Committee on Finance. - Vote 45—External Affairs. – Dáil Éireann (18th Dáil) – Wednesday, 8 Feb 1967

Committee on Finance. - Vote 45—External Affairs.

Minister for External Affairs (Mr. Aiken)

Tairgim:—

Go ndeonófar suim nach mó ná £856,650 chun íoctha an mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun behith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar chríoch an 31ú lá de Mhárta, 1968, le haghaidh Tuarastail agus Costais Oifig an Aire Gnóthaí Eachtracha, agus Seirbhísí áirithe atá faoi riaradh na hOifige sin, lena n-áirítear Deontas-i-gCabhair.

An méid atá san Mheastachán le haghaidh Gnóthaí Eachtracha, is méadú glan é seo de £74,970 ar Mheastachán bunaidh agus Meastachán Forlíontach na bliana seo. Tá méadú de £50,475 ins an tsoláthar le haghaidh tuarastal, pá agus liúntais. Tá méadaithe níos lú i bhFo-Mhírchinn eile. Tá Fó-Mhírcheann nua ann ina bhfuil suim de £6,500 chun soláthar a dhéanamh i gcóir bronntanais do'n LárIonad John F. Kennedy le haghaidh na hEalaíona Aisteorachta i Washington D.C.

An méadú i bhFo-Mhírcheann A le haghaidh tuarastal pá agus liúntais is é is mó is cúis leis ná bunú an Mhisin ar leith dos na Comhphobail Eorpacha i mBrussels. Na méadaithe sa tsoláthartaí le haghaidh Taistil agus FoChostais agus le haghaidh Seirbhísí Oifig an Phoist 'sé is cúis leo seo ná go bhfuil méadú tagaithe ar chostas na seirbhísí go bhfuil baint ag na Fo-Mhírchinn seo leo.

An méadú de £3,550 i bhFo-Mhírcheann D—a bhaineann le saoránaigh Éireannacha go bhfuil gannchúis airgid ortha agus iad thar lear—tugtar cuid mhór de'n tsuim seo isteach arís faoi Leithreasa i gCabhair. Táthar tar éis córas nua cuntasaíochta a thabhairt isteach i gcóir an chaiteachais faoi'n Mhírcheann seo. Gach réamhíoch a tugtar amach cuirtear in aghaidh an Mhírchinn é agus gach suim a gheibhtear ar ais taispeántar mar Leithreasi-gCabhair. Tá an Fo-Mhírceann le haghaidh Leithreasa-i-gCabhair méadaithe d'á réir.

I Vóta na bliana 1966-67 laghduíodh le heisceacht na soláthartaí le haghaidh an Deontais i gcabhair Comhair Cultúra agus le haghaidh Seirbhísí Faisnéise chun coigilt a dhéanamh agus na cúrsaí airgeadais mar a bhíodar an t-am san. Na soláthartaí ins na foMhírchinn céanna i gcóir na bliana 1967-68 níl ionnta ach an méid is ísle atá riachtanach chun clár an Rialtais i gComhar Cultúra agus i Seirbhísí Faisnéise thar lear a chomh líonadh.

Tá méadú de £2,000 i bhfo-Mhírcheann G le haghaidh Féile oifigiúla. Is comhartha é seo den' mhéadú atá ag teacht i méid na gcuairt a thugann daoine mór-le-rádh ó thíortha thar lear ar Éirinn agus de thoradh na n-iarracht atá á ndéanamh chun an tír seo a chur chun cinn mar láthair cruinnithe agus comhdhála idirnáisiúnta. Is maith an rud é seo mar is comhartha é de'n spéis níos mó thar lear ar Éirinn. Ina theannta san, ar ndóigh, is buntáisteach an rud é do'n trádáil cuairtaíochta.

An méid atá san Mheastachán um Chomhar Idirnáisiúnta—£192,050—is laghdú é seo de £12,250 ar Vóta na bliana seo. Níl aon tsoláthar san Mheastachán le haghaidh ranníoca do Chiste Deonach na Náisiún Aontaithe i gcóir na Cipire do'n a solátharaíodh £18,000 i Vóta na bliana seo. Tá méadaithe beaga ins na ranníocaí do Chomhairle na hEorpa, don Eagras um Chomhar agus Forbairt Eacnamaíochta san Eoraip agus do na Náisiúin Aontaithe. Tá Fo-Mhírcheann nua curtha isteach chun go mbeidh ar ár gcumas ranníoca de £350 a dhéanamh do Chiste Chúraim na Náisiún Aontaithe do'n Afraic Theas.

Subhead F for information services which stood at £39,000 for the year 1965-66 was, because of the budgetary situation, reduced to £11,400 for 1966-67. I am glad to say that it has been possible to provide for an increase of £5,300 in the provision for these services for 1967-68. Of the total provision of £16,700 under Subhead F, £5,000 is required in connection with the commissioning of films and purchase of prints of films on Ireland, £4,500 for the publication of the Department's Information Bulletin, £2,000 for invitations to foreign journalists and almost £2,000 for information pamphlets and booklets.

In recent years as Deputies are aware my Department has embarked on a series of film projects in portraying modern Ireland, its social and economic progress and its cultural life. Undoubtedly the most successful of these projects has been the film "Yeats Country", made by Patrick Carey, which has won numerous prizes at International Film Festivals. This film is being actively distributed in the United States, Canada, Britain, Australia and New Zealand and it is proposed to make special language versions for distributions in Europe. The film is available from more than sixty film libraries throughout the United States. Copies have been supplied to all our diplomatic and consular missions. "Rhapsody of a River", a short colour film on the Lee Valley and the city of Cork, commissioned from Gael Linn has an international soundtrack (with music) by Seán Ó Riada. It is hoped to secure widespread circulation for it in many countries.

Two other projects were directed specifically at guaranteed commercial circulation in cinemas abroad. My Department sponsored there short films on social and economic progress in the Pathe Pictorial series for cinema distribution mainly in Britain and a composite film entitled "No More Yesterdays" was then prepared for the use of the Department, Bord Fáilte, Aer Lingus and other State agencies. At the same time, in co-sponsorship with State-sponsored bodies and some private firms, my Department commissioned a short film entitled "Ireland on the Go" which has now been released by the Paramount Corporation in the United States for showing in over 20,000 cinemas, in North America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand.

All these films are in colour and copies are being supplied to our diplomatic and consular missions abroad. Some of the films are being shown on colour television in the United States.

Other film projects included a colour film which was entitled "This Most Gallant Gentleman" on the State funeral for Roger Casement, and which also reviewed his life work; two newsreel films on the visits to Ireland of President Kaunda of Zambia and Sir Albert Margai, Prime Minister of Sierra Leone; and actuality film footage entitled "The Irish Rising 1916", for television use abroad, commissioned for Coiste Chuimhneacháin 1916.

Currently in production is a colour film on Irish geography, being made under contract with the McGraw-Hill Company of New York for circulation to United States and Canadian junior high schools.

The Department's Bulletin continues to be a very valuable instrument for keeping persons and institutions in other countries, particularly those with Irish connections or interests, informed of developments here at home and of promoting an accurate picture of contemporary Ireland.

Because of the overall current need for economy, I decided that during the present financial year the Department's Bulletin should issue on an average fortnightly, instead of weekly as heretofore. It is proposed, however, to bring out a number of additional issues dealing with special topics and events.

Following two earlier organised visits of journalists from North America and the Foreign Press Association of London, my Department, in co-operation with other Departments and State-sponsored bodies, arranged a successful visit by representatives of the British Provincial Press in September, 1965. As a result of the visit, many favourable articles appeared in British newspapers. Apart from improving the general picture of Ireland, as seen by members of the British public, the publicity helped to promote the sale of Irish goods and tourism in Britain.

The commemoration of the 1916 Rising created wide press interest abroad and it was decided to set up a special Press Office for the occasion, which was staffed by representatives of my Department, the Department of Defence and the Government Information Bureau. About 250 reporters were accredited to the official Press Office and of these about 230 came from abroad. A large number of the principal foreign newspapers and broadcasting corporations were represented and, generally speaking, the commemoration and the historical background were given very favourable coverage throughout the world in the press, on television, on radio and in special articles and books.

Apart from this occassion, my Department, during the year under review, facilitated more than 100 visiting newspaper men and television and radio reporters, and co-operated in newspaper publicity for special supplements such as those in The Times of London and the Australian financial Review.

During the coming year, we will endeavour to strengthen our information activity in Europe and particularly in the EEC countries. Plans are being made to invite some journalists, either individually or in small groups, from various European countries to visit Ireland for about a week at a time. It is hoped to give special attention to journalists with specific interest in finance, industry, agriculture, international trade, foreign policy and European integration. This programme of specially organised visits should have a beneficial effect on our relations with the countries of Western Europe and help to make modern Ireland better known in the European Economic Community.

Apart from the booklet "Ireland at the United Nations 1965" and a reprinting of "Introducing Ireland" which is a short version of "Facts about Ireland" intended as a free handout abroad mainly for school-children, no other information pamphlets and booklets were planned to be brought out in the current financial year. In the coming financial year versions of the pamphlet "Introducing Ireland" will be produced in French, German and possibly two other languages.

It is the aim of my Department to maintain a supply of information material of all kinds—books, photographs, gramophone records, explanatory memoranda on a great variety of Irish topics and aspects of Irish life. These are distributed to writers, journalists, publishing houses, teachers, lecturers, universities and schools, libraries, organisers of exhibitions. In addition, information on specific topics is supplied to individual enquirers. All these services will continue in the coming financial year and demands will be met as adequately as possible.

Because of the need to curtail public expenditure, the Grant-in-Aid for Cultural Relations with other countries for the year 1966-67 was reduced to £5,900, considerably below the level of previous years. I am glad to say that for 1967-68 it has proved possible to increase the provision for this important aspect of my Department's work to £11,000. This provisions is still below that of 1965-66 but it will enable my Department to proceed with a variety of projects promoting knowledge of our culture abroad.

The advice which I receive from the Cultural Relations Committee in administering the Grant-in-Aid is of the greatest assistance to me in ensuring that the best use is made of our resources. I would like once more to thank the members of the Committee who give so generously of their time and talents to the work of the Committee.

Ireland continues to play an active part in the Council of Europe, which since the accession of Malta in April, 1965, now numbers eighteen member States. It provides a valuable forum for the exchange of ideas between the members of the two major economic groups—EEC and EFTA—and the other five Western European countries, including Ireland. Indeed the problems and prospects of European economic and political unity occupy a major position in the deliberations of both the Consultative Assembly and the Committee of Ministers.

As Deputies are aware, the former Taoiseach Mr. Lemass, addressed the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe in January, 1966. His address dealt with the Government's policy on European unity and the measures which have been and are being taken, with a view to closer economic co-operation in Europe, one of the most important of which was the signing of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement.

Since I presented the last Estimate for my Department, Ireland has signed and ratified the following international conventions:—

(i) the European Agreement concerning Programme Exchanges by means of Television Films;

(ii) the latest Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

(iii) the European Convention on Extradition, and

(iv) the European Convention on Establishment.

The European Agreement for the Prevention of Broadcasts transmitted from Stations outside National Territories has also been signed by Ireland and steps are being taken for the early ratification of this Agreement.

The Population and Refugees Committee of the Assembly met in Dublin last July and two of the Committees of Experts of the Council—one on noise abatement and one on the European civil service—also met here.

The Conference of European Ministers for Education in Vienna in October, 1965, was attended by the then Minister for Education Deputy Colley.

Ireland received six fellowships under the Council of Europe Scheme of Fellowships for the benefit of social welfare personnel, in 1965 and again in 1966. Under the Council of Europe scheme for study visits abroad, an Irish group of sixteen students from the College of Industrial Relations was enabled to visit the Netherlands to study labour conditions and trade union affairs in the Netherlands.

A new and important departure in the working methods of the Council of Europe was made when the Committee of Ministers instructed the Secretary-General to draw up and submit to member Governments a concise programme of future work. I was happy to receive two visits from the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe who discussed with me, and other Ministers, matters relating to our participation in the work of the Council.

In the context of a review of major events since the Estimates of my Department were last discussed it would be appropriate to recall one event of major significance in our relations with Great Britain which occurred on 22nd February, 1965 when the present British Prime Minister generously responded to the Government's request for the repatriation of the remains of Roger Casement.

The British Prime Minister rightly stated in the House of Commons that this decision would lead to an improved understanding between the two countries. For all too long the question of the repatriation of the remains of Roger Casement constituted an unnecessary irritant in our mutual relations. The fulfilment of Roger Casement's wish, when his remains were reinterred in Glasnevin Cemetery on 1st March, 1965, in the plot selected by his sister, was greatly welcomed by Irishmen at home and abroad; and the fact that it came about soon after the centenary of Roger Casement's birth and shortly before the celebration of the 50th anniversary of the 1916 Rising invested it with added significance.

Turning to the United Nations affairs, one of the most important decisions taken by the General Assembly at its last session was the unanimous re-appointment of U Thant as Secretary-General for another term of office of five years. This is a decision which was universally welcomed.

The General Assembly also passed by an overwhelming majority a resolution revoking the League of Nations Mandate over South West Africa. A Committee of 14 has been set up to report upon how the territory can be brought to independence. This Committee will report to a Special Session of the General Assembly to be held towards the end of April.

Another significant step taken by the United Nations was the decision of the Security Council to impose selective mandatory sanctions on Southern Rhodesia under the authority of Article 25 of the United Nations Charter. As the Dáil is aware the Government have already put into operation a system of economic restrictions against Southern Rhodesia following upon the Security Council resolution of November, 1965 even though that resolution was not mandatory. The Government intend to take any further action which may prove to be necessary to implement the mandatory sanctions.

Of less obvious significance was the agreement reached at the last session of the General Assembly on the text of a Treaty containing the principles which are to govern the activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space. While seemingly of less practical effect, this Treaty, when viewed in connection with the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and the Antarctic Treaty is another welcome step forward towards the restriction of the arms race, the reduction of tension and the betterment of relations between the Great Powers.

Another important achievement of the last session of the General Assembly was the adoption of the International Covenants on Human Rights. While the Covenants which had been under consideration by the Assembly since 1952 do not go as far as the European Convention on Human Rights, they are a valuable step forward in this very important field.

Another matter which occupied the attention of the United Nations during the past year was the financing of future United Nations Peace-keeping Operations. The Special Political Committee of the General Assembly passed a resolution, co-sponsored by Ireland and eleven other countries recommending a system of mandatory assessments. No decision has been taken by the Assembly on the matter and it will come up for consideration again at the Special Session of the Assembly to be held in April.

On the operational side of peace-keeping we have continued to maintain the Irish contingent, comprising approximately 520 all ranks, of troops with the United Nations Force in Cyprus and ten Irish Army officers continue to serve with the United Nations Truce Supervision Organisation in the Middle East. The Minister for Defence has just returned from a visit to our troops in these areas. He was glad to witness the high state of morale of our troops and to learn of the high esteem in which they were held by all who had occassion to deal with them.

Coming now to trade and economic matters generally Deputies will be aware that this is a sphere in which my Department shares responsibility with other Departments. I do not therefore propose to deal with such aspects of these questions as could more appropriately be discussed on Estimates for the Departments of the Taoiseach and other Ministers.

The increased liberalisation of trade in recent years, as well as the growth in Europe of trade blocs, has reduced the possibilities for the conclusion of bilateral trade agreements at Government level. With the notable exception of the Free Trade Area Agreement with Britain, these agreements must inevitably be of diminishing substance because of the extent to which other countries have liberalised their import régimes. The days of easy selling under bilateral quotas have given way to an atmosphere of more aggressive marketing in freer trading conditions; thus export promotion has become a primary preoccupation of exporting countries. My Department continues to assist not only the State-sponsored bodies operating in this field, such as Córas Tráchtála, Bord Fáilte and Bord Bainne, but also commercial organisations and private export interests. When our Missions are advised as to products available for export they are in a favourable position to advise exporters on market conditions and prospects for individual commodities, to arrange suitable contacts for visiting businessmen and to suggest reliable agents for the handling of an exporter's products. I am happy to say that increasing and fruitful use is made by our exporters of these facilities.

In the course of 1966, our Trade Agreements with France, Germany and Finland were again renewed and further negotiations with the French and Finish authorities are expected to begin shortly. Our Trade Agreement with Germany will come up for renewal in 1968. We are also exploring the possibilities of concluding a Trade Agreement with Japan.

The past year has seen the coming into operation of the Free Trade Area Agreement with Britain. This is a development in the economic relations between the two countries of the greatest importance and potential, not alone because of the opportunities which it provides for our exporters, but because the operation of the Agreement provides a valuable preparation for the more intensive and wider ranging free trade conditions which full participation in an enlarged European Economic Community will involve for Ireland.

Membership of the European Economic Community is, of course, a main objective of the Government in the field of external economic policy. We noted with great satisfaction last year the resolution of the crisis in the internal affairs of the EEC which, while it lasted, ruled out any progress being made in the re-activation of the applications for membership of the applicant countries, including Ireland. The Community is now in a somewhat better position to devote attention to its relations with other countries and this led us to establish a separate Diplomatic Mission to the Communities. We followed this decision with a Ministerial visit, comprising the then Minister for Finance and myself, to the Commission in Brussels in September of last year. We had a wide-ranging discussion with members of the Commission and arranged for a further series of Ministerial visits on specific aspects of the Community of interest to Ireland. We were impressed by the appreciation of Ireland's position shown by the members and officials of the Commission.

As Deputies are aware, a visit by the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries took place last month and further Ministerial visits are now being planned.

A significant and hopeful development has been the recent decision of the British Prime Minister, Mr. Wilson, to embark on a series of discussions with the Governments of the European Community in order to establish whether it is opportune to revive the British application for membership. I was present at Mr. Wilson's address to the Council of Europe in Strasbourg last month and noted that the serious and constructive manner in which he is approaching the question of British membership was warmly welcomed by individual members on all sides. I may add that in answering questions relating to the unity of Ireland, Mr. Wilson clearly indicated that he did not regard the maintenance of Partition as a vital British interest and that he was prepared to give a United Ireland his blessing if it were negotiated between Dublin and Belfast.

At their meeting in London in December of last year, the Taoiseach discussed with Mr. Wilson the new British approach to Europe and arranged for us to be kept closely informed of developments. He expects to have a further meeting with Mr. Wilson at the conclusion of the latter's series of visits to the European capitals. As the Taoiseach has announced, the Government propose to issue a White Paper on the European Communities shortly which will not alone summarise the provisions of the Treaties establishing the three Communities, but will also deal with developments in each of the Communities since their establishment.

The Kennedy Round of tariff negotiations in the GATT, if successful, could be of considerable importance in providing increased access for our exports to other countries. As Deputies are aware, Ireland, although not yet a member is participating in the Kennedy Round negotiations with a view to our accession to the GATT. We have appointed a Permanent Representative in Geneva with a view to servicing my Department and the other Departments concerned in this matter. Our representative there also services the other specialised agencies of the United Nations who meet in Geneva.

Ireland continues to participate fully in the activities of the OECD. Our Ambassador in Paris is our Permanent Representative to the Organisation. Government Ministers have attended the more important of the Organisation's meetings during the year and Committee meetings were also attended, where appropriate, by officials of other Government Departments and of such bodies as the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards, An Foras Talúntais and Bord Fáilte.

As we all know, the question of aid to developing countries is a frequent subject of discussion these days. While it is natural that we should be preoccupied with the development of our own economy, it is important that we should not lose sight of the tremendous economic and social needs of less developed countries and of the part we might appropriately play in assisting them. I need hardly say that anything the Government can do to assist less-developed countries falls far short of what is being done, and has been done for years, in the field of education and medical care, by the more than 7,000 dedicated members of our missionary orders.

But apart from our annual contributions to international organisations concerned with development aid such as the UN Development Programme and the World Food Programme, the Government endeavour to assist developing countries in the recruitment of Irish professional and technical personnel for service in those countries. In recent years Irish laymen and women who have valuable expertise and skills to offer, are, in increasing numbers, giving periods of service to developing countries. The Government for some years past have given special leave and safeguarded the pension rights of civil servants and teachers who wished to serve for a period in these countries. We have also given periods of in service training here to more than 400 young men from these countries. This type of assistance is much appreciated by the Governments concerned.

Mr. Cosgrave

Generally, the discussions which have taken place in this country and in the House on the question of the European Economic Community have mainly centred around the economic implications of membership and the effect which membership would have on agriculture and industry. This is probably due to the fact that so far as the effect of the EEC is concerned, most people are naturally more interested in the economic implications than in any other aspects of the Common Market question. I believe, however, that there is a number of aspects of the problem as well as economic ones and that the political implications are just as important and, certainly from the point of view of the influence of this country in the EEC, it is possibly our political attitude rather than our economic problems which will determine the success or otherwise of our application. Naturally, because of the size of this country compared with the total size and population of the Member Countries of the EEC, the effect economically of the addition of a small country as a member is not of great significance and it is for that reason I believe our political attitudes may well be of importance.

In considering the whole question of membership of the EEC, which has been referred to by the Minister in his introductory speech, I believe the general preparations for membership have not been anything like adequate and that the steps taken to deal with the problems which will affect this country, if and when we become a member, have not been of the kind or the type in certain respects which would give that sense of urgency to the problem and sense of importance to the questions involved and their reactions on the economy generally.

It is true that certain measures have been introduced and the CIO reports have dealt with a number of aspects of the problem. Indeed legislation has been introduced by the Minister for Labour dealing with retraining and so on, but it seems to me that one of the effects of the situation which has developed during the past few years in respect of the application not only of Britain but of this country has been to stultify the general attitude to the preparations necessary. This, I believe, has resulted in firms as well as individuals being uncertain and confused as to the probability of this country becoming a member and has possibly led to a lack of proper preparation in many spheres. I believe therefore it is important that we should assess what can be done to get the country and the various interests concerned moving towards a situation in which at every level in every sphere of the economy adequate preparatory steps will be undertaken.

Views have been expressed and, I believe, to a considerable extent, and comments have been made in respect of the attitude adopted by this country and to the extent that the Government and the Minister are responsible for that attitude, I believe they must accept responsibility for it. While I am loth to decry our interest in the United Nations Organisation, the attitude which was adopted by the Government up to quite recently to the need for a separate Mission or an Ambassador accredited to the EEC, confirmed the fact that the Government and the Minister were less concerned with the EEC than with other matters.

It is therefore essential that we should ensure by our attitude in approaching the EEC—by our discussions here and in the Seanad, and in public comments outside on this matter —that any doubts the Commission have had in the past should be set at rest in regard to the national attitude on the question of membership of the EEC. It is with that end in view that before Christmas I took the opportunity of visiting Brussels. I availed of it strongly to support the application made by this country for membership and to indicate clearly to the officials of the Commission that the application submitted on behalf of this country had the united support of all political Parties in the country, that there had been in the past and undoubtedly would be in the future differences of attitude on our approach but that as far as EEC membership was concerned, if Britain joined, there was unanimity here that it was inevitable, because of our close trade links with Britain and the volume and pattern of that trade, the balance lay with membership of the EEC for us on the assumption that Britain became a member as well.

It is in the light of that situation that I believe we have to determine, in view of the present British initiative, that full-scale steps will be taken on behalf of this country to make the necessary preparations, particularly in respect of industry. It is one of the unfortunate facts of modern European affairs that the position concerning wider membership of the EEC is to a great extent uncertain—that one of the uncertain facts in the present situation involves a number of factors concerning Britain's and our application which make it difficult, if not impossible, to forecast a definite timetable. However, in the discussions I had with the Commission in Brussels—I have no doubt similar information is available to the Minister and the Government—it would appear certain that a certain timetable for considering our application and that of Britain, if it is decided to proceed, will be laid down.

There is, however, involved in that a most important question from the point of view of this country: while certain matters have already been decided to the extent that they have been discussed and pursued in connection with our 1962 application, and have, to that extent, been got out of the way, nevertheless a great many aspects of wider membership will involve decisions. The decisions which will be taken in respect of the British application would suggest that the interest of this country would best be served by initiating discussions on the application of this country simultaneously with the British applications. It is true that, under the Free Trade Area Agreement with Britain, the phasing of tariff reductions and the phasing of their elimination generally in respect of protected industry has been laid down for a period ending, in general, in 1975 with certain additional exceptions in respect of Shannon for as far ahead as 1983. These arrangements, which allow for a phasing of the ultimate elimination of protection, may be more favourable than what would be granted in respect of membership of the EEC. I believe, therefore, it is essential, because of the general attitude which has been adopted in respect of this matter by the European Commission, that we should seek to negotiate simultaneously with British negotiations if a fresh application is decided upon.

While certain preparatory steps have been taken with a view to preparing industry for the ending of protection and in order to equip industrialists to deal with the very keen competition which will affect industry in the event of Ireland's becoming a member, these measures and the sense of urgency which would arise from them have never carried the conviction that would create a climate of opinion in this country either amongst industrialists or amongst workers on the magnitude of the problem and on the size of the task which will confront the country and the various interests when membership eventually becomes a fact.

It is true that the difficulties are considerable and many of them will not easily be surmounted. It is obvious that we must take the necessary preparatory steps as soon as possible and make them as effective in as many spheres as is possible either for legislation or action in respect of the particular problems. In that connection, I believe that, pending admission of this country, while we have dealt with certain aspects of the problem in respect of industry and enacted or are in process of enacting certain legislative measures to deal with it, there is a particular problem in respect of agriculture to which even at this stage, consideration might be given towards an approach on behalf of this country to the Commission.

One of the problems over the past few months, as Deputies know, has been the effect of EEC price structure on cattle prices here. It is not a fact that the EEC price structure has been the sole determining factor in creating all the problems for livestock producers, but it has had an effect. I believe we should ensure not merely that the Commission are familiar with these difficulties but that if any step can be taken by an application on behalf of this country to the Commission and to the member Governments, then efforts should be made in that direction.

One of the matters which undoubtedly affect the attitude of EEC to this country is the extent to which—as I notice from the Minister's remarks in the course of his introductory speech and this was confirmed by the officials with whom we had an opportunity of discussing the matter in Brussels—the members of the Commission follow closely the activities in parliaments and countries, not only of member countries of the EEC but the possible applicant countries as well. They follow the debates on these matters and follow closely the interests of industrialists, manufacturers, trade unions and other interests that are likely to be affected. Not merely does it mean that the officials are informed on these problems but they are, to whatever extent as individuals, conditioned by the attitude adopted in member countries and the discussions which take place in parliaments and in other responsible organs of public opinion.

I believe, therefore, it is essential that we should ensure that the attitude of this country, the approach to European problems, is so conducted that we create in Brussels and in the Commission, in so far as it is possible to do so by discussion and by the attitude adopted, as favourable a climate as possible towards membership of EEC. It is true that, since the original application was made, there have been great changes. Some of the developments in EEC have resulted in changes that were not foreseen: others have not developed to the same extent. In that regard, the economic developments have been far greater than the political developments. These are factors dependent on a whole variety of events and circumstances, as well as on individuals. Nobody could have foreseen, at the time, or can forecast what may occur in the future. It is true, however, that the changes that have developed have indicated that the economic strength of the Common Market is substantially greater than was originally anticipated and, to that extent, has probably influenced to a considerable extent the attitude being adopted recently by the British Government and which, of course, has consequences from this country's point of view in the future.

I welcome, therefore, the decision taken by the Government which, in many respects, was a belated decision but which nevertheless was the right decision to establish a separate Mission to the EEC and to appoint an Ambassador to represent this country, with sole responsibility for EEC matters. In that connection, I should like to express my personal thanks and appreciation of the facilities which were made available by the Ambassador for the visit which I made with Senator Garret FitzGerald to the EEC last December. It reflected and exemplified the courtesy and consideration the officials of the Department have always shown in dealing with any matter of that nature, in making the necessary arrangements and in carrying out whatever inquiries were necessary.

The Minister referred to the Kennedy Round. In that connection I would be interested to know what precisely is the position of the application of this country to adhere to the GATT. As I understood from some remarks made here last year, it was decided to re-activate our application for adherence to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and to that end a separate mission or representative was appointed in Geneva. As I understand the present position in respect of the Kennedy Round, the legislation under which these negotiations are at present being conducted so far as the United States is concerned will come to an end some time this year, and if these negotiations are not concluded before that date in respect of the Kennedy Round, either they will cease to have effect or legislation will have to be introduced to prolong the mandate which is contained in the present measure. I should like to know if it is proposed to continue to press our application for admission to the GATT and, if so, what progress has been made in that regard.

The Estimates as presented this year provide for a slightly increased sum in respect of the repatriation and maintenance of destitute Irish persons abroad. While it is a small sum, it does bring forcibly before us the question of emigrants and the steps taken to deal with the problem of emigrants, particularly in Britain. This is a matter that has been the subject of discussion on a number of occasions in the past and, indeed, no satisfactory solution has yet been found to the problem of dealing with our emigrants, particularly those in Britain.

Leaving entirely out of this question the rate of emigration or the taken to reduce it or provide extra employment here, the problem affecting many emigrants from this country is one which should in present circumstances be reviewed. For a variety of reasons, mainly the question of cost and to some extent the question of providing adequate emigrant welfare centres, we have in the past avoided establishing, except possibly in one instance, any responsible authority in Britain to deal with this problem. I believe, therefore, that the situation, which is a continuing one and which involves particular difficulties for many people who emigrate from this country, is worthy of further, fuller and more detailed consideration than it has received up to the present.

In the past, the Irish Embassy in Britain has never accepted responsibility in general for the welfare of emigrants. That has been left to welfare organisations, Irish societies, Irish organisations in Britain, and so on, who, in one way or another, have dealt with the problem. Many of them have been of considerable assistance to persons in difficulty. With the possible exception of the position which has developed in respect of destitute persons, the State or the official representation as such has never accepted responsibility for this problem.

The problem is now of such magnitude and as there are large Irish centres of population in Britain, we should have a fresh look at it and, in particular, at the problem created by persons of tender years, who can only be regarded as children, emigrating without adequate preparation being made in advance or without having any relative or other responsible person to act as guardian or guide.

It seems to me that we should consider the question of establishing in certain places in Britain welfare centres or emigrant information centres where it would be possible for people to get advice on employment prospects, accommodation and other matters which affects so many of these people, particularly those who emigrate without having previous contacts or having available to them persons of responsibility, such as relatives, who would advise and guide them correctly.

With the establishment of the Department of Labour and the general responsibility that Department will now have for retraining of workers for redundancy and to look after certain aspects which were formerly the responsibility of the Department of Social Welfare, it seems that the approach which has guided us in the past in this matter is no longer valid. There should be some form of joint arrangement between the Department of External Affairs, the Department of Labour, the Department of Social Welfare and the voluntary organisations in Britain as well as the organisations representing Irish interests there, such as county organisations or other organisations interested in Irish people in Britain so as to ensure that advice and assistance will be available. One of the reasons why this problem was not dealt with in the past was the belief that if any steps were taken to provide assistance of one sort or another, in the last analysis, that help would be financial and that if you once started on that road, it would be impossible to assess the ultimate cost and virtually impossible to check or restrain it.

With the exception of destitute persons, the problem really affecting so many of our emigrants in Britain who go there seeking employment is the problem of guidance and of providing direction and assistance, and indeed, in many respects, counsel. In a great many cases the advice would be necessary only initially and might help to prevent many of our emigrants finding themselves in undesirable, and in some cases dangerous situations. It is, therefore, essential that we should have a fresh look at the situation, in consultations with the responsible organisations in Britain and with the Department of External Affairs and the other Departments here that would be affected and would be interested, to see what steps could be taken to provide guidance and assistance for emigrants.

One of the responsibilities which the Department of Labour now has is to provide information and guidance in respect of types of employment and certain problems inevitably involved in redundancy, and so on. That will provide for the first time a new type of service here. In the light of that development, it is important that we should have another look at the arrangements made and the facilities provided in the past to see whether it is not possible now to provide something of a more practical and enduring kind to enable direction and guidance and, if necessary, assistance, though that would probably be the least necessary in many cases, on social problems as well as on problems of employment. It is well known that certain centres in Britain with large Irish populations have particular problems. Housing is probably the principal one. Certain centres have problems of bigger dimensions than others. Information on those lines could be collated and assessed and made available in order to assist those who go to Britain for employment.

It is illusory to suggest that, because we deplore emigration and because steps are taken to try to deal with the problem, emigration does not exist. Everybody knows it is a continuing problem. Variations may occur in the numbers emigrating, but the trend is a continuous one. The problems confronting those who emigrate, a great many of them young people, are problems that can be lessened, even if not solved. Many of them could be avoided, if proper guidance, direction and advice were forthcoming initially.

I believe the time has come now when this matter should be considered afresh in the light of all the experience that has been gained, particularly since the war, in an effort to find out whether adequate steps are being taken in certain directions and what changes should be made in order to provide welfare guidance or information for those emigrating. This refers in particular to Britain because the problems affecting emigrants to other countries are less acute since the numbers are much smaller. Indeed, in regard to the latter, it would be difficult to provide anything like a satisfactory service. The same difficulty does not apply in relation to Britain.

The last matter to which I wish to refer is the decision to increase the amount for cultural relations with other countries. The Cultural Relations Committee and the information services generally have helped to create a better image abroad of this country. Favourable reactions have been produced in quarters that were hitherto either uniformed or ill-informed in relation to this country. Films have been produced and circulated but it seems to me we should also endeavour to encourage something that was done on a few occasions in the past, namely, assist Irish actors and actresses, such as the Abbey Players, to go abroad, or take tours like those conducted by Mr. MacLiammoir, Mr. Hilton Edwards, and others. These in the past evoked a very favourable response and reaction in the countries they visited. Now that the Abbey has re-opened its doors, encouragement might be given to a visit abroad with a view to furthering cultural activities.

With regard to the publicity as a result of visits here by journalists and others, that, too, has had a beneficial effect. It is essential that the world should know we have an attitude not merely to international affairs but to economic and political questions affecting our own interests as well as the interests of others. It is important that we should ensure that visiting journalists and others are fully and correctly informed on matters affecting this country and its attitude to specific problems. The services at the moment are hardly adequate to provide the facts and information that should be provided. An effort to remedy the situation was made through the News Agency, though that never seemed to be the success it was hoped it would be. Articles written by visiting journalists and others should create a favourable attitude abroad; they should also be informative of the country's attitude to international affairs, particularly the Common Market, and other pressing economic and political questions.

Mr. M. O'Leary

The debate so far on External Affairs is the best example, I think, of the county council level of discussion here. We had the Minister's opening statement followed by a speech from the Leader of the main Opposition Party. In neither was there one reference to a threat of major war, which may prelude World War III. I know we are a small country without any very great significance in the world, but it would appear to me one of the inescapable responsibilities of a sovereign nation that, when we come to discuss External Affairs, someone might see fit to make a statement that might redound to the credit of the Parliament of a sovereign people.

This is the first discussion in this 18th Dáil on External Affairs. It is the first opportunity we have had of discussing the activities of the Minister and his Department. Today the Minister displayed a mandarin-like approach to the discussion on his Department. Perhaps the quality of the debate so far is his best excuse for not leaving weighty subjects like war and peace to the tender mercies of this House. It appears to me there is a great danger in the conduct of our external affairs that decisions are more and more falling on one man, the Minister concerned.

Over the past year not one of the matters in which the Minister was concerned before the United Nations has been discussed in this House. This House has been left virtually in the dark in regard to the particular policies we have pursued at the United Nations. Some of the things which the Minister has done might meet with our agreement, such as his efforts regarding the limitation of nuclear armaments, which is something which concerns all of us. It might be out of the hands of small countries but the world is becoming smaller and smaller from the point of view of humanity and these wider decisions of war and peace affect us as much as any other country in the world. It appears to me that on these very important universal problems this Assembly should have a say in regard to the policy this Government pursues.

On the Common Market question, we have belatedly come to accept that some diplomatic activity is necessary in regard to our claim for membership. It is true the present position is that the Taoiseach is awaiting a summons from Harold Wilson to go to London to find out what exactly is the result of the last British probe. It may be the trend of the Anglo-Irish Agreement that we become more and more dependent on England but there is no reason why we should become dependent on Britain for important information. Could the Minister say whether our Ambassador in Paris has been aroused from his slumbers to find out what the future of our application may be after the last Strasbourg talks? Have we any independent sources of information about the future of our application? I noticed last week that the Danish Government considered it important enough to send a Minister to Paris to see if he could discover any information in regard to the possibilities arising since the last British attempt to further their application. Have the Government or the Department of External Affairs used any initiative to find out exactly what is the position in that aftermath of Britain's application? Is it the position that the Westminster Government will be summoning Honest Jack Lynch in the future for a chat about how the meeting went in Europe? Surely this is a much inferior role than we need to play in finding out the position?

There is yet a great deal we must learn in regard to the rules and regulations and the procedures which apply under the Common Market. I have in mind the bad bungling of the then Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Haughey, in regard to his handling of the 2,000 head of cattle. It will be recalled that he made a rather hasty announcement here about the export of 2,000 cattle to West Germany but as far as I know these 2,000 cattle are still located in this country and have not yet——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That would seem to be a matter for the Estimate for the Department of Agriculture.

Mr. M. O'Leary

It is a diplomatic matter affecting our entry into the Common Market and I am advancing this to prove my contention that we do not yet know a great deal about the procedures applying under the Common Market. As I understand it, a great deal more arranging should have been done before this announcement was made here. The West German Government were, if you like, persuaded to disobey rules by the Irish Government so that the 2,000 cattle could be exported. Before announcements are made here regarding our future prospects in the Common Market or in other markets, we should have the position fully investigated at diplomatic level. Of course, I agree with the previous speaker that no amount of diplomatic activity in regard to our application to join the Common Market can be a substitute for industrial preparations in our own country. There is a great deal to be desired in regard to our diplomatic activities as judged from the independent initiative of this Government and our preparations on the industrial front leave a great deal more to be desired.

The Minister made a brief reference to, but did not fully outline, the position in regard to our participation in the Kennedy Round and I should like him to expand some more on this. Have we given any concessions in our tariffs in this Round? Will this have any effect on our agriculture? What is the position regarding GATT and are we moving ahead there or has the Minister any information in this regard?

I should also like to say a few words about representation by the Department for it appears to me that there is a great need to revise the kind of diplomatic representation which, by tradition, this Department has given abroad. The Department might consider afresh the countries with which it is important to have diplomatic relations. The time has come for a mature and realistic approach in regard to the countries with which we can afford to have diplomatic relations. We have not got a great deal of money to throw about and therefore we must be realistic and objective. For instance, I consider that one embassy should be sufficient for the Iberian Peninsula. In the Argentine there is no need for an Ambassador when we consider the small amount of time that their Ambassador spends in Dublin.

Again, if the Minister is serious in his claim that this country holds a position of respect in the world and especially in the Afro-Asian world, then it appears we must seriously consider establishing diplomatic relations with East European countries. The time has gone when anybody could remark that since one favoured such a course, one must necessarily favour such regimes. If Pope Paul could meet the President of the Soviet Union recently, nobody is going to suggest that he sympathised with the views of the Soviet Union. If we are serious about the need for a diversification of trade, we must explore very closely the possibility of expanding consumer markets opening up in East European countries. Initially, we should select Poland as a country with which we should establish diplomatic relations. Again, if we look at the type of diplomatic relations we have in the different countries, we might group several countries together and have one embassy. The same applies to countries that appear to be in the one bloc, such as the Scandinavian countries. We might consider this course. We might also consider countries which have problems similar to our own and with whom diplomatic relations could be established. I am thinking of Israel, for instance, where they have done such a great deal in regard to such things as State ownership, group partnerships and so on, and from whom we might learn a great deal.

It is also high time that we severed our tenuous connection with South Africa where we have had a chargé d'affaires in Johannesburg. For many reasons it is wrong that a Christian country such as ours should have diplomatic relations with a country which has broken the Charter of Human Rights under the United Nations. It is wrong that we should have any connection with a country which is, as we known, unashamedly pursuing a racialist policy. Our balance of trade with South Africa is not great, and we should seriously consider what has been suggested by certain Afro-Asian countries, an economic blockade of South Africa.

Looking at the staffing arrangements in External Affairs, it appears to me, not to put a tooth in it, that there are many people there who should no longer be with us in that capacity. There are a good many young men there who cannot, under the present system of promotion, whatever that may be, hope to advance to any post of responsibility in the near future. The Department is playing too safe for too long in regard to promotional opportunities for the staff.

I understand there are four assistant secretaries in the Department at the moment. What are the needs in our diplomatic service today? What are the qualifications required? This Department seems to be influenced by the shades of 19th century diplomacy. In many of our attitudes, we ape the postures of a former imperial power in the kind of diplomatic representatives we send abroad. At least two of our Ambassadors are, shall we say, not of sound mind. We should consider relegating some of them to positions where they cannot affect the standing of this country in the places where they are accredited.

Mr. Aiken

Is it in order to make such allegations against people who cannot defend themselves?

Mr. M. O'Leary

I think it is in order.

Mr. Aiken

It is absolutely outrageous.

I have already said I would not make an issue of it.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is not the point. He should withdraw the statement in respect of their mental capacity.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I certainly do. I do not wish to be taken in that sense. My point is that I do not consider that two of our Ambassadors, some of our Ambassadors—take any number you like—are suitable, and that their suitability for the positions to which they are accredited should be re-examined. That is all I am saying, and it is not my wish personally to insult these people. It is fair comment, in my opinion.

Despite the amount of time the Minister has spent in the United Nations over the past number of years, our dwindling importance in that body is reflected in the few Committees on which we are now represented. On the Committee of Thirty-three, we do not hold membership. Our importance in the United Nations is steadily diminishing. There is an attitude abroad, especially among Afro-Asian countries, that our so-called neutrality is a joke, and a joke in poor taste. I know that the Scandinavian countries regard our foreign policy as certainly not independent and certainly not——

Mr. Aiken

What authority has the Deputy for that statement? It is at the same level as his remarks about the Civil Service.

Mr. M. O'Leary

The Minister has already shirked one argument this afternoon. He has already escaped answering for two years of inactivity. He will have an opportunity when he comes to speak on next year's activities to reply to any of the allegations I make and I shall listen to him with keen interest. I hope in the next ten years we shall have an opportunity of having another debate on his Department.

Mr. Aiken

I hope so.

Mr. M. O'Leary

Where was I before the Minister so rudely interrupted? I was talking about our diminishing importance in the United Nations. I would also cite in support of that our pretty poor record of voting on the African issues. We were pretty slow in voting on the Rhodesian problem until Britain moved, and we have dragged our feet consistently on the South African question. So far as I know, the Minister for External Affairs has not seen fit to refer on any occasion in the United Nations to the question of the war now raging in Vietnam.

I realise that this is a small country and that our influence is very limited, but a country with our traditions should at least make some contribution, small though it might be, to show our concern over events in Vietnam. This is a war which has aroused the concern of Pope Paul, which has aroused the concern of the Secretary-General of the United Nations; likewise it should arouse the concern of the Minister for External Affairs. In this House I have the honour to belong to the Party which alone saw fit to raise the Vietnam question over the years. While such a concern may not be immediately convertible into votes, may not be important at that level, at some stage, some time, it will be remembered who was concerned at this period of time about the Vietnam war.

I know the Minister will take refuge, as he did when these questions were asked previously, in saying that since the members of the Security Council themselves are in disagreement, what can a small country do? I do not know what a small country can do in this case, but I know that on another occasion a small country could be greatly concerned about the uplands of Tibet; now we cannot be concerned about the swamps of Vietnam. I hope the Minister when he is replying will say whether he has ever referred to the problem of Vietnam in his discussions with other Governments? Has he ever at the United Nations consulted with other delegations in an attempt to bring about a cease-fire in Vietnam, a settlement based on the Geneva Agreement? My Party are on record at our annual conference as voting to get a settlement on that basis.

We cannot know all the facts about the tragedy of the Vietnam war but it is our mature consideration that some kind of peace will ultimately have to be brought about and it is also our conviction that a purely military peace will not be reached there. That is why we are limiting ourselves to the request that the Minister should appeal to the Governments involved in that war in an attempt to bring about a round table conference of the people involved in it. This is how that war will have to end—either that or it will escalate into the possibility of a third world war, which nobody wants.

Recently all of us were surprised, and some of us were pleasantly surprised, because it brought us back again to the fact that we have a problem here which is all our own, when Deputy Dunne of this Party raised the question of Irish unity in Strasbourg. Our Minister, who was there, sat silently by while the matter was being discussed. The world's press was there to hear Mr. Wilson and it was an ideal opportunity to bring up the Irish problem. The Minister is, I understand, a Vice-President of the Council of Europe and it was a bad and sorry thing that a Deputy of this Party should be the only one to raise the question of Irish unity in Strasbourg.

This is part of an earlier malaise which appears to have developed in the Department of External Affairs. Only a few years ago we were strenuously pushing propaganda through the Mansion House Committee and the Anti-Partition League about the Partition question. Now we have gone to the other extreme and seem to consider it as the utmost maturity to ignore the entire problem. This is our problem and we should be positive about it. We have a sympathetic Labour Government in Britain and Ministers of that Government are willing to listen to any points this Government have to make. I would ask the Minister to take time off from his world safaris and come home and deal with this problem which we have at home.

It appears to me that the Northern Ireland community is a festering community and one which must end in civil disorder unless some improvement is made. It appears to me that the Northern Ireland Government, despite liberal speeches, have done nothing to bring to an end electoral malpractices, job discrimination and religious discrimination in that part of the country. It also appears to me that if the present Minister and the Government made serious overtures to the British Government, they could expect early reaction on these matters. The British Government cannot get away with the excuse that they had no responsibility for that part of this country. We must not accept the lie that the Partition problem is a matter solely for this country; the British Government have the last say in that. We can help the final solution of the problem if we can ensure that electoral malpractices, job discrimination and religious discrimination disappear and that normal community life be allowed to develop in that part of the country.

The time is long passed when British armed forces are needed in this country. They now have no need to defend that part of the country. An armed solution of the problem of Partition is no longer proposed by any organisation in this part of the country and so British armed forces are no longer needed there. I believe that if representations were made to the Wilson Government in Britain, steps would be taken to have these physical elements of British control removed. No good purpose is being served by pretending that discrimination does not exist in that part of our country or that progress is being made when no progress is, in fact, being made. It is time the honeymoon between Fianna Fáil and the Unionist Party ended and we got down to the facts of the situation.

I hope the Minister will bear some of these remarks in mind when he returns to UN. I would suggest to him that he is, perhaps, getting out of touch with the problems that exist in this country and with the thinking of the ordinary people of this country. If one spends a great deal of one's ministerial life abroad, it is natural for one to forget the atmosphere and the line of thought in the patch of green that sends you out. The Minister would be well advised to come home and take a refresher course in Irish problems. I hope that he will do that and that we can look forward to an improvement in our activities in the UN.

It is not so long since we had in the UN a good reputation for independent initiative and action there and I think it would be a tragedy if any step we take on matters of international importance should now be rejected on the view that we are just stooges of other and larger countries than ourselves. A small country has little to offer the world or UN unless it has honesty and independence of purpose. It appears to me that in the majority of problems in which we have become involved in recent years we seem to have taken the stand of other countries rather than the stand which our own republican tradition would dictate. I hope this position will be rectified in the future.

One of the recent effects of the character of our diplomatic representatives abroad is the kind of relaxed diplomatic representatives we receive in our capital city from other countries. I suppose that in international diplomatic parlance, Dublin is really a centre for social living where there is no great need for any great diplomatic activity. That may be. I do not wish to be personal about this but we will get the kind of diplomatic representative we deserve when we are serious about our own diplomatic representation abroad, when we are serious about putting forward an independent viewpoint abroad. This tendency for other countries to treat this country as a vacation centre for their hard-pressed officials has been the case for quite some period.

Only the other day I was reading the book on President Kennedy by Sorensen. One passage deals with the appointment of an American Ambassador to Dublin, and in reference to this there is a quotation from Kennedy:

"I sympathise with their wanting to get rid of ——," Kennedy told me, "but why pick on poor old Ireland?"

It appears to me that Kennedy was aware of the way his country treated the sending of diplomatic representatives to Dublin. It appears to me that more countries are increasingly treating us as we appear to wish to be treated— as people of no account, no importance, no particular integrity of purpose, no standing of independence, dependent on Britain, becoming less and less important.

I would like the Minister to make a New Year's resolution to come home and consider afresh what should be the role of Ireland internationally. We have Christian traditions in this country, North and South. What should be the role of a Christian country with great promise of development and with pretty proud traditions? This country was in the vanguard of the first wave of the anti-colonial movement at the beginning of the century, but today we appear to be handing over that place without demur. I would like our officials abroad to bear in mind this proud, independent tradition of ours and to attempt at any rate, to resist the pressure of speaking like imperial representatives, as I have seen some of them do. I have seen some of the most astonishing statements from them in New York and elsewhere. I agree a good dinner may be enough to turn any man's head, but it appears to me that some of these diplomatic representatives do not understand they represent a country divided by an imperial power, a country that has traditions of freedom and independence. Many of them tend to think that the problems of our larger neighbouring countries in Europe are essentially our problems.

To sum up, in the opinion of many, the time has come for us to have representation abroad with the major powers of the world and to consider seriously that Europe, in de Gaulle's phrase, is something that stretches from the Urals to the Atlantic. If we are anxious to get into Europe, we should not confine ourselves to a near-sighted vision of "The Six" but we should consider setting up diplomatic relations with one of the Eastern European countries. Initially, I would select for this Poland, because its traditions and history are very similar to our own. We should do this not because we are in agreement with the ideologies of these regimes—we would not be—but because it would be a sign of our determination to diversify our trade, something on which we are all agreed.

Again, I would say to the Minister that my Party and myself are pretty disappointed at his record of concern over the Vietnam war. I do not underestimate the intractability of the nature of that struggle and how impossible it has now become to see any kind of solution emerging. However, everyone accepts the fact that there will have to be some confrontation around the table at some stage and everything possible should be done to bring it as near as possible. The alternative is a military escalation to horrifying dimensions which no one wishes to consider.

Finally, I say in all sincerity that there are people now in the Department of External Affairs long past usefulness for this country, people whose ideas are outmoded and who should be removed from the positions they now hold. There are many young people, good men who have come out of this country in recent years, in that Department. Some new method of promotion will have to instituted because —I hope the Minister will forgive me for saying so — among Government Departments the Department of External Affairs has always struck me as a very prim old lady indeed. This was evidenced up to quite recently by the very disdainful manner in which the Department co-operated with trade missions abroad. This is something to which the House has referred on previous occasions. Ninety per cent of the validity of our having diplomatic relations with other countries is accounted for by trade and commerce, because we are a small country who must survive by trade and commerce. If we cannot prove the viability of any Mission abroad in £sd, we should seriously consider withdrawing it.

I think I have said enough to explain my Party's attitude on external affairs. I hope we will have an opportunity in the not too distant future to discuss this matter again. The Minister should take the opportunity more frequently in the future of consulting this House on matters on which he has not consulted us up to recently. He should consider the possibility that there may be people in this House who may have a serious interest in external affairs. He should not take such a low measure of the capacity of this House to assume that we are interested exclusively at all times—perhaps we are sometimes— only in matters immediately convertible into votes. I am aware that many of the matters I have discussed here, far from being convertible into votes, may by an unscrupulous twist be turned into a minus capacity in votes. It is one of the marks of a sovereign assembly that we, as members of UNO, should discuss matters of war and peace when an Estimate like this comes before us.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

It is right that Deputies should get an opportunity of voicing honest criticism of the Estimate of any Minister. This is particularly so in relation to the Estimate for External Affairs. This is a democratic Parliament and any member of this Parliament can express without fear what he feels to be correct. I do not share the view expressed by Deputy O'Leary in relation to our Ambassadors abroad. I feel these men are giving, and have given, outstanding service to this country. I do not say there are no points on which Deputy O'Leary and I may agree in the future, but on this we will have to agree to differ. I have had experience of these men. I am sure that, if Deputy O'Leary were intimately aware of the responsibility and work which must be undertaken by these men, he would be a little more generous in commenting on them.

It was in the early 50s I first came in contact with the late John Dulanty, our first Ambassador to Britain. I have often wondered why a suitable memorial was not erected either in this country or Britain to one of the greatest officials this country has ever sent abroad. I could describe him as one of the greatest Irishmen I have met in my public life. I recall how in those days our present Ambassador to London was a junior official in Mr. Dulanty's office. I can well understand how any official working under-the guidance, wisdom and experience of a man like Mr. Dulanty could benefit by that experience of being trained by one of the best men in our public service. I refer to our present Ambassador in London because of the amount of experience he has gained during the years in which he was High Commissioner and later, Ambassador, training which has equipped him to be what he is, an excellent representative of the Irish Government.

It would be most unfair if public tribute were not paid to the excellent service in Ottawa, Canada, by our Ambassador who has gained widespread respect not only from the Canadian Government but also from the provincial Governments there. He is excellent for the manner in which he has worked so earnestly on behalf of our Government. I learned from the limited contacts I had during my short period in Montreal, Toronto and Ottawa of the interest he displayed, particularly in the Irish and those of Irish descent and in keeping our emigrants together in every province. Our best appreciation of a man of that calibre would be to say he has performed his duties excellently and to my knowledge, his performance of these duties in Canada has reflected great credit on this country.

The same applies to the Irish representative now with the United Nations. We are fortunate in our Civil Service in having men of that type. It is regrettable that disrespectful reference should be made by any member of the House where it is unwarranted. No member of the United Nations with a permanent representative in New York is better served than we are by Mr. Cremin who has been giving and who can give us the benefit of his experience, since he was assigned to that post.

My other experience was in Paris and it was very pleasant to hear from some Irish boys who were doing hotel training courses there of the high standard and quality of the work and the interest shown by Mr. Cummins, our Ambassador in Paris. Not alone in Paris but throughout France where there may be Irish people, his efforts have been extended. He and his predecessor were extremely helpful in negotiating additional markets for fish from this country in France. They were of great assistance whenever called on.

The same applies to our Ambassador in Washington. What Deputy O'Leary may understand is that Ireland is a poor country. We are poor financially and economically but there are many ways in which we are rich, possibly richer than the important wealthy countries. It is very difficult for our representative in, say, the United States to keep in step with representatives of countries such as Britain and other wealthier countries with which our Ambassadors are expected to keep in line and maintain their standards.

Many years ago I was critical of the expenditure on our embassies abroad and that is on record. I criticised the amount of money voted for the Department of External Affairs for Ambassadors, their staffs and embassies. I suppose the years bring experience and I am now satisfied, having seen the amount of work that must be undertaken in these offices and the standards with which our representatives have to compete, that it is practically impossible for a good return to be shown for many of our embassies because in comparison with others, we are understaffed and lack the organisation others have at their disposal. If our Ambassadors are to undertake the responsibility of being trade officers and seeking new markets, considering themselves or part of their offices to be export organisers for this country, that cannot be done on the meagre allowances provided by the Department. I agree we give as much as the country can afford but the amount of money we provide for our embassies, whether in Ottawa, Washington, Paris, London or elsewhere compared with the amount provided by other countries is very small. We are a small and poor country and we probably expect too much from men to whom we give too little.

If we have to do a job, we should do it well. I was disappointed to some extent, not with the hospitality or generosity of our Ambassador in Ottawa but in the layout of the Embassy. I am sure the Minister has been in it. There are great links between Ireland and Canada. That was referred to in a Parliamentary Question earlier today. Not only was the Embassy staff limited but I thought we should have provided a more up to date embassy in Ottawa. The other Embassies certainly appeared to be superior. While I admit that our Embassy is as good as we can afford, if we are to create an impression abroad, we must be prepared to pay for it. What is the position? Do we send our best possible men to represent us in these countries? Do we give those men sufficient money to enable them to represent us with a high standard of dignity? Do we give them sufficient staff to help them get the work done?

It is time there was some new thinking on this question. The world has got very small. There is keener competition and the prospects are that it will get keener. While other countries are up and doing, we cannot lag behind. We must keep in line, and if we are to do that, we must be prepared to spend money to meet all competition. I want the Minister to know that if there was any reason for criticism, I would be the first Deputy to offer it. I know that our representatives abroad serve us with distinction and honour but many of them are handicapped by lack of financial assistance. They may be embarrassed by understaffing and by not having sufficient sub-offices in the countries to which they are accredited to be able to keep their ears to the ground and maintain full knowledge of the feelings towards Ireland in the respective countries. All our Ambassadors abroad have been doing a very good job and most of them have senior officers to keep in touch with the marketing situation. I suggest that more of this kind of work should be done. We have the right type of men in the Department and in the Civil Service in general to do it but the Minister must be sufficiently courageous to come to the House and say: "This kind of specialised work cannot be done unless the House provides the money." We have now arrived at a time when we must spend money if we are to find and retain guaranteed markets for our goods, markets to which we must be able to sustain a continuous supply of the goods we have contracted to produce.

Not alone in this House but elsewhere throughout the country from time to time we have heard criticism of our role in the United Nations Organisation. May I say for the records of the House that Ireland, a very small country comparatively, is a very influential country as far as the UN are concerned? It puts me in mind of 4th October, 1965, when Pope Paul VI addressed the United Nations in New York and appealed for world peace. Among those listening were the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Labour Party. It must have been a great consolation to the Leader of the Opposition, who spoke earlier in the debate, to be present. He was Minister for External Affairs in 1956 when he led the Irish delegation to New York on the occasion of Ireland's entry to the United Nations. The news that Ireland was becoming a member was greeted with acclamation and delight throughout the world, particularly the western world. Many of the messages were recorded in the Department of External Affairs. When Ireland's membership was being announced, Mr. Herbert Hoover on behalf of the United States, expressed deep gratification at the long overdue entry of Ireland. "I am sure," he added, "that Ireland will add greatly to the effectiveness of this organisation." The Indian Prime Minister, Pandit Nehru, said he fully expected that participation of Ireland would further the cause of peace and co-operation. There was a further tribute from Democratic Congressman Michael J. Kirwan who pointed out that more Irishmen had won the Congressional Medal of Honour as American servicemen than all other nationalities put together. He added: "If ever a nation earned the right to UN membership, it is Ireland." These are tributes most complimentary to Ireland. We have to keep up the good name and to increase the influence of this country abroad. It should be and undoubtedly is our aim to increase the number of our friends and to reduce the number of our enemies. In the United Nations, we play a significant part and through it we wield a forceful influence in world affairs.

However, the Minister will have to bear with me for a few moments while I express criticism of one aspect of the work of his Department. I refer to the manner in which we treat our emigrants in Britain. This is quite serious because the majority of our emigrants would prefer to stay at home but they must emigrate because of inability to find here a decent standard of living. We cannot ignore our own people abroad. Our emigrants, particularly those in Britain, are a source of great embarrassment to this country and this is so because they have been neglected greatly. I hope the Minister will be able to give us some record of the Department's work in this respect.

Many of our emigrants to Britain are young people who went away because there was no employment and no prospects for them here. Many of them left without friends, without jobs abroad, without money. Many of them, if I might so describe it, went "on spec" looking for work because they could not find any at home. They are facing appalling social conditions. There seems to be no organised method in Britain of helping them to locate proper accommodation, to assist them financially when they are distressed or to assist them to locate proper employment.

I put this to the Minister for External Affairs. There are men in this House who were present at Euston Station when the train arrived with Irish emigrants and saw young boys and girls, many of them only just turned 14 years of age, unaccompanied stepping off the Euston train at 5.30 a.m. It is 7 o'clock in the morning before London Transport buses are available to take them out of the district of Euston and it is unbelievable to note the organised method that is there for the purpose of endeavouring to capture and to trap young Irish girls.

I want to avail of this opportunity here in this House of expressing my appreciation of the manner in which the Archbishop of Dublin viewed this problem. In recent years, he has made available a number of priests from his Archdiocese to deal with the problem of Irish emigrants. In particular, I think the three Irish priests deserve the greatest credit for the manner in which they are working—for their alertness, their guidance and their help for many Irish boys and girls on their arrival in London. I refer to Father Owen Sweeney, Father Cleary and Father Hickey. I understand that Father Sweeney has returned to Dublin. Those men have been labouring under very difficult conditions.

We see young unaccompanied boys and girls arriving at 5.30 a.m. in London with no one to meet them, nobody to talk to and, even if there is an Irish priest or two there, the most they can speak to are two or three at a time. The whole business is disorganised. They seem to be just sent out of this country as if they were livestock being exported from the North Wall. I have seen some of those young people in Camden Town, in Kilburn and in Cricklewood. I admire the new ideas that now impress the minds of Irish bishops to go over frequently, as a number of our Irish bishops have done this year and last year, for the purpose of keeping contact, of seeing and meeting our emigrants and keeping them organised. However, I think that does not rest with the Church authorities.

There is an obligation on the Government, on the Department of External Affairs and on the Minister for External Affairs, to see that there is some organisation in a country where so many of our people arrive lonely, distressed, cold, penniless, in search of work and without the prospect of a roof over their heads. That, really, is the position in so far as many Irish boys and girls are concerned. The main problem of emigrant welfare for this country is in Britain. It is true to say that Irish people emigrate elsewhere, but, if they emigrate to Canada, America, Australia or New Zealand they have jobs to go to and they have friends to go to. However, the type of emigration we have to Britain cannot be described as the same type of emigration as we have to Canada, the United States or to any other country. Jobs must be available before permission is given to go to the United States or to any of the other countries.

There is nothing to stop anybody from stepping on to the mailboat any evening before it leaves Dún Laoghaire at 8.45 p.m. If we cannot provide work at home for them or give them a reasonable standard of living here. then surely we have some obligation to have some organisation for them on the far side? It is all right for the Minister to say that once they leave the shores of this country, they are the responsibility of somebody else. I think it is not fair that so many of our thousands of young people should have to be the responsibility of any other Government. I think we have a responsibility towards those people. The manner in which the Government can help is indeed very great. We can do something practical.

The Irish Embassy in London does not at the moment take responsibility for assisting Irish emigrants, whereas other embassies in London accept responsibility for their nationals. If an Irish emigrant goes to the Irish Embassy and seeks his fare home, it is given to him. They often pay the fare of juveniles home to Ireland but, then, the Ambassador will have to get the sanction of the Department of External Affairs and, in turn, the Department of External Affairs will have to get the sanction of the Department of Finance. I think that is entirely wrong. Every other embassy in London accepts responsibility for their emigrants: the only one that does not accept responsibility is the Irish Embassy. I would make a serious appeal to the Minister. We are living in 1967. It is time to change that now. Let us take responsibility for our emigrants. Let us provide whatever money is necessary to have at our disposal a good organisation there so that our emigrants will be assisted in a very practical way.

Now, the Minister will agree that many Irish emigrants have called at our embassy seeking financial help but, because of regulations, red tape, lack of funds for the purpose, the response there has not been too good. I would ask the Minister to consider the question of establishing a welfare service for Irish emigrants in Britain.

In London, Birmingham, Coventry, Burton-on-Trent and other centres where there are large numbers of Irish workers, there should be some means by which Irish emigrants will have jobs available to them on their arrival in Britain and will have suitable lodgings provided for them, and, at least, will have somebody to speak to, somebody to tell them where the church is, so that they will not be left alone in a big city but will have some headquarters to which they can turn in trouble or difficulty. There are sufficient experts in the Department of External Affairs to be able to devise a first-class system in a very short time which would provide an organisation for emigrants seeking jobs, accommodation or assistance.

There is one other problem I want to deal with. It is time that steps were taken to prevent young girls from emigrating. Again, there is a responsibility here on the Department of External Affairs. The most serious problem is that hundreds of children of 15 and 16 years of age travel to England every week. The Minister must know that. That information is available to all of us. Many of these children travel unaccompanied. There is one way by which the problem can be and should be dealt with. The Church authorities have done and are doing their part. They cannot do more than provide advice and personnel. They have not the necessary funds. Despite their best efforts, many Irish girls find themselves within a very short time in a situation of complete destruction and disaster. That is commonly known in London and elsewhere.

The Minister should take a trip to the Irish centre in Camden Town and should consult with the advisers on the Camden Town Committee as to the manner in which young people from this country who seek employment there are neglected. The stories that one hears are appalling and I venture to say that they are in no way exaggerated. Wonderful work has been done by voluntary organisations, county organisations and other organisations in London for the purpose of trying to keep the Irish people together. No organisations can cope with the problem presented by the fact that hundreds of girls and boys between 15 and 16 years of age arrive there every week.

Steps should be taken to restrict emigration of persons under 18 years of age. No person under 18 years of age should be permitted to leave the country without a travel permit and that permit should be granted only on proof that the applicant is emigrating with the consent of his parents or guardians and, in the case of such a person travelling on holiday, on proof that his parents or guardians are aware of this fact. Something practical must be done about this problem. I would ask the Minister to consult with those in London who have a knowledge of this problem with a view to having some practical steps taken by the Department of External Affairs to deal with the emigration of young persons to Britain.

The Department of External Affairs should collect information as to conditions in Britain. I should like to hear from the Minister whether there are any officers of his Department already engaged in Britain in compiling information as to the general condition of Irish emigrants. These officers should have information as to the places in Britain where work is available and the type of work that is available so that an effort could be made to place emigrants.

There should be some method of dealing with skilled and unskilled workers. There are times when this country needs our skilled workers. Skilled workers do not come back from Britain because of the insecurity of employment here but there have been many occasions when skilled workers could not be obtained here. When there are vacancies in this country for skilled workers, it should be possible to advertise that fact in areas in Britain where Irishmen work. Details of the jobs available here should be advertised.

The Minister will agree with me that it is a remarkable fact that almost one-fifth of those engaged in administrative, executive and managerial work in this country are persons born outside Ireland, while about one-tenth of all professional and technical workers are also from outside this country. That is an astonishing statistics. I hope the Minister will direct the serious attention of the Government to it. It should be possible for the Department of External Affairs to arrange for special space to be reserved in Irish or English papers for advertising in Britain for Irish workers with special skills. There should be some scheme whereby the expenses of Irish workers travelling from Britain for interview in Ireland would be paid. Many Irish workers in Britain might not wish to involve themselves in the expense of attending here for interview. It would be practical encouragement to Irish workers to return to jobs in Ireland if grants were given for that purpose and they would be as justifiable as many of the loans and schemes available for other sections of the community, for which some are not too grateful. I hope the Minister will give that idea serious consideration.

I do not know what the present position is in regard to the supply of Dublin daily papers to Irish Embassies abroad. If it is not already being done, I hope that all three Dublin daily papers will be sent daily to our Embassies.

Mr. S. Collins

What about the Cork Examiner?

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

If the Minister likes to add the Cork Examiner, I have no objection, so long as the three Dublin daily papers are sent to all our embassies.

Mr. P. Byrne

Are they not sent at present?

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Not up to some time ago. All three were not sent. There was to be a change in the regulation and whether all three are going now, I cannot say; if they are not, the Minister would be well advised to send them.

Our emigrants in America, Canada and elsewhere love to hear Irish songs and to watch Irish dancing. They ought not to be deprived of these pleasures. We have very good dramatic artists in this country and efforts should be made to help these to go abroad, if necessary with State assistance. Such tours would be good for the country and very good for the morale of our emigrants.

The Minister and his Department might have a look at our trade organisations in countries abroad. There is ample scope for improvement. Our offices abroad should be more alert in finding markets for Irish goods.

The Minister referred to films which are being shown abroad. There were slides shown in the Irish Pavilion at the New York World Fair. I saw them. They were excellent and I heard the greatest praise of them. I am disappointed Ireland is not taking any active part in Expo 67. That decision by the Government was a wrong decision. It is all very well to get out a stamp commemorating the centenary of the foundation of Canada. There may be other ways the Minister has in mind by which we can take part in this celebration. However, practically every country in the world will be on this island in Montreal this year with their stands and pavilions. Ireland should have been foremost amongst the other nations in Expo 67 because of her close association with Canada. Great links were forged between the two countries in the past. Outside the House of Parliament in Ottawa, there stands a very fine statue of Thomas D'Arcy Magee.

This opportunity will never present itself again and I believe we should take a more active part in Expo 67. Since 1965, practically every other country has been preparing for this great event. I understand Ireland had selected a site but, because of the credit squeeze, the whole thing was cancelled. That was most unfortunate. I hope there will be some practical way through which we will be able to join in congratulating the Canadian government and the Canadian people on this important event. The decision not to take part was wrong. Participation in Expo 67 would have been worth every penny spent on it. It would have been a good investment. It would have demonstrated the bond of friendship there is between the Irish and the Canadians. It would have been of advantage in our trading with Canada and it would have helped our industrial connections with other countries. It was penny wise and pound foolish to cancel our participation in Expo 67.

I want very seriously to ask the Minister to investigate a matter which got wide publicity recently. The matron of a large London hospital said that, in selecting student nurses, preference would have to be given to West Indians rather than to Irish girls. I have already asked the Minister to investigate this and I understand investigations are in progress. It is no harm for it to go on record from this House that this statement by this responsible matron of a London hospital must have been made either in haste or without due consideration because Irish girls are recognised the world over as dedicated to their work. Irish nurses have proven their ability. They compare favourably with the world's best. The statement made by the matron reflects on the country and on the high standard of our girls. I do not know what the standard is of the West Indians. Neither am I concerned with it. We have, however, an obligation and a duty to uphold the dignity and efficiency of our girls who down through the years have proved themselves the best nurses in practically every London hospital.

I hope the fullest inquiry will be made into this matter. Publicity of this kind does not do a country any good. We all know that bad news and critical news always gets the headlines. When the news is good, headlines are not so big. For example, if there is one rowdy in any part of London whose behaviour or comments come under notice, he receives headlines in all the British newspapers because he is an Irishman, but when Cardinal Heenan said that the Irish emigrants were the backbone of the Church in London, you could hardly discover this in the newspapers. We are proud of our people at home and abroad and we have a duty to uphold their dignity. We do admit that there is a black sheep in every flock but that is no reason why we should endeavour to publicise the single black sheep who can be disclosed in the Irish flock.

There are today Irish families in Britain who are a credit to Britain. They are loyal to the country of their adoption, law-abiding and good citizens. In London, as Cardinal Heenan said, they are the backbone of the Church. We are proud of those people, and when an irresponsible statement is made, such as was made by this leading hospital in Britain, that they did not want Irish student nurses and that instead they were going to take West Indian girls, it should not be allowed to go unchallenged. Any hospital authority in any part of London can vouch for the fact that they have the best of the best in regard to high standards, devotion to duty, professional competence and so on, among Irish nurses.

I do not want to repeat myself, but in conclusion I wish to say that I was somewhat uneasy about what I considered to be an unwarranted reference to our Ambassadors abroad by Deputy O'Leary. These men have done a difficult job excellently. No matter how well they do their job somebody is bound to criticise them. There is one way in which Deputy O'Leary can see for himself how well they do their job. If he goes to the Ambassador in Paris, in Washington, New York or London, and speaks with him and sees for himself the amount of work that has been done efficiently, his views will be changed. Our men abroad have rendered excellent service to this country.

One man who now appears to have been forgotten is the late Mr. John Dulanty. The Department of External Affairs should consider erecting some kind of memorial to him either outside the old offices which were in Regent Street in London, or elsewhere. This would be a fitting tribute to the memory of our first Ambassador to Britain, a man who distinguished himself as High Commissioner, one of this country's greatest servants, who probably had the greatest possible links with the foundation of this State. Our older Ambassadors who are now reaching the retiring age and who were associates of the late Mr. Dulanty came from a wonderful old school. If the younger men now embarking on their careers as Ambassadors served their apprenticeship with men of Mr. Dulanty's school, there is no danger that they will not excel themselves because for experience and understanding, tact and wisdom, those old timers could not be beaten. The greatest of them all was John Dulanty.

I would ask the Minister and the Department sympathetically to consider having a fitting memorial raised to him in London where he was honoured and respected and where he was probably the most influential Irishman in difficult times. His old comrades would wish that he should not be forgotten. I have very pleasant memories of meetings which I had with him and he created on me a lasting impression of a man who gave loyal and devoted service to this country, both as High Commissioner in London and later as Ireland's first Ambassador to Britain.

Mr. S. Dunne

I do not know what Deputy O'Leary said about our men in the various parts of the world but I imagine it would be difficult for him to take Deputy Flanagan's advice and go to meet the Ambassador in Paris, New York and various other places so far distant. It may be that in the course of time he will have the opportunity to do this but I imagine it will only come as a result of being deputed as a national duty by this House or some Committee of this House. I feel sure that Deputy O'Leary would not be able to afford such trips dependent as he is on the inadequate stipend which is available to him for his services here. To that extent Deputy Flanagan's suggestion is somewhat unreal. As I said, I do not know what he said about the Ambassadors. It may be that I would not agree with what he had to say; I do not know. I do know that the Minister for External Affairs is not here.

Mr. S. Collins

That is not unusual.

Mr. S. Dunne

It is a matter of regret that he is not here. He was here today for a short time and then he vanished again. I know, of course, he has to attend to other matters but his absence now is for me rather unfortunate because I wanted to say in his presence what I said when he was not here some months ago. I want to comment on his fondness for travel and perhaps it has just occurred as a coincidence that at this moment of time, to underline and accentuate his mobility, as it were, he is not here now. It seems to me that the Minister has spent a great deal of time in other countries, notably, as I mentioned before, on the banks of the Hudson, at high level discussions concerning the future of the world. Indeed, looking at his script which I had not got the pleasure of hearing him deliver, I see that amongst other things, he was discussing, if you do not mind, the dispensations of the United Nations in regard to outer space. This again is indicative of the distance which separates the Minister for External Affairs from the political reality with which we try to grapple here at home.

I glimpsed the Minister, too, in Strasbourg recently, and I want to make reference to the reply which was given to me by the British Prime Minister on that occasion when I took the opportunity of asking him at the Council of Europe to give us the benefit of his views as to what the prospects were of Irish unity in an expanded Common Market. I suggest that it should not have been necessary for a Member of the House to undertake this, but in the absence of its being done or, at any rate, in the absence of its being publicly reported upon by the Minister charged with the task of conducting our relations with other countries, I felt that in the interest of my constituents and of the people generally throughout the country, it was essential to get an expression of view from Mr. Wilson as to whether or not we were travelling in the direction of Irish political unity, if he envisaged this and what his general attitude was.

As anybody who read Mr. Wilson's reply will agree, it emerged fairly clearly that so far as the Prime Minister of Britain is concerned, he at least has the maximum good will towards the securing of this end. Because of the procedure which surrounded the argument of the question I put to him, I was not enabled to pursue the matter by means of supplementary questions or by means of discussion. Mr. Wilson was not there the following day. He had other matters which to him would be of graver import to attend to. Therefore I could not pursue the matter further. However, the Minister for External Affairs has an obligation to pursue it further, because it was suggested by Mr. Wilson that this was a matter which could be settled by discussion here in Ireland, whereas we all know very well that this is not a fact. We all know that the State in Northern Ireland would not last, were it not for the support being afforded to it by the British Government.

It may be that the British Government feel they have an obligation to continue the policy of previous Governments to maintain in existence the Government of Northern Ireland. I rather doubt that. It seems to me that the present administration in Britain regard the existence of a separate State in Northern Ireland as an anachronism and an embarrassment. At the same time, it has not been brought home with sufficient clarity to the British Government that were it not for their support in the matter, the Stormont regime could not continue in existence.

It has struck me, too, on more than one occasion that we have come a very long way, so far as some Members of this House are concerned and so far as the Fianna Fáil Party, particularly, are concerned, from the day when the sovereign and indefeasible right of this historic Irish nation was proclaimed to the world, and instead of talking now at UNO and elsewhere about Partition, we talk about nuclear-fission. I suppose anybody who talks about Partition these days is regarded by Fianna Fáil spokesmen, and perhaps by others as well, as being guilty of, to say the least of it, bad taste. I find it difficult to reconcile in my mind this precipitate flight from the principles which we have been told from our earliest childhood were those that imbued the foundation fathers of this State, the principles of the geographical unity of the country, the essential nationhood of the country, and our right to determine our own fate in every act and part of the country.

There has been a progressive turning of backs on the past. I suggest that politically we have permitted ourselves to be manoeuvred into a situation which John Redmond, over 50 years ago, avoided, manoeuvred into a political condition where the country is split in two. As far as I am concerned, it has been made abundantly clear, from reading the statements of the gentlemen, with all their pretensions, who sit in Stormont, that regardless of what visits may be paid by us to them or by them to us, they intend to maintain the status quo. This situation can be resolved by Britain, and very simply resolved. I think the Government have an obligation to seize every opportunity to bring to the mind of the present Prime Minister of England, a man who seems to me to be particularly receptive to the ideals of human freedom, the rights of our position.

Mr. Wilson has taken his political courage in his hands on issues far more hazardous and, indeed, far more serious in so far as justification is concerned than this one. I got the impression, listening to the man, that because of his background in the British Labour movement, with all its great traditions of belief in human rights, democracy and freedom, and having in mind the great contributions it has made to the uplifting of mankind, that here was a man at long last to whom we might talk and from whom we might get results on this particular issue. Quite apart from the moral right which is there and which is undeniable, and which we all accept as being there, there is also the hard political fact to which Mr. Wilson, as an able politician, must surely advert, that you have in the House of Commons representation of a kind that must be anathema to him and his Party from the North of Ireland.

Everything from the point of view of serious argument is in our favour and this opportunity of making progress must not be lost. But I fear that it will be lost. The reason I fear this is that I feel that our Minister for External Affairs has permitted himself to be caught up in the unreal, airy-fairy world of ultra-politeness which is conducted at international level and to which, if one dwells long enough there, it is difficult not to fall victim. I think the Minister's absences from this country have contributed to that and, if I am not mistaken, I think I detected a trace of the Brooklyn accent in his speech here today. That may be only my hearing but to the Taoiseach, it must appear that there rests upon him an obvious responsibility to show that his generation is not going to cast aside the traditions which have been handed down by those who have gone before us.

The point is that if we continue to pursue the course which seems to have been begun by the Government, it will be tantamount to saying that all the bloodshed, all the suffering, all the hangings and shootings and all the hunger will only have been a masquerade, that they do not matter, that they have no relevance and that what we saw last year on television, the re-enactment of the events of 1916 and so on, was merely a kind of sentimental indulgence for our own enjoyment.

If that is the situation, and it would appear to me, judging by the actions of the Government, that that is the way they look at it, let it be said openly and let it not be paraded here as a virtue. When I came into this House first, the Government used as a subtitle the words "Republican Party". We know then that it had long since shed its right to that particular classification, but it still used that title to create the illusion that they were the people who carried the Holy Grail, that they had the absolute right to the tittle and that they could be depended upon in all circumstances to defend that for which the countless generations had suffered. It was cynicism at that time but in the years that have passed, even that particular pretence has been dropped.

It is not good enough that these people should have put across the Irish nation what amounts to a colossal confidence trick in order to gain their support and then, suddenly discovering that it was of little further political value, to proceed to discard that attitude. People outside this House often accuse politicians of cynicism. It seems to me that when we see an exercise of that kind carried out by the Fianna Fáil Party in this matter, there is some ground for that point of view. It is not to be thought that everybody is as cynical as that. I want to say— not that I believe much notice will be taken of it, but nonetheless I want to say it because I am expressing my own mind and, I feel, the mind of quite a considerable number of people—that we should be up and doing now that the opportunity presents itself, particularly in relation to the Common Market. We should be trying to secure a conclusion of the conflict which has bedevilled our relations with the people across the water. While many might say that nobody worries much about Partition nowadays and that all that jazz about the Republic is gone, the odd thing is that at certain times in our history, this feeling comes to the surface and is seen to be very deep-seated indeed, and why should it not be?

We are not discharging our duties in this matter. The Common Market provides us with the opportunity to achieve things by talk which were not achievable by force hitherto, provided of course we will have the will to do it. It is most essential that we should equip ourselves in the economic sense to grapple with what we will face in Europe when eventually Britain gains entry to the Common Market. It is most essential, too, that we should preserve our national characteristics, that we should not renege on our historic national ideals for what might be a temporary advantage. It is possible to do both of these things.

So far as the Council of Europe is concerned, I have been a member for two years and I would like to take this opportunity of saying it has been a most educating experience. Every Deputy should at some period be enabled to participate in the deliberations of the Council of Europe. If for no other reason, it brings home forcibly to parliamentarians there is a commonness of problems and a similarity of interests not alone as between politicians but as between the ordinary people in all the 18 countries associated with the Council of Europe and, I am certain, in all the countries of the world.

While on that, I would like to pay a very special tribute to our anonymous officials who have been responsible for the ordinary administrative contacts with the Council of Europe, who have done great and worthy work in this direction, always unnoticed and very often, I suppose, unremarked. It is only right that there should be mention of this and I therefore make this mention.

Now that the Minister for External Affairs has returned. I want to return to his brief. We are glad to see him here looking so well after his arduous journeys to the various parts of the world to which he has had to travel in pursuit of our interests over such a lengthy period. On page 9 of his brief is something to which I have already referred briefly but to which I would like to return:

What, I would like to know, are we doing about this? In what way is this connected with Dáil Éireann or the activities of the Irish people? Whatever may be said about the exploration of outer space—there is quite a considerable body of world opinion which feels that the countless billions being spent on that particular recreation might be better devoted to the solution of more earthly problems like ill-health and poverty—in what way does this nation concern itself with the exploration of outer space? In fact, we have not explored ourselves the means and methods whereby, for instance, our people should be employed at home instead of having to emigrate to Britain.

You will find the Irish everywhere in England. I was in a town called Corby New Town last year under the auspices of one of the Committees of the Council of Europe. This is a new town with a population of some 49,000, of whom 5,000 are Irish. Wherever you go in Britain you will find the Irish. They remain Irish and, in the old, sentimental phrase, proud of it while they are there, but their children and grandchildren quickly forget their origins. If you talk to a second or third generation Irish person, he is not very sure where his parents or grandparents came from, or perhaps very much interested, so that these people who emigrate to Britain from Ireland, as most emigrants do, go for their lifetime, coming home when they save up money for a holiday, and they are lost to the country and the nation. The great decrease in rural population evidenced by the figure of something like 11 per cent in the past ten years is, I think, represented mainly by young people going to work, live and stay in England.

When they read—if they take that much interest—of the activities of our Minister for External Affairs in the vicinity of Manhattan discussing nuclear clubs, suggesting methods whereby the use of nuclear weapons might be confined and restricted and talking about outer space, they must surely think that the country they left has changed a great deal, that it must not be the same country when the people put up with that. The point I am trying to make is that if we are to justify a Department of External Affairs, all the work and energy of that Department should be mainly directed towards the care and welfare of our own people, in the first instance.

It has been mentioned in this debate that in Britain a few short air miles away, we provide no facilities of any account under this Government to remedy, for instance, the grievances of our people who may find themselves in difficulties in any part of England. Were it not for the voluntary work done by religious and other people in the big cities—and this must necessarily be limited in nature—our people would have no recourse in times of tribulation. The sights of the Department and the Minister should be set upon making and developing an effective service in Britain, for a start, and elsewhere as it becomes necessary, but especially in Britain where so many of our people are, a service for them which will cover as far as possible the whole range of problems they meet with and which have been mentioned already in this debate and with which I shall not bore the House. We are all familiar with them and, as one who has arrived at Euston in the cold and darkness of a winter morning looking for a job, I am only too familiar with them.

This is the reality that should be approached by the Department and the Minister. The Minister, no doubt with the Government's consent and approval, in engaging as he is in these excursions into the airy-fairy world of high-powered politics and international discussions is not achieving anything and is running the very grave risk of making us a laughing-stock. These are remarks which I made in the Minister's absence and which I an now taking the first opportunity of repeating in his presence.

To continue reading the paragraph relating to outer space, there occurs the following:

While seemingly of less practical effect this treaty when viewed in connection with the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and the Antarctic Treaty is another welcome step forward towards the restriction of the arms race.

In all seriousness, is it possible to comment on that without infringing the rules of order? It would be very difficult.

The Minister also referred in his speech to the Free Trade Agreement and here again we have evidence of the presence which surrounds so much of the activities of this Government. There is talk in it of the "reactivation" of our application for membership of the Common Market. One would have wished that simpler words were used as we are simple people. Somebody said that words are used to conceal thought and very often this is apparent from what emerges in Ministers' briefs. In this matter, why should it not be said openly that the position plainly is that we stay out of the Common Market as long as Britain stays out and that if Britain gains admission, we must go in, instead of pretending that we are acting as an independent State and that it does not matter to us what anybody else does, that we are pursuing an independent line?

Everybody in Ireland realises that we are bound hand and foot, particularly since the Free Trade Agreement with Britain, particularly since last year when the so-called Republican Party made its final surrender and retreated to the position which, as I said, would have been refuted by John Redmond 60 years ago as a sell-out of principle. Everybody knows this is true: the least informed of our citizens is aware that as a result of the inactivity of the Government in not trying to separate us from the British connection during the past 30 years in which they have had the power, as a result of the apparent lack of imagination or ability of the Fianna Fáil administration down through the years to disperse our trade throughout Europe and to try to establish other markets in Europe, we are now utterly dependent on the British market. Despite all that was said, despite the torrent of words and propaganda poured out year after year to try to convince us—it did indeed convince many—that we could live without Britain and that we should burn everything British but their coal, we have the situation that the pretence is being continued that we are acting independently.

Nobody believes it. We may go into Europe as a result of the Act of reunion of 1966 and we have no choice in the matter. What our future in Europe will be is impossible to conjecture. I listened to a television discussion the other evening between a member of the Fianna Fáil Party who is a Member of this House and a representative of the workers in one industry, car assembly. The Fianna Fáil man admitted openly that he could not see any alternative for these workers. He was questioned about what we offered here, about the adaptation councils, about the so-called plans to train workers for other industries. He admitted he could not see any real answer when free trade comes along with entry to the Common Market: the workers in that industry will be without jobs because there is nothing for which the workers in that industry can be easily or readily retrained.

That is a fact. What efforts have been made during the period under review to find out what role we can play economically on entry to the Common Market? There is no mention in the Minister's speech of any projection—as guesses are now called— or even any assessment of where, for instance, in Europe we shall find markets for the things we can produce here, our agricultural produce. Our experience of the Free Trade Agreement with Britain has been disastrous. Farmers are saying—God knows, I have no brief to speak particularly for farmers—that long before that Agreement they were doing badly. Therefore, they are entitled to say since the Agreement that things have gone from bad to worse for them—the price of cattle, the lack of a market in Britain for their cattle, the fact that we had the extraordinary spectacle of the Minister coming in here and making a big deal out of a couple of thousand cattle sold to Belgium or some other country.

Mr. S. Collins

Germany.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This surely does not arise on the External Affairs Estimate?

Mr. S. Dunne

I am sorry for having digressed. This is just an example of how our affairs are being mishandled. The Minister referred to a film which he said is being pushed abroad, "Ireland on the Go." It has been at a standstill for quite a while, and if the Minister is saying abroad that this is a booming economy, then, to say the least of it, he is indulging in rather sharp political practice. I do not suggest for a moment that in his long spells spent elsewhere he should paint a dismal picture of the situation in the country; but it is not right it should be thought that this country compares favourably with a number of other countries in Europe in the matter of its capabilities to produce and to create a better life for its citizens, because there has not been a really effective effort to make of this country a place fit for the Irish to remain in in comfort. We who are here are little more than a holding party, and a diminishing one at that.

Any medium of news dissemination which we take up at the present time poses the question to us of how our farm workers—the few who are left— how our farmers, how our small shopkeepers and our other commercial interests will fare in Common Market conditions. What, they ask, will be the effect on our economy? One would have thought the Minister could be deemed to have a knowledge of these considerations, that he would be able to tell us whether this country is capable of being explored from the point of view of producing better things for better markets in Europe. We have had no examination along those lines —only this euphoric digression into outer space. To my mind, these two things, more than anything else, represent how far this Government have got from actuality.

It is a deplorable thing that, even at this late stage, the Common Market has not been the principal subject of the Minister's speech. The Common Market and our political future can be bound up together—the Common Market into which we must go and which we approach with trepidation. We now have a chance of doing something about our political future. Anybody who heard Mr. Harold Wilson at the meeting of the Council of Europe when I asked him my question and he gave his answer got the impression that here is a man with whom we Irish could deal and possibly get results from. Thinking of Mr. Wilson's personal history since he came to office, thinking of the things he has done in the name of freedom and democracy in different parts of the world at great risk to his political fortunes, one is forced to the conclusion that this is a man with whom we could make progress. We have no public evidence that any effort has really been made to get down to impress upon him that it is not sufficient to say: "This is an Irish row between you people over there." It is not just that. It is a situation that requires the ultimate in statesmanship to secure a formula for its solution. It also demands that the British Government should withdraw publicly and completely from this country their support for the continuation of what is and always will remain basically and fundamentally to the Irish people an intolerable political situation.

Mr. P.J. Burke

Listening to my colleague, Deputy Dunne, I thought I might see a bright lining to the dark clouds as he pictured them. I listened very carefully and I was disappointed that he did not see anything good at all in the work of the Department of External Affairs. Some people outside this House would like to build a wall around this country and not have any communication with anybody outside it—no aeroplanes, no boats and so on. That was the mentality of the Coalition Government who failed to see the ideals of co-operation, tourism, international co-operation of any kind. One cannot expect miracles from a mentality of that kind.

I should like to take this opportunity of congratulating and thanking my ideals of co-operation, tourism, inter-colleague, the Minister for External Affairs, Deputy Aiken——

Mr. James Tully

I thought the Deputy was about to say "Deputy Dunne".

Mr. P.J. Burke

——on the way he has upheld the dignity of Ireland at the United Nations, at the Council of Europe and at any other of his visits abroad. We are a young country, old in years but young in Parliament. The work the Minister has succeeded in doing speaks for itself and at no time during all the years he has been associated with the United Nations did he become the tailpiece of any international power. He tried to keep the nationality of our country before the eyes of the world and to show that we have a distinctive language and culture. On all occasions — sometimes when it was not very popular — he distinguished himself in upholding the dignity of our country and in showing that we are an independent race, an independent people, anxious to get the freedom of our country from shore to shore and anxious to defend it. On numerous occasions, at the United Nations and otherwise, he spoke of the division of our country.

I cannot speak too highly of our diplomatic missions abroad as I have had occasion to observe them at first hand over the past few years. Any of them I have met abroad are a credit to Ireland. They have brought credit and a lot of prestige to our country. The same can be said of any of our diplomats I had the pleasure of meeting and any of them I know who have gone to countries which I have not visited. If we have progressed quite a long way along the road in trying to get international co-operation and international recognition, even in our tourism, our missions abroad, in particular, helped with it. I do not want to go into our diplomatic Missions individually but from what I know of them they have done a good job for our country.

It is easy enough to say hard things and to pick out special quotations from the Minister's speech which he made here this afternoon: that is the easiest thing in the world. What are we to do if we take the statement of my colleague, Deputy Dunne, that nobody has done anything? Deputy Dunne had six years in which to pull his weight when the Coalition Government were in office. I admit they did a good deal of destruction during their period of office. They did not do anything so far as bringing home our emigrants was concerned. In fact, thousands upon thousands more went from our country and we reached the all-time unemployment record of over 100,000 people while about twice that number left the country. I do not want to go into all that now.

This is a Vote for money for the running of the Department of External Affairs and among other things, to enable our Missions abroad to help our people, to co-operate with them and to give them what assistance and guidance they can. My information is that our various Ambassadors and representatives abroad have been most co-operative and most helpful. I am sure that the Minister and any of us on this side of the House would indeed like to see the day when the economy of this country would provide employment for every section of our people. We would hope that day will come.

Reference was made to the recent Free Trade Area Agreement with Great Britain. I listened recently to a Conservative Member of the British Parliament speak at a meeting of the Council of Europe. He condemned the Agreement with Ireland, because, he said, it adversely affects the British farmer. That was his point of view. He said it was a bad Agreement for the British farmer. If this Free Trade Area Agreement will adversely affect the British farmer, surely it shows that Britain will not gain by it ? It is an independent Agreement entered into after serious consideration by two independent Governments, each looking after the interests of their own country. In the world of today, international agreements are necessary. Every civilised country in the world tries to have trade agreements with other countries. It has been suggested that we were not anxious to get into the Common Market. The Minister for External Affairs, the Taoiseach and the Cabinet as a whole are most anxious to join the Common Market. The other countries of Europe, including members of EFTA, are anxious to join.

I have been representing this country at the Council of Europe for the past two years where we have been trying to build up goodwill. Recently, the Minister met Mr. Wilson and Herr Willi Brandt. As a diplomat, he did not start preaching from the housetops, but he has done all he could to get this country into the Common Market. I was very proud to see him at the Council of Europe, where his prestige is very high. Nobody has worked as hard as our Minister for External Affairs in the interest of Ireland's admission to the Common Market. I say that as a result of my experience.

The Council of Europe is a wonderful institution. So long as the Council of Europe remains, there will be no war in Europe. If it did nothing more than prevent a European War, it would have achieved something worthwhile.

I have been a delegate to the Council of Europe for almost two years. I know the number of friends we have made there, the number of people who have visited Ireland and the various committees on which Ireland is represented. There is a common bond between the representatives of this country and those of the 18 Member States.

I made a special appeal at the Council of Europe that there should be a conference to discuss means of getting into the Common Market. I am a great believer in conference, in discussion around the table and in the spirit of give and take. Such a conference would eliminate some of the misunderstandings and would help to remove some of the obstacles that are in the way. There is a great deal of goodwill towards Ireland.

Mr. Harold Wilson is doing a very good job as Prime Minister. He has not done anything more than we have done. Denmark and the Netherlands are anxious to join the Common Market but do not like to do so until we all are admitted. They, too, trade with Britain. It would not be feasible for one to be in and the other out.

I admit that the decision of the Central Council in Brussels affected our cattle trade. The very heavy tariffs on cattle going into Common Market countries affected the British farmer and the Irish farmer and caused a slump in the cattle trade last year. These are problems that must be surmounted. There is nothing like effort. If we keep trying, as the Minister for External Affairs has tried and as we as delegates to the Council of Europe are trying, to create friendship for our country, and to get into the Common Market, I believe we will succeed. All the countries outside the Six are trying to do the same. I am on quite a number of committees. There is a common bond of friendship and goodwill amongst the members of those committees. I am on a social committee studing a big problem in Europe in relation to coalmines and phosphate mines, especially in France, where there has been over-production and thousands of workers are displaced.

Last, year, I visited the Silesian mines and went down about half a mile underground to see the conditions in which miners have been working. It was my duty as a member of the committee to do so, so as to be able to discuss these conditions. The problem there is one of rehabilitation of displaced workers. If we were in the Common Market tomorrow, that problem would be our problem. We are not going to sell anybody out. The Six have created the Common Market and they have a number of problems to surmount but they are overcoming them because they are talking about them. I have no doubt that the day will come when we will all be in. That will be the salvation of Europe.

When travelling through France, I think of the thousands of Irishmen who lost their lives in two World Wars, in which they were not directly concerned but in which they fought other people's battles.

So long as the Government retain their interest in the Council of Europe, every Irish delegate to that Council will enhance our position internationally. At no time has any Irish delegate submerged nationality for the sake of any kudos. We like to uphold the dignity of our country.

I should like to say how much we appreciate the services of our troops who serve abroad. They have been recognised as the world's greatest peacemakers. What our troops have done for this country cannot be measured. They are respected in every country in which they have served.

Some years ago when I was in the Near East, I met some of our representatives at the United Nations. I saw the respect that they had secured, their dignity, the way they upheld their country. We have come a long way in a few years in Ireland. That is a great pleasure to all of us. I should like every Member of the House to have the opportunity of going abroad and studying conditions as we have done. I cannot express how proud I am of our diplomatic Missions abroad and the manner in which they uphold the dignity of our country, how shrewd they are and how good they were to us as public representatives in the matter of advice. Their advice was worth having.

Mr. S. Collins

It is about time we had a little realism in this debate. There is one question in the forefront of the mind of modern Ireland today. It is the rhetorical question: what are we getting in return for the substantial expenditure voted for the Department of External Affairs? I have been appalled by the fact that in our involvement in European and world problems, we have lost sight of the major problem at home. Perhaps I myself have been careless in this respect, but realism came home with shattering impacts recently when I read a statement by Captain Terence O'Neill, the Prime Minister of what we describe as the puppet government in the partitioned part of Ireland; he made reference in a kind of sentimental twaddle to the reunification of Ireland and the North rejoining the Republic.

For some strange reason. we seem to be rapidly losing sight of the fact that Ireland is not free under one flag from the Lagan to the Lee. We have had various kinds of ceremonial and commemoration and I do not blame Deputy Seán Dunne now for his cynicism, though I may fault him for his tautology. We might have much better service from the Minister for External Affairs. since he is immediately adjacent to the problem of Northern Ireland and the reunification of the country, if he applied his now mellowing mind to keeping alive in a real way the impetus towards reunification and the re-establishment of the nation as one. Whether or not we go into common markets—I shall deal with this later—everybody knows that economically, physically, financially and spiritually we would be infinitely more effective as a unit if we were a united nation. I challenge the House to demonstrate to the people what effort they have made towards solving their own immediate problem in the last so many years during which we seem to have been escalating all over the world, involved in all kinds of problems in which we may have an academic interest but no real practical concern of any kind.

As I say, the youth today are asking what are we getting for our vast expenditure on External Affairs? We know we have magnificent embassies in various parts of the world. The cost of some of them has been discussed here. We must ask ourselves, vis-á-vis the difficulties of our economic situation, our credit squeeze, the difficulties in expansion, what are we getting in pounds, shillings and pence by way of return for the expenditure we enter into all over the world? It is all very well to eulogise the capacity and efficiency of staffs abroad. We are all proud of the fact that those who go abroad deport themselves well, in many cases under difficulty, and create quite a worthwhile image. But what return are we getting? To date, very little.

I know perfectly well it is necessary to maintain diplomatic relations over diversified areas but we ought to ask ourselves whether much of this representation could not be on a more divided basis, a basis which would not call for the purchase of embassies and their subsequent maintenance, to say nothing of the cost of the staff. I do not for a moment suggest that staffs abroad are even adequately paid but the position could be remedied effectively in such manner as to bring about worthwhile economies while, at the same time, enabling the staffs to carry out their missions satisfactorily. At the moment the return we get for diplomatic association is in many cases nil.

There is the rather odd situation that our greatest concentration of Irish people is just across the Irish Sea; yet, we have no really worthwhile services for our nationals in Britain. Surely our ambition ought to be to give them every guidance and assistance we possibly can and to keep them in association with their native land. One is more likely to get help and support from the Department of External Affairs in the farthest flung areas of Africa than in Birmingham, Manchester, London, or any of the large cities in Britain so much nearer home. When one goes through Britain and sees the nature of the problem there, one realises the effective impetus that could be given by the Department of External Affairs and one grows a little cynical about the expenditure on all kinds of airy-fairy theory chasing as distinct from the practical realities of the more immediate problem.

I do not intend to indulge in personal abuse of the Minister because he flies so regularly across the Atlantic and spends a considerable time away from home, but I earnestly appeal to him in those periods in which he is free of the United Nations, Security Council and Committees, to direct his Department's attention to keeping the problem of the partition of our country before the world and to keeping constantly alive the claim we have historically for a united nation from the Lagan to the Lee. I appeal to him to keep constantly before the world the escalating goodwill, the impetus towards improved contact in all our relationships with Northern Ireland, and the active intention of ultimate re-unification. It makes me sick to hear talk about going into the Common Market, or anything else, when we are leaving behind a problem the solution of which would make the question of the Common Market, the building up of a practical economic strength, the co-relation and development of agriculture and free movement in markets, infinitely more easy than if we were dealing with two different Governments and two different economies.

There is no gainsaying the fact that for some reason the last generation, of which the Minister is a member, and my generation, which is now reaching a very adult stage in a new free nation, have only paid lip service to the men who established the State, who fought and died to establish the State, and we are allowing talk about free economics and about the big Six and small Fives and everything else to blunt for us the reality that as far as the re-integration of the national territory is concerned we have failed dismally.

It is proper now and again to come back to reality. The Minister, being a good Cooley man, is well aware of how near the Border is to him, and the re-unification of the country should be as dear a wish to him as it is to me and he should start concentrating a little more on the home ground and let the league matches go on elsewhere, whether they are in regard to nuclear fission, inter-space contracts or otherwise. At times are we not inclined to let clichés run away with us? We have had a very acrimonious and lengthy debate here on the Common Market. I remember the former Taoiseach, Deputy Lemass, assuring us that we would get into the Common Market and that we were going to go it alone, and I remember challenging the accuracy and realism of that statement. I said positively that not only would we not get into the Common Market but that Britain would not get into it. May I venture to sound this note of caution again? England is far from getting into the Common Market yet. The betting is certainly not odds on.

The latest observation of the French Vice-President of the European Economic Commission which was made yesterday, indicated that the optimum time in which England might hope to get in would be three years. If that is a fact, we should be very, very cautious about the likely success of our application. I am not a great believer in the honesty of our British partners at all times and again, possibly with the historical background of West Cork behind me, I will sound a note of warning, that if ever it is to England's advantage to go it alone, she will have damn little concern for us and we should not fool ourselves about it.

Deputy Dunne postulated something which might be a practical reality. It may well be that the present climate in Britain is favourable for the Minister for External Affairs to emphasise forcibly to the British Prime Minister the fact that the re-unification of Ireland is overdue and that their economic support of the puppet government is a very vital factor in the continuance of the present estrangement. Fortunately, we have gone beyond the stage of regarding force as being a reasonable or necessary way of going about the solution of this problem. In becoming adult, we have learned to appreciate the fact that constitutional development and constitutional pressure can be very effective, if properly timed in proper circumstances.

It has always been a source of astonishment to me that this little State which emerged into freedom, which forged the Statute of Westminster—which was to be the door through which a whole commonwealth of nations all over the world was able to emerge as independent States with a very loose association, and in many cases no association at all, with the former centre of the Empire—should have been able in one generation to retreat from the position to the extent that we have. I am saying that in a very realistic spirit realising that we are losing sight of our home problems in chasing after others. I have no doubt that there are many facets of the Common Market that could be to our advantage, but equally I have no doubt that there are vast areas in industrial technique and development that will have to be violently adjusted before we will be able to meet competition.

We know perfectly well from what happened the agricultural arm of our economy last year that outside Common Markets at all, even in the free trade zone, we have run into trouble which could have been foreseen, and, I suggest, would have been foreseen, if we had the type of liaison with Britain which the Department of External Affairs might have built up if there were a proper understanding and relationship between the Irish people in Britain and our people at home. Instead of that, we had discussions here about the Council of Europe. I am sure this is a very worthy body. I am sure, like all groups of parliamentarians, they meet in an atmosphere of goodwill and curiosity. However, it is very hard to talk to Pat McCarthy down in the Beara Peninsula, to the Galvins of Bere Island or the Driscolls down in Carbery's Hundred Isles about the Council of Europe, when he cannot sell his few calves or cannot get any return for some of his hardest labour.

The Irish people are beginning to ask the question: Would it not be a lot better if we got things half in order at home before we start discussing whether it is proper or wise for China to get a seat in the United Nations or whether we should show great strength of purpose in our consideration of treaties in connection with outer space and the exploration of all kinds of areas, the expenditure on which can be described as most lavish in many cases and the practicality of which is very doubtful?

We have to ask ourselves, in voting practically £1 million to this Department, what do we get back? Is the emphasis abroad too much on prestige and too little on trade investigation and on tourist development? It was not fashionable some years ago but it is now recognised that one of our biggest economic factors and external money earners is our tourist trade. In the spending of this money, is there enough emphasis on getting some kind of practical return of that nature? I do not think there is. When we cut out the trimmings and the statistical verbiage, we know that one of the biggest factors in the support of this country is our own people who come back year after year, summer and Christmas, from "John Bull's Other Island" to holiday at home.

That is why I come back to the problem we are constantly asked about: what are we doing to keep up the liaison, the association, the togetherness, with our families across the Irish Sea? What is the Department of External Affairs doing about it? Why have we not the type of expenditure there that will encourage and maintain community centres, grants-in-aid for people in distress, help, as was suggested by Deputy Flanagan, for people who may be very suitable applicants for vacancies in skilled or technical employment here at home? Why are they not given the facilities to return here and compete at interviews at the expense of the Department seeking them or at the expense of the people who are looking for these skilled people or technologists?

Why do we not keep our feet solidly planted on Mother Earth in order to deal with the very tough, earthy problems presented by the circumstances that force vast numbers of each generation of Irish people to become migrants to England? Working it out statistically, there must be millions and millions of people in England who are first, second and third generation Irish. If we had used our heads in the various Departments, we could have harnessed the tremendous power our emigrants have to wield in the ordinary public life of England to help to deal with our problems at home. The reunification of north and south is a tripartite problem in relation to which sustained pressure and the considerable goodwill that could be created could quickly resolve the difficulties, if we went the right way about it.

The burden of what I want to say on this Estimate is that I wish to see a sense of reality and practicality coming back into External Affairs. I do not intend to be vituperative or personal about any section or any person in External Affairs. However, I do feel that this country is developing a mania about expertise and people with special know-how, but when one gets down to analysing this expertise and knowhow, in most cases one finds it is a consummation of years of successful bluff and very little knowledge. Of course, if you start off with the reputation of being a wise man and you stay quiet in your chair long enough, if you hum and haw and say nothing, you finish up an expert, a complete master of your field. The atrophying mentality of pay-promotion-pension comes into all walks of Irish life.

I shall not indulge in a bitter, cynical diatribe in this regard, but I want to say that we have got to a stage in this country where we must do something to arrest the gradual stultification and atrophy that bureaucracy, expertise and pseudo-knowledge are causing in all Departments and particularly in External Affairs. With all the talk we have about the EEC and the big words about reactivation of our application, I say here that it is all nonsense and bluff. There has not been any reactivation. We have had the spectacle of a Minister going over to meet the Vice-President of EEC and then coming back and telling us that we cannot make our application until the British application is made. Who is going to believe in reactivation of our application if the Minister for Agriculture comes back and tells us that? If he could come back and tell us that the deal which his predecessor was wangling on the Continent was going to come off, it would have been something, but he could not even tell us that.

We had a social visit by the British Prime Minister, Mr. Wilson, and his foreign Secretary, Mr. Browne, to the Council of Europe, where I am sure they were nicely received by the Minister. There was there a speech from the British Prime Minister to a collection of happy European diplomats who go at their countries' expense to this exclusive European club. He told them what he was going to do about getting into the Common Market but, despite that, the British application has not been reactivated yet. The British Prime Minister is going on a merchant tailor's tour around Europe to see if his country will be admitted to EEC but nothing is being done by our Minister for External Affairs.

In the light of that, can anyone blame the Irish people for being cynical? When we leave this House, they ask us what return are we getting for the millions of money we are spending on External Affairs. That is a reasonable question. We are talking about going into Europe but we are not going in as united Ireland. We have forgotten that; that has long gone from the Fianna Fáil concept of the future Ireland. We have a free trade zone with Britain which has created a number of problems and these problems cannot be tackled in any space capsule or in any 17th floor suite in Manhattan.

We have the other problems of our own kith and kin across the water, some of them the brothers and sisters and close relatives of Members of this House. We are doing nothing about these problems and is it any wonder that we have a very cynical youth growing up in Ireland? Is it any wonder that they ask questions that we cannot answer but, nevertheless, questions to which they are entitled to have answers because it is their future, their money and their capacity for economic expansion and development with which we are playing? It is to these people we will have to ultimately answer with regard to the problems for which our Department of External Affairs is responsible, the helping and sustaining of our emigrants in their contacts with the motherland and particularly the problems of the Irish in Britain.

The Department of External Affairs is responsible for the keeping alive of the problem of the partition of our country, responsible for reactivating quickly the spirit and will of the Irish people to be a united nation. If they do this I will be the first to genuinely compliment the Minister for External Affairs. That is the kind of reactivation which the Irish people want, not the mealy-mouthed utterances of Captain Terence O'Neill about the things which are dear to the hearts of the Irish people. We want the Department of External Affairs to counteract the mealy-mouthed utterances of fanatics like Paisley; we want them to give the Irish people of this generation something of the spirit which brought us as far as it did and then apparently left us high and dry when it came to dealing with our problems at home.

It is the job of the Department to deal with matters such as this and it would be better for them to do so than to be sitting in on round table conferences dealing with outer space and nuclear clubs. They should secure for us the right of our own little country to be united and then they can take their place and we can take our place rightfully in any community of nations.

Mr. James Tully

This debate has taken a turn towards the problem of Partition and perhaps it is just as well that we should be able, on the floor of this House, to have views expressed which apparently it has not been the done thing to express for quite some time. At the recent meeting of the Council of Europe, Deputy Seán Dunne, dealing with the question of Partition, got a reply from the Prime Minister of Britain which appeared to most of us to be a favourable reply in regard to the whole question. This reply was either given without a full knowledge of the situation or it was a tongue in cheek reply because the Prime Minister of Britain must know that as long as the Government of Ireland Act remains on the Statute Book of Britain, the question of Partition can not be settled by the will of the Irish people.

While most of us will accept that there seems to be a spirit of goodwill on the part of the present British Government, it is not enough for them to say: "Settle it yourselves and you will have our blessing." This is the first time for many years that this problem has been mentioned at any council of nations in the world. It was apparently decided years ago, and I do not know by whom, that it was not just the right thing to mention Partition at such conferences. I have heard it said again and again in the life of various Governments in this House that if we were to raise this matter in the councils of the nations, it would only do more harm than good.

When the question was raised recently, everybody is now prepared to agree that it was a good idea to do it, but it is regrettable that neither the Minister, Deputy Oliver Flanagan nor Deputy Seán Collins saw fit to mention or give credit to the man who did raise the question. Not even Deputy Paddy Burke, his colleague, had the grace to say that it was a job well done by Deputy Seán Dunne. Whether the reply was given with full knowledge of the situation or just for the purpose of being a good fellow among the other nations, we do not know. The matter can be tested still further.

In view of the fact that the British Empire has been disintegrating over the past number of years and that even Tory Governments have allowed freedom to various nations throughout the world who were for hundreds of years under the domination of Britain, is it too much to ask that we at Britain's doorstep should ask them to discuss this question of settling the Border? In other countries when the question of a settlement came about, the noisy minority who wanted to remain under Britain's wing were not the people who decided. I suggest the Minister for External Affairs, if he can spare the time at home for a few weeks, might very well discuss this matter further with his opposite number in Britain.

I live pretty close to the Border and have a fairly good knowledge of how the people in Northern Ireland think. Those in control in Northern Ireland will never give up if they have the right to decide, and I do not think they have. In Northern Ireland, there is a rather peculiar attitude to the South adopted by many people. It is mainly due to ignorance. This was brought home forcibly to me by an incident which occurred when I was going through Northern Ireland one Sunday afternoon. I came across a car broken down. There were two men and a woman there. They asked me for the loan of some tools, which I gave. They repaired the car and after a few minutes, an old man brought the tools back and said: "Thank you very much." I said: "You are welcome." He turned to me and said, with surprise: "You are from the South." His next comment shows the mentality of these people. "Well," he said, "you are a decent man even if you are itself." Unfortunately, they have been bred on this sort of thing. There are people there who apparently think we go around with tommy-guns under our coats to execute anybody from the North who disagrees with us. Therefore, the opportunity provided as a result of Deputy Seán Dunne's question should be pursued.

When discussing the first Estimate this afternoon, I had occasion to ask the Minister why he was not making a fuller statement on last year's Estimate. He rather took umbrage at this. While he eventually gave me some information, he suggested this had been arranged as a subject for discussion on the second Estimate. I want to make it clear that a definite arrangement was made before Christmas that because of the absence of the Minister in America, his Estimate would be passed without discussion and that an opportunity for a full discussion and a full statement from the Minister would be available today. I regret that the Minister did not live up to the agreement given by those representing his Government in consultation with me, as one of the Whips, and the Fine Gael Whip, for the purpose of making arrangements for the business of this House. That does not help the running of the House or the image of the Government. Trying that sort of thing definitely smells of sharp practice.

The question I asked was confined to our troops abroad. As an ex-member of our National Army, nobody in this House has more respect for serving soldiers than I have. I know what they have to put up with. I know how they are treated by the civilian public in peacetime and, indeed, in times of war. I know they have at all times, with the odd exception to which somebody referred earlier, proved themselves to be people who could be relied on to do the right thing at the right time. Those who have gone abroad to the Congo, Cyprus and as observers in the Middle East, whether they be privates, NCOs or officers, have all given a very good account of themselves.

However, that is not the point at issue here. The point at issue is this. The Government agreed they would participate in peace-keeping of nations anywhere they were asked by the United Nations. They have done so. But it appears to me and to some of my colleagues that we have now reached the stage where we have been imposed on, where we are being asked to supply more than our share of peace-keeping personnel. In fact, we have now reached the stage where those who go out are being paid out of the Irish Exchequer by the taxpayers of this country. In reply to me this evening, the Minister admitted that some of this money has been paid back. It appears from his reply, however, that since March, 1964, a sum of £1,600,000, with some odd shillings, is due. A claim was made for £1,293,000. A sum of £664,000 was paid—the Minister says the last of this was paid in December—and the balance appears to be £936,000. The Minister does not agree with this but, according to my arithmetic, that amount is still due.

The Minister gave a definite assurance here, as did the former Taoiseach, when we were discussing, not the renewing of the last contingent, or the one before that but the one before that again, that this money would be paid. It appears now that there is no such guarantee and that we will be lucky if we get even some of it back. In all fairness, we could now tell the United Nations that we have done our share, that it is most unfair that a small country, in extreme difficulty to find the necessary money for, in particular, housing, education and health, should be asked to subsidise the United Nations to the extent of nearly £1 million. I am sure when the Minister comes to reply, he will have answers to these comments and will be prepared to give his version, as he is entitled to do. But I want to put it on record that I believe we have done our share. If other countries are prepared to do as much, there is no reason why we should not come up again. But the old story has always been that the heavy load is put on the willing horse. It appears that is happening in this case, as it has happened so often down through the years.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

Who negotiates the sending abroad of troops?

Mr. James Tully

I do not want to cross swords with the Chair but this particular incident was commented on by the Department of External Affairs and they are the people responsible for our external relations. If this matter cannot be raised now, I propose to put down a motion to have it discussed because I do not see why we should decide to blacken the names of two people who had a clear bill but were sent home just to please somebody in Cyprus. I do not propose to allow this to go without comment here. If the Chair rules that it is out of order, I shall not proceed with it any further.

We had comment from Deputy O. J. Flanagan and Deputy Collins— principally from the former—on the remarks of Deputy O'Leary regarding our embassies abroad. I am not competent to speak about our embassies because, while I have been abroad a good deal, only in one country which I visited was there an Irish Ambassador. In that country he did everything possible to assist Irish people there. I have often wondered whether Irish people in countries where we have embassies find any attempt is made at a direct connection between the Irish people and the embassies. I have heard rumours that the Ambassador and his staff are people who live in ivory towers and are not approachable by ordinary mortals. I have no evidence of this but I should like the Minister to comment when replying.

I have said previously that very good work could be done by our Ambassadors in trade matters. When this matter was raised previously, it was said that, of course, they do such work. The amount of work they do in respect of trade is not equal to the amount of expenditure on the embassies, and I have often wondered if we are justified in spending the pretty large sum of money which is spent in certain areas in installing an Ambassador to do what appears to be a job that does not require the attention of a full time Ambassador. The Minister may be able to say if he can, or if he does at any stage give a report on the activities of Irish Ambassadors abroad. I imagine that the report to the Dáil on this Estimate could be a pretty extensive one and could contain a fairly full report on the activies of our Ambassadors in each country. Such a report is, I believe, available to Parliaments in other countries. Here we know from the newspapers when a new representative is appointed but we do not hear much about them afterwards, and they could be completely forgotten but for the fact that I am sure their salaries and expenses are regularly forwarded.

Possibly, as far as the Irish abroad are concerned, the entire Government are of the same mind as a Deputy from the Government Party, now Minister for Education, who advised the Irish in Britain to become good citizens of Britain. Perhaps he was misreported; everybody who says something awkward claims he was misreported and perhaps that was so in this case. It appeared to many of us that he was telling the Irish over there: "This is now your home. You should not look to Ireland for anything from this on". It would be a great pity if that were so. I agree with several Members who spoke earlier that there is a tremendous amount of goodwill in the hearts of first-generation Irish at least, in many countries, particularly in Britain and America. This is evidenced again and again by their visits here on holidays and their efforts to assist their relatives here in very trying conditions. Again and again they offer to assist with industries and other things to help those at home. I am sure many of them look forward to the day when Ireland will have reached the stage of offering full employment. If we are able to do that, I am sure we shall have an influx here of people who left the country simply because of economic necessity. The fact that we have over 75,000 unemployed now does not hold out much hope for them.

We have been hearing from time to time about the Minister's activities in the United Nations. One of his predecessors made a great name for himself as President of the old League of Nations. I know also that it has been usually the role of representatives of small nations to attempt to put sense into the discussions between the powerful nations represented there but I believe, like Deputy Collins and Deputy Dunne, that this is being slightly overdone. I understand we have an excellent Permanent Representative there but it strikes many of us that we have two: it appears the Minister for External Affairs is our second Permanent Representative in the United Nations. We think he might allow some of the other countries to have some say in proposals regarding the settlement of world affairs. He seems to take part in these discussions and proposals most of the time. While I agree it may be a good thing for small nations to take the initiative in these matters, I feel we are overdoing it by being there practically all the time for the purpose of doing this—signing agreements about outer space and atom bombs. I do not think that makes much difference to this nation, as I am sure none of the other nations fear that we will wage nuclear war on them. So far, we have not reached the stage where we could put up much more than a football. We certainly will not put a man into space.

I agree entirely with Deputy Dunne that the whole business of expenditure on space exploration seems an awful waste of money. We are not spending money for that purpose, perhaps, but it is true that while the world is ravaged by illness and hunger, we have nations blithely wasting billions of pounds. It seems a bit stupid to have that situation continuing and being lauded by sensible people in practically every country in the world. It seems that some of these matters might be brought to their notice but perhaps that would not be proper.

We have discussed the Common Market and our efforts to join it. Anybody who thinks for a moment that this country will be able to get into the Common Market unless Britain is first allowed in should have his head examined because there is something wrong with it. It is quite evident to anybody who wants to see it that unless de Gaulle changes his mind or dies, Britain has no hope of getting in because he has made it quite clear that he will insist on the terms of the Rome Treaty and Britain has made it clear that she cannot accept those terms. It is a matter for the British themselves whether it is useful to go around the various countries trying to make a case for their acceptance into the Common Market. On a previous occasion when they thought they were almost in, de Gaulle stepped in and said "No". He has not changed his mind one iota apparently since his first "No". Anything can happen, but it appears as if de Gaulle is the person who will decide whether Britain will go in or not and it does not now appear as if he will change his mind. It is quite evident that if Britain goes in, we must go in and that if Britain does not get in, we shall not get in.

On occasions of visits to Cannes and to Brussels, I have expressed the opinion that entry to the Common Market will not be a very pleasant experience for us and I repeated a phrase used by the late Deputy Norton when he said it would be an excruciating exercise. A German who was a member of the EEC Secretariat said to me that we would have to go in piggyback on Britain. If we do, we shall have to do things we never dreamed of doing. I have no great enthusiasm for the prospect, though by the time Britain gets in, things may have changed very much. As Deputy Collins has said, it is only fair to put the matter straight on the line. Britain has not got an application for membership and Ireland has not had an application for many years.

The former Taoiseach, in a moment of enthusiasm, once said we were prepared to go in alone but, having got rid of his enthusiasm and being a sensible man, he did not repeat that statement. All of us realise it is awfully stupid to suggest that we go in alone if we could. There might be some of our industries which would not only survive but flourish and certain of our agricultural products would be in big demand in Common Market countries but we do not know what our terms of entry would be and we do not know very much about conditions inside. We know that those in the Common Market believe in cartels and we do not. They have made it clear that there is no place in the Common Market for small farms: the bigger the farm the bigger the chance there is of producing cheap food. Therefore, we would find things extremely difficult as members—excruciatingly difficult, as the late William Norton put it.

I do not agree with Deputy Collins in his reference to the Council of Europe which, to my mind, are doing a good job. The Council of Europe help to familiarise our representatives with the system which will be adopted if the Common Market becomes a reality for us. Even if the organisation had not that effect, it would still be an experience not to be missed by our delegations: it is a place where ideas can be exchanged and the expense of going there is not too high. Another aspect is that most of our delegations, from different sides of the House, have common ground when they are there: they maintain the attitude which seems to be most favoured by the Irish nation.

There is one other matter I should like to draw to the attention of the Minister, having travelled to a number of countries in which we have not got Ambassadors. I have noticed an absolute ignorance of Ireland in many countries. The general populace seem to be completely ignorant of Ireland's existence. They did not know what it looked like, whether it could be visited. Certain films recommended here may not be everyone's cup of tea but if they receive fairly wide distribution, they can interest people in our country. I suggest also that everyone going abroad should take as much literature as possible for distribution when they get to their destination.

I wish to pay a tribute to the people in the Passport Office. It is extraordinary the number of people who, when they want to go abroad, wait until the last minute to find if their passports are in order. It is not unusual to see people ready to get on a plane at Dublin Airport and finding either that their passports are not in order or that they have not had a passport. The people in the Passport Office here have no objection to rushing through a passport as a matter of urgency. They will even go back after-hours in their own time. I should like to say "Thanks very much" to them because of the number of people I know they have helped. Whether the job being done by the Department is worth the £1 million, nearly, is another matter. The people working in the Department, those running the Department, are doing a very good job and, most important of all, they are doing it courteously. Courtesy from a public servant is appreciated very much by the general public and by me.

Mr. N. Lemass

I agree with Deputy James Tully but not with Deputy Collins on the Council of Europe. I am afraid there is very little appreciation here of the importance of that body. I did not appreciate that importance until I became a substitute delegate last May. The fact that the Taoiseach then addressed the Council of Europe and that in the meantime the Prime Minister of Britain, U Thant, Herr Willi Brandt and others have addressed it would seem to suggest that it is the place to go to make important policy statements. We can accordingly realise this is a body of some importance. I blame the newspapers in a way for public lack of knowledge of the work of the Council but the newspapers can be excused when one realises that to get through the documentation that issues from that body would require a working day of 24 hours with a permanent secretary.

At the last meeting of the Council, four members of our delegation spoke and there was the question by Deputy Seán Dunne to the British Premier. I should like to say about that question that it was very carefully worded, not in any way disruptive of the idea of unity in the whole of Ireland. It is unity we were talking about in Europe and Mr. Wilson gave a reply which we considered encouraging and more favourable than we had come to expect in this type of circumstance. The reply was completely unexpected by Mr. Pounder, there representing the interests of the Six Counties Government, and he reacted in a way that demonstrated how insecure that Government feel. There is no doubt they feel insecure but if we have more speeches like those of Deputy Collins, I am afraid the cause of Irish unity will be damaged. Our idea, as put out, is to seek the things we have in common with Northern Ireland and not to talk about the things that divide us, and the fact that Willi Brandt joined the Coalition in West Germany so that he could give effect to a similar policy in relation to the two Germanys seems to suggest that he appreciates our attitude. When I spoke I took the opportunity of assuring the Council of Europe that no Irish delegate would endeavour to score a short-term cheer, that our long-term view was a united Europe. This is what our small delegation works for and has worked for with very great success. As a small delegation, I think it carries more weight than its numbers entitle it to. Also, I was able to say that all the political Parties in this country are supporting the policy of a united Europe.

I think the time has come when it might be useful to re-examine our system of replacing delegates every two years. The reason I say this is that in the first year the delegate is a substitute and, at the end of that year, he is starting to get a grasp of what it is all about. He then has a year as a delegate and is replaced by somebody who is new. In my opinion, the delegation should be appointed when a new Government is being formed and should last the lifetime of that Government. Possibly we should give the leader of the Irish delegation a status somewhere near that of a Minister and the other permanent delegates a status near that of Parliamentary Secretary. The substitutes should rotate so as to give an opportunity to as many Members of this House as possible to get experience of how things are done in Europe. This is a thing that we must all get to know.

If the aim of a united Europe is brought about and a European Parliament is set up, as there is now for EEC, we shall then be performing, in effect, Parliamentary duties out there. It might be a time for the Constitution people to look and to see if any changes will be needed should it be prescribed in the future that our members to the Parliamentary Council in Europe be allocated by popular vote.

I came in here when Deputy Dunne was speaking and when he was saying that this debate should centre mainly on the Common Market and on our political future. I agree that never have the nations of Europe had so much to gain. Together, they can make Europe the most dominant area of economic and technological advancement. Together, they can become the most influential voice in world political affairs but together as EEC and EFTA as East Europe, Portugal, Spain, Ireland, and so on, they can never become anything more than secondary backward nations or groups of nations dependent on the super powers of the USSR and the USA to maintain even their present economic position.

I believe that unless the United Kingdom, with its world obligations, becomes a member of EEC then EEC is likely to become a high-tariff, inward-looking white man's club. If Europe fails to unite, everyone will lose: there is no doubt about that. What we want is a united Europe of rising expectations and not a divided Europe of raging envies.

There will be trouble. I was looking recently into the dairying industry. It is likely that the price of butter will go up to 8/6d. per lb and milk to 10d. a pint. Our concern should be that £12 million paid out now on subsidies on these products will become available to the central Government for redistribution. We must redistribute this elsewhere so that the housewife will not be in a worse financial position. These are things which we should start doing now but cannot because of the system of subsidisation they have in Britain. It might suit Britain very well as a food and agriculture importing country: it does not suit us so well as an agriculture exporting country.

I think, too, it is no harm occasionally to remind the people on the Council of Europe, or on those other bodies, of the reason why we first adopted a policy of neutrality. This policy was first taken up because our nation was divided but it is being continued now because we have a very important international role to play so long as we are not allied with any of the great military blocs.

We can be very proud of our forces serving in the United Nations, in the Lebanon, and so on. They have done a great job. I should like to endorse the remarks passed in that regard. Deputy Tully seems to object to the fact that we may not be getting enough money back from UNO. I, for one, should be happy to go into the lobby to vote, if necessary, a little more than our share in order to continue this work. One feels proud, when abroad, to be able to point out that, per capita, Ireland has more soldiers serving in UNO peacekeeping activities than any other country.

I should like, also, to congratulate the Minister on his magnificent activity in UNO. I think it is recognised internationally that, speaking as a small neutral nation, our voice can carry far more weight than if we were just a small part of NATO or of some other such bloc. From time to time. reference is made by some speakers to the efforts of Deputy Cosgrave when he was in charge of the Department of External Affairs and to his activities in the United Nations. To listen now to some of their comments regarding the activities of the present Minister one cannot but think that they are activated by petty jealousy. I think I can say with some authority, knowing the Leader of the Opposition, that if he should be charged with that responsibility again he would be very anxious to continue the good work the present Minister is doing.

I agree, also, that it is not our place, as a Government, to comment on Vietnam. However, speaking as an ordinary backbencher, I should like to point out to some misguided people in our cities that every demonstration against the activities of the South Vietnamese, the United States and her allies in the Vietnam conflict can do nothing but prolong the war. I am quite sure that when the propagandists in Hanoi hear of such demonstrations they use these news items in such a way that the ordinary people in Hanoi are of the opinion that, at the next election, there will be a change of Government and that the Americans will pull out and that they must hang on as there will be a change of Government and the Americans will pull out. This is absolute nonsense. Without officially giving support, we should recognise that what the United States is doing since it intervened at the request of France, is containing an expansionist policy which was announced by Mr. Khruschev when he was Premier in the USSR. I wonder what the situation would be if the American President were to take up the same line as the Russian Premier did at that time and say that he would support wars of liberation in Hungary, East Germany and other parts of Europe that are now dominated by the communist control. If we look at this thing in reverse, would we be very pleased with the United States for an expansionist policy or for supporting this type of war or would we be very disappointed or very surprised if the USSR were to come in and try to contain the American activity?

I should like to support Deputy P. J. Burke in his complimentary remarks regarding our diplomatic corps. I have met people representing Ireland in the United States and in Europe quite a bit and I can honestly say that on no occasion have I found them wanting.

Deputy Seán Collins was asking what are we getting. He wants to see value in pounds, shillings and pence for the money spent on foreign embassies. You cannot measure it in pounds, shillings and pence. Certainly, some of our activities in the developing countries are part of our contribution as a developed country, as we are now described, to helping these newer nations. Certainly, they help us in trade. I have particular experience of this in the United States.

What I would like to suggest, however, is that this Parliament might consider setting aside half a day or maybe a full day each year on which it would be presented with a report on the activities of the Council of Europe and a summation of what appears to be going on in relation to the EEC. If we were to have such a debate here, particularly on the affairs of the Council of Europe, then the subjects discussed would be subjects that would have a direct bearing on us here and would be worthy of some press coverage to the extent that we might get the ordinary people interested in its activities. It is important that we should get the people interested in the activities of the Council because the field covered by the Council of Europe is so vast—education, the social code, local planning, human rights and practically everything that will influence the day to day life of each European, expect military matters. I understand that some of the English delegation, either last year or recently, have been pressing for this type of debate in England where they have the very same problem, that there is so much of what appears to be local news that the activities of the Council of Europe tend to be forgotten about.

We should be very, very careful of how we handle ourselves when we are talking about this question of Partition. We must avoid at all costs giving strength to those forces that are working against us in this matter.

I should like to conclude with the words of the late President John F. Kennedy: "No one can doubt that the future is not the conquest of the world by any dogmatic creed but the liberation of diverse energies of free nations and free men." Let us remember that when we are dealing with our own division in Ireland as well as the divisions in Europe.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

There is one very pleasing feature of this debate and that is the number of Deputies who have taken part in it and the general and growing interest in this House in foreign affairs. Heretofore, when we have had an Estimate for the Department of External Affairs the proceedings usually consisted of an introductory speech by the Minister, a speech from a member of the Fine Gael Party and a member of the Labour Party and, perhaps, one other Member and then the debate concluded.

Up to recently, there has been a great deal more interest in foreign affairs outside the House than there has been in Parliament itself. There has been a certain amount of criticism levelled at our embassies abroad, as well as some nice things being said about them. In the 12 years that I have served on the Council of Europe I have had many opportunities of coming in contact with our ambassadorial staffs and I must say that my considered opinion is that they have done a lot of good work. If I have one or two small criticisms to make it is only for the purpose of trying to get, perhaps, a better service from these State servants of ours. In the first instance I should like to say that I have noticed from time to time a tendency in the placing of our representatives to move people with vast experience out of a particular sphere in which they have served. We have not got within this country a tremendous number of European experts. I have noticed from time to time that persons who have given good service in Europe and who have made good contacts on behalf of this country and have learned their job thoroughly and are fully conversant with the changing circumstances in Europe have been moved suddenly to South America, Australia, or somewhere like that. There are also recent instances of representatives of ours being moved into quite important positions in Europe, who have had no ambassadorial experience whatsoever in European affairs. I do not know who is responsible for the transfer of our Ambassadors but whoever is, perhaps, would give a thought to these few words of mine. I can speak from personal experience of 12 years in Europe.

There is another thing that I should like to say about our Ambassadors and this applies, perhaps, more to our representatives in the United Kingdom than anywhere else. Quite a lot of Irish people living in England have told me that they are unable to procure Irish products. They have asked in shops, for instance, for Irish butter and have been unable to procure it. Our Ambassador in London whoever he may be for the time being, has very wide contacts with the Irish community. There are nearly a million first generation Irish in the London area. The Ambassador, having innumerable contacts, should be able to put it across that the Irish people in the United Kingdom could do a great service to Irish industry and to Irish agriculture by asking for Irish products wherever possible. Even though the customers may not procure these products, their asking for them will encourage those retailing such goods—butter, bacon, whiskey— to stock Irish in future. Perhaps that aspect would be given consideration by those who represent us now in Britain.

I was interested by the number of Deputies who referred to the Council of Europe. I am glad, too, that the Minister referred at some length to it in his opening statement. This may be an indication that the Minister is now turning his eyes towards Europe rather than towards more remote parts of the hemisphere. I do not criticise him for his activities elsewhere but what is of paramount importance, I think, today is what happens in Europe. We are closer to Europe than to any other continent.

Until recently the Council of Europe suffered from a considerable disadvantage in that its Press relations seemed to have gone awry for some reason or other. Over the past couple of years, however, they have set up a new organisation. Different people have been put in control and the Council is now getting much wider publicity and putting the facts across to the public much more satisfactorily. I do not think we can complain here that our national papers do not take an interest in the Council of Europe. They do. In fact, as compared with other European countries, there was better reporting of the activities of the Council in our newspapers. I have that information from the agencies— L'Agence France, Reuters and the other international agencies. They have found that, when they send material here for publication, the Irish papers take it. Long may they continue to do so.

The Council of Europe serves an important function. It is a purely advisory body, but it represents a unification of Free Europe. The only countries not in the Council are Spain and Finland. The Portuguese are not yet members but they have observers there from time to time. Within the Council there is representation of both government and opposition of every country. It comprises members of the EEC, EFTA and ourselves, for example. At the moment we do not belong anywhere. The Council serves a useful purpose and that is why I am glad the debate in relation to the Council has been quite extensive.

I was intrigued by Deputy Lemass's references. He said he thought the Council was a kind of institution and he had no interest in it. It was only when he got there and made contacts with the members of other countries that he came to realise its inestimable value. We are, of course, naturally inclined to be a bit insular and when we get out into Europe, because of linquistic difficulties, perhaps, we are inclined to find ourselves talking mostly to British delegates, absorbing the British point of view. I and my family have been long enough in public life to realise that, in order to be a proper parliamentarian, what one has to accept is the Irish point of view. The British accept what is suitable to them. Irish representatives should look at things from the Irish angle.

Now it is a good thing to send delegates to the Council of Europe, but it is a mistake to change the delegates too frequently. We seem to be following the British system once again here. We seem to be very fond of adopting the least beneficial British systems. The representatives of the British Labour Party never do more than two years. The Conservatives sometimes did three. I first went out there in 1954 and the European delegations to the Council today are the same as they were when I first went out. They know each other. They are fully conversant with European affairs and the vital problems affecting Europe.

The Minister gave us a brief resumé of our trading and general position. I question his statement that the day of bilateral agreements is going, that because of the emphasis now on international co-operation and trade unification, bilateral agreements are things of the past. That is, I think, a wrong attitude. Bilateral agreements are still possible. One of the reasons for our difficult agricultural trading position at the moment is the existence of bilateral agreements between strong trading powers, such as the European Economic Community and the Argentine. The German representative who was here recently—he is the agricultural adviser to an embassy in another country — told me that one of the reasons why agricultural trading, particularly in relation to beef, was so difficult was that the European Economic Community, which is an outlooking organisation, and, in particular, the Republic of Germany, were buying largely in the Argentine and they, therefore, wanted to export as much as possible to the Argentine, despite the fact that they are in a strong European Economic Community.

Irrespective of what our aim is—to go into the EEC as an associate or tie ourselves irrevocably to Britain, which we appear to have done—there is nothing to prevent us seeking every bilateral agreement we can get. Now, if these other countries are doing this at political level, then I think the money we are spending in the Department of External Affairs is by no means excessive because of the highly competitive world in which we find ourselves. If you have something to sell, then you must go out and find a market for it.

Agreements are made at political level in every country and I would go so far as to say that our Department of External Affairs should have as one of its main functions the making of trade agreements. It is the Department that deals with all trade agreements, irrespective of what they relate to, and the Minister for External Affairs in the present international set-up has a full-time job. Therefore we could possibly link up with our Department of External Affairs some other political figure of some sort to assist us in making the necessary trade agreements. If we do not make these agreements and do not look for them, we are going to be left behind in the race because every other country is doing this, even those countries who only recently obtained their freedom and have set up their own governments.

The man in the street may well ask what are we doing. The answer is that we have based our hopes solely on tying ourselves completely and utterly to the British market. I do not understand how the Government could have done that with their eyes open. We are members of the OECD—which was formerly the OEEC and was replaced by the OECD which took in America and Canada—and the advice given to us by that organisation was that we had all our eggs in one basket which was a dangerous thing for us to do and that we should look for further trade. What have we done? We have tied ourselves to the British market absolutely. We have made a Trade Agreement which was supposed to be the be-all and end-all of our economic problems but the result has been that our economic difficulties and our trade difficulties are today greater than heretofore. The most enthusiastic supporter of the Minister's Party could not say that the British Trade Agreement has really been of any substantial benefit to us. The British Minister came over here and gave a guarantee of a wider expanse of trade and that sort of thing but it is easy to say this when this is the time of year in which things improve anyway.

Reference has been made by many public representatives to the internal difficulties of the EEC. I am tired hearing parliamentarians of different countries express the opinion that the EEC is going to break up. The EEC is one of the most compact and unified trade agreements producing the most powerful economic unit in the world today. It has a purchasing power greater than that of the United States and there is not the slightest sign, nor is there any reason to expect, that it is going to disintegrate in any way. We have always to remember that the EEC did not come into being without difficulty. There were lengthy, strenuous discussions, much give and take, much hammering out of the final agreement, of the Rome Treaty. I pass on this word of warning to the Minister: whoever wants to get into the EEC will have to accept the full implications of that Treaty. I should like to hazard a guess, as I did before and was criticised for it, that the plain sailing which is anticipated by some of our parliamentarians for the United Kingdom's entry into the Common Market will not be as evident as it is believed it will be.

I should like the Minister who, since the change of leadership in his Party, is now speaking to this Parliament and for the nation on the subject of European negotiations in relation to the Common Market, and other matters, to clarify the position for me. I tried by Parliamentary Question, in my own simple way, and by supplementary question, to elucidate from the former Taoiseach, what our position was in relation to the EEC and to the British application. About four or five years ago, a group of journalists came here from the United Kingdom to discuss with the leaders of the different Parties what was the position vis-á-vis this country, the EEC and the British application. The then Taoiseach, Deputy Lemass, told the reporters categorically that we were going it alone. As I say, in my simple way I have tried to elucidate from the Taoiseach what the position was. I always got the same reply, that it could be assumed that we would be members of the EEC by 1970. On the last day on which Deputy Lemass was Taoiseach, I again asked him about the EEC and for the first time he admitted to me that it would be totally impracticable for us to enter the European Economic Community without Britain. It took a long time to get that answer.

I listened today to Deputy Lemass's successor answering questions about the Common Market. Of course we would have to get the Official Reports to see what his view is and whether we are making an independent application or not. I took it that the Taoiseach's reply was that our application is really dependent on what the British Prime Minister tells him when he has finished his review in Europe. Is that the position or is it not? Are we trailing on the heels of the United Kingdom in our application or are we making a separate application? Many people are seriously concerned, whether they are on the Opposition or the Government side, about the present economic position in which we have 75,000 unemployed and trade is not healthy. Mr. Wilson and Mr. Brown received good receptions in the Benelux countries, which was a foregone conclusion, and also in Italy, which was also a foregone conclusion, and are we to wait— as apparently we are—until these two men have finished their tour, which was a fact-finding tour, to see if they have any chance of getting in or not before we come to a decision?

What are we going to do if the British Prime Minister comes back and announces in the House of Commons that they do not propose to continue with their application? Are we going to continue as we are, trusting all on the Trade Agreement between this country and the United Kingdom, with our 75,000 unemployed and a deteriorating trade position, or are we going to make some move on our own? Possibly the Minister for External Affairs might pass the word to his Government that all is not lost if we have to do something on our own. We are an independent sovereign nation and we do not lose everything by making application on our own. I do not see why this country should have to await the British decision. In effect, today we could, in international circles, be only considered as Britain's stooge as far as our application for entry into the Common Market is concerned. We are nothing else. We are, according to the Taoiseach, simply waiting until the British Ministers return from their European tour to know what they are going to do and then we are going to decide what our future course will be.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 9th February, 1967.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 8 Feb 1967

Committee on Finance. - Vote 45—External Affairs.

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 8 Feb 1967