Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 11 Feb 1965

Vol. 214 No. 2

Committee on Finance. - Vote 45: External Affairs (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:
Go ndeonófar suim nach mó ná £720,000 chun íochta an mhuirir a thiochfaidh chun bheith iníochta i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31ú lá de Mharta, 1966, le haghaidh Tuarastail agus Costais Oifig an Aire Gnóthaí Eachtracha, agus Seirbhísí áirithe atá faoi riaradh na hOifighe sin, lena n-áirítear Deontas-i-gCabhair.
—Minister for External Affairs.

Reference has been made already to the lack of information in the Minister's statement but there is one matter to which I should like to draw attention and about which we should have some information. It is the amount of money being spent on entertainment. So far as my recollection goes, when the inter-Party Government were last in power, approximately £6,000 was being spent on entertainment and that was regarded as very high for a country of this size. That figure in seven or eight years has reached £23,000.

When the Committee of Public Accounts sought some information in regard to the detailed expenditure of this money, no information was forthcoming. On December 2nd last, Deputy Dr. Browne asked a question in regard to this matter as reported in volume 213, column 303, of the Official Report, as follows:

Dr. Browne asked the Minister for External Affairs what action has been taken by him in regard to the request by the Committee of Public Accounts that he should in common with practice in Great Britain and elsewhere publish the details of expenditure on entertainments; and what details he is at present unwilling to disclose lest it embarrass his guests.

The reply was:

The British Government merely publish a list of the global cost of each Head of State and official visit. We do not propose to follow their example in the matter and as far as we have heard the only country which has done so is South Africa.

When the expenditure on entertainment in a small and poor country like ours can rocket from about £6,000 in 1957 to £23,000 at present, I think it calls for explanation, especially when I have been refused transport for eight mentally defective children at Clondalkin to go to an approved school.

The Minister has nothing to do with that decision.

I know that, but I am talking about the attitude to that expenditure compared with the attitude to other expenditure. I think £23,000 is extravagant, and when the Committee of Public Accounts seek an explanation of it, I think they are entitled to get it and not be fobbed off as they were by the Minister.

In 1961 we were so sure of entering into the EEC that we practically had one foot there already. The position has radically changed since but our whole economic programme in the future is apparently geared to and dependent on our admission to the EEC by 1970. When we came back after Christmas, it was stated that we would seek some kind of trade agreement with the EEC until we achieved full membership by 1970. There is no information in the Minister's statement as to whether we have, in fact, attempted to clarify this position.

Is it possible for us to get any such limited trade agreement with the EEC countries, on the understanding that our ambition and aspiration is to become full members in the long run? People are entitled to know where they stand. If that is the position, we should set about investigating the possibilities and decide once and for all. I think there are many people who foolishly believe that some action is being taken to achieve this end and are awaiting results. As far as one can see even from replies given today by the Minister for Agriculture, the position seems to be—this is not indicated in the Minister's speech—that it is not possible to have that sort of trade agreement and that it is now undesirable that we should try to secure any form of association.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
The Dáil adjourned at 5 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 16th February, 1965.
Top
Share