly qualified as those of any country and, therefore, I wonder why it was so necessary for the Minister himself to remain in New York and out of this country for such long periods. I cannot understand it and it has been the subject of very severe criticism by the Irish taxpayers. I hope that in the future the Minister will show that confidence he should have in our officials at the United Nations in New York and in his Department.

Let him consult periodically with those officers in regard to Government policy. They are not so dumb that they do not know what Government policy is when it is conveyed to them. If there are those frequent conferences, which I assume there are and which there should be, at which Government policy is conveyed to them they will implement it and it is not necessary for the Minister to absent himself from this country for long periods.

I can remember when Mr. MacBride was Minister for External Affairs and when his duties took him frequently to New York and Paris there was a barrage of questions from Fianna Fáil Deputies bitterly criticising his absence. At that time he was not absent half as long as the present Minister has been in recent times. I think some economy can be exercised in this matter and that if the Minister had left many of the conferences to the qualified and experienced officers of his Department and if he had said less, probably Ireland would have more friends today in the international sphere. Some of his utterances in the past have not reflected great credit on us. We can only hope, now that there is a change of heart on many matters about which the Minister was very emphatic in the past, a lesson has been learned and that there will be no question of a repetition of the past.

To what extent the Department is interested in marketing is something I cannot say, but the Department, our Ministers and ambassadors abroad, I feel, ought to do a little more if possible. Perhaps, funds at their disposal for that purpose are very limited but in countries where we have set up our offices and staffs it should be their duty, among other things, to push the sale of Irish goods. Even today in England there seems to be a great shortage of Irish goods in the large cities. Our embassies and consulates should include a special section of offices for the sole purpose of pressing the sale of Irish-manufactured goods particularly clothing, whiskey, bacon, cheese, milk and other products which we can readily produce. No matter what licensed premises or hotel you go into in Manchester, Liverpool, Bristol, Hull or London or in any other part of England there may be great difficulty in getting Irish whiskey but no trouble whatever in getting Scotch. That goes to show that, while we can considerably increase our whiskey exports, there is a great lack of marketing organisation.

While Córas Tráchtála, the Department of Industry and Commerce, the Department of Agriculture or other Departments may do their best to set up marketing organisations, I feel the Department of External Affairs, through supervision of consulates, embassies or whoever we have abroad, should be responsible also for the promotion of markets for Irish goods. The Department should play a considerable part in that matter. If they did, it could very easily result in a considerable increase in exports. Our marketing system at present is very bad and would benefit considerably from advice and assistance that should be forthcoming from our ambassadors. The Minister and the Department would be well advised to, and certainly could, take suitable steps in that regard.

I had intended to raise only the matter of our soldiers in the Congo. I have dealt with that, and I hope the Minister will not allow those scurrilous and damaging statements to go unchallenged. They should not be allowed to go unchallenged and the Minister should play his part in showing that we will not tolerate our men being made little of by any section of the British or international Press.

Mr. Jones

I am glad to note from the Minister's statement that an extra sum is to be made available for cultural relations. In the past our relations with other countries were mainly on a cultural basis, and in other times the efforts of our people were along those lines. For that reason I am glad the Minister has seen to it that an extra amount is to be made available for this purpose.

There is no doubt that the provision of suitable films of our country and its achievements, its beauty spots, the activities of our people, and their way of life, is most beneficial. I am sure they will induce tourists to visit us because they will show tourists that ours is a country well worth visiting. Anyone who has seen films about Ireland produced by other countries knows that they are most interesting, instructive and much sought after. I hope the films that are now being produced will do an equally good job.

There is a great need also for a small authentic handbook about the country. Handbooks have been produced from sources outside Ireland but I am very glad to see in the Department's Bulletin that this handbook is available. I know from contacts I have with people abroad that this document keeps people in touch with home and keeps them informed on Irish affairs.

A number of conferences have been coming here of late. That is a very desirable type of development and I am glad to see it is continuing this year. There is one facet of entertainment to which I should like to draw the Minister's attention. Perhaps, it is not strictly in his field but he might be able to do something about it. Visitors come to this House and are entertained by the officers of the House. The Minister might consider whether some arrangement could be made which would make it possible for that to be done properly. Our representatives on the parliamentary unions who go abroad are entertained. Such people come here also and if a sum was available to the officers of the House it would enable reciprocal entertainment to be provided for them.

Cultural co-operation in education can be a most useful field of development. Now that we are entering the era of the Common Market with all that means for our people, it is more than ever necessary that we should be able to achieve the best results for our young people, particularly in the field of technical education. We have entered a sphere of technicalities and it is those with the best technical skills who will survive and achieve progress in the world of tomorrow. Anything which can bring to our people—particularly having regard to our own limited resources in that respect—the benefits of co-operation and the experience which is at the disposal of countries which have been engaging in that type of technical research, would be of great help indeed.

The Leader of my Party and other Deputies referred to the question of emigration. That is a subject which has fallen for discussion not only here but outside the House. Indeed, some of our bishops have found it necessary to refer to the fact that some of our young people leave home without sufficient knowledge of the hazards involved in crossing the water to some large centres of population.

I appreciate that it is very difficult to make the necessary provision, but anything which would minimise the dangers to which these young people are exposed would be a very welcome contribution, indeed, not only to their moral welfare but to their material welfare as well. I know it is an impossibility to provide any large scale help in the large centres of population, but the Minister and his Department can co-operate, as I am sure they do, in giving the necessary material to organisations here at home to be disseminated locally, as to the best sources of employment and the dangers and hazards to which young people are exposed. That information could be disseminated through the local diocesan organisations to the Irish clubs and organisations which cater for our young people and it might go some way towards relieving that problem. Young people will continue to emigrate. Perhaps, we will not be able to do anything about it in the foreseeable future, and since we recognise that fact we should bend every effort to see that the most up-to-date information is available to them.

Minister for External Affairs (Mr. Aiken)

I am very glad that Deputy Dillon has dropped a certain violence of language regarding the activities of myself and the Irish delegation in the United Nations. For three or four years, he insisted we were doing our utmost to create enemies for Ireland. In his lurid phrases, he accused us of having "kicked France in the teeth, stabbed America in the back and kicked Belgium in the stomach." I do not think I have to defend myself against that type of propaganda from the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Dillon

Of course, the Minister has mended his ways considerably.

Mr. Aiken

Let us take a few of the cases. We were supposed to have stabbed America in the back by proposing that nuclear weapons should be restricted.

Mr. Dillon

Oh, no.

Mr. Aiken

Oh, yes, we were. In the first year in which we proposed a Resolution of that kind, certain American people came out bitterly against it. There were certain other countries which said that this idea of restricting the bombs to three or four nuclear powers was creating an atomic aristocracy and that our proposal would deny every nation its right to have the bomb—every man his vote and every nation its bomb. I am glad to say that the United States now has incorporated that idea in its disarmament proposals. The language was exactly the same as our last year's Resolution.

We were supposed to have attacked the French. I am glad to see the French Government and the Algerian people are now getting together, and we hope to God they will find the solution we have steadfastly advocated over the years. It would be a great achievement for France and its President, General de Gaulle. It would be of great benefit to Europe and the world if the solution we advocated for that problem is finally implemented.

Belgium was another of the countries we stabbed in the back. In my opening remarks, I alluded to the Ruanda-Urundi Resolution introduced recently in New York and that we had helped to get it amended in such a way that it was acceptable not only to the Afro-Asian group but also to the Belgian Government. I am very grateful to M. Spaak, the Foreign Minister of Belgium, for his very kind reference to our activities. Speaking in the Belgian Parliament a couple of weeks ago, he said: "I was very powerfully helped by certain countries and more especially by Ireland, Sweden, Mexico and Argentina. I want to thank them very particularly for their intervention." Following the visit here last year of the German Foreign Minister and his very kind remarks, I do not need to say that the German people think we have been trying to make friends with them and that we did not try to make enemies of them.

I could go through a number of cases in which very generous and kind references were made to our activities, but I do not think it is necessary. Neither the Irish people nor those in any way au courant with our activities in the United Nations would think Deputy Dillon's exaggerated criticism is justified. Our duty in the United Nations is to stand for what the Irish nation always stood for. We try to do that. Unfortunately, from time to time, the people we would like to have with us always are against us for a time. But I think an honest stand by the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and its application to the weaker people of the world will pay dividends in increasing the respect that other countries, including the very big countries, have for this little part of the world.

A number of Deputies referred to the difficulties of our young emigrants to Britain. It is a problem to which I have devoted a fair amount of attention over the years. It is not a new one. The only method by which we could control emigration from here is by instituting a passport system between here and Britain. We could not make that passport system effective unless the British were prepared to accept it. I do not believe that the Irish people as a whole would benefit by the institution of such a system.

It is too bad that any Irish person, young man or woman or old man or woman, should not always be on best behaviour abroad. Unfortunately, our people are subject to their faults just as other peoples are, but the amount of adverse criticism of the behaviour of young Irish people in Britain is completely exaggerated. A few fall by the wayside. They fell by the wayside when they went to the United States, but they were very few also. I think we can take pride in the fact that the vast majority of our people who emigrate and go to great urbanised areas behave themselves very well and become accustomed to urban life notwithstanding the fact they come from very lonely parts of the country in which they are not subject to the same influences and temptations as they might be when they go to great cities abroad. Indeed, when they come to Dublin, they sometimes fall into the same temptations.

Deputy Byrne and others dwelt at length on this problem. I should be very glad indeed if I saw some solution for it that was generally acceptable, some attempted solution that would not put too great a burden on our people. We cannot ignore the fact that when the State gives a sum of money either directly or through an agent to a person A, then B, C, D and down to Z, all expect the same treatment, the same amount of money. We are quite prepared to make provision here at the expense of the Irish taxpayer for people who remain in Ireland and who are not able to look after themselves for any reason, lack of work, ill health or any other disability. However, we cannot undertake to ensure the same sort of care for those who voluntarily leave this country.

A certain amount has been done to organise the Irish people into societies and associations in various cities in Britain. These organisations are doing very good work by meeting young emigrants when they go there, trying to place them and keep in contact with them. It is very valuable work, indeed, and is deeply appreciated by myself and everybody acquainted with the problems of English cities. It is my belief that help can be more appropriately and profitably given to those societies by voluntary subscriptions from Irish people, people of Irish extraction or other people of goodwill. Any move in that direction will be helped by us. We do our utmost within the limits of our staff to keep in contact with these organisations, encouraging them and trying to promote their activities.

A number of Deputies referred to the films and the information handbook which we intend to produce. The information handbook was compiled in our Department. We had the help of other Government Departments and many other sources for the material and we are trying to ensure its production in a format which will be readable and attractive. We hope to give it fairly wide circulation and also that it will be bought for its worth by a number of people at home and abroad. It is a factual handbook which should be very useful. It is the same type of handbook that is produced by a great number of other countries. The format of the handbooks produced by other countries is very attractive and we are doing the best we can to turn out a handbook equally attractive about Ireland.

Mr. Dillon

Can the Minister say if it is illustrated?

Mr. Aiken

Yes, very much illustrated with graphs, and so on.

Mr. Dillon

And pictures?

Mr. Aiken

And pictures. The two films are not yet forward to the extent that I can tell the Dáil exactly when they will be produced and by whom but, generally speaking, we want to produce films of a kind that can be circulated abroad, that could be sold to Irish cinemas and that would inform people who do not know the developments of modern Ireland.

A number of Deputies asked questions about the political implications of our joining the European Economic Community, and every one of them went on to say that no one could tell exactly what are the political implications. I think one implication is that if France, Britain and Belgium are prepared to surrender portion of their sovereignty in order to become and remain members of the European Economic Community, if we join we shall have to be prepared to surrender the same amount of sovereignty. We cannot hope to be members of any group or organisation without having paid the admission fee. As the Treaty of Rome stands at the moment, the admission fee is that we must be prepared to accept a gradual reduction of tariffs to the point where they will disappear within the group, and we must agree to the agricultural regime.

We recognise, however, that at the back of the minds of the people who negotiated and signed the Rome Treaty was the ideal of European political unity. The ideal of European political unity is attractive to Ireland. If the world is changing to the point where we are going to have a number of large political groups instead of a multiplicity of small ones and that it will help to cure some of the economic ills of the world and reduce the dangers of war, we shall be happy to see such a development.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order! The Minister to conclude.

Mr. T. Lynch

The Minister would want to read Michael Joseph Kennedy at the General Council of County Councils. He said we were selling our souls for paper.

Mr. Aiken

I think that was a Fine Gael statement.

Mr. T. Lynch

It was not. I was present, with all respect.

Mr. Aiken

It was in the same tone, so to speak, as describing tourists as spivs. All that talk about wastepaper died very quickly.

Mr. Dillon

Like the sinking of the ships; that talk died quickly, too.

Mr. Aiken

All the champions of that kind of talk about wastepaper dropped it very quickly when the Coalition ran into difficulties, and could not get a loan because the people would not trust them. They had run the country into such debt and depression that they began to regret having regarded our external assets as so much wastepaper instead of sensibly as a reserve of purchasing power by means of which this country could import machinery and the other things required.

Mr. Dillon

We will kill the fatted calf for the Minister. He is the perfect prodigal son.

Mr. Corish

Mr. Aiken

I should have said no verbal parallel ever is exact. It is no use our trying to turn ourselves into prophets in relation to the development of the European Community. The Government have a duty, during the course of the negotiations, which we hope will take place in Brussels before long, to negotiate the terms and conditions of our joining the Common Market; and, then, having brought the negotiations to a conclusion, the members of the Dáil will be able to see for themselves exactly what the offer is, what we have to give and what we will get out of joining the European Economic Community.

As Deputies are aware, efforts have already been made by the Six to reach agreement about the future political development of the community. So far they have failed to agree. I do not know whether they will reach agreement within the next six or twelve months, or the next twelve years; but I do believe that, when negotiations are concluded and the offer is before the Dáil, if we make up our minds that the offer is the best in the interests of the Irish people and in the interests of the development and maintenance of peace between the nations of Europe and peace in the world, then our people will gladly join. Let us hope that negotiations will result in such an agreement being on offer.

Mr. Corish

Would it be right to say the Minister believes there is a possibility that we may have to join a bloc?

Mr. Dillon

What is a bloc?

Mr. Aiken

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 5 Apr 1962

Committee on Finance. - Vote 49—External Affairs (Resumed).

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 5 Apr 1962