asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if the Government propose to establish diplomatic relations with the USSR; and if they intend to bring such a proposal, if any, before the Dáil before a final decision on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Diplomatic Relations with USSR.
15.
The Government recently decided to confirm the decision of the previous Government to establish diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union. Deputies had an opportunity of discussing this matter in the course of the debate on the Estimates for my Department on the 9th May last.
The Minister on that occasion did not announce that the Government intended to do so and if he looks at the record he will find it very clearly established that they did not, in fact, make any such announcement.
The Deputy is making a statement.
The Minister has said that we had an opportunity of discussing a matter on which there had been a pronouncement. I think that is misleading. Arising from the fact that the Fine Gael spokesman on Foreign Affairs is quoted in the Official Report, volume 260——
Are quotations in order at Question Time?
No, most certainly not.
In so far as the Fine Gael spokesman on Foreign Affairs——
I am waiting for the Deputy to put a supplementary question.
The Chair will appreciate one does not have to put the question first. One is entitled to elucidate the basis of one's question.
The question must be brief.
The Fine Gael spokesman on Foreign Affairs is on record as saying that we have nothing in common with Russia—I am not necessarily saying I agree with his view——
This is a speech.
If the Deputy persists in his attitude I shall have to ask him to resume his seat. This is an abuse of Question Time.
If the Chair is concerned with syntax, I shall start my question with the words: "Does the Minister think——"
The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs keeps interrupting in a most disorderly fashion. Is this in order?
In view of the stated position of the Minister for Finance when he was Fine Gael spokesman on Foreign Affairs that we had nothing in common with the USSR—I do not necessarily agree with his views—and also his statement that this matter must be debated in the House as a matter of principle before any such decision could be taken——
The Chair is being very patient with the Deputy. Would he please put his question?
Does the Minister not think this should be done in view of his party's stated position and also in view of the concern expressed by his Leader when he was in Opposition?
The fact is that we had a debate here on foreign affairs and, within the limits of what is possible under diplomatic protocol which does not permit one to announce such an intention in advance of communicating with the Government concerned, I indicated clearly the trend of my thoughts. I might add that the previous Government had the same understanding of diplomatic protocol. During the debate in the House I raised the question of closer diplomatic relations and other relations with countries in eastern Europe. Within the limits of diplomatic protocol I could go no further than that. Having done that, and having had regard to the mood of the House and of public opinion, the Government took a decision which I notified to the Soviet Foreign Minister at Helsinki. That was in accordance with correct diplomatic practice and in strict accordance with the procedure laid down by, and insisted upon, by the previous Government.
Is the Minister suggesting that the general impression he conveyed when speaking on his Estimate debate in the House that we might consider extending our diplomatic association with eastern Europe, is, in fact, a statement of intention to open relations with the USSR?
In accordance with the practice laid down by the previous Government, it was all I was entitled to do and was a damn sight more than they ever did.
The Government are responsible for their own activities, not for the activities of the previous Government. In view of the stated positions of members of the Government, clearly and emphatically stated on many occasions, does the Minister not think that it is reasonable to have a discussion on this matter in the House for the reasons stated by them, if by nobody else? In this way these Members would have an opportunity of expressing publicly their opinions.
I have given the Deputy every latitude on this matter. The Chair is warning that we cannot spend all afternoon on this question. I am calling Question No. 16.
What I have said is on record. They are not allegations made by me.
May I ask the Minister——
The Deputy must have respect for the Chair. I have already called Question No. 16.
I shall always obey and have respect for the Chair. I would ask the Chair if I may ask one supplementary question?
The Chair has given a very long time to this question. The Deputy must appreciate there are 144 other Members in the House.
I am aware of that. However, as a Deputy I have some individual rights. I should like to ask one supplementary question.
I would ask the Deputy to be brief.
Did the Minister for Foreign Affairs, with or without the Minister for Education, take steps to equip a staff team for an embassy in Moscow from the point of view of language?
I do not think this arises directly from this question. It would be the intention, wherever possible when appointing staff to an embassy, to ensure they were equipped in the language of the country concerned. It is not always possible but I hope it will be in this instance.
It appears the Minister gives more information over the radio than he does in this House.
I do not think I can be accused of not being forthcoming in replies.
The Minister was not very forthcoming in this instance.
He has become very arrogant since he got into office.
It is a thought that always strikes Deputy Haughey.
He will be riding a horse next.
I can assure the House I have no intention of mounting any horse.
I am calling Question No. 16.