asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the Government's attitude to the Vietcong offensive in South Vietnam and, in particular, to the plight of the refugees from the recently occupied territories of South Vietnam.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - South Vietnam Developments.
58.
The Government have followed attentively the latest developments in Vietnam with particular concern for the sufferings of the civilian population. The situation is at present very fluid and it is difficult to comment further at this time. The Government are giving urgent consideration to the most effective means of making a special contribution to international agencies for the relief of distress, as a mark of their concern.
Allowing for the fact that members of the Government and in particular, the Minister's colleague who is now present in the House, were very vocal at the time of the American involvement in Vietnam, does the Minister not think it is very strange now that there has been no Government statement in view of the enormity of the human suffering in that country at the moment? Surely we should have had a statement at least sympathising with the tragedy the people are suffering. Surely they should express strong views of the type that were expressed when the Americans were involved in Vietnam, against their involvement.
The Deputy's question gives me the opportunity to express the Government's deep concern at the human tragedy which exists in Vietnam at present. I do not think anybody could doubt the reality of that concern. Our immediate objective is to see what assistance we can give and, in consultation with our partners in the Community, to see how that assistance can be maximised. That is a matter in respect of which I am engaged in consultations at present.
Can the Minister say if the Government intend to take any unilateral steps, even though they may not be significant, because of the enormity of the problem? Have the Government considered the possibility of our accepting any of these orphan children for adoption as other countries have done?
There are difficulties about that. The advice we have publicly and privately from those concerned with the humanitarian aspects of the situation is that the primary need now is for funds to assist the refugees. On the question of the orphans, while there are certainly problems, especially for orphans of mixed race, and while it is desirable that some arrangements should be made in respect of them, the authorities in Vietnam, the Government and Opposition of South Vietnam, and the Government of the northern parts of South Vietnam, have all expressed their concern at the possibility or prospect of a large-scale removal of orphans from the country. Therefore, this is a delicate and difficult area. There is also the practical problem that our adoption laws are of such a character that there would be great difficulties about adoption. In these circumstances, we feel that we should concentrate on trying, ourselves directly and in consultation with our partners, to maximise the amount of humanitarian aid to be given to the refugees.
I am sure the Minister will ensure that both nationally and in our involvement with the European Community we will do that.
Yes.
Would the Minister accept that the scale of human suffering in Vietnam now is much higher than the scale of human suffering at the time of the American involvement and, if that is the case, how can we explain our silence now when we were so vocal then?
I cannot measure that because there are problems of information.
The Minister might have heard an Irish nurse on the radio this afternoon.
It could very well be that the intensity and scale of suffering at this moment is greater than at any particular moment previously. The main thing is that there is a very tragic situation and a major world disaster in what is happening there. I am concerned that we should give as much aid as we can and encourage others to do likewise. In the very near future, I will be taking a decision on this matter on as generous a scale as is possible for us.
Question No. 59.
I did not get an opportunity to ask one supplementary. Deputy O'Kennedy asked a couple of supplementaries and surely another Deputy is entitled to ask a supplementary.
The Chair is the sole judge of how many supplementaries will be allowed.
I offered about four times.
The Deputy will appreciate that we have now reached Question No. 59 on an Order Paper that contains over 150 questions and other Deputies are entitled to have replies to their questions.
I can see that there will be no end to it this evening and I offered on about four occasions.
Other Deputies have a right to have their questions answered.
Just one supplementary.
Had I known Deputy Burke would not be allowed to ask one supplementary question I would have yielded earlier. Would the Chair allow him one supplementary question? It is important that other Deputies should be heard on such an important matter.
Every Deputy who has a question on the Order Paper is entitled to have that question answered.
It is a bad thing if a Deputy expressing concern about suffering in Vietnam is not allowed to ask one supplementary question.
The subject matter of even one of these questions would be more appropriate for debate.
Just one supplementary. In view of the Minister's statement, would the Minister not agree thtat some protest at this appalling aggression and violation——
The Deputy is now proceeding to elaborate. That is what the Deputy is doing.
Arising from the Minister's reply to the original question and to the supplementary questions, would he not agree it is the role of this particular Government to object violently to the aggression coming from the left as this Government did when aggression was coming from the right? No objection has been made and no comment whatsoever has been forthcoming and the Minister's colleague sitting beside him——
If the Deputy thinks it is necessary—I would scarcely have though it would be necessary—I say that, of course, we deplore the breakdown of the Paris Agreement. I am not in a position to evaluate the responsibility fully but certainly the main weight of the initiative in what is happening is coming from one particular side and it is a matter of great concern that the agreement made has not been upheld.
Why was that not made as a ministerial statement?
I am calling Question No. 59. Will Deputy Burke please resume his seat?
Why would the Minister not admit that in the first instance? Why does it have to be dragged from the Minister?
Will the Deputy resume his seat and allow questions to continue?
Why should I have to drag it from the Minister? He should have made a statement, particularly in his role as president of the EEC.