I gather that this Supplementary Estimate has to be passed urgently and, therefore, I am very glad to agree to have it passed as quickly as possible. However, I should make some comments on the background to this urgency and also on the reason for introducing a Supplementary Estimate of this nature at this time. The Minister outlined the continuing expansion of our activities in Foreign Affairs and seems to attribute the need for this Supplementary Estimate to a very considerable extent to the increasing costs arising from our Presidency of the European Community, to the extension of a conference on security in Helsinki and also the meetings of the Council of Ministers of the Community.
It is also fair to say that a very considerable amount in relation to salaries and expenses within his own Department should have been anticipated by the Minister and his Department. I would like to refer to some aspects of this which I believe are an indictment of the book-keeping which the Minister has implemented in his Department. If this were to extend itself throughout all the Departments of State, it is not surprising that the Government find themselves in such a critical position at the moment. I will refer to some clear examples of this which should have been anticipated because it is not today nor yesterday that devaluation became a problem for sterling and for us as a consequence. Neither is it today nor yesterday that air travel and increasing air fares have become the pattern in international communications.
I would like to refer to one instance of what I feel can only be an appalling miscalculation of the Estimates for the expenses of this Department. Under the subhead which relates to travelling and incidental expenses the original Estimate for this year was £660,000. Today we will pass a Supplementary Estimate for £440,000, that is an increase of two thirds on the original Estimate passed by this House. This is miscalculation on the part of the Minister in originally presenting the Estimates to the Department of Finance on which the business of his Department was to operate. It is not enough to say in relation to that that the activities of the Minister and his Department due to the Presidency of the Council of the European Community to a very considerable extent explains this problem because we knew well in advance that we would assume this responsibility. Calculations should have been made in the original Estimate to take account of the responsibilities which accrued to us as President of the European Community and also take account of the various conferences to which the Minister referred and which were then under way. I refer particularly to the Energy Conference, the Helsinki Conference and any others the Minister referred to.
Account should have been taken of those conferences when the Estimates were being prepared. The Minister said in relation to the increased expenditure for travelling and incidental expenses that £150,000 is due to devaluation. The devaluation was already well under way when the original Estimate was introduced. The Minister's responsibility and that of his Department, and consequently the responsibility of the Government, is to make their calculations on the basis of the knowledge they have of current international monetary trends and also to present their bills and Estimates in the light of the extent to which those trends will continue. The trends that were there when this Estimate was introduced have continued at the same pace. They may have increased somewhat against the pound but not to the point that explains this additional demand we have today.
There must be a very bad lack of communication between the Minister's office and that of his colleague, the Minister for Transport and Power. I am indebted to the Minister for the information, which he has not referred to in his opening address, that up to £40,000 of the amount in the subhead for travelling and incidental expenses is due to increased air fares. I should like to know what the total cost of air fares will be in relation to his Department's activities. The negotiations in respect of applications for increased air fares were well under way when this Estimate was originally introduced. Had the Minister had consultations with the Minister for Transport and Power and been informed of the IATA negotiations in this area he would have known, and could have taken into account, that he could expect air fares to increase to the extent that we are now being asked to sanction.
It is possible that the Government may be having a rethink. In the great flourish before the last election the then Opposition, Fine Gael, looked at what they considered to be a vulnerable Fianna Fáil position and presented to the public the purchase of a jet on behalf of the Government as a flashy gesture. The jet was to be purchased for travel to and from the European Community. Unfortunately, the public responded to that bait; they thought the politicians intended making life comfortable for themselves at their expense. It is understandable that the public responded in that way but the then Opposition committed themselves to repealing that decision on taking office. I do not think they did much book-keeping before coming to the decision not to purchase the jet.
We had the inevitable public response to what seemed to be a responsible and disciplined decision on the part of the Coalition Government but I wonder now that they have done their book-keeping and that we are being asked to sanction this Supplementary Estimate for this Department —we should remember that the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, the Minister for Transport and Power and the Minister for Finance are also involved in extensive travel throughout Europe—if the Government would indicate if the decision not to purchase the jet was justified. Would the Government care to compare the cost of running such a jet against the increased cost we are being asked to sanction in this Supplementary Estimate as we will be asked in every other area of the Government?
It is another indication of the price the nation pays for hastily conceived commitments which were not based on any calculation but on an impression of what public reaction would be to that commitment. In the meantime we have paid the price. We have not just paid the price in terms of money but the Minister is the personification of the fact that we paid the price in terms of energy and in terms of dignity. It must be said that the Minister for Foreign Affairs has been projecting a great impression of Ireland's concern—and I accept that as a genuine projection—in the course of his Presidency of the European Community. His activity, energy and zeal have done a lot to win respect for us internationally and have won respect for the European Community. In terms of zeal, activity and concern the Minister has been effective and has brought a certain amount of pride and status to us.
At the same time, one also must look for the positive results of all this activity, zeal and public concern. I am afraid the practical results in any of a number of cases do not measure up to the public impression of the activity that has been created. In relation to travel and travelling expenses, I believe it should not happen that a Minister of this Government, attending a conference or a Council of the European Community, should have to rely on transport of a commercial organisation by way of facility. Is that the way we conduct our business internationally? If we have to show ourselves to the European Community as a nation that cannot guarantee and ensure that through our own arrangements, by plane or otherwise, we can attend, as they attend, at these conferences it is a poor reflection on us, particularly when, as the Minister will recall on his visit to Italy, we had to accept the offer of a private individual engaged in private enterprise here. I am not always too hung up on status but this nation cannot tolerate a position of that nature; the nation cannot tolerate a position whereby we, in a casual way, accept such an offer. It may be suggested that it was a measure of humility or practical approach but we are the only nation who hitch a lift to any of these meetings in the private aircraft of commercial entrepreneurs.
This must not be done because the Government, above all else, must appear to be at all times totally independent in the discharge of their duties and obligations of any direct commercial favour much less direct commercial influence. I am not suggesting the Government would be influenced but the Minister should tell the House if this should be allowed to happen. I know this arose as a matter of urgency but the Minister should tell us if he intends to ensure that this will not happen in future.
In the course of his speech the Minister said:
... A number of developments have contributed significantly to this. One was that the work—and travel —connected with the Irish Presidency of the European Community Council of Ministers was much greater even than had been expected. Moreover, there has been an increase in the frequency of meetings in the context of European Political Co-operation deriving from the decisions of the Paris Summit in December, 1974...
If the amount of work and travel was greater than expected, the Minister should tell us what was expected. To what extent was the work and travel greater because of our control of the Presidency of the European Community? The Minister was President for this period and to what extent could he have ensured that the work and travel would not have been that much greater than expected? We were told that it was the Minister who was arranging the meetings additional to those normally held and if he is to suggest that the activities of the European Community and the Council during our Presidency were more intense than previously he can hardly complain that it cost more than we anticipated. We were presenting ourselves as the agents and the driving force behind that increased activity. Either we were the driving force or we were not. If we were then, at least as the driver, we should know how much the petrol would cost.
The Minister, and his Department, as the ones in control, should and must be held responsible for this huge increase of 66 per cent in travelling and incidental expenses. How much of those expenses arising out of our obligations during the Presidency of the Community will be recouped? I believe a considerable proportion of these expenses will be recouped to us and on that basis it is not enough for the Minister to make a bland statement to the effect that the activities connected with the Council were greater than expected. The Minister should tell us the full story; he should tell us how much of the expense in that capacity will be recouped. We can then consider to what extent the Minister's request this morning is justified. Otherwise we are doing it with blinkers and I am blinkered to that extent this morning. The Minister's brief and passing reference to this does not tell the full story. Far from it.
I would like to hear the rest of the story in detail from the Minister in his reply. Of course this Estimate is urgent. It must be passed today so that the hardworking officials of the Department will be paid their salaries. I have the greatest respect for these officials and their diligence and contributions during the time of our EEC Presidency were very much appreciated at home and abroad. They should be guaranteed their salaries. Like any business, the Department's book-keeping should be worked out reasonably accurately in advance and salaries are an important part of a company's expenses.
Our private industries compete with low cost countries and experience great difficulties so far as the importation of raw materials is concerned. The Minister is not in competition with any other country and is using devaluation as his excuse. This Government have been asking private industries to pull in their belts, to make their estimates and keep to them. They have also asked workers to ensure that there will not be extra money needed. If the smallest business in Ireland were to run its affairs as this Department have done, they would be bankrupt long ago and Fóir Teoranta would have written them off as being beyond redemption.
This Minister has a reputation as an international diplomat and an economic consultant and expert. I have respect for experts but they should ensure that their advice will result in practical effects. If the expert cannot advise himself, it is a poor day for the rest of the country. If the managing director of a company, with a turn-over of the order of this Department, were to go to his board during the year and say that because of international conditions and increased costs of energy and so forth, he now wants an additional sum of £700,000, and an increase of two thirds for travelling expenses, the board would very soon tell him: "Sorry, you may have created a great impression of activity and you may have done a lot of work, but, unfortunately, our resources cannot cover your activities. Either we have to change our programme or you will have to go to a new job". I am not suggesting that the Minister go to a new job but it is not enough to tell us that because of the extra activity this additional money is needed. We must have regard to our responsibilities to our public. On the one hand, we cannot seek praise for our work internationally and, on the other hand say that this is the cause of our economic problems. I hope the Government and the Minister will take this problem seriously.
The Taoiseach and the Tánaiste have been asking industries and workers to pull in their belts and help us get over these economic problems. Yet this Department are asking for an increase of 66 per cent. One should practise what one preaches. The public are beginning to realise that this is a characteristic of this Government. The projection is, and was, very colourful, and if I may say, very effective, but the performance and book-keeping is of sub-primary school standard. The public are keeping a very close watch on Government expenditure at all times.
Has there been any change of policy in the Department on racialism and particularly apartheid? I have a good reason for asking this. The Minister has been known to be an opponent of the oppressed and of racialism in all its forms. His public image is that he is very concerned in all these areas. But when the official decisions of our Government are in conflict with the Minister's personal image, we must ask what degree of control is there in the Department over decisions taken and votes registered at the United Nations. We must also ask if this represents a change of view on the part of the Minister. If it does not, was he aware of what was being done in his name, and if so, have the matter clarified.
I refer particularly to the two resolutions which came before the last session of the United Nations. One of these resolutions was on Rhodesia and was strongly critical of the United Kingdom Government for failing to measure up to their responsibilities in that area. It also called on that Government to take firm initiatives to ensure that the racialist regime of Rhodesia would be subject to sanctions, so that the policies of the Smith regime would be changed to bring it into line with what we profess to want.
The year before last Ireland abstained on this resolution which is presented almost every year to the UN General Assembly, but at the last session for some reason Ireland voted against the resolution which simply called on the British Government to fulfil their responsibilities in relation to Rhodesia and censured them for failing to take the initiative they had said they would do. We, being conditioned in this by our desire "not to exacerbate the relationship with the British Government"—the quotes are from the Minister—voted against the resolution.
If our stance on international interest in human dignity and freedom is to be conditioned by our concern not to offend Britain—I hope we can at all times ensure, through co-operation and harmony, mutual benefits for both countries—if we are to be conditioned by the fact that any vote of censure on Britain would upset these delicate relationships, our foreign policy will be completely compromised, especially considering the fact that the emerging nations of Africa have always looked to us with respect. How can we use that respect to good advantage both in terms of our own contribution to world peace and of the example we can give to these countries and the confidence they can place in us if we turn our face against the very oppression we so very often preach against? If we fail to do this, no soft words at home can get us away from the fact that we cannot give one image at home of being liberal and freedom-loving and take the very opposite stance where it counts most, in the UN General Assembly.
But that is not the end of it. There are two other areas and the next is probably the worst. It relates to the omnibus resolution that comes up every year in the General Assembly on apartheid. From time to time when Fianna Fáil were in Government we voted almost consistently for this resolution of censure and to recognise the legitimacy of the struggle of black South Africans to try to ensure their emergence to freedom and human dignity. One might say the worst that might have happened was that while we were in Government we on occasions voted for reservations and once or twice we may have abstained because of the nature of the reservations.
However, at the 29th Session of the General Assembly, the Irish representative, on behalf of our Government, our Minister for Foreign Affairs, who I believe personally supported it, voted differently. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, I might point out, was a sponsor of the Irish Anti-Apartheid body but when he became Minister he properly withdrew from that position. On his instructions, our representative at the United Nations voted against a resolution asking for sanctions against South Africa, recognising the legitimacy of the struggle against apartheid. Oil was a particular issue in this: there are the oil resources of South Africa. The oppressed black people of Africa would have felt that we would have been on their side in their case for freedom and human dignity. The attitude of the Irish Government on this occasion indicated either a terrible change of policy inconsistent with the stance taken at home by the Minister or that there is lack of control and direction within the Department of Foreign Affairs and that the Minister is not aware of what is being done in his name or has not been consulted about what is being done in his name.
That is not good enough. No votes can be cast on our behalf in the UN without the man who represents us being aware of them. If it happens that he was not aware of the action taken on this occasion it is an indication, as we have found in the Department of Finance, that there is a lack of control, of direction and of overall supervision, and the consequences for the African people could be very serious indeed.
I should like to repeat what I have stated before, that I believe Ireland has a particular role in the area of foreign affairs, not just because of action by any one man, though that is very important, but because of the respect we command among these nations probably deriving from our experience in common in emerging from colonial oppression. That places a special obligation on us and gives us a special opportunity to ensure that newly emerging African nations can come into the full family of nations in dignity and in peace and without mistrust for the policies and the actions of the great powers with whom we associate. Surely we must at all times be jealous of that position and ensure that no action of ours will undermine our potential in this field.
On the last occasion, I referred to some practical ways in which we can work to ensure that the African nations can play a full role in the community of nations. I do not intend to do that on a Supplementary Estimate, but might I say before I leave this subject that I hope the Minister will indicate the instructions, if any, that are given to our representatives in the various UN committees? What instructions do they seek from him or the Department before casting votes in these committees, because the results of the deliberations of such committees may be seen in the General Assembly resolutions?
I might say I fully support the stance taken by the Minister and the Government on the resolution on Zionism. It is an unfortunate development in the UN that some powers who may feel aggrieved because of the Israeli position are trying to associate Zionism with a different and more invidious animal, racism. Whatever be the justification for the stance of either side, I support the Minister's stance. Whatever about the justification for the stance of either side on the Middle East, it is regrettable that the Arab states and those who supported them on this can say they should not use the United Nations as an agency of associating what is obviously a problem with what are much more invidious problems, apartheid and racism. Unfortunately the consequences of this have been that the United States in particular has almost threatened withdrawal from the United Nations.
I agree that the resolution was not worthy of support and should be fiercely opposed but, in the final analysis, the very existence of the United Nations is the only guarantee we have that world order and peace can be maintained. It is no stronger than the sum of the contributions the individual members are prepared to make. Obviously the United Nations as a body cannot impose anything other than the consensus of its members will allow. To that extent it is restrained, checked and limited in what it can do. However, it has some significant achievements to its name and for a major power such as the United States to threaten that it will withdraw from the only international forum of nations because some members present resolutions that others find totally out of spirit is a very wrong stance. The only guarantee we have that the world powers who are in competition with each other can communicate and consult is through the existence of the United Nations.
There has recently been the case of Angola and this will not be the last former colony that will come to independence. I suggest to the Minister that some procedural machinery should emerge in advance at the United Nations and there should be some consultation with the world powers to guarantee that former colonies emerging into independence will not be made the flashpoints of international tension, particularly between the great powers.
It is not enough for the Americans to say that the USSR is infiltrating into Angola—that may be—nor for the USSR to say the US is infiltrating into Angola—and that may be. Quite frankly, what the world generally would like to see is that neither of them should involve themselves in the problems of a newly emerging country. This has happened so often in all the flashpoints of the world and we, as a small nation, should say to the US and the USSR that we are tired of their propaganda against each other. We should tell them we are tired of being told it is all white on one side and all black on the other side and that we are tired particularly that both of them use the problems of small nations, especially where they emerge into freedom, to ensure their security around the world.
I know this may be rather simplistic. I realise there may be groups in a newly emerging nation who will turn to one or other of the major powers to guarantee and secure their supremacy in that nation. However, there must be some agreement—and I think the United Nations can take a firm initiative here—and some sanctions to guarantee that there will be no response from the major powers to any such request. We have had enough of Korea, Vietnam, the Congo and now Angola. Those major powers who present themselves as the guardians of the peace to those who look to them as such guardians are, to a considerable extent, the agents of violence, terror and death. The less we see of their involvement in the merging countries the better we would like it and the world would be a better place. Ireland could propose at the United Nations that a watch be kept on the potential flashpoints of the world and to guarantee by sanctions that these powers would not be able to meddle to the point of causing almost inevitable death and destruction in the country concerned and dreadful problems and tensions in the world generally
The Minister referred to the conference on energy. Many of us have noted what might be called the Minister's idealistic stance in relation to our responsibilities particularly in the EEC and I should like to support this to the extent that one can practically support it. However, on occasions one has to look at the practical consequences of high-minded stances. With regard to the United Kingdom seeking a separate seat at the energy conference, the Minister's stance, which was widely promoted and projected, may not have been quite as much in our interest from the practical point of view as would otherwise appear. It is fine to proclaim oneself as a convinced European—all of us are—but the evidence is that the major European nations have not shown the political will nor have they introduced the political agency through which all of us may be better Europeans. Until such time as that will emerges we are being a little naïve to play the role now that we would wish to play then.
Britain has looked to its interests when it seemed right for it to do so and France has done the same. There have been many clear examples of this. Germany has done so even to the extent of doing something which I deplore, namely, the export of arms to South Africa which I take it is inconsistent with the stance of the EEC. Whenever it has suited them the major powers in the Community have taken action to suit their national interest. The British Government have a fair tradition of looking after the national interest and, on this occasion, they have sought a separate seat at the conference. Like the good European he is known to be, our Minister publicly criticised them for this request and suggested that it was undermining the solidarity of the Community. That may be but I hazard a guess that Britain will have a separate seat. Sometimes we should wonder whether the outcome will measure up to our hopes and, to the extent that it does not measure up, we make ourselves seem ineffective when our criticism is totally ignored and people continue to do what they wish.
The reason Britain is seeking a separate seat at the conference is that she has major oil fields off her coast. We have criticised Britain very strongly and have said it is not consistent with Community membership. I do not know if the Minister consulted with the Government before reacting as he did. In this morning's papers we read that further licences are being granted for exploration work, up to £300 million worth, in connection with energy off our coast. Has it occurred to the Minister to consider what our position might be if our expectations in relation to oil, energy and gas are realised? In criticising Britain so openly, do we not to a considerable extent compromise a position we may wish to take ourselves later, or are we so committed to the European idea that we, who are an undeveloped economy in terms of the Community, are prepared to forego our national advantage for the sake of notional European solidarity? I do not want anything I have said to be taken as being against European solidarity but there is no point in our being boy scouts before the troop has been formed.
We have been acting the boy scout a bit in Europe and have been proclaiming our European commitment but others, while proclaiming their European commitment in one sense, are well able to look after the national interest as well.
I wonder if the Minister would like to indicate whether or not he is satisfied that his criticism of Britain's request for separate representation would not compromise us in any event if the occasion arises for us and whether or not his criticism was the outcome of Government consultations, more particularly with the Minister for Industry and Commerce who would be the man concerned in this area, because I do not think it is enough to have ad hoc reactions from the Minister—I am not suggesting that this was such but somehow it smacks a little of it—ad hoc reactions on a matter that may be of such vital consequence for us.
I referred to statements of our position publicly and to the discrepancy between our public projection and the subsequent performance. It is fine to create an impression of activity; it is fine to create an impression of influence; it is fine to convey an impression that we can dictate at the Councils of the European Community to the French, Germans or otherwise and when we do that have it spread across the pages of our newspapers here and elsewhere. That is fine for the moment but when the Germans, the French and all that afterwards totally ignore what we say then, of course, one wonders what the purpose is and what the final outcome may be in relation to the stances we take initially.
There are many examples and the energy conference may just be one. The Minister, I think, actually said in the House that he was glad to be able to play a very effective role at the Washington Conference in reconciling the differences between the parties there.