asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if in view of the increasing trade with the Soviet Union, the Government intend to grant their request for increased staff needed at the trade mission in Dublin, to ensure greater efficiency and further expansion of trade.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Staff of Soviet Trade Mission.
14.
Presumably the question relates to the commercial section of the Soviet Embassy in Dublin as there is no separate Soviet trade mission here.
As I indicated in an earlier reply on 21 February 1980, the size of the Soviet Embassy in Dublin and of the Irish Embassy in Moscow was agreed by the two Governments at the outset. It is permissible for both Embassies to augment their staff through local recruitment if they so desire. It is, of course, a matter for the Embassy itself to decide how many members of its staff should be engaged in trade work. I am satisfied that the agreed arrangements are adequate.
I should like to know if an application has been made for an addition to the staff at the building which is separate from the Embassy? This is also part of a separate Department in Moscow, the Department of Trade. Has a request been made for additional staffs? Has that request been refused?
I should like to emphasise that the Deputy is mistaken.
As far as we are concerned, there is only one Soviet mission here and they are at the Embassy. Our memorandum of understanding with the Soviet Government provides for only one. If there are differences within the Soviet establishment it is not any of my business. They are short of two appointments at present. They are two below what their appointed members should be by reason of their own choice.
Is it not a fact that in the enormous building in Foxrock which is part of the Soviet Trade Mission there are only two people? Is it true that they have applied to the Irish Government for permission for additional staff and that this staff from the Trade Mission in Moscow has been refused to them?
I am trying to get across to the Deputy that that is a matter between the Soviets and must be solved within their own administration. There appears to be some difference of opinion between the trade and the diplomatic sides. It does not have anything to do with me. In fact, at present they are two short of their full staff by their own decision. Unfortunately, their newly appointed Ambassador is not too well and has not been able to come here. The First Secretary is acting in his place. They had an information counsellor who has not been replaced since his departure at the end of 1978. If there is a difference of opinion within the Soviet establishment between their trade side and their diplomatic side, surely it is no purpose of mine to investigate that matter.
Is there any difficulty in augmenting the staff to the trade mission as far as our Government are concerned. Can they add members to that mission?
There is no trade mission. There is a mission of the Soviet Union here of which the trade aspect is a section.
All right, call it what you like. Is there any restriction on the amount of staff that can be brought into that mission?
They are entitled to bring in the full number of staff up to the agreed numbers between the two countries. At present, by their own decision, they are two short of the agreed number.
(Cavan-Monaghan): If it is in order for the Minister to tell us, would he give us the strength of the Soviet staff here and the strength of our staff in the USSR?
That is a separate question but I can get that information for the Deputy. Actually their full quota here is 17. As I have said already, for several months now that has been below strength; in fact they have 15 here while their full quota is 17.
(Cavan-Monaghan): What is our strength in the USSR?
That is a separate question. I do not have that information here but I can certainly get it for the Deputy. Seventeen is their full strength. Ours is much lower than that; it would not be any more than half that.
Can the Minister say how many of the seventeen are engaged in trade work, diplomatic work and espionage work?
That is a separate question.
That is a separate question but if the Deputy wants that information I will give it. Of the seventeen there are five diplomatic, four administrative and technical, and eight service, including three domestics.
15.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs when it is anticipated that the problems arising under the recent Irish-Soviet trade agreement which has led to a hold-up in the delivery of butter to the Soviet Union, will be resolved.
The Deputy is possibly referring to decisions of the European Commission in January 1980 which had the effect of temporarily suspending the fixing of export refunds for the exportation of butter and butter oils to most East European countries and of subsequently suspending the export refund for bulk butter to these countries. This has effectively prevented the export of such butter to these countries, but exports of butter in packet from is still possible.
The Commission, which is the responsible authority for the market management, has indicated that normal trade flows will be resumed as soon as possible.
What could one take from that reply in terms of a date? Is it not a fact that the agreement was made bona fide by both sides accepting that there was this bonus going with the butter? Surely we must stand by that agreement and accept that we must deliver the butter under the terms negotiated in the agreement?
I was at the meeting of the Council of Ministers at which quite clearly butter was excluded from any embargo in regard to Community trading with the Soviet Union. The only decision was not to substitute American exports in the agricultural area, items such as grain products. The United States does not export butter so that——
But the Minister has changed his mind about that now, in part, has he not?
No, the butter export situation will continue. It is only a technical matter between the Commission and Soviet Russia. It has nothing to do with any political decision taken by either Ireland or the Community.
What is the nature of the technical issue. January was the date mentioned in the Minister's reply; we are now practically into the month of May. If it is only a technical matter when is it likely to be resolved?
My information is that normal trade flows will be resumed as soon as possible.
What does the Minister mean by "as soon as possible"?
It is being worked on at present. The Deputy can be assured that I am as anxious as he that normal trade in regard to dairy products will be resumed with Soviet Russia.
Does the Minister think it good practice or procedure to export our butter to Russia at a third of the price it is being sold to Irish consumers, very often on credit, while the Russians use their own money to buy guns and ammunition with which perhaps to bury us all in the future?
One of the aspects being examined is that of finding alternative areas. We are under no compulsion to send it to Soviet Russia. It is only a matter of convenience for us when——
But an agreement was negotiated. Why not keep our word?
This is being handled not by us, by the Commission. I want to emphasise that.
I am calling Question No. 16.