I should like to ask the Minister if he can see his way towards giving financial assistance to the Irish Centre in London. I have had the privilege of seeing the great work being done there. It may be rather complicated for the Minister to involve himself but possibly under some heading he may be able to provide some funds to assist the Irish Centre.
Committee on Finance. - Vote 45—External Affairs (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:
Go ndeonófar suim nach mó ná £720,000 chun íoctha an mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31ú lá de Márta, 1966, le haghaidh Tuarastail agus Costais Oifig an Aire Gnóthaí Eachtracha, agus Seirbhísí áirithe atá faoi riaradh na hOifige sin, lena n-áirítear Deontas-igCabhair.
—Minister for External Affairs.
Two weeks ago, the Minister was queried with regard to the possibility and the desirability of providing control over young people going to Great Britain. He interjected to the effect that he might be able to deal with this matter on the Estimate. I merely rise to ask him if he would be good enough to give us his considered and expanded views on this problem. To try to do something about it may be an even bigger matter than the original problem but it is undeniable that it is desirable children under a certain age, 15 or 16 years, should be required to produce permission from their parents or guardians to travel out of this country to Great Britain or elsewhere.
I do not say this is widespread but I know of occasions when young boys or girls, particularly boys, had got themselves into trouble with the Garda. If they were near a boat passenger port and were still fairly well heeled with money they had stolen, they were off to great Britain and it became very difficult to find them. To prevent that sort of thing there ought to be some attempt at control. The Minister explained some of the difficulties in respect of the type of control necessary when a question was put to him. He said the problem had been considered over the years and he still could not find a solution.
It is not a perfect example, but the State has power to prevent boys and girls under a certain age from entering a dancehall. Whether that portion of the law is observed is anybody's guess and I know how most people would guess. In any case, the State took unto itself power years ago to prevent people of a certain age from attending dancehalls. It is much more desirable that the State should take power unto itself to ensure that minors—let the age be determined at 15, 16 or 17—should not be allowed to leave this country without the permission of their parents and guardians because we all can guess how they may end up in some of the big cities and towns in Great Britain. From the point of view of both morals and health, they need protection.
For that reason, I should be obliged if the Minister would consider the matter. If he has already considered it, he might tell us what his considered views are. I would urge that something be done to see that young children, particularly those who have stolen money and have got themselves into trouble with the Garda, are not allowed to jump on a boat and leave the country.
It is like jumping on a bus.
Not having a Whip, I often do not know what is coming up and have to consider what I should say in a hurry. We have now been handed back the remains of Casement and I think it is a good opportunity to take steps to bring to finality other similar cases, such as the Connaught Rangers. I understand one Connaught Ranger was executed and that one or two others died in prison where they were serving sentence following the mutiny. The bodies of those men should be returned to Ireland. I should also like to urge that the bodies of those concerned in the shooting of Henry Wilson be returned to Ireland.
All of them were associated with the national struggle and their remains should be brought back for reinterment. I would ask the Minister to do all he can to achieve this. Naturally, there will be hesitation among those concerned but I suggest that if at all possible the remains of those men should not be allowed to lie in alien prisons as they are to-day.
I have raised the matter mentioned by Deputy Corish more than once. I have spoken about young girls going to England. I read the English press a lot and I hear a great deal about what happens to certain females in England. I believe that a fair percentage of the people who do a certain class of work, of which we are and they should be ashamed, are Irish. If it is too difficult to have a passport system, as the Minister says, there ought to be some form of extradition. I understand an Extradition Bill is to come up before the House but I do not know whether we can, under any of its provisions, bring girls back.
If girls under a certain age leave the country without their parents' consent and if the parents want them returned, it should be possible to have them brought back. If their parents do not object, then the parents must be quite satisfied, but where they are not satisfied, I submit there should be power of extradition.
There are one or two minor points I should like to mention. One is the Minister's decision in relation to China having a seat in the Security Council. I have heard it argued here and while I do not claim to be an authority, I agree with the Minister that a large and rather dangerous country like China should not be on the loose. If it is the Minister's view that this large and dangerous country should become a member of the Security Council so that its actions could be influenced by other members of the Council, then I think the Minister is right in advocating that. I do not think the question should arise as to whether they are Red or not. Unless matters of this kind are handled carefully, they could lead to a further struggle far worse than we have ever had in the world before.
Before the Minister concludes, may I just ask him if he will be good enough in his observations to give us an up-to-date appraisal of what the situation is in relation to the United Nations, since the situation in regard to it has evolved considerably since this debate began?
Deputy Sherwin has made a new suggestion to deal with the young people who leave this country without the consent of their parents. That suggestion is, I think, well worth examining. It would, of course, require the co-operation of both the British Government and the British courts, but it is one of the things I shall have examined in an effort to see what can be done about it.
Deputy Dillon and I seem to be in agreement on one point in regard to this problem of young Irish emigrants to Britain. Deputy Dillon fully acknowledges that we cannot set up a duplicate social service in Britain. It is estimated there are 1,000,000 Irish-born living in Britain at the moment. There are only 3,000,000 of us here. One of the reasons why there are 1,000,000 Irish in Britain is that we cannot build up here quickly enough and the more money we devote to other purposes, such as money guaranteeing everybody from the cradle to the grave in Great Britain if they have been born in Ireland, the less we shall have with which to build up here to keep others from going or to attract those who have gone to come back.
All Governments for a number of years have examined this problem. We all wish there was an effective means of stopping young people going to Britain. During the war there was a travel permit system. No one could leave the Twenty-six Counties without producing a travel permit. That was effective in stopping young people whom the Irish Government wanted to stop because the British were also interested in stopping unauthorised entry. They did not want people who had come in from outside moving around in Britain unless they were armed with identification papers.
That is not the situation today and last year the British Government indicated that they could not effectively stop people entering Britain from Ireland. They could not do it in ordinary peacetime. If we were to reimpose a travel permit or a passport system, it would also have to be imposed between ourselves and the Six Counties. Now there might be some chance of stopping young people getting on board a plane or boat because there are only half a dozen points of departure but it would be impossible to stop them crossing the 270 miles of border. All people who want to go to Britain need do is take a bus at a cost of a few shillings and walk over the Border at any point along the 270 miles without any identification papers or passport. The situation would be impossible.
Deputy Sherwin's suggestion is worth pursuing with the British Government, if I get the approval of our Government to such a course. To establish a passport system would cause great inconvenience to people travelling back and forth, as they do, in great numbers. How are we to distinguish between a young person who goes off against the wishes of his parents and those who do not? If they are asked to produce their parents' consent at the gangway to the boat or plane it will be very easy for them to produce a letter of consent purporting to have been signed by their parents or guardians, and who is to tell? Will it be the intention, too, to hold up every young person who travels between here and Britain on holidays? Anyone can see all the inconvenience that would be caused and all the disruption of the ordinary flow of traffic.
In peak periods, the difficulty is to handle with reasonable speed all the passengers who come forward for places on a boat or plane. It is hard enough as it is to handle that traffic; it would be impossible if we had to go through this scrutiny of people who appeared to come within whatever age we set. I doubt if such a system would be acceptable for very long. We would be accused of imposing a general passport system and the Government would be accused of coralling the young people here, forcing them to stay in Ireland against their will.
The other approach spoken of by Deputy Dillon, Deputy Costello, Deputy Corish and others, of helping these young people in Britain is one that I have actively promoted for a number of years. There is no substitute for the voluntary worker in this particular regard. If a young person landing in Britain fears approach in an official way, he or she will quickly get out of the road of the official. The Irish people living over there and the people of Irish extraction living over there who have an interest in this matter can get in touch with them at their work or at the ordinary places of social contact and persuade them to go home if they are too young to be on their own in Britain.
There are innumerable Irish clubs doing that work. One of the best of such foundations is the Irish Centre in London. They are doing extremely good work. I visited it myself quite recently and had a talk with the people in charge. They are short of money. They want more money. The best way for them to get it is by voluntary collections either in Britain, as they are doing, or even if they were to spread over here to Ireland and do it in an organised way. The innumerable smaller sporting and social clubs are helping them and the 200 or 300 in London are giving very handsome subscriptions either to the Irish Centre or to clubs doing similar work in other towns.
There is a problem which I hope to deal with in a much better way than heretofore. The Minister for Finance is prepared to give us permission to send home young people who are willing to come back home if we think they should be in Ireland instead of over there. Heretofore, we had to go through a long process of getting financial assistance for each case. If we act a little more quickly and if young persons obviously should be at home and we can help them to get home, it would result in having sent back to Ireland persons who, because of age or infirmity, should be at home with their people.
The social services in Britain for the ordinary person out of work are, vis-á-vis what is provided here, very high but the most we can promise to do for anybody who does not want to live in Britain is to say to them that if they come home here, they will be as well treated as anybody else in the country. That offer is there for them. We could not undertake to give a weekly pension to any Irish person who wants to live over there. If they want help and if they want care and they feel they cannot get it in Britain, or if some of their friends think they would be better off in Ireland, we are prepared to help those who cannot help themselves and when they return to Ireland, the social services are available to them in the same way as to everybody else.
Do I take it you cannot help them through the Embassy?
We have an official in the Embassy who is engaged wholetime in that work. All the members of the Embassy staff attend social functions of all sorts in London particularly, but also in other towns. In that way we have very close contact with the whole of the big centres of Irish population. Where there are only a few individuals scattered around, we cannot make contact with them. One of the things I feel would be bad in the introduction of a passport system is that the ordinary traveller going from here to Britain passes through the airports and goes by boat and train and we know pretty well where they are going to land on the other side.
There are voluntary organisations that meet boats and trains and try to contact anybody who looks as if he needs help. If we were to impose a passport system and stop them taking these normal routes and ending up in Britain at the normal places where one expects young Irish people to disembark from train or boat, if we force them to go over the Border and scatter all over England and Scotland, we would never get into contact with them.
Does the Minister intend to afford any financial assistance to the clubs?
No.
Why not?
How are a Government to decide between the various clubs? Once a Government give a sum of money to any group or any individual, every other group and individual demand the same sum, whether or not they are in need of it. Instead of taxation by the State to distribute money from the Exchequer to such groups, it is better that it should be done in a voluntary way. That is being done magnificently by the Irish in Britain. In the past few years, the growth of self-help by the Irish community has increased enormously. There are very few cases nowadays that cannot be handled by the various Irish organisations over there.
Surely as a result of your visit you should be able to identify the clubs that need financial assistance?
Yes, but the Deputy knows that once a Government give a sum of money to an individual, every other individual will demand it.
These are not individuals; they are clubs.
They are even more difficult. I want to say in conclusion on this matter that emigration has reduced enormously. People in need over there are getting more effective help than they were a few years past. It was not for nothing that all the Governments who have been in office here could not see their way to adopt this system.
If I may say so, the Irish Centre, which is the foremost centre in London, appreciates the Minister's position in that regard. We know that there are so many clubs that have been set up. If under any heading the Minister can assist financially certain lines of good work they are doing, that would be appreciated.
There is no means of doing that directly out of the Exchequer.
Not directly. On the question of children leaving the country——
I have dealt with that.
——may I ask would it not be a great deterrent to have a policeman on the gangway? I have seen them at Dun Laoghaire questioning children going out. Could that not be continued? It would go a bit of the road.
It would simply disrupt the flow of traffic. How is a garda or any individual to determine simply by looking at passengers going out whether a young person's parents are on board or not?
That is not a very good argument.
I know, but——
It is a very difficult matter.
Deputy Corish was Minister for Social Welfare here for six years or so. During his last year of office, there were 60,000 emigrants. The figure is down now, we are glad to say, to one third of that.
Treat the matter seriously. Do not go back.
I take it the Deputy treated it seriously when he was Minister and he made up his mind that it could not be done by the State.
It had nothing to do with the Department of Social Welfare.
It had to do with the Government. I have answered enough on that question.
Does that not mean that the problem of teenagers cannot be solved? Does it mean that the Department of Justice, who have the same problem in relation to dances and public houses, cannot solve that problem? Is the problem not the same?
The door of a dance hall is five feet or six feet wide and the door of a pub is only three feet wide.
What is a gangway like?
How are you to stop them crossing a door that is 270 miles wide?
Persons have to present their tickets at the gangway and young persons could be questioned during that short stoppage.
They cannot get married under a certain age but they can run away from the country at any age.
They were running three times as fast under Deputy Corish.
The Minister should get it into his head that we are not talking about emigration or making any sort of comparisons.
Do not talk——
Do not get cross; try to be cool.
It has always been a problem. I am not saying that it is the Minister's exclusive problem.
Why do you turn angrily on me?
We are not being angry with the Minister at all. I am only asking him to give it consideration to see if anything can be done. I do not think he has considered it if he dismisses it in the way he has done.
I have given it a thousand times more consideration than Deputy Corish seems to have given it.
I was not Minister for External Affairs.
The Deputy was Minister for Social Welfare.
That is the past. It is the present and the future we are concerned with.
The Minister is entitled to make his statement. He should be allowed to do so.
We are trying to keep him on the gangway.
The Deputy's help is not very effective.
I want to turn to some of the points made by Deputy Dillon and others. Deputy Dillon thought that I was being over-optimistic in thinking there was a détente at the present time between the two great power blocs. He said my talk about the non-dissemination and the danger of an increase in the number of nuclear powers was altogether illusory. He went on to say that anybody can make the bomb but that there were only two effective nuclear powers. Of course, quite a number of people can make the bomb and unless there is some agreement come to fairly shortly, the number making the nuclear bomb will probably double every ten years. It is true that there are only two effective nuclear powers at the present time, each of whom could blow up the rest of the world, but the fact that they would be able to do it is helping to keep the peace between them.
Since Cuba, it has been more and more borne in on the great nuclear powers that if one of them starts a nuclear war, the other would have sufficient retaliatory power to blot it out. That is one of the reasons why there is some easement in this situation. Up until Cuba a great number of people were very worried that the two great nuclear powers might stumble into nuclear war. The fact that one of them, Russia, stepped across the Atlantic and took with it its nuclear weapons and threatened the United States of America with nuclear weapons and had to draw back is a proof that they realise the enormity of the weapons they control and are not likely to use them deliberately.
There is always the danger of the great nuclear powers being drawn into war by accident. There is less chance of that in the case of the United States of America and Russia than there was, in my opinion, and I am hoping that if we can get an agreement between the nuclear powers that they will not spread the weapon or give it to other people and that they will protect the smaller powers with the capacity to make nuclear weapons in case they were attacked by a nuclear power — if we can get these agreements and guarantees — there will be less chance of those powers that at present are not making nuclear weapons commencing to make them. The Chinese bomb revealed how much nearer a number of countries were to making nuclear weapons than many people thought. There is no doubt that if any one of the potential nuclear powers starts to make the bomb, it will attract its neighbour, who feels threatened by it, also to make it. There are a number of States with nuclear potential that have given very much more attention to the development of the techniques necessary to making nuclear weapons than they were giving to it before the Chinese bomb was exploded.
However, apart from outright nuclear war between the major powers, which I do not think is likely unless one of them becomes dominated by a crazy dictator, there is the danger that if the smaller States start making the bomb the Governments in control will not be as steady or as knowledgeable as the two great nuclear powers of today and they might easily in a fit of temper or in a spirit of revenge let loose a nuclear weapon. There is the other danger that if nuclear weapons spread around the world and become the conventional weapons of all armies and States, they will be used in revolutions and then there will be real nuclear anarchy. It is very important that we should try to stop the spread of nuclear weapons now. It was bad enough with three and now five but we do not want it to be ten as it could easily become within a number of years.
I do not think it is true to say, as Deputy Dillon seemed to indicate, that unless they have very modern missiles or supersonic planes a nuclear attack could not be effectively delivered. There are many ways of delivering it besides carrying it in a suitcase. There is the shipping all round the world. Any one ship could carry enough nuclear explosive to destroy any of the vast ports around the world.
This nuclear weapon is something new in the history of man. We have never had to face its like before. I believe it could be stopped from spreading if we could persuade the nuclear powers to get down to business. The four nuclear powers that existed before China, agreed to the non-dissemination resolution which was passed by the United Nations a few years ago. They agreed to put it on the agenda for Geneva. They have had conversations about it and it is of the utmost urgency that they should get together and agree not to give the bomb to other countries or give them the knowledge of making it. At the same time they should agree to go to the assistance of any small State attacked by a nuclear power. If that guarantee is not given and if the States with a nuclear potential are not satisfied with the guarantees they get, undoubtedly within the next couple of years we shall have at least two, if not three or more, nuclear powers added to the number we have. The nuclear powers have found it difficult to get agreement. We hope they will now realise that something must be done immediately or they will face the problem in a few years of having double the number of nuclear powers.
Deputy Costello dealt with the problem of the non-recognition of China. He said that it is probable that within the next two years a two-thirds majority for the admission of China will be forthcoming and that then the protection of Formosa will become a real problem. The best advice I can get is that if the Assembly had continued we would have been up against the immediate danger of Formosa being kicked out of the United Nations and substituted by Peking. I suggested to the smaller States that it was in the interests of all small States not to let this happen. Formosa is an old nation. It has been for the past few hundred years invaded by one country and another, first by the Portuguese, then by some of the Southern Chinese; later it was invaded by Japan and, at the end of the war when Japan was defeated, its fate was left undecided. The Yalta Agreement did not provide either for giving it back to Japan who had posesssion of it for 40 years or letting it go independent. In the end, as we know, it was taken over by Chiang Kai Shek's forces.
The Formosans — the 12,000,000 or so of them — have as much right to independence as dozens of other small nations in the United Nations, including ourselves, and I do not think it would have been right not to raise the problem and have it fully debated. I am convinced that if we cannot persuade the great majority of the smaller States that they have an interest in protecting the freedom of Formosa a number of them will be cajoled into voting for the admission of Peking at the expense of throwing Formosa out of the United Nations.
There is one other matter raised by Deputy Clinton to which I want to allude. He mentioned the question of the Entertainment Vote and referred to the fact that this year the Vote was for £23,000. That Vote, as Deputies know — some of them may not know — covers all the entertainment by all Departments of State and not only by External Affairs. The Department of External Affairs would hardly spend one-tenth of it. It covers all the various international congresses and meetings held here, as well as all State visitors, people coming here for trade agreements and so forth. It is altogether wrong to compare what was spent in 1957 with what is being spent now. For the one dozen visitors we had in 1956 or 1957, we have 100 today. Some of these congresses have over 1,000 people who have to be entertained and our people will realise that it is important for this country to entertain distinguished guests and congresses of various kinds in a reasonable way. After all, the £23,000 represents less than 1½d. per family per year and it is money very well spent. Those who have had the experience of being entertained by foreign States — and there is a great number of Deputies who have been so entertained — will realise that the entertainment given here is on a very modest scale. I do not think we could do it fittingly on any smaller scale.
Deputy Clinton referred to the question put to me by Deputy Dr. Browne, asking me to give details of expenditure in individual cases where distinguished visitors and congresses were entertained. I have refused to do that. I pointed out that the only two countries I know of which publish figures in detail, or which separate the expenditure on the various groups entertained, are Great Britain and South Africa. In the case of Great Britain, there are many other bodies beside the State which entertain distinguished visitors: the city of London, for instance, entertains on a very high scale distinguished visitors to that city.
As I have said, I would be quite prepared in any case in which the Leader of the main Opposition Party wanted to know the details of any case to give them to him but I am not prepared to do it publicly. It would be an embarrassment for our guests if, while they were here, a question were put down as to the cost to the Exchequer of the entertainment of a particular visitor or group of visitors. Another reason is that I fear if we gave the cost as it is given in Britain or South Africa, the individual group of visitors would be embarrassed by questions such as those put down by Deputy Clinton and remarks would be made like: "Why was so-and-so entertained at £X when I could not get £X for this, that or the other good cause." Every pound spent on a foreign visitor could be spent here by Deputies a million times over.
The country is getting good value for the entertainment of these groups of visitors. It is important that the Department of Industry and Commerce, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Health and other Departments should entertain the various congresses and delegations who come here and that their members should look back kindly on their visit to Ireland.
God be with Longford-Westmeath in 1930 and the £100 expenditure.
Whatever happened or was said in 1930, I am telling the Deputy now that it would be very unwise for the Government to agree to publish the details of expenditure on any particular visit and that is my reply to Deputy Clinton.
That is all right.
I asked the Minister if he can give us any information about what the situation is going to be arising from the present deadlock in connection with the payments due by certain States which has prevented any decision, affirmative or negative, being taken during the present session of the United Nations?
I am sorry I overlooked answering that question. The Deputy knows the situation that presented itself to the Assembly last November. Russia and certain other countries had refused to pay expenses of peacekeeping operations, with the result that they were over two years in arrear. It was decided to postpone having a confrontation on that point. If a vote had been taken in the General Assembly in November, December or January, the question would have been immediately raised that a number of countries were not entitled to vote. A great number of countries did not wish to face that issue. I must say that if my will had been the law, I would have faced it, as the Deputy can see quite clearly from the speech I made on 8th November. I do not believe that the UN can be an effective organisation unless every member nation pays its assessment within the appropriate time. Any country that refuses to pay for two years should be deprived of its vote.
The General Assembly confined itself for the months of November, December and January to the general debate and did no business that required a vote. Anything that was likely to attract a negative vote, anything that could not be passed by unanimous agreement, was not put to the Assembly. The Assembly has adjourned until next September unless a special meeting is called. If so, the Assembly will be faced with the dilemma again that it must, if a vote arises, decide one way or another whether a country with more than two years arrears has a vote or not.
It was hoped last November that by not having this confrontation, not having a showdown on the issue, some of the great powers in arrears, if not all of them, would pay into the UN sufficient funds to take their debt below the two-year amount. What will happen between now and next September I do not know. I feel that unless the UN has a sound financial basis, it cannot be a success. It is dangerous for the UN to continue to make a pretence that it can do some effective work when in fact it cannot. I fear it is creating a haze and a smokescreen between the great powers and that if this situation continued, the UN would have to drop the pretence of being able to do anything and say to the great powers: "There is nothing we can do to keep the peace. You will have to face up to it yourselves and if you fall out, you will not have the UN to keep the peace between you as they did in Cuba, in Cyprus, as they did in the Congo, as is being done in the Middle East."
I am hoping that the great powers will in the course of the next seven or eight months come to the conclusion that it is in their interests as well as in the interests of the smaller powers to put the matter to rights and that those of them who are more than two years in arrears will pay up. I cannot prophesy whether that will happen or not. I am hoping it will. The sort of world we are living in requires the help of the smaller powers to keep the peace between the great. There is also a need to keep the peace between the smaller powers. If a great power intervenes, even at the call of the Government concerned, to protect a small nation against aggression, the other nuclear powers begin to sit up and take notice and they may all be drawn into the maelstrom.
That was the situation in the Congo, certainly. Cyprus is different but the situation there, too, was dangerous and still remains dangerous. In regard to Cyprus, Deputy Dillon asked when it was likely to come to an end. Unfortunately I do not know. Even though this Government might not be prepared to carry on for very much longer on the present basis, it is important that a number of the smaller States should be prepared to go in there and lend a hand for as long as is necessary. It is rather a costly operation but nothing like as costly as a conflagration in the Mediterranean would be. That is the situation the UN forces in Cyprus have had to stave off up to now.
I do not like going into the merits of any discussion on the political situation in Cyprus. Our troops are there and they are keeping the peace between two communities who are very emotionally "het up" at the moment. I feel the best we can do is try to keep the guns silent and let negotiations go on. As Deputy Dillon and others remarked, you have not only the UN peace-keeping forces there but you have also a direct representative of the Secretary General and side by side with him a conciliator. The first conciliator died but his successor has been at work. He is keeping up the visits to Turkey, Greece and Cyprus itself. Let us pray he will be able to persuade all the interested powers to come together and make an arrangement that will keep the peace. That is all we are interested in. Again, how long that will take I do not know but it is a very heartening thing to compare the situation in Cyprus to-day with that which obtained this time last year when great numbers were being killed or driven out of their homes, the crops destroyed and so on. If we can keep the peace and promote neighbourly relations between Cypriots of all extractions, they may be able ultimately to make an arrangement which will enable them to live in peace and govern their little island for the benefit of all their people.
Vote put and agreed to.