I said it has been a tradition. I did not say when the tradition ceased. Let me mention another Fianna Fáil Minister, the older Mr. Boland, who performed in that office in a very courageous way during a very difficult period. That tradition has not been maintained in recent years and it is quite wrong that a Minister who has disgraced himself by the kind of remarks he made, by what, one might say legitimately, the filth he spewed out, should be retained in that office. If he has to be kept in the Government—and I see no good reason for that—he should at least be removed from that office so that the country could have the assurance that the administration of justice was in suitable hands.
Having said that, I have said the things that need to be said, which are painful to say and which one would prefer not to have to say on one's first occasion in the Dáil in regard to some of the appointments.
There is another change that I wish to comment on and that is the transfer of Deputy Lenihan to the Department of Transport and Power and the appointment of Deputy Faulkner to the Department of Education. Such a change was necessary because of the situation that had developed in the Department of Education during the period of Deputy Lenihan's tenure of office. His predecessor introduced a number of changes, some of which were very welcome, some of which were radical, some of which were badly needed. His method of introducing them left many loose ends to be tied up—I put it in as charitable a way as possible—and I am afraid the experience of the last couple of years does not suggest that Deputy Lenihan was the best man to tie up these loose ends. They have become looser and looser until the civil servants and himself are tripping themselves up in them all over the place. I hope the new Minister will patiently attempt to unravel the problems. I hope, also, he will have the courage to tackle some of the remaining problems.
One criticism that I felt should have been made and was not, I think, made sufficiently against Deputy Lenihan's predecessor, the late Deputy O'Malley, was that he tackled a relatively easy nut to crack and one where his opponents were least, perhaps, able to cope with him, that is, the religious orders in secondary education where, certainly, changes were needed and he introduced very good changes in many respects but he did not tackle the much more tricky problem, one that needs to be tackled also, of the primary education system, where there is also a clerical interest, and which there are much stronger grounds for tackling because the primary schools are the schools owned by the community, owned by the parents, and there is, therefore, a much stronger case for intervening in that area than in the secondary schools, which are the private property of the religious orders who own them. That problem has not been tackled. I would hope that Deputy Faulkner would have the courage to tackle the problems in that area as well as those which have been dealt with in the area of secondary education.
I also hope that he will attack the problem of the university merger in a new spirit. He may know, as others may know, that I have myself in principle favoured a merger of the two colleges in Dublin but such a merger can only be carried out successfully if it commands the support of the people in the colleges, the students and the staff. It is clear that the proposals that have been put forward at the present time are so designed as to have such an adverse effect on one college that they are unacceptable to that college at least as well as, indeed, to many of the staff in the other college. I hope the new Minister will tackle this problem without preconceived ideas and will try to ensure that, whether or not there is a merger, out of this situation will emerge two colleges, in whatever relationship it may be possible to devise, by agreement with the staffs and students in them, which co-operate closely together and which serve the interests of the Irish people effectively, but this must be done by agreement and I commend to him a different approach from that adopted by his predecessor.
In the Department of External Affairs we have a new Minister and I think he comes into office at a time when new thought is needed to several problems which face us in the external sphere. One problem is, of course, our relationship with the European Economic Community. Owing to the policy, or neglect of policy, in this sphere in recent times, a situation has arisen in which powerful forces in Europe are pressing for the admission of Britain first, before Ireland, perhaps, without Ireland. I think the counter attack which has been launched more recently and in which some of us in the other Chamber of this Parliament played a part though in another guise, when it was the scene of a meeting of the European Movement several weeks ago, is producing, and I hope will produce some results to ensure that the consequences of the neglect of our European policy, leading to a situation in which Britain is being invited to join without us, with the disastrous consequences that would have, will not, in fact, come to pass. Certainly, there is a field here for intensive diplomatic activity in Europe. Anyone who has had occasion to visit any of the European capitals and to talk to people who are in the EEC in Brussels or in other capitals, to talk to people concerned with the foreign policies of these countries, will know of the puzzlement and concern expressed there at the Irish Government's policy. There is, on the one hand, recognition of the fact that the Irish Government have expressed a desire to join the European Economic Community, a recognition of the sincerity of some of the statements made by that Government but there has been puzzlement that the Department of External Affairs has not pursued these policies in the way in which people expect. Any of us who have had occasion to make these contacts will be aware of this reaction. It is very important that this fence should be mended by the new Minister and that we should not have to face the dangerous situation in which our relationships of trade will be disrupted by the kind of solution that has recently been propounded.
At this point I would turn to say one word to my colleagues, as I keep finding them, on my right, on this issue. I would ask them not to tackle this problem with preconceived ideas. I would ask them to tackle it with an open mind. The crucial issue involved here from the point of view of our economy is this: so long as we remain a small country beside a very large country in a relationship of very great dependence as regards trade with it, a relationship which cannot easily be changed in the context of the existing trading situation, so long as that is the position, so long as that country, Britain, adopts policies which, objectively, have the effect of exploiting our economy and exploiting our farmers, and so long as we remain in a relationship with Britain which makes it impossible for us to exercise any control over those policies and which policies are not controlled by anybody else either, we are going to be exploited economically.
This can only be changed if Britain becomes a member of an organisation which imposes upon its members obligations to treat other members of that organisation with equity and which will make it impossible and illegal for Britain to continue to exploit us. Only in that way can this country cease to be exploited economically by Britain. That is the objective fact and the important thing for us is that Britain should become a member of the European Economic Community, that its policy be brought under control and that we, in joining it too, would have the protection of its institutions from the kind of exploitation to which we have been treated for so long.
I say that—and I want to make this point clear—with no animosity to Britain or the British Government. As far as they are concerned they are pursuing policies in their interest. That is, indeed, in the world of sovereign states, the kind of policies we must expect people to pursue, the kind of policies which we, I suppose, in a rather ineffective way, have been pursuing ourselves. I make no criticism of Britain. The fact is that they do pursue these policies which involve exploiting us in their interest and the only way we can prevent them doing that is to join with them in an organisation in which these policies can no longer be applied to us. I would ask my colleagues in the Labour Party to consider this point and unless they can propound some alternative way of bringing British policy under control—and they certainly have not secured much benefit for us through the Labour Government of Britain— then I think they ought to face the question of membership of the European Economic Community in a mood of objectivity and with a willingness to look at it with realism.
There is another sphere of international politics where I think we have a role to play and have not played it, that is, the sphere of relationships between east and west of Europe. There have in recent times been a number of proposals for a détente between east and west which have come from countries as far apart as Italy and Finland. We are in an unusual position here. We are part of western Europe; we are linked to western Europe by close ties; we belong to western Europe and our attitudes are western European. At the same time, we are not a member of NATO. We are, in a sense, the Jugoslavia of western Europe. We are in a better position than most countries to exercise some constructive influence in international affairs.
I think it is a matter of concern that our Government have not taken up any of the initiatives that have been made or have done anything at all to contribute to a lessening of tension between east and west which, alone, can contribute to an alleviation of conditions of varying degrees of tyranny under which the peoples of eastern Europe are suffering today.
Thirdly, I should like to mention Biafra, which has been mentioned already but cannot be mentioned too often until the Government are prepared to take up their responsibilities in this matter. It is now of absolute urgency that action be taken here. We have reached the stage where the only channel of relief to which our Government contributes is blocked by the aggressive actions of a Nigerian Government. The only way we can help the starving people of Biafra now is made impossible to us by the actions of a Nigerian government. In those circumstances, no Christian country, no country with any sense of responsibility, can fail to take some action. The action I think we should take is to go to the Nigerian Government and say to them, unless they drop this new policy of genocide, a policy of trying to starve the civilian population of Biafra, we shall take up the matter with the United Nations with a view to ensuring that it will act in an effective way with a view to getting relief supplies into Biafra. I hope the new Minister for External Affairs will be prepared to take a new initiative in this sphere.
I wish to say one word about the Labour Party. There seems to be a long dialogue going on between the Labour Party and ourselves as well as between the Labour Party and the Fianna Fáil Party. The description of the Labour policies by Deputy Corish —which I accept as substantially accurate even if necessarily incomplete —was also a remarkably good description of the policies of the Fine Gael Party. I wondered, when I heard them, what the Labour Party was for. I shall not take that point any further at the moment. It is something to come back to again.
