Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 15 May 1984

Vol. 350 No. 4

Visit of President of the United States: Motion.

The Taoiseach

I move:

That, to welcome the visit to Ireland of Ronald Reagan, the President of the United States of America, and to mark the event in a single manner, a joint sitting of both Houses of the Oireachtas be held on Monday, 4th June, 1984, in the Dáil Chamber and that the President of the United States of America be invited to address such joint sitting; that the proceedings at such joint sitting shall consist of a speech by the Ceann Comhairle welcoming the President, the address by the President and a speech of thanks by the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad for the address; and that the time for such joint sitting shall be 12 noon.

President Reagan is visiting Ireland in his capacity as Head of State and as Chief Executive of the United States of America. It is our intention that the President should be welcomed in Ireland and afforded the countries appropriate to his position. Successive Irish Taoisigh have been treated with great courtesy in the United States in the course of official visits to that country, several of which have been made within the past couple of years at the invitation of President Reagan himself. During two of these visits within the past eight years, two Taoisigh, Mr. Liam Cosgrave and myself, have been accorded the opportunity to address Joint Sessions of Congress.

President Reagan's visit is at the invitation initially of my predecessor in office and was confirmed and renewed by me earlier this year. He is visiting Ireland as part of a European tour which will also extend to France and to London, where he will attend the Western Economic Summit. The visit is valuable from an Irish point of view because of the opportunity it provides to consolidate the excellent relations between our two countries.

The President's visit will of course focus the attention of the people of the United States on the tourist attractions of this country at a time when we have been failing to secure an adequate share of expanding US tourist trade traffic to Europe.

US investment here already amounts to £4 billion involving 350 factories and 37,000 jobs. This visit, if its impact on the US opinion is positive, offers a prospect that these benefits might be enhanced at time when jobs and foreign investments were never more badly needed.

I know that account will be taken of these factors by all who are concerned for the employment prospects of the present and the next generation, and that it will influence the manner in which responsible people, who may wish to convey their disagreement with aspects of US policy, bring their feelings to the attention of the President.

The Government for their part will of course take advantage of this occasion to express to the President the concern felt by many Irish people about aspects of the US policy in Central America. We shall also be conveying our concern, already expressed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs at the opening of the Conference on Disarmament in Europe in Stockholm earlier this year, and known also to the Soviet Union, that the negotiations on intermediate and strategic nuclear forces should resume, and should do so with the genuine and manifest aim of succeeding, and thereby bringing about substantial reductions of nuclear weapons and conventional forces to the lowest possible level.

Those of our people concerned about these matters can, therefore, be assured that their views will be conveyed without the need for public demonstrations of a kind that might prove counter-productive. It may be noted in this connection that Speaker O'Neill, who opposes a number of policy stances adopted by the President, including the Central American policy, emphasised during his recent visit to Ireland that the President should be welcomed in a manner appropriate to his office.

I might add that now that the efforts of the New Ireland Forum have given a fresh impetus to the search for a solution to the Northern Ireland problem it is important to bear in mind the positive role that the United States can play in creating a climate favourable to political progress in relation to this matter.

Finally President Reagan, one of two recent US Presidents of Irish descent, is head of one of the most influential countries in the world, and we regard as an honour that he has accepted our invitation to visit this country.

Mr. Haughey

On behalf of the Fianna Fáil Party I support this motion and the invitation to President Reagan to address a joint session of both Houses of the Oireachtas. President Reagan is coming to Ireland at our invitation as the Head of a friendly State. In our view everyone in the country is entitled to their view of American foreign policy and everyone in the country is entitled to object to and protest about any particular aspect of that policy they may wish to. Most of the parties in the House have clear positions on American foreign policy, for example on the problems of Central America and the nuclear arms race. Fianna Fáil do not see that as relevant to this particular invitation. We believe it is right and proper that the Head of State of a great and friendly nation should be invited to address our Parliament.

We, of course, are deeply conscious of the almost limitless bonds of friendship and relationship which exist between the people of Ireland and the people of the United States. I believe there are many opportunities available to those who wish to avail of them to express their points of view about American foreign policy in any part of the world. For my part my primary concern with American foreign policy is to have that policy include as a major objective the achievement of the historic unity of Ireland. This aspect has been given a new focus by the publication of the Report of the New Ireland Forum. I urge the United States administration to give a clear and positive response to that report and to use all their endeavours to persuade the British Government, in particular, to accept the proposal in the report for the establishment of an all-round constitutional conference by the British and Irish Governments for the purpose of setting the structure of a new unitary Irish State embracing the whole island of Ireland.

President Reagan in my view is being offered an historic opportunity when he addresses both Houses of the Oireachtas to announce in Dáil Éireann the acceptance by his administration of the report of the New Ireland Forum and support for the achievement of a United Ireland and in this way to bring to an end the tragedy of Northern Ireland and to achieve peace and stability in these islands. It is the wish of Fianna Fáil that the President, by doing this, will acknowledge the great contribution that 40 million Irish Americans have made to the building of America and still make in the operation of the democratic politics of that country. I am disappointed that in speaking, and I believe rightly so, in this context about the opportunity given to Irish heads of Government to speak to the Houses of Congress the Taoiseach omitted to mention that Eamon de Valera had been afforded such an oportunity. Those, particularly on the Fine Gael benches, who intend, as we are told, to absent themselves from this House on the occasion of President Reagan's address should recall those occasions when Irish political leaders were given the honour of addressing both Houses of Congress. How would they feel if some particular member of those Houses had felt it necessary for some reason to absent himself or herself on the occasion of an address by an Irish head of Government? That point should be borne in mind.

We support this invitation and we hope that it will receive the unanimous approval of Dáil Éireann. I stress the word "unanimous" because I believe it is something separate, apart and distinct from any of the other issues which may arise in connection with the President's visit. I believe it would be an important and an historic occasion for Dáil Eireann and Seanad Éireann to be addressed once again by a President of the United States. Let us be clear in our minds that there are many countries around the world who would give a great deal to have the opportunity of having the President of the United States address their Parliament.

All of us recall with great sentiment and emotion the last occasion when a President of the United States addressed us. I believe that on this occasion, just as on that occasion, whatever our views may be about American internal policies or external foreign policy the Head of State of the United States of America should be honoured by being invited to address both Houses of the Oireachtas on this occasion.

Mr. Mac Giolla

I wish to oppose this motion. I hope the House will debate the motion on the basis that it has come before us for the first time and it is something the House should debate, that it is not a fait accompli. Although the information about it was issued last March, it is only now being debated here whether President Regan should be invited to address this House in a joint meeting of the Dáil and the Seanad. I wish to oppose the motion on the basis that President Regan would not be a suitable person for a number of reasons to address the combined Houses of the Oireachtas and I have grave objection to our marking his visit in, as the Taoiseach said, such a signal manner. I am not quite sure what “signal” means in this context but I am sure it means an exceptionally important manner giving him the highest honour the country can give to any Head of State.

I do not know how many Heads of State have been asked to address the combined Houses of the Oireachtas but I think only very few have received that honour. I do not know whether any other than American Presidents have been asked to address a meeting of both Houses of the Oireachtas so it is a signal and very great honour to give to a particular President visiting the country. Not all Presidents of the United States visiting this country would be automatically asked to address both Houses of the Oireachtas. May I point out that I think President Reagan is least worthy to be given this signal honour, first, because of his escalation of military policy in Central America, both in El Salvador, something which is very widely known in this country, and in Nicaragua where arms and money have been poured in.

In the case of Nicaragua it is openly admitted by the United States in debates in both the Senate and the House of Representatives that the CIA have been carrying out a deliberate policy of sending people from Honduras across the border into Nicaragua. They have also been mining the ports of Nicaragua. It has just been announced that our Government made no protest about this. Now that is a lesser action. They make their opposition known by a speech by the Foreign Minister. In fact in the United States itself the Senate condemned the mining of the Nicaraguan ports, so the US Senate takes stronger action in its opposition to President Reagan's policy than our Government do. Antagonism to President Reagan's action in Nicaragua is shared by a great number of people in the United States and by US politicians who have voiced considerable opposition to his policy in Latin America and therefore opposition to President Reagan's visit here is not seen as opposition to America in any way.

The second reason we should not be seen to give President Regan any signal honour is because of the escalation and development of a war-like atmosphere particularly the siting of Cruise and Pershing missiles in western Europe which has resulted in a further escalation by the USSR to counter the American placing of nuclear misiles in western Europe, and so the USSR are now placing nuclear missiles in Eastern Germany. This is an escalation of the whole nuclear policy and the CND movement here and peace movements here are the result of President Reagan's policy and we should, in association with other European countries, make it clear that we are totally opposed to this development.

Jimmy Carter will, I suppose, never be considered one of the great American Presidents. He was generally just regarded as a peanut farmer but the more we see of President Reagan the more respect there is for Jimmy Carter and the greater his reputation becomes because it can be seen now that he was concerned for the preservation of the human race and he was concerned, something President Reagan does not seem to be, for human rights. He was concerned for peace though at the time we may not have thought he was doing that much, but it can be clearly seen now that had the Iranian hostages incident occurred during President Reagan's time in office instead of during Jimmy Carter's term of office we would now have a holy war because President Reagan would have gone in with all guns blazing irrespective of the result. This is the type of situation we are in constant danger of while President Reagan remains in office as the most powerful man in the world with the greatest potential for developing a war-like situation. Because of that we do not think he is a person on whom this signal honour of addressing the combined Houses of the Oireachtas should be conferred. There is widespread opposition to his visit in the country by a very broad group of organisations.

I want to emphasise here that this opposition to President Reagan is in no way trendy, left-wing opposition. If I may clarify that, the main opposition to President Reagan's visit is by a group called the Irish Campaign against President Reagan's Foreign Policy. Apparently there is another group organised by the trendy lefties — I am not quite sure what their name is. The former group was established back in March and the first communication I got from them was on 28 March. It was in the form of a circular and it was probably addressed to everyone here. That group asked for support. It was a group of eight or ten different organisations which had come together to protest against President Reagan's foreign policy in Latin America. Now neithere I nor anyone else had any part in establishing that group. Furthermore neithere I nor my party are affiliated to that group because they will not accept affilitation from any political party. I have informed them that I support their objective and my party support their objective and their campaign.

On a programme on Saturday night last John Healy, that great right-wing insulting — I suppose the politics of insult is about the only policy John Healy is really interested in——

Mr. R. Burke

Is it appropriate that somebody's name be mentioned in this House when he has not the opportunity to defend himself? There is a long tradition here not to do that.

Mr. Mac Giolla

There is no problem with regard to John Healy defending himself. He does it every day in The Irish Times.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Carey)

It is inappropriate to refer to Mr. Healy, an outsider, in the way the Deputy referred to him.

Mr. Mac Giolla

I said his chief method of approach was the politics of insult and I was not aware it was wrong to say that about somebody. It has been repeatedly used against myself but I have no comeback against him. I merely made that reference. However, let us forget about John Healy. Let us talk about a Member of this House, Deputy Flynn, who said the same thing, namely, that there was a well orchestrated and well financed campaign. The implication on "The Late Late Show" was that he had evidence of this orchestration——

Mr. Flynn

On a point of order, I wish to put the record right. I made the point on the programme that there was a well orchestrated campaign but I did not say it was well financed. The Deputy should not misquote me.

Acting Chairman

That is not a point of order.

Mr. Flynn

It is a point of order as far as I am concerned.

Mr. Mac Giolla

I presume that this debate will continue and that everybody will be entitled to speak.

Mr. Flynn

If the Deputy wishes to quote me he should quote me properly.

Mr. Mac Giolla

He said there was a well orchestrated campaign——

Mr. Flynn

Correct.

Mr. Mac Giolla

——and a well financed campaign from some place outside——

Mr. Flynn

Not correct. The Deputy will have to attribute that to someone else.

Mr. Mac Giolla

Deputy Flynn said he had evidence of this. He has plenty of opportunity now to give us evidence of this orchestration, who is the chief of the orchestra and so on. If the Deputy would do that he would do a service for all of us. He should give us the evidence at his disposal which he did not do last Saturday night on the "Late Late Show".

Mr. Flynn

It will be a pleasure.

Mr. Mac Giolla

I am making the point that this Irish campaign against Reagan's foreign policy comprises a broad group of people who are opposed to his foreign policy. They are Irish in their thinking and in their attitude. Some of them have been involved in the countries concerned and they know at first-hand what has been going on. They have been working in the Philippines, in El Salvador and elsewhere and they know the situation that exists. They want to show their solidarity with the mass of people in those countries and thus they oppose the visit of President Reagan. It would be an insult to them and to the people down there if we should give such a signal honour to President Reagan.

The importance of American investment and jobs here has been emphasised on many occasions. We have been told we should not oppose President Reagan's visit in case these jobs would be endangered. The Taoiseach referred to this when he said:

I know that account will be taken of these factors by all who are concerned for the employment prospects of the present and the next generation and that it will influence the manner in which responsible people who may wish to convey their disagreement with aspects of US policy bring their feelings to the attention of the President.

In other words, whatever we do we must worry all the time about these jobs, which the Taoiseach listed in his speech today when he referred to 37,000 jobs, 350 factories and investment worth £4 billion. The American firms who have invested here are very glad they have done so because it has turned out to be the most profitable investment they have made in any country outside of America and probably even within America, because they get a 29 per cent return on capital invested. They cannot get a return like that in any other place. They can take out every penny and they are delighted to do so. That is why they came here and nobody was in any doubt about it. We accepted them on that basis: they are getting the benefit, we are getting some jobs as a result and that is that.

Therefore, why should we become subservient to the dollar? Just because these jobs are there, should everyone touch his cap and say, "President Reagan, you are a great man"? This subservience to the dollar leads to the danger of repeating here what happened in Central and South America. They were subservient to American investment to such an extent that now the American dollar can control governments and dictatorships, can control who owns what in Central and South America and can have it under US domination. We do not want to get into that situation.

We are glad of any foreign investment here. If there was more investment from our own resources in the development of jobs and resources we would not be so dependent on foreign investment but even in our present state we should not allow US investment to dictate our foreign policy, our attitudes, our independence, our neutrality and our solidarity with other peoples throughout the country.

Mr. Manning

On this issue I find my self in the unusual situation of being in agreement not just with Deputy Haughey but with my own leader also. What they have said expresses fully the sentiments not just of this House but of the vast majority of the Irish people with regard to this visit. Those who have opposed the visit have centred their arguments largely on the policies of President Reagan in Central America and they have said that because of these policies we should not welcome the President.

Perhaps like most of the people in this House, I do not profess to understand fully the complexity of Central American politics. I have not had the benefit of a fact-finding visit, not even one of two weeks, and I cannot say that I have seen the situation at first-hand. I am not an expert on the history of Central America or on the multifarious social and economic problems there but two things come across very clearly from the debates on Central America and from all that has been written and said about that area.

The first point is that there is great unease, and indeed opposition, to the policies of the Reagan administration in Central America. This opposition comes from people whose judgment I respect, from leading journalists, politicians and academics in the US who have outlined their differences. Opposition has also come from the Department of Foreign Affairs and from leading members in the Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and Labour parties. I believe this opposition is based on informed assessment and goodwill. I take very seriously these reservations and I support fully the case made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs on this matter. This case was made in a cogent, reasoned way and I believe most people in this House would agree with it.

However, if we have these doubts, reservations or even opposition, we are far more likely to be listened to if we show our good faith and genuine respect for the US which is still one of the great open democracies in the world. It is a country that millions of our people have helped to build and it has always been a good friend to us. If, having shown our goodwill then our doubts, hostility or opposition, expressed in a reasoned way, is much more likely to be listened to and much more likely to influence policy.

Like everyone else in this House I fully support and uphold the rights of those who want to protest or the rights of those who want to stay away but I doubt very much their judgment in choosing this particular form of action. In some cases, I must say, I doubt also the goodwill underlying these actions. If we disagree, as many of us do, let us say so in a reasoned, informed and courteous way and then we will be taken seriously.

The second key point about the protests on Central America is their utter selectivity. Central America is not a black and white issue. The issues there are not simply those of good and evil. They are far more complex and there is no monopoly of right on either side. Not all leading churchmen are opposed to the Reagan policies or see things in the terms expressed by the opponents of Reagan. Not all leading journalists or scholars have come out strongly on one side or the other. Anybody who is reasonable on this subject sees the enormous complexity of the issues involved. Opinions are far more divided than those opposed to President Reagan's visit here would have us believe. President Reagan's policies may be wrong but to represent them, as some people here have done, as evil incarnate is simply grotesque, does no service whatsoever to the cause of truth or to those who are involved in Central America.

Let us not forget that there are other super powers involved in Central America. We have heard very little about the role of the Soviet Union in Central America or in other parts of the globe, or of the subversive work of the various activities of that super power. At least President Reagan is accountable to his electorate and is open to persuasion by friendly powers where they disagree.

I find it very hard to take seriously the words of the Leader of The Workers' Party here today in the distinctions he drew between various American Presidents. For example, he insinuated that if President Carter were still the American President we would be inviting him here today. One thing is very clear, nothing is more certain than that if President Jimmy Carter were the American President coming on this visit The Workers' Party would be equally involved in whatever opposition existed——

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Mr. Manning

——because at the very core of that party is a deep-seated anti-Americanism. Let us be clear about that. I will take The Workers' Party seriously on foreign policy on Central America when I hear from them similar condemnations of the rape of Afghanistan, on the suppression of free trade unions in Poland, on the deportation of nationals of Vietnam to slave labour camps in the Soviet Union, on the continued persecution of Soviet Jews and on the shooting down of unarmed aircraft. When I hear condemnations of these then I will take their views on Central America seriously, because all those matters were grotesque, terrible outrages against humanity, violations of human rights on an unparalleled scale. When I hear those condemnations, then I will listen but, until then, I would ask The Workers' Party to have the decency to remain silent on foreign affairs.

Mr. De Rossa

Obviously the Deputy has had cotton wool in his ears over the last few years.

Mr. Manning

There are positive reasons we should welcome President Reagan here. He has shown a genuine interest in the Irish question and in this country over the past four years, an interest which I believe is not motivated by electoral concern. He has twice visited the Irish Embassy on St. Patrick's Day, which no other American President has ever done. He has spoken consistently in favour of the British Government taking a more positive role in the problems of Northern Ireland. He has worked hard to prevent the importation of money to help buy guns and bombs to be used for destruction in Northern Ireland. In spite of what has been said, he has seriously encouraged investment in this country, without which there would be fewer jobs today. All of those are positive reasons why I personally would welcome his presence here. I welcome his visit in spite of my opposition to him on questions in Central America. Most of all I welcome him here, symbolically, because he is President of a country which has always been a good friend of this country, a country for which many people here have respect and affection. It is a powerful country whose leaders and people take us seriously and who in turn, should be taken seriously by us.

Mr. G. Collins

I wholeheartedly support the contribution by the Leader of my Party. I shall be very brief in my remarks. I accept, as we all should, that President Reagan is the democratically elected President of the United States of America. I accept that decision — they are the people who elected him — and he is coming here to us as Head of the American people.

I agree with Deputy Manning when he said that, from the very beginning, President Reagan showed a very special interest in Ireland. President Reagan cannot be accused — as he is blatantly on radio and television by some of the people on my right in this House — of coming here for the purpose of being re-elected. President Reagan would be elected without ever having come to Ireland for electioneering purposes. President Reagan, who I am sure is the busiest leader of any country in the western world, has found time to come to this country, taken time off in an exceptionally busy schedule to visit this country and we should respect him for that.

The Taoiseach in the course of his contribution to this debate did say that in the past a number of Taoisigh, he himself and Deputy Liam Cosgrave, for example, had addressed the Joint Houses of Congress in the United States. President de Valera, also as President of Ireland visited the United States and had a similar privilege accorded him. I am sure that, on that occasion, there were some members of the American Congress or Senate who probably would not have had agreed with President de Valera at that time, have agreed with many of the things he stood for, and certainly might not have agreed with the policies he adopted on behalf of the Irish nation during the Second World War. Yet these people — in particular those from the New England States — all to a man took their seats, listened with courtesy and dignity to the person who was there representing Ireland, a very small nation at that time.

All the indications are that President Reagan will be re-elected even if he never came to this country. The accusation being hurled at him that his visit is being made purely for political reasons is something we should scotch here. I listened to some radio comment over the week and this was the main thrust of the presentation of a particular programme, which was grossly unfair. At every opportunity I have said that I was gravely concerned with the foreign policy of the American Government, in particular in relation to their policy directed at Central America. During my brief term as Minister for Foreign Affairs I had discussions with official representatives, with members of the Nicaraguan Government, their Foreign Minister and others. I met them here in Iveagh House in Dublin, I met them at the United Nations. I agree with Deputy Manning that there is a very difficult situation obtaining there, and that it is not simply as black and white as it appears. I have had discussions with American State Department officials on the situation there also.

But there is worldwide concern — and this must be acknowledged — with the American foreign policy in relation to Central America, which concern is now beginning to bear fruit on internal public opinion in the United States. I believe it is as a result of this worldwide concern that the American Senate and Congress, in the course of recent debates — particularly in the Senate — adopted a resolution not supporting President Reagan's foreign policy by a vote of 84 to 12. This is a clear indication to us that most of the Republican Senators — and President Reagan's party has a majority in the Senate — most of the President's own political party in the Senate voted against him. This is an indication to us that there will be a change within the thinking in the United States on their foreign policy as far as Central America is concerned.

It is regrettable that members of the Government parties are now saying that they will not come here and be present on the day about which we are speaking, the American President's visit to this House. I regret that that is so. I would sincerely ask that they have a rethink on it. I would ask that they show regard for the president of the greatest nation of the western world. I would ask that they honour the office he holds. I regret very much that the leader of The Workers' Party has taken upon himself to be as insulting as he possibly could about the American President in a very veiled way. The insinuation by the Leader of The Workers' Party that if President Reagan had been President when the people were being held in Iran he would have gone in with all guns blazing is the sort of cheap, pub talk we could well do without, because the debate should be on a much higher plain than that. If Deputy Mac Giolla has to play to the Lefties or the Trotskyites of his political grouping, then I reckon he should do it somewhere other than here. There is a great privilege being bestowed on us, that an exceptionally busy leader finds time to visit our Parliament, a small nation in the western world, as the Leader of our party said, a nation which has contributed a tremendous amount to the building of the United States where there are 40 million to 45 million Irish Americans who would not understand our attitude if we did anything other than show respect and dignity to the President they elected.

Mr. Mac Giolla

Most of them would.

Mr. G. Collins

No, they would not understand it, they would not. When Speaker Tip O'Neill, a man who is probably one of President Reagan's strongest opponents and particularly in relation to his Central American policies, asked us to show dignity and respect to the leader of their great nation because it would be misread at home if we did not, then even Deputy Mac Giolla and those who are associated with him in this protest against President Reagan's visit would do well to heed Speaker O'Neill and to give céad míle fáilte to the President of the United States.

Mr. Taylor

The views of the Labour Party in relation to this visit are well known. The annual conference of the party have decided that, as far as Labour are concerned, the policies of the Reagan administration in Central America and in relation to the arms race are quite unacceptable. The party attitude is certainly not based on any intrinsic anti-American feeling. I want to make that perfectly clear to the House. Apropos of Deputy Manning's comments, as far as the Soviet Union and that bloc are concerned, I unreservedly condemn their invasion of Afghanistan, the suppression of liberties in Poland, their harassment of my co-religionists in the Soviet Union, the shooting down of an unarmed aircraft and so on. Any comments I make in the context of the proposed visit can be taken into account having made those statements.

The American policies in Central America have contributed widespread misery and injustice in that part of the world and are seen as such in the eyes of a substantial body of influential American opinion. It is seen there as gross interference in the affairs of many countries in that region. One influential Congressman in the United States has described the actions of the administration, particularly in Nicargua, as "an act of war". Another, disputing this, has described them instead as "an act of damn foolishness". In the midst of the debate raging throughout the United States, President Reagan has chosen to visit this country. He is not doing this to improve American investment prospects or for the sake of our tourist industry. He is doing so for one reason only — as part of a carefully planned re-election strategy. The Irish-American vote or that portion of it which might be persuaded to vote for the Republican Party is being courted by this visit.

The Leader of the Opposition has described these issues as irrelevant to the visit. He might as well say that this country's commitment to neutrality is irrelevant.

Mr. Haughey

I was speaking about the invitation to address this House. Please be accurate.

Mr. Taylor

It is as relevant as this country's commitment to peace. These issues are not irrelevant. We cannot turn a blind eye to what is happening in El Salvador and Nicaragua and still boast that we care about the poor and oppressed of the world. When President Reagan visits this country there will be protests — and it is right and inescapable that there should be — but they must be protests that enhance the dignity of the issues on which they are based. Any protest for peace that turns into violence would be a hollow protest indeed. My party will be having a full discussion of the visit at Parliamentary Party level tomorrow and we will discuss all its aspects. As the House knows, the leader of our party has already expressed his intention of meeting President Reagan to express our party's protest to him personally. I do not wish to pre-empt the decision that may be taken tomorrow about the parameters of protest as far as we are concerned but I assure the House that it will be a dignified protest and one concerned with issues that must be dear to every Member of the House.

Mr. R. Burke

Could the Deputy indicate whether he is speaking in favour of the motion——

(Interruptions.)

Acting Chairman

I am calling on Deputy Seán Byrne.

Mr. S. Byrne

I should like to join the Taoiseach and the leader of my party in extending a céad míle fáilte to President and Mrs. Reagan. If it was not for that beautiful village, Ballyporeen, we would not be having this debate. I am proud to be a Deputy from that area and I am sure he will get a good Irish welcome there. I welcome him to Ireland, to this House and to Ballyporeen. The visit will benefit tourism, industry and the future unity of our country. The people who object today may regret it tomorrow.

Mrs. Owen

When the Bruce Arnolds of the year 2000 and onwards sit down to write the political history of these years it will be clear that the last ten years have given rise to a more relevant element of our democracy as far as the ordinary person in the street is concerned. That element will be highlighted in any future analysis of what is happening now. That is perhaps a good thing as nowadays people have mechanisms to make their feelings known.

We are discussing an invitation to a President of a friendly nation to address the Houses of the Oireachtas. Already in this debate we are beginning to see the intemperate reactions which are surfacing because of the visit. Unfortunately, it reminds me of the divisive debate which we had last year about an amendment People were pigeonholed without a proper analysis of the issues at stake and the stands being taken. If you said you were voting one way it was automatically assumed that you were in favour of everything that everybody who voted against the amendment was for; and if you voted for the amendment the same applied. What I object to most in the controversy which this visit has given rise to is the pigeonholing of people who, if they say we must welcome any visiting president, are put into a category which says they do not care about the loss of life, human rights or foreign policies with which they would fundamentally disagree. If people who object to the President's visit and his policies do not say they are going to spit at him, throw eggs at him or walk out of a joint session of the Houses of the Oireachtas when he is speaking, they, in the eyes of some people, lose credibility in their protests about his foreign policy.

I was one of the Members on this side of the House who spoke in a debate in April 1983 and said that I had grave concern about the policies being adopted by the American administration in Central America and other areas. I was not alone in that. Members from every side of the House said the same thing. I do not feel that there is any loss of my credibility in saying that I am willing to sit at a joint session of the Houses of the Oireachtas and listen to a visiting President. That is what we should be discussing and not the wider issues. I draw a comparison between the visit of President Reagan and the visit of the Taoiseach to the United States over the Saint Patrick's weekend when he addressed a joint session of the Houses there. I have no doubt that there were members listening to him at that session who vehemently opposed the Taoiseach's actions and policies with regard to Northern Ireland. It is not recorded that anyone stood up, heckled him and made him feel unwelcome or were discourteous to him. I know that many members of the Noraid group in the United States may have expressed their concern about the Taoiseach's attitude to Northern Ireland. On the other hand they may support other attitudes on Northern Ireland.

I do not think that at any point during his trip to the States the Taoiseach was treated discourteously. I do not think any of us would like to have seen the Taoiseach being treated rudely because of our national pride in our countrymen when they are abroad. We would all like to see the Taoiseach being given a warm welcome, which is what he got. We should try to prevent this debate getting to the stage where we are trying to pigeonhole each other. Much intemperate language has been used. Anger has been aroused. There are accusations on all sides.

We are all politicians. We may be members of other groups and organisations, voluntary, business or professional. First and foremost we are elected to this House as politicians. That is how we should see ourselves. There are political mechanisms to enable us to get across our differences and our divergent views to people like President Reagan. I should like to quote from the Taoiseach's address in the States. He had referred to his visit as Minister for Foreign Affairs when he had a chance to discuss common concerns between the United States and the EEC Community. He said:

On this visit I shall be engaged once again upon a similar task, recognising that the common concerns of Europe and the United States are matched also by divergent interests in certain areas of commerce and finance, as also by somewhat different perceptions of the political situation in various parts of the world. It is well that together Europe and America should seek to reconcile these divergent interests and different perceptions, so far as we may be able to do so without doing violence to the legitimate interests and the principles of each of the partners in this relationship.

Recently the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Barry, spoke at a seminar in Cork on Central America and US foreign policy. He made it perfectly clear that Ireland had joined together with all the other members of the EEC in comdemnation of a military answer to the problems in Central America. That was a combined effort by the EEC countries which showed categorically that they were at one in disagreeing with a military solution to the problems of Central America. That was a loud condemnation of the policies adopted at the moment by the American administration.

That is a political forum which can be used to get across in a meaningful way our objections to the foreign policy of a powerful state like the US. Another political forum is the United Nations. Nobody can say Ireland has been slow in sponsoring or supporting motions dealing with the lack of human rights in many areas around the world. That is a political mechanism to enable us to get across our opposition to certain policies. It is through those mechanisms that we will be listened to.

I respect the right of any group to be on the streets when President Reagan is here, or any other President or leader of a country with whom we might have divergent interest and views. That is democracy. That is their right, and it would be a sad day if that right was taken from them. We should address this problem as politicians. Some politicians have decided, for whatever reasons, that they will not attend at the joint session. That is their democratic right, but it is not the political way to do it. There are other mechanisms open to them and they should use those mechanisms to the best of their ability and make a more meaningful and relevant point to President Reagan when he visits us here.

Mr. R. Burke

I should like to join with the leader of our party, Deputy Haughey, Deputy Collins and Deputy Byrne in supporting the Taoiseach's motion:

That, to welcome the visit to Ireland of Ronald Reagan, the President of the United States of America, and to mark the event in a signal manner, a joint sitting of both Houses of the Oireachtas be held on Monday, 4th June, 1984, in the Dáil Chamber and that the President of the United States of America be invited to address such joint sitting; that the proceedings at such joint sitting shall consist of a speech by the Ceann Comhairle welcoming the President, the address by the President and a speech of thanks by the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad for the address; and that the time for such joint sitting shall be 12.00 noon.

I feel it is an honour to be present in the House representing the people of North County Dublin and supporting such a motion extending this signal honour to the leader of the largest and strongest democracy in the western world. I should like to see the Irish people according the warmest of welcomes to President Reagan, not just in his office as President of the United States but also as an individual who has done so much for his country during his Presidency. As was said earlier, he has shown a special interest in Ireland during his Presidency. We are welcoming President Reagan to this House and inviting him to address us at a joint sitting. He is the President of a country with which we have the closest of ties. We have 40 million blood relations within his constituency, within his country, a country which has supported us down through our history, prior to our independence and since then, in a political sense, an economic sense and in a sense of friendship. Various leaders of our country were afforded a welcome to the US prior to our independence and since then. Various leaders of our country were given the opportunity to address joint sittings of their Congress. At the very minimum as an Irish sovereign parliament, we should invite the President of the United States to address a joint sitting here.

Many red herrings have been brought into this debate. I regret that there was even a need for a debate. If I had my wish the motion would have been proposed by the Taoiseach and welcomed by the Leader of the Opposition. That is what I would normally expect as the minimum welcome for the President of the United States. We had various red herrings such as President Reagan's policy on Central America, nuclear weapons, and so on. They are not relevant to the visit of the President of the United States to this country. Let us be absolutely clear about that. Even if everybody was opposed to the President's policy on Central America, that is still not relevant. Not everybody is opposed to it. As Deputy Manning said, there are many points of view on Central America, the states within Central America, and the behaviour of other super-powers in that area.

Central America and nuclear weapons are irrelevant to this motion and should be treated accordingly. We heard a comment from Deputy Mac Giolla about arms and money being poured in to Nicaragua by the American administration. I do not approve of putting arms and money into Nicaragua. Deputy Mac Giolla spoke with a Pontius Pilate approach that no other super-power he knew of had ever poured money or arms into another country, or ever used their client states, or used paid mercenaries from Cuba within the states of Africa, independent states, in such a way as to affect the independence of those states. Indirectly, through Cuba, they have used money to cause dissension and disquiet in other countries in South and Central America.

Deputy Mac Giolla referred to solidarity. Where was his party when the real solidarity question arose, when the workers movement, Solidarity, in Poland was being tackled by that super-power Russia? Where was the solidarity of The Workers' Party with the Polish Solidarity and the mass of Polish people? I was a bit taken aback at the contribution of Deputy Taylor. The Leader of the Labour Party is the deputy Prime Minister of the country, yet that party have decided to reserve their position with regard to the invitation to the President of the United States to address a Joint session of the Houses of the Oireachtas. What standards are we dropping to? Deputy Taylor gave us an example of an individual trying to ride two horses.

We have been told that President Reagan was visiting Ireland as an election gimmick. Elections are due to be held in the United States this year and they are free and open elections. Thank God that they are free and open. How many countries have such open and free elections? A couple of weeks ago we heard of the grotesque charade of the elections to the Supreme Soviet in Russia. The President of that country Russia was the only candidate because only one is permitted and only one party can nominate a candidate. What is wrong with having free elections in the United States? I do not see anything wrong with the President of the US visiting Ireland in an election year. Ireland has many close ties with that country. The Taoiseach informed the House that there are 37,000 jobs as a result of a £4 billion American investment here. Apparently that is cast to one side by Deputy Mac Giolla and others.

In my view it is an important aspect of Irish life that we have that number of jobs as a result of American investment. That does not amount to tipping the cap to the almighty dollar; it is a recognition of a very important economic fact here. We have close tourist links with the US and I would like to see more Americans visiting Ireland. I would like to see closer friendship between America and Ireland and that will not be helped by people expressing views on selective pieces of American policy whether in Central America or elsewhere.

It is my view that many of the trendy Lefties who are opposed to President Reagan's visit would be opposed to a visit by any American President whether he was involved in controversial policies in Central America or not. They would oppose such a visit because it was by the President of the United States. I do not make any apology to anybody for supporting this motion. As a Deputy for north County Dublin I am pleased and honoured to unreservedly — I am not talking about pigeon holes or anything else — welcome the motion and I look forward to the visit by President Reagan to this House on 4 June.

Mr. Griffin

Like the last speaker I unreservedly welcome the invitation extended to President Reagan by the Taoiseach to address a joint session of the Houses of the Oireachtas which was ably seconded by the Leader of the Opposition. As a Member for south Tipperary I should like to avail of this opportunity to call for a spontaneous welcome for President Reagan. I will be saddened if there is even one dissenting voice. It will take from the dignity of the occasion and will mean that a lot of questions will be asked among the 34 million people of Irish extraction who live in America. Regardless of the decision of the House today the people of south Tipperary will extend to President Regan, a third or fourth generation Tipperary man, a céad míle fáilte. Already he has niched for himself a place in the hearts of the people of Tipperary. He will go down in the folklore of the Irish people and, in particular, those of south Tipperary.

I am saddened at the tone of the debate so far. I had hoped that there would have been unanimity on this motion rather than it being divisive. Irrespective of the outcome of the debate untold damage has already been done to our good name in America. It has always been held that Irish people had a tradition for hospitality and courtesy to visitors but I am afraid that those who are not friends of the Irish people throughout the world will avail of this opportunity to highlight the protest here in a different light. I am fearful that they will magnify those protests out of all proportion.

Some people here have very short memories. I should like to put the visit into an historical context. After the Great Famine from 1844 to 1847 many Irish people were forced to flee the land because of hunger, lack of employment and disease. America opened its hospitable shores to the Irish people. We should not forget that. Since then Irish people have played a magnificent role in building up the great American nation. The Taoiseach when he addressed a joint session of Congress on 15 March, recalled the great Irishman who had been given an opportunity of addressing a joint session of Congress. We must go back further than Mr. de Valera; we must go back to Charles Stewart Parnell who was accorded that great honour in 1880. We must consider the historical bond that has existed between our two countries. I am fearful that something will happen as a result of these protests to mar that relationship.

I do not know very much about Central America or American policies in relation to that part of the world except what I read. We are all aware that we cannot fully rely on the literature or newspaper reports in regard to Central America. The Taoiseach, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Barry, have stated definitively where Ireland stands in regard to the denial of human rights for any people, irrespective of where they live. I have no doubt that that message has been conveyed in a proper manner and with dignity to President Reagan and member of the US Congress. I hope that those who are thinking of disrupting this visit will consider the great damage they are doing to the friendly relationship that exists between America and Ireland. They should consider the vast amount of American investment in Ireland. They should also consider our tourist industry. A lot of damage could be done to that industry. If the positions were reversed, if our Taoiseach, the leader of our Government, was shown discourtesy, abstentionism and protests by a section of the American people, we would not take too kindly to it. We would be prepared to react in a way that would hurt the American economy. I hope that the Americans will look upon the protest as being by just an infinitesimal section of the Irish people, a conglomeration of lefties, weirdies and others who crawl out from under the stones and from the woodwork on such occasions and who are not truly representative of the Irish people, that the real welcome will not be shown to come through these hired, rent-a-crowd who are at the moment planning and scheming how they can disrupt this visit of the leader of a great friendly nation.

Even at this late stage I request the Members of this House not to absent themselves from the occasion here on 4 June when the great leader of a friendly nation will honour us by his presence and will address both Houses of the Oireachtas. It will be most undignified if they do so. I accept that some of them have misgivings about part of American policy in Central America, but they should not use this occasion to show their disagreement. They should come in, we should have a full muster here of all the Members of the joint Houses and we should give President Reagan the traditional welcome that he and the 44 million people of Irish extraction in America would expect us, as representatives of a sovereign State, to give their leader here in Dáil Éireann. I urge these people who are protesting, if they must protest and wish to persevere in this, to protest in a dignified manner and not to turn the visit into a shambles or do anything that would take from the dignity of the occasion.

Finally, I as one of the Deputies for South Tippearry, hope to be here on 4 June to extend a céad míle fáilte on behalf of the people of South Tipperary to a great third or fourth generation Tipperary man.

Mr. Flynn

I am very pleased to take the opportunity of joining with the Taoiseach and other speakers who spoke in favour of the motion and of giving a proper, suitable, dignified, traditional Irish welcome to the leader of the greatest democracy on earth, President Ronald Reagan, when he visits here in a few weeks' time.

It must be stated clearly for all those listening to this debate that the decision was taken with the full consent of all the major political parties in this House and has the full consent and support of all the leaders of the major political parties, and, as far as I am concerned, they represent the views of the vast majority of the people. It is not, as one commentator suggested on the show referred to by Deputy Mac Giolla, some 80 per cent. I believe it is well in excess of 90 per cent of the Irish people, and that view is being expressed across the length and breadth of this country at all the meetings and functions that I attend. Indeed, they are quite embarrassed at all the hostile publicity that has been given to this proposed visit, and it does not reflect in any significant way the attitudes of the ordinary people.

It is well to remember that it is not just a question of courtesy and dignity that we must show in this regard. We must recognise that President Reagan is the Head of State of the most important and powerful country on earth. It is well to remember also that he was elected in a landslide victory by the American people, and I would think that any insult offered by any individual or group in this country through his visit here is a direct insult to those who elected him, and they would think very poorly of those who would perpetrate that kind of attitude to their Head of Government and their President travelling on their behalf. Just as Deputy Mac Giolla misjudges the popular opinion towards this visit in his contribution this evening, he also misrepresents the remarks made by me on television last Saturday evening on "The Late Late Show". Quite readily I accept that I made reference to the orchestrated hostile reception that was being prepared for President Reagan, but at no time during that television appearance did I refer to any question of money being provided or arranged for the protest and for the protestors. It is just as well that the matter is put straight in that regard. He will have to attribute that remark to another guest on that show. It is not mine.

Deputy Monica Barnes on the same evening when she was put into a corner had to make up her mind on the spot that she would not be present to greet the President here in the House. I am quite sure that her defection from the ranks of Fine Gael in this matter is a cause for considerable embarrassment to the Fine Gael Party — as it should be — and she will have to suffer the opprobrium of her colleagues in this matter during the next few weeks. At least I can say that Deputy Monica Barnes went to some pains on that programme to suggest that her stand was not anti-American. I will give her that much, but the same cannot be said of The Workers' Party in their contributions in this matter. They have not been quite so generous in this regard, and that only leaves it open to me to understand——

Mr. De Rossa

That is untrue. Deputy Flynn is telling an untruth.

Mr. Flynn

——that if they are not prepared — obviously this is a sore point with some of the Deputies in the House.

Mr. De Rossa

Untruth is always a sore point.

Mr. Flynn

It would appear to me from the attitude being expressed by The Workers' Party in this regard that there is a definite anti-American slant in this.

Mr. De Rossa

That is not the truth.

Mr. Flynn

As long as it is west of the Urals it is all right for Deputy De Rossa but he is not as vociferous about what happens on the other side of the Urals. Of course, The Workers' Party are always very selective in the treatment of those they deem judicious to oppose at a particular time. It is getting good headlines and is keeping The Workers' Party supporters and representatives in the public press much more than they are entitled to and much beyond their entitlement as to whom they represent.

Mr. De Rossa

Sour grapes.

Mr. Flynn

It is not sour grapes.

Mr. De Rossa

It is.

Mr. Flynn

The Workers' Party and the attitude they are expressing concerning this visit do not represent the people of Ireland.

Mr. De Rossa

We are entitled to express our opinion.

Mr. Flynn

They are getting coverage far above what their opinion represents in Irish society. Let us be clear about one thing. When it comes down to trendy lefties, as the Leader of that party referred to some others that he would not himself subscribe to, they are left for sure but they are certainly not trendy. To be trendy you must have popular support widely based across the society in which you live. They have none, so they cannot claim to be trendy in any way. Also I put it to the Deputies of The Workers' Party in the top benches that there is a very small minority of support for far left thinking in this country. They are just coming out of their rabbit burrows on this occasion because it suits to get a left attitude on to the streets of Ireland——

Mr. De Rossa

A point of order.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy De Rossa on a point of order.

Mr. De Rossa

While referring to The Workers' Party Deputy Flynn said we were coming out of our rabbit burrows. Is that in order?

An Ceann Comhairle

It is not disorderly within the meaning of that.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Flynn

If the Deputy had been listening carefully he would recognise that I did not refer to the workers' representatives here coming out of their rabbit burrows. I referred to the lefties. If the lefties are the people who support the Deputy who has recently spoken, so be it. I referred on the programme to an orchestrated attempt to bring about a hostile reception for this visitor. I am standing by that. It is painfully obvious to anybody keeping track of what is happening that there is a certain organising of a hostile reception. It was borne out by the Leader of The Workers' Party when he quoted from a letter he received from some organiser trying to put certain organisations together in the hope that they would coalesce and provide the visiting Head of State with a nasty reception. That is slightly undermocratic.

Mr. De Rossa

That is nonsense.

Mr. Flynn

There is certainly nothing more undemocratic than the proposed walk-out by various Members of this House when the Head of State is visiting here. Members are elected to attend here when the Dáil is convenced and when this motion is passed the Dáil will convene on that day. Every single elected representative who is physically capable of attending has a duty to be present. That is what the people elected him for, to attend here on the days in question. Those who do not attend are committing an undemocratic act and do not deserve to hold their seats.

Some of the attitudes being expressed by various individuals are a little hypocritical. I find it hard to reconcile the attitude of the leader of the Labour Party with the fact that he, as a member of the Government and Tánaiste, was party to the official invitation on behalf of the Irish people to the President of the United States. It is difficult to understand how he can reconcile his point of view with being a member of the Government who invited the President. At the same time he is prepared to lead a protest of his party in some way that is to be decided tomorrow. It is threatening that the Whip of that party should suggest that the format for that protest will be decided tomorrow, as if the House had to live under the shadow of a threat from a small section of one of the Government parties regarding the kind of reception they will give the Head of State when he visits the House. There is something incongruous in the attitude of the leader and of the Labour Party in general. Another member of that party is on record as saying that everything possible should be done while the President of the United States is here to see that he is not re-elected. Talk about gross interference in the politics of a sovereign State. It is very hard to adjust to that kind of thinking.

Our Taoiseach, Deputy FitzGerald, was in the United States representing us all and he did so very adequately. We were all honoured by the fine, dignified and courteous reception he received. He did us proud, as did our former Taoiseach, Deputy Charles J. Haughey. It would have been unacceptable in the extreme if any US politician had made a public statement while the Taoiseach was there —"Do everything in your power to denigrate the Taoiseach of Ireland and make sure he does not have any hope of being re-elected". That kind of attitude has been expressed by a certain Member of the other House.

All the political parties here were hoping and expecting that it might be possible for the President of the United States while on his visit here to express the concern of the American people about the reunification of our country and the possible stand that might be taken by the American people in support of our claim to a solution for the national question. On the one hand we are asking him to take a direct interest in foreign policies in so far as they affect the Republic and the British Government but on the other hand we are saying that he has no rights in relation to his own foreign policy. It does not matter whether we agree with it or not. The American people are providing money in support of American foreign policy and they are the ones who are best able to judge that foreign policy. They will get the opportunity later in the year. They will give their answer and it will have to be accepted by all of us.

Mr. De Rossa

Does the same hold true for the British Government in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Flynn

Some people are very vocal today in wishing to give a "nasty reception" to the President. I understand I am quoting accurately the words used by the leader of The Workers' Party. No matter how one interprets the word "nasty" it has a certain undercurrent of a violent attitude which I do not like. If those who are preaching that kind of reception for the President of the United States had taken the same attitude to others who have a direct bearing on matters that concern us very closely, they would have been a lot more vocal over the years when other Heads of State visited this country. They were very muted on those occasions. When they give as much verbosity to the interference of other sovereign States directly in Irish affairs as they are giving to the visit of the President of the United States, I might be prepared to give them a better hearing.

Mr. De Rossa

The Deputy is talking a lot of rubbish.

Mr. Flynn

It seems to be getting through to Deputy De Rossa. The main purpose of this debate is to put him in his place. He is getting it now from all sides of the House.

Mr. De Rossa

I am well able to take it.

Mr. Flynn

The Irish people collectively are saying to him "cop on, sit down and take your proper place". He will run away when the attitude of the majority is being put fairly and squarely before him. He wants to run away to the burrow he left.

Mr. De Rossa

He said it again, a Cheann Comhairle.

Mr. Flynn

I was hoping that the leader of The Workers' Party would decide this was a suitable occasion to withdraw the remark he made on 29 April 1984 about the nasty reception and say he made the remark in haste. It is time somebody called on the leader of The Workers' Party to withdraw that remark, otherwise we shall have to take inferences from it. There is no point in telling me that there can be widespread protests and massive disruption without incurring the use of the security forces. There is no point in saying that there can be massive, peaceful disruption of traffic and of Irish life on a particular day without causing considerable difficulties and without the possibility of violence coming into play. For that reason, I should have thought that The Workers' Party would have gone out of their way today in the House to make a very big plea that, whatever protests might ensue following their words at least they would be seen to support the view that it should not be, as they say, a nasty and hostile reception.

The President of the United States will be visiting my constituency and he has the welcome of the vast majority of my constituents. I look forward to seeing all Deputies and Senators elected democratically to these Houses of Parliament present on the day in question.

Mr. G. Mitchell

Much has been made of the visit of the United States President to Ireland in the year of the Convention Elections in the United States. Deputies who have supported the President's addressing of the House have been at pains to try to suggest that his visit here has nothing to do with the Convention. Let us be honest and frank about it, it has to do with the coming election. And if it has, that is the American President's business. If we go to the United States on business, or if the Taoiseach wishes to address the Joint Houses of Congress there, we are not going on American business but to promote the business interests of this country and this Government. We should not be too concerned about the reason for the forthcoming visit, that is the American President's business. Our concern is how we receive him when he arrives here.

I support this resolution. A lot can be said about US policy in Central America and this is an area about which there is a lot of ignorance. We have, in our party, a foreign affairs committee of which I happen to be chairman and I have been trying very hard to brief myself on this very complicated subject. I have a lot to learn about Central America but believe that many people who say that they are not going to meet the President when he comes here because of American policy in Central America should be asked to explain American policy there. It appears that they are taking certain quotations from certain parts of the press.

There are many things wrong with American policy in Central America, there is no doubt about that. I have said earlier in this House that whereas we have very strong ties with the United States, as one of what are considered to be constitutional democracies in the world today, we should not accept the Americans throwing their weight around in Central America, nor should we accept the Soviet Union doing likewise. That latter is something which has not been mentioned here. In monetary terms, if we assess which of these power blocs have interfered more in Central America, it is surprising to find that the friends of Deputy De Rossa and Deputy Mac Giolla are far in advance. I am not apologising for American policy, I have very strong misgivings about it. However, I want to have something to say about that policy, with an input into changing it. That we want to insult the American people by insulting their President is how it will be interpreted, whether we like it or not.

I am sorry that Deputy Mac Giolla is not present at the moment, but he wants us to insult the United States President, a few months after he insulted the United States Ambassador by tearing up an invitation received from him. I have in my possession a photograph of Deputy Mac Giolla with the Ambassador of the Soviet Union in this country.

Mr. Flynn

Was he hugging him?

Mr. G. Mitchell

Deputy Mac Giolla has a very funny way of choosing his friends and of expressing his concern over civil rights in the world. It would be a good day's work if he were to express that concern in a balanced way. Both super-powers——

Mr. Flynn

He would certainly be in good company with the Russian bear, anyway.

Mr. G. Mitchell

—— have been condemned for many wrongs done internationally. Sometime ago, 259 people were murdered on a Korean airline jet plane, and there was not as much as a murmur out of the same people who are now orchestrating this campaign against President Reagan. I am in favour of the Americans being told our position on Central America and of our trying to influence the United States against some of the clowns and clownish activities that they have been supporting in Central America. If we really want to influence them, there is a way of doing so. We should be balanced and be prepared to condemn other certainly more severe and more blatant atrocities which are hardly mentioned in this House.

The United States is the largest democracy in the world and we have a lot in common with it, not least because there are over 40 million Irish Americans over there which, of course, plays a part in the visit here of the American President. Of course, it plays a part in the appointment of an American Envoy to the Holy See during an election year. These things have happened. We have very close ties and unlike politicians here who take views from all and sundry morning, noon and night, that is not done in the United States. Also, the American public do not like to hear denigratory statements about their leaders.

Not long ago we had in this House a number of American students who were working as interns with Members of the House of whom I happened to be one. Many were very young and would be voting for President Reagan because, as far as they were concerned, he was the first President of the United States in a very long time to give them back their self respect and national esteem. We may not see it like that, but that is how they view it. They are the people that we are going to offend if we try to protest in the National Parliament in a way which would be offensive to the American people and their President.

I do not have a great regard for imperialism, whether American, Soviet or British. There are ways of airing one's grievances on foreign affairs. We may not always agree with much of what the super-powers are doing and we must show our disagreement in this House. I have tried to raise the question of having in this House a foreign affairs committee because we have no opportunity, on a regular basis, to have a debate on foreign affairs.

An Ceann Comhairle

I think the Deputy is straying from the motion.

Mr. G. Mitchell

People are using the opportunity to protest at the visit of a United States President because there are no other avenues available. It is time those avenues were available.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy will have to find another opportunity of talking about those avenues.

Mr. G. Mitchell

We must be very clear on where our duty lies. If President Reagan were a Hitlerite or someone who had carried out such terrible anti-social atrocities that we could not welcome him here, I would understand, but that is not the reason why people are not ready to receive him here. There is another story and we should give the President the opportunity of coming here and putting his point of view to us to so that we can understand and also put across to him our views. I regret that the Americans have not taken the opportunity to try to put forward their views, with the exception of the speech by Ambassador William H. Luers in University College, Cork, on 28 April. That is the only occasion to my knowledge on which they have tried to put forward a case, if they have a case. I hope for an early debate on the reservations of the members of this Government on American policy, and our point of view should be put so that we can have some influence.

This country, and in particular this city, have been bereft of the type of lift to tourism which is needed and which will be given by the Presidential visit here. Since our job is to promote the public interest, if we believe that this visit is in the public interest, we should welcome President Reagan. I wish to support this motion.

Mr. Briscoe

I want to add my voice to those who have spoken before me in welcoming the visit of President Reagan to this country. We are very fortunate to have him coming here. Many speakers have already mentioned the 40 million Irish-Americans in the United States. While those people have strong emotional ties with this country they are, nevertheless, very patriotic, loyal Americans. If the message went back to the USA, arising from President Reagan's visit here, that he had in any way been snubbed, it would not be very good for Ireland. Irish-Americans first loyalty is to America and we should not forget that.

I cannot understand the mentality of the people who attack President Reagan's visit here purely out of political motives based on, as Deputy Flynn said, anti-America. It is interesting to note that last year our exports to the United States were £561 million, that the number of tourists we got from America was approximately 330,000, that the value of that tourism to the country was £134 million and that the American tourist is worth approximately one and three quarter tourists from other countries from the point of view of the money they spend here.

The links which exist between this country and America go back very far. There is hardly anybody in the House who does not have relations in America. Many people have brothers and sisters living in America and they have very close links with that country. It is a tremendous boon to the country to have President Reagan visiting us and he should be welcomed. We will get publicity to the value of many hundred million dollars. During his visit the cameras will be on the country and not only will American cameras see his visit to Ireland but people in other countries will also receive news flashes of his visit here.

I have always said that Dáil Éireann represents a cross-section of the people of Ireland. If you want to see the people of Ireland you have only to come into Dáil Éireann and you will find them. Approximately 95 per cent of this Parliament welcome the visit of President Reagan to this country. This is a reflection of what the country as a whole feels about his visit. Those of us who are old enough to remember the visit of President Kennedy to this country remember the wonderful welcome he was given on that occasion. I believe the people will rise to this occasion and will give a great welcome to President Reagan. I believe they will come out in their thousands to welcome him and will not let the country down. I want to say to the people who are sincere in their reservations not to be influenced by those with ulterior motives. There are such people who will use this visit for their own ends, and this would be a disaster for the country. News is when something starts to go wrong. There are some people who will try to orchestrate a protest just for their own ends and they should not be encouraged to do this.

We are very proud of our Irish-American people like Speaker McCormack and Tip O'Neill, those people who have Irish ancestors. They are very proud of their Irish heritage. I know that the vast majority of the people will give a céad míle fáilte to President Reagan on his visit to Ireland.

An Ceann Comhairle

Before I call the next speaker I would like to say that there are approximately 12 to 15 Deputies that I know of who are anxious to contribute to this debate. While I have no control over the length of speeches I appeal to the speakers to bear that in mind so that everybody will get a fair opportunity.

Mr. Mac Giolla

On a point of order, I was outside the House when Deputy Flynn accused me of using the word "nasty"on 29 April in a speech I made at the Ard-Fheis.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is not a point of order.

Mr. Mac Giolla

I am asking you how I can redress this because I have the speech I made at the Ard-Fheis and there is no mention of the word "nasty". Deputy Flynn said it was on the newspapers on the Monday. He did not know what paper it was on when I asked him about it. There was no mention of this.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy has explained his position.

Mr. Prendergast

I want to preface my remarks by referring to what Deputy Flynn said about the Labour Party. He said he found our attitude on this strange. I do not find that comment at all incongruous coming from somebody of the mentality of Deputy Flynn. I stand up here in the name of the Labour Party. There is no party in this state, inside this House or outside it, who have a better right to comment on the visit of President Reagan and the institutions of democracy. We are not any latter day converts to the concept of democracy or democratic institutions, whether we are speaking about the seventies and eighties or the twenties and thirties. Our policy is given to the leadership from the Members on the floor as enunciated recently at our annual delegate conference. It is not handed down to the members by the leadership, as is done in many other parties in the country.

With regard to President Reagan's visit, I was approached recently by newspaper correspondents and asked for my view on it. My party and I defend absolutely the right of anybody to protest their disagreement with the Government and the political system of a country. That is the cornerstone of our political system and is the difference between that system and any other political system. I remember a conversation in Russia in 1979 when we were discussing political systems. They were being contrasted and it was fairly one-way traffic. I am not a defender of American policy-making. I despise what the American Government are doing at the moment in Central America in the name of the American people. My party criticised that and we made it very clear at our recent annual conference. We tend to draw semantic distinctions between the President of America and the people he represents. I believe America is the greatest democracy in the world. It was two journalists who brought down Nixon, who was conceivably the most powerful political figure in the world at that time. I believe there is no other country in the midst of an international war who would have allowed its correspondents to expose what happened in My-lai in Vietnam. I pointed it out that evening in that conversation. I think any other Government, including our own, of whatever hue, would have made an attempt to avoid what was a major political embarrassment in the middle of an international war. I am talking about the incident in Vietnam. Two correspondents again brought that out and I said that, whether it was Ireland, France, Britain or Russia, that would have not made the public news headlines.

With regard to my position in regard to this proposed visit, I think it was Voltaire or one of the French revolutionary leaders who said: "I despise your views but I am prepared to die for your right to express them". I believe the most effective demonstration we could make would be one that would be most dignified and most peaceful. That goes without saying. I was responsible for organising another demonstration in the case of the Springboks, when they came here, because of the treatment meted out to the native people in South Africa. There were elements in those demonstrations which sought to turn them from peaceful, dignified demonstrations into disorderly mêlées which were counter-productive from the point of view of what we wanted to achieve. I believe the same thing can happen if those in our community who have the most legitimate, democratic and perfect right within our political system to convey their opposition to American politics allow themselves to be manipulated. What worries me is the background of some of the people who are orchestrating this opposition. In the Labour Party we form our own foreign policy and that policy is not lifted from the foreign policy of any other Government. Our funds are raised at church gates by sincerely committed supporters in spite of the sardonic comments of some jaundiced sources.

I am a bit worried about the credentials of the people who, on the one hand, talk about democracy and I remember those same people — and I know them — talking sotto voce when Jaruzelski destroyed Lech Walensa in Poland. I remember the same people in 1956 murmuring quietly “Do not have any discussions”. They criticised movements here, movements protesting against what happened in Poland, because it was against their Stalinist outlook. I would hate what should be a legitimate protest to fall into their hands. Equally, I am concerned—

An Ceann Comhairle

I must remind Deputy Prendergast that he appears to be concentrating more on a protest than on the actual visit. The resolution before the House covers the address by the President of the United States to the combined Houses of the Oireachtas.

Mr. Prendergast

I think what I am saying is just as much relevant as the remarks of some of the other speakers whom I heard.

An Ceann Comhairle

The difference between Deputy Prendergast and other speakers is that he seems to be developing his points where other speakers were making passing references.

Mr. Prendergast

I think the Chair. I am deeply concerned about the remarks of people like Deputy Flynn. The major reason they advance or seem to be advancing, if I understand correctly, as to why the President should be accepted is purely on commercial grounds from the point of view of what industrial benefit might accrue to this country. To me that is a disgusting reason and I deprecate that type of approach. It is as bad on one side as on the other.

We, as the Government, have invited the head of a sovereign state and he should be received in that capacity. The Chinese differ profoundly with American foreign policy, but he was received correctly by that Government. No one need elaborate on the fundamental differences that exist as between China and America. If demonstrations take place I emphasise that they must be both dignified and peaceful and not manipulated for the purpose of misrepresenting or distorting the views of the Irish people.

I am often concerned, and this is no fault of the media as such, by some of what comes across which would appear to represent the viewpoint of the majority on different issues. I would call for a balance in that regard. To make my own position clear, I was elected here by my constituents and I hope to be here representing my constituents on the day of the visit of President Reagan; but I intend to boycott any other social function to which I may be invited. I am not obliged to attend social functions but I feel there is a political obligation on me to present in the Dáil in response to the people who elected me here. That is the distinction I make.

Mr. V. Brady

I add my support to the acceptance of the invitation by President Reagan to visit Ireland. The United States and President Reagan are paying a great honour to this country by accepting the invitation. There has been a tremendous traditional long lasting relationship over many, many years between the United States of America and Ireland. This visit affords both countries an opportunity to further that relationship, which I hope and trust will be in the interests not only of the two countries concerned but in the wider interest of both western and eastern democracy generally and the improvement of relations throughout the whole world. Objection to the visit has been raised because of the policy of the United States in Central America. Many examples have been given here this afternoon of events in that part of the world. We are all conscious of the situation, but I must say that the United States of America has been and is one of the greatest democracies in the world and has been a tremendous leader in the cause of freedom. That has been demonstrated in many cases over the years. The critics of this visit have sounded very ominous but those same critics have been very quiet on other occasions when atrocities were being committed by other countries. To me this is the vast difference on this occasion between those in favour and those against this particular visit and that difference is patently obvious.

America has been a very close friend of Ireland all down the years. It is a country in which our ancestors found opportunities many years ago and it would be the height of bad manners from the Irish point of view when the Government invite the President of the largest democracy in the world if elected public representatives were not seen to give the civic welcome due to the President of the United States of America.

As far as The Workers' Party are concerned, they have been very vocal in their judgements on this visit and my colleague, Deputy Flynn, has given dates and times of speeches made by Deputy Mac Giolla of The Workers' Party when he called for a nasty and hostile reception. He has also called for a peaceful protest. Now anybody with any commonsense at all will understand and accept——

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair is in some difficulty as to whether Deputy Brady and Deputy Flynn on the one hand and Deputy Mac Giolla on the other hand are talking about the same speech.

Mr. V. Brady

I am referring to the fact that Deputy Flynn instanced a particular occasion——

Mr. De Rossa

The only speech made on 29 April by Deputy Mac Giolla was his address to the annual conference of the party and in no place did he mention the word "nasty" or "hostile" in connection with President Reagan. The Deputy explained that to Deputy Flynn who accepted what he said.

An Ceann Comhairle

If Deputy Brady has a reference he should give it.

Mr. V. Brady

I do not have a reference but my colleague quoted a reference during his contribution.

Mr. De Rossa

He accepted the correction.

Mr. V. Brady

I was making the point that anyone with commonsense will understand that if a nasty and hostile reception is called for——

Mr. De Rossa

There he goes again.

Mr. V. Brady

If a person calls for a nasty and hostile reception he is not calling for a peaceful protest.

An Ceann Comhairle

I have asked the Deputy if he can give the reference. Deputy Mac Giolla has repudiated that reference and has denied he made it. If the Deputy has not got the reference he should accept the denial.

Mr. V. Brady

I will have to leave that to my colleague, Deputy Flynn. He gave the reference. I hope common sense will prevail. For the sake of good manners and for economic and other reasons we should be seen to give the President of the United States a very good welcome, a hearty cead míle fáilte, and I hope that is what we will do.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

I wish to support the motion. Any Deputy who has reservations about attending the joint session of the two Houses of the Oireachtas should consider the matter seriously. They should answer a number of questions before making a decision.

The President of the United States is the invited guest of our democratically elected Taoiseach who heads the Government. It is the second time in the history of this State to have a visit by an American President and it is the second time in the history of the American Presidency that an American President will have visited Ireland. There is a duty and an onus on us to act as responsible elected public representatives and to come here and represent our constituents. Secondly, he is the President of a major world power and of a country to which many of our ancestors were forced to emigrate. Those of us whose ancestors were not forced to emigrate should not abuse the privilege we have of living in this country and we should not put the descendants of those who were forced to leave our country in an embarrassing situation; in this connection I am speaking about the Irish-Americans. That matter should be considered seriously.

Some Deputies have said we should not resort to discussing economics and jobs here in considering the approach we adopt with regard to the visit of the President. We should realise there is major American investment here and a substantial number of jobs are provided directly by American-based companies. In addition, there are many service jobs that are provided indirectly as a result of American companies working in other countries. The visit of the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs to the United States made a major impression on the American public and the business world and a special meeting of more than 300 top Irish-American businessmen was held in Texas. The sole purpose of the meeting was to examine ways and means by which the Irish-American business community could assist Ireland in our serious economic situation. The question must be asked, what position will the managing directors of companies find themselves in when they go back to their board meetings and try to impress on their directors to make a decision in favour of coming to Ireland if the President of their country gets a hostile reception here? Irish-Americans are Americans first even though they are proud of their Irish heritage. If we see fit to insult in any way or to show hostility towards the US President we will damage future investment here. We should be under no illusions about that. I should have thought that The Workers' Party would be examining seriously the future of workers in this country and they should consider the points I have made when they address the joint meeting of both Houses of the Oireachtas.

As Members of the Oireachtas we are in a special position and we have channels open to us that are not available to the ordinary citizen. I can appreciate that many citizens may feel strongly about certain matters and may decide to have peaceful demonstrations to protest against policies pursued by various governments in South America. All of us disagree strongly with the policies pursued in South America and with the terrible atrocities taking place. However, as Members of this House we have various channels open to us and many of us have used them. Our democratically elected Minister for Foreign Affairs on numerous occasions has brought to the attention of the American Government the fact that he does not agree with policies pursued in South America. As has been said already, the Irish Government have joined with other EEC countries in condemnation of the policies pursued in that region. Members of this House have used the channels open to them in a proper manner and if Oireachtas Members should start to protest in a manner other than that it would leave much to be desired.

It is my opinion that the majority of the Irish people are looking forward to the visit of the American President. The majority welcome his coming and they hope as a result of his visit we will have a better and a brighter economic future.

Mr. De Rossa

Before addressing myself to the reasons this invitation should not be extended to President Reagan, I should like to deal with a number of points made during the debate. The points made by Deputy Flynn and repeated by Deputy Brady, despite the fact that Deputy Flynn had accepted his comments were wrong.

Mr. V. Brady

On a point of order——

Mr. De Rossa

He has insisted on repeating that the words "nasty" and "hostile" were used by Deputy Mac Giolla——

Mr. V. Brady

On a point of order, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, Deputy Flynn did not withdraw his comments and he did quote from a reference Deputy De Rossa knows that.

Mr. De Rossa

Deputy Flynn has been shown a copy of the statement made by Deputy Mac Giolla on Sunday, 29 April and has accepted that he was wrong.

Mr. V. Brady

That is wrong, he did not.

Mr. De Rossa

If Deputy V. Brady cares to come up here and sit beside me he can leaf through the speech made, when he can then stand up and apologise for repeating an incorrect statement. I find it extraordinary that, on the one hand, we are being urged, in the interest of manners, to smile and accept the impending visit of President Reagan while, on the other hand, Deputy V. Brady has not got the good grace or manners to accept that he was wrong in this instance.

A number of points need to be made in relation to this debate. It has been suggested that in some way it is slightly undemocratic to organise protests against the visit of President Reagan to this country. In view of other remarks made by other Deputies — for example, in relation to Poland, Northern Ireland and a whole range of other issues — I should have thought that the organising of protests is considered probably by all people in this House as an essential part of the democratic process of any country. Therefore, it is incorrect for any Deputy, whether he or she belongs to the Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael or the Labour Party, to infer that in some way the organising of a protest is undemocratic and, therefore, to be deplored. It is also suggested that because a person is elected to this House they should in some way forego their right to protest in relation to the foreign policy of any country, that those outside the House may be free to protest in the streets, but that elected representatives are not entitled to that freedom. That constitutes a slightly distorted view of what the democratic process is all about.

It is argued also that, if large protests took place, in some way violence would result. I might remind Deputies in this House that the largest protest ever seen in this country took place in 1979 when almost 250,000 workers marched in the streets of Dublin demanding tax reform, when the comment generally was that despite the huge numbers taking part there was good humour and good will among the marchers — and that despite the presence of what some people in this House call weirdies, trendies, lefties and so on. There is no logical reason for assuming that if protest took place violence of some kind would occur.

The arguments in favour of supporting this motion boil down to three, firstly, that it would be bad manners to protest in any way; secondly, that it might put at risk American investment in Ireland and, thereby, jobs and, we are told also, perhaps result in a drop in tourism from America. But there is no evidence advanced to back up those arguments; the contrary is the case. It has been demonstrated in the course of Deputy Mac Giolla's contribution and in statements made outside this House that a very large proportion of the American population do not support President Reagan's policies in relation to the deployment of nuclear weapons or in relation to Central or Latin America. The fact that there is no evidence advanced to support the view that it would affect investment or tourism does not prevent people from continuously getting up here in the last few hours repeating that charge. The fact is that, even before President Reagan was invited here, American investment had begun to decline, that the number of tourists in real terms — in relation to the growth of tourism within America itself and Ireland's share — has also been in decline. If one compares the effect of any protest there might be about this visit with the troubles in Northern Ireland over the last 15 years, the effect that has had on American investment North and South, and indeed on tourism both in Northern Ireland and Great Britain, then any protests about this visit would be seen as a drop in the ocean.

Our Minister for Foreign Affairs, was in America recently seeking support for the Report of the New Ireland Forum, when he stated in interviews with national papers and television that there was a serious risk of civil war in Ireland. Does anybody seriously think that protests here in relation to President Reagan's visit about his Latin American and nuclear policies would have a greater effect than the statement of our Minister for Foreign Affairs on that occasion? Nobody could reasonably argue that they would.

We appear to be discussing this issue on the basis of emotions, that there is a lot of sentiment tying Ireland to America. No doubt that is true. Indeed somebody here said there is hardly a person in this country who does not have a relation in the United States. I am sure if I thought hard enough I could find one as well. But the policy of the United States in restricting immigration of Irish people to the United States is gradually eroding that connection between Ireland and the United States. That is not necessarily a good thing but it must be faced that it is happening. If any investigation were carried out into the reason for the decline in our share of tourism from the United States then it would be ascertained that it is the distancing, the erosion of this connection between our two countries. We should view things realistically. We should ascertain whether we are justified in welcoming with open arms the President of a country that has been described as the largest democracy in the world, whether we are entitled to welcome without any dissent whatsoever the President of that country while at the same time that country is engaged in a whole series of actions in Central and Latin America which is causing death and destruction in that region.

I think it was Deputy Gay Mitchell who made the point today that there is a much if not more Soviet interference in Latin and Central America than there is United States involvement. I would say to Deputy Gay Mitchell that is not the factual position. Along with myself and Deputy N. Andrews two of his party members met two Ministers of State from Nicaragua in this House approximately a month ago when we discussed the problems in that country at length, when they said where the Nicaraguan people themselves felt the solution lay and who was interferring with whom. Those Ministers of State of the Nicaraguan Government said quite clearly that as far as Nicaragua is concerned the Soviet Union is not a problem. The problem is that the United States are attempting to replace the Government there with one suiting their policy interests. That basically was the problem vis-á-vis the United States and Nicaragua — that if the United States do not like the complexion of the Government there, or are unhappy that the Somosa dictatorship they supported had been deposed, they do their level best through overt and covert actions to destabilise that Government. To say there is more Soviet intervention in Nicaragua or Latin America without presenting any factual basis for saying that is incorrect and misleading this House. Members of the Nicaraguan Government have said quite the opposite, that the problem is United States policy in relation to Nicaragua.

The Taoiseach

Is the Deputy going to refer to Afghanistan?

Mr. De Rossa

If I have time.

An Leas Cheann Comhairle

There are at least ten Members offering after you so, with your co-operation, I hope to facilitate as many speakers as possible.

Mr. De Rossa

Many Deputies referred to The Workers' Party and I should have an opportunity of responding to them. I will be as brief as possible. The Taoiseach referred to Afghanistan and a number of Deputies alleged that The Workers' Party did not make a statement with regard to Solidarity in Poland and the shooting down of a Korean airliner. As I said, they must have had cotton wool in their ears for the last number of years because our party have made their position clear in relation to all these issues. On a radio programme I condemned the shooting down of the Korean airliner. The Ard Fheis of The Workers' Party condemned the military Government in Poland, but that does not mean we have to support every point which conservative Deputies in this House throw at us. We have a political position in relation to socialism and capitalism and we are obviously entitled to articulate that position.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. De Rossa

People are inclined to say that if America are doing something, what about Afghanistan or Poland? It is a form of justification.

The Taoiseach

No, it is a reflection of double standards.

Mr. De Rossa

I will give an analogy in relation to Northern Ireland. When the Provos commit an atrocity in Northern Ireland the response is always: What about the UDR, the British army and so on? Everybody is expected to pull in their horns and to agree with it. I refer to it as "what aboutery" and it is used to justify American policy in Central America and the siting of Pershing and Cruise missiles in Western Europe. To condemn American policy is not justifying Soviet policy in Afghanistan or any other country which is engaged in the denial of human rights.

The Taoiseach

The Deputy referred to Cruise and Pershing but why does he not refer to SS20s?

Mr. De Rossa

I have condemned the SS20s. I have always called for disarmament, East and West.

The Taoiseach

Deputy Mac Giolla has not called for it.

Mr. De Rossa

He has. I am usually asked to speak on these matters and I have always called for disarmament. We should not indulge in the luxury of letting ourselves off the hook in relation to American policy throughout the world by comparing it with policies of other governments. American policy is either right or wrong. If it is wrong the Government and the people of this country should make their position clear in relation to it. Those who have said they are going to protest are not confined to people on the left. Religious orders and lay missionaries in Central America, who are concerned about the policy in Latin America, are also going to protest. They are the main movers in opposing American policy on these issues.

We should examine the reasons for the visit taking place now. The Taoiseach said that the invitation was given to the President some years ago and that he was free to accept it at any time. He has chosen to accept it in the middle of an election campaign in the United States. A figure of 43 million Irish-Americans has been quoted by a number of Deputies as having an interest in Ireland. I am in no position to dispute that. I have no way of knowing whether they have an interest in Ireland, but I hope they have. However, it cannot do the President of the United States any harm to visit and get an open arm welcome from the people of Ireland in the middle of an election campaign. It may not be the intention of this Government to assist the President of the United States in that way but I am convinced it was a primary consideration as far as President Reagan's advisers were concerned when he decided to accept the invitation now.

There is another consideration. The president is tagging on his visit to Ireland on a Western European tour and we are in the middle of an EEC election campaign. It must be seen that there is widespread opposition to American policies in relation to the siting of Cruise and Pershing missiles in Western Europe. Millions of people have marched for peace and disarmament. I do not think it is stretching things too far to believe that President Regan's visit to Europe, apart from coming to Ireland, is connected with the fact that there is widespread opposition to his policies and that we are in the middle of an EEC election campaign. Candidates will be standing in opposition to that policy and, presumably, he will be hoping to strengthen his position on those issues.

It has been said that the Taoiseach got a very warm welcome in America and that Congress accepted him with open arms. That was very pleasant from the point of view of Irish people but there is no comparision between our Taoiseach and our President and the President of the United States. We are not an imperial power. We do not have armies in any other part of the world except on peace-keeping operations with the United Nations. We have no interest in any other country other than the interest of ensuring that there is peace and that everybody has a proper living standard and human rights. We have no imperial interest. It is not reasonable to compare the welcome a representative of Ireland would receive in any other country with the welcome given to the president of a country which is involved in many other countries in arms supplies, in relation to nuclear weapons and its policy on Central America. There is no valid comparison to be made. I am about to finish, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. I can see you are getting very nervous.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am not nervous.

Mr. De Rossa

It is important that we should be given an opportunity to make these points. If President Reagan loses the election this year — and I personally hope he does; that is my view and I am entitled to it — if he comes back next year as a private citizen he will be more than welcome. The 300,000 Americans who it is expected will visit these shores during the coming year are more than welcome. The Workers' Party have made it clear a number of times that our protests are against the policies of the American administration and not against the American people. We recognise the brotherhood of working-class people in Ireland, America and in every other part of the world. We are not anti-American.

Mr. Coveney

I welcome the motion and I welcome the visit of the United States President to Ireland. As president he is head of state as well as chief executive. When Speaker O'Neill was here he emphasised that fact. That is very different from our system. In the one person we do not embody the formal head of state and the chief executive. When a sworn political enemy of the President of the United States — and that is what Tip O'Neill is — exhorts us to extend courtesy to the president as the head of state of the United States, that neatly expresses the difference between the two systems.

Having invited him here it is incumbent on us to extend the courtesies to him and the courtesy of this House in welcoming him to speak here. I am sorry The Workers' Party cannot see that difference and cannot have the magnanimity to say he should be welcomed here, even though they disagree with him. There are ample forums for expressing their disagreement, and they are quite entitled to do that. It would be a very fine gesture on their part if they could see their way to welcoming him with us unanimously to the House. That is what we all desire.

References have been made to emotionalism as if there was something wrong with that. The man we are speaking about is president of a country, 20 per cent of the population of which are of our flesh and blood. What is wrong with that kind of emotionalism? What is so reprehensible about saying that? It creates a unique and very special relationship. A ratio of 10:1 between the population of the mother country and the United States is an absolutely unprecedented connection between any two nations anywhere, and is an additional reason for placing more importance on this visit than on the visit of any other head of state.

Reference was made to the Presidential election in the United States. That election is five months away. It is infantile to suggest that people voting in the United States in the month of October will be significantly affected one way or the other by whether or not the President of the United States comes here. Deputy De Rossa has just made an interference about the visit to Europe, the primary purpose of which is for the President of the United States to attend an economic international summit in London. It was arranged on a yearly basis and has nothing whatever to do with the popularity or otherwise of American policies in Europe at this time. That is the primary reason he is in this hemisphere at this time. Obviously it was convenient for him to accept our invitation at around the same time.

The foreign policy of the United States raises the hackles of many people. Some people disagree with elements of it. All of us are concerned about the nuclear arms race and the lack of progress on nuclear arms de-escalation. I am certainly concerned about that, and I am critical of aspects of American actions in that respect. Central America is the other issue which is in the minds of many people here at the moment. To say it is a complex problem is to underestimate the complexity of it. There is rightful concern about some American policy and actions there. I am astonished at the thousands of experts on Central America who have sprung up overnight all over the country, on a subject which is so complex that nobody can speak about it with any authority who has not studied it in great depth. That is not to say we should not be concerned.

All of these things are amenable to peaceful protest and are quite separate from and irrelevant to whether or not we receive the president in this House as the head of the greatest democracy on this earth. I do not think those issues should be a factor in our decision here. The President of the United States knows well that there are policies and actions of his government which are not universally acceptable, nor would he expect that they should be. It is right that people here should be concerned about such issues and channel their concern into some form of peaceful protest.

Deputy Owen expressed it very well this evening when she made the point that because one is for or against this motion, one is not either for or against United States policies on Central America or nuclear disarmament. That would be a gross and reprehensible interpretation of people's actions. Talking about United States policies and the policies of President Reagan, one should speak also about his economic policies. The number of times I have heard on all sides of the House references to the economic recovery of the West, led by a perceptible recovery in the United States, and the way in which the whole world is looking for and getting a lead in the economic recovery of the West should not be lost sight of, and it happened in the short presidency of President Reagan.

References are also being made to our judgment being coloured by self-interest in terms of industrial development, tourism, and so on. Equally one must accept that the United States has acted in respect of industrial development here in a particularly favourable way from our point of view. In 1981 this president endorsed US overseas industrial investment in Ireland, the only country in the developed world to receive such endorsement. That is a fact. You do not spit in the face of a man who will do that. You do not insult him by even raising the question of whether or not he should address this House. It is unfortunate that we should be even questioning that.

The Industrial Development Authority will bear out the fact that they are competing in a fiercely competitive world for manufacturing industries, and so on. Deputy Mac Giolla's view that American industrialists are here simply because it is the best place to be is not borne out by the facts. If it were, we would have no unemployment. The fact is that we are in a highly competitive situation, competing for industry all around the world. The primary source of that industry is in the United States. We have the goodwill of the American administration and the president himself. That is not a subject which should be taboo, or should not be raised at a time like this, because we should not, and cannot, take that goodwill for granted if we are not prepared to reciprocate in a courteous and friendly manner. That is what we are talking about. The same is true of tourism. Whether we like it or not this is a secondary tourist location for Americans. Primarily they are on their way to the Continent of Europe. We are on the edge of that Continent and Americans have to make a distinct effort to stop off here. We pride ourselves on being "Ireland of the welcomes" and if we portray ourselves before the United States during the visit of the head of that country in an unfriendly and discourteous manner that will be damaging to our tourist industry. It is inevitable that it will be and it is a factor that must be considered.

I am amazed that The Workers' Party, who are so concerned about workers, at a time when there are so many on the dole are ignoring that industrial and tourist investment is central to our job creation programme. The goodwill of the United States is a factor in that. The President of the United States coming here, with the attention of the entire US media on that visit, presents us with a rare opportunity to sell ourselves in that market place.

Mr. De Rossa

"Sell ourselves" are the operative words.

Mr. Coveney

The Deputy may draw his own interpretation of those words. We are selling Ireland to US tourists and Irish-Americans. That is what I am talking about and the Deputy is aware of that. It was very moving for the vast majority of Irish people to observe the Taoiseach address, as leader of this country, the joint Houses of Congress and to see the way he was welcomed by people whose views would be quite different on many subjects. If we were not to reciprocate, as a minimum, it would be a very sad day indeed. We have invited the head of state of the greatest democracy on earth in our capacity as the elected representatives of the Irish people. I welcome the motion and welcome the president to Ireland.

Dr. McCarthy

As a Tipperaryman I am proud to be associated with the spirit of according a hearty welcome to the President of the United States when he visits here next month. In a more parochial vein I should like to say that our county is proud that his ancestors were born and reared there and, like so many others, emigrated to the United States. Many ancestors of the present generation of Americans made a great impact on the newly developing America and we are all justly proud of them. It is sad that once again in our little country we have a collection of anarchists, trotskyites and communists raising their ugly heads in protest. Many of those people, I suggest, are just the mavericks of our society who are professional protestors against everything and are not for anything. It is sad that within this House and our democracy that one party, The Workers' Party, have decided to go overboard in condemning this visit. It is amazing how, like the three card trick merchants, they are involving themselves in and indulging in verbal sleight of hand —"Now you see the lady; now you don't". They say one thing at one time and later contradict themselves and say they did not.

It is a fact that on 30 April, according to The Irish Times, after their Ard Fheis, their president, Deputy Mac Giolla, in supporting the campaign against the Reagan visit, stated, “so let us destabilise President Reagan”.

Mr. De Rossa

What about the other words?

Dr. McCarthy

Perhaps Deputy De Rossa would like to hear what one of his councillors — a member of my local council, Councillor Kinehan — said at that Ard Fheis? He said:

Would you invite a mad dog into your home? Would you invite a psychopath to have tea with your family? Would you invite the Boston strangler to your daughter's wedding?

They are reprehensible comments and the type that should not emanate from the members of any respectable or decent political party. However, I am not at all surprised at the source from which they came. This is an appalling discourtesy and disrespect and a slur on all Americans. The Workers' Party councillor also compared President Reagan to Hitler but it is not surprising that he did not make any comparison between him and Stalin. I wonder if the President of the USSR was invited here would the Trotskyites, the blood red communists who now comprise The Workers' Party, rise in protest? Somehow or other I doubt if they would.

Mr. De Rossa

The Deputy does not know what a Trotskyite is, obviously.

Dr. McCarthy

Has the oppression of Poland by the USSR been condemned by them and, if so, has it in any way affected their close alliance with their cohorts within the Russian Embassy? I doubt it. The vast majority of us respect the United States as the leaders of the free world, as the protectors of peace for the free world. While we would all ideally support the concept and principle of total nuclear disarmament we must recognise that this can only be achieved by bilateral agreement by both the United States and Russia. However, many of us doubt the bona fide intentions of the USSR should any such arrangement be agreed on. The Russian lust for power and total world domination, geographically, politically and ideologically, is their prime long-term objective. The Russians realise that ultimately this can only be attained by military domination of the free world.

The United States of America, the leaders of the free world, stand between all of us who believe in peace and democracy and that unholy and unthinkable holocaust. We should show our fullest respect and support for the United States and its people and welcome President Reagan as the democratically elected leader of the greatest nation in the world when he visits us in June.

Mr. J. Doyle

I will be brief because in the short time left for the debate a number of other speakers are anxious to contribute. I regret that this debate has taken place today because I would have felt that on an occasion such as this a motion in the name of the Taoiseach, seconded by the Leader of the Opposition, would have got the full support of the House. It is unfortunate that that is not the case. While many of us have reservations about American foreign policy, it must be remembered that President Reagan is visiting this country as the democratically elected leader of the American people. In offering President Reagan an opportunity to address a joint session of the Oireachtas it is my view that if we believe in democracy we should behave like democrats and give him the audience he deserves. I will gladly play my part in giving that audience and I fully support the motion before the House.

Miss Harney

Like many other Members I did not intend to contribute to the debate because it was my understanding that it would be a short one. It is a good thing that Members are having an opportunity to fully discuss the motion before us. The motion is worthy of support from all sides of the House not because I support the foreign policy of President Reagan, not because there are 37,000 Irish jobs as a result of American investment, not because 40 million Irish-Americans live in America, but because President Reagan as head of the USA is a representative of that state, having been freely elected, and when he travels here he is worthy of our support and courtesy.

Many of the objectors see fit to absent themselves from here on 4 June and many others have decided to protest. Are all sincerely motivated? In many cases I do not doubt the sincerity of the manner in which they have chosen to object. I disagree with them, but I give them the right to do that because we live in a free democracy, a society in which we all want to see that kind of protest allowed freely and no possible implication drawn from people's choice to involve themselves in such demonstrations. I am sorry that some Members of this and the other House have chosen to behave in that way because I believe that many of them are misled. I know that some Members of this House who have decided not to come here on 4 June have done so from the best of motives. It has taken them a long time to come to this decision and they have done so after careful consideration, and they should not be abused in this House or anywhere else for having reached that conclusion. I believe that they have come to the wrong decision because as politicians our obligation and our duty as people who have been elected democratically to this House, as President Reagan has in his country, is to chose the political way, to have dialogue and discussion with those with whom we disagree.

For the past 11 months the politicians from the four nationalist parties sat together in order to try to draw up a report to convince others on this island with whom we disagree that they should come with us around the conference table and try to thrash out a new Ireland for all the people here. We acknowledge that there are people in Ireland who disagree with us, but we are prepared to understand their disagreement and we want them to enter into dialogue and discussion in order to convince them that they are wrong in the manner in which they happen to see things. I disagree with President Reagan's foreign policy as much as I disagree with the shooting down of an aircraft by the Soviet Union, the harassment of Soviet Jews — many Deputies in the House tabled a motion last week in regard to that — and the denial of liberty to Polish workers; but many people who chose to enter into this debate have seen it from a one-side point of view. Unfortunately demonstrations, irrespective of whether they are peaceful, draw into them the kind of people who are drawn into every possible demonstration. No matter what the issue, some people, motivated by malice or whatever, always see fit on an occasion like this to object, and I am sorry to say that in some cases they diminish the motivation of some of the other genuinely motivated people. I was very disappointed last year when as a Member of this House I attended a reception at the American Embassy to meet the Vice-President of the US. When I came out of that reception later that evening I watched a television programme on which I saw a Member of this House openly and publicly in front of a television camera tearing up his invitation. That is not a responsible way for a Member of Dáil Éireann to behave. That is the kind of thing I would expect from the Rev. Ian Paisley but not from a Member of Dáil Éireann. However, a Member of Dáil Éireann decided to behave in that way. I hope that no other Members of the Dáil or Seanad will behave in that petty, silly manner on the occasion of 4 June. That will not do anything to enhance the image of either the Members of this House or this country. Equally when I was attending that reception I was disappointed to find that as I entered I was abused continually by some of the people who saw fit to protest. I would allow them their right to protest in a reasonable fashion. They should allow me to chose my way of putting my point of view forward. Just as I should not abuse them, neither should they chose to abuse those of us who see things in a different way.

I am disappointed that in some cases when people are putting forward a case for President Reagan being welcomed in this House or in this country they have chosen to highlight the fact that the importance of our trade links with America or of the Irish-American links should influence our behaviour in some way. The leader of the American people, their democratically elected president, their representative, is coming to this country, and these matters should not be brought into this discussion.

An Ceann Comhairle

I will be calling the Taoiseach at 6.45 p.m. and I understand a few other speakers would like to get in.

Miss Harney

I will not delay long. I hope that the kind of debate we have had both here in the Dáil and in the country as a whole during the last four weeks will be conducted in a reasonable manner from now on. I do not want to see the kind of emotive debate that we had last year in relation to the amendment campaign. It was an unnecessary, horrible debate. I detect that in some quarters this debate could turn into a similar one and that would do all of us and the country in general a great deal of harm.

Mr. Kenny

This motion refers to the address of the President of the United States to the joint Houses of the Oireachtas. Of late the Irish people seem to have the doubtful ability of becoming overinvolved in matters over which they have not really any control. As Deputy Coveney pointed out, quite rightly, we have an enormous number of overnight experts on El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras and Costa Rica. Some of them even speak with a slight Spanish accent. People who speak on such important global matters do so in many cases from misinformation and even ignorance. People who speak on matters of that nature should do so from an informed point of view and many of our overnight experts do not do that.

This visit of the President of the USA will not inspire the same level of emotional involvement as happened in the case of the late President Kennedy when he came here. People's attitudes and views have changed. As ours is a free country, undoubtedly some sort of protests will occur. I hope that these will be dignified and peaceful.

The motion refers to the address of the president before the joint Houses. In his capacity as head of the US Government and President of that country he should be given the honour of full attendance in the House here. I live in the west and every week for the last century people there have had direct contact with the US. Indeed, many families have been reared here directly as a result of finance from the US and their people in many cases built the cities and highways of that great country. The influence of the US President in terms of the implications and consequences of the Forum for a New Ireland Report should not be underestimated, and I am sure that everybody on this island with a nationalist point of view would welcome his direct interest in that.

I am surprised at the lack of protest by The Workers' Party Members in relation to Afghanistan. While they have made some slight references to it they have not done so in the same context as their remarks on Central America. Many people in this House are not qualified to speak with any degree of authority about the flash points across the globe, but it is well known that the Russians are now practising what analysts now call migratory genocide in Afghanistan. The Red Army in their first armed conflict on foreign soil since the Second World War have now spent five years in occupation of a different country and we hear no protest about that and very little protest about the 20,000 young Afghans who have been taken to the Soviet Union for appropriate indoctrination and a certain kind of education. Other flash points are Beirut, the Philippines and Central America.

As a Government we should welcome the Presidential visit and we should welcome President Reagan as the head of a great country. Politicians, as people involved in the circle of politics, often-times are carried away by the importance of this. While the visit is very important another viewpoint abroad is far removed from the economic aspects of it. I was in Cong village last weekend. The President will stay there. The local sewerage scheme is being put down there at present. I said to one of the workers there: "I suppose after the presidential visit you will not be inclined to speak to anybody", and he said: "You know, we are used to having important people down here. We had Jim Mitchell here a few weeks ago". The ordinary people have a different viewpoint and they will welcome the President of the US. Whether we like or dislike his foreign policies, we should give him the courtesy of coming into this Chamber and hearing his address as his representatives on both sides did when our Taoiseach addressed the Joint Houses in the US.

Mr. Gregory-Independent

I am opposed to this motion principally because I firmly believe we as a small nation who suffered for so long from foreign aggression by an imperial power have special responsibility to protest, on the occasion of the visit of the President of the United States, about US interference and aggression, particularly in Central and South America. If we do not register a strong protest we are in danger of being seen as supportive of current US foreign policy. Millions of downtrodden people in South America are looking to us for an expression of solidarity with them and we are morally bound to show that solidarity.

I am all the more opposed to this motion because of the calculated timing of the visit. I believe the visit will be used to a significant degree in President Reagan's election campaign. Indeed the visit is deliberately designed to assist his personal campaign. Given the controversial nature of President Reagan's policies surely it is most inappropriate that a visit should take place at this point.

This view has convinced me that a protest is essential and I intend to participate in such a protest. I need hardly add that I share Deputy De Rossa's view on the forthcoming elections in the United States. It would be better for world peace if President Reagan were not to be re-elected. If for no other reason I am opposed to this motion.

Mr. McCartin

Most of the relevant arguments have already been made but, because of the extensive coverage on this subject which has been given in recent weeks to a very small minority of people, I feel an obligation to state on behalf of all the people I know in my constituency and throughout the west that there is almost a unanimous will that we should give a céad míle fáilte to President Reagan as the head of a great democracy, a friendly nation with which Ireland has had such long contact.

I spoke about the platform given to a small minority who hold a certain view on this subject. During the night when I drive long distances I can tune in to Radio Moscow. The small minority who propose to offer insult to the Head of a State with which we are friendly would be very gratified at the coverage they are receiving on that station and the manner in which their words and actions are being used to deceive people who rely on that medium for their information and education about world affairs, people who are not free to get other information. If I were to tune in tonight I am sure Deputy Mac Giolla would be portrayed as a majority leader in this House instead of the representative of a small minority.

We have our concerns about American foreign policy but that is not relevant to the visit of the President and the welcome we should give him. We have our concerns about economic policy. When I campaign in the forthcoming election I will be proposing that one of the reasons we should have a united Europe is that we should not be dominated by American economic and foreign policy. In the absence of such unity in western Europe the best guarantee we can have of choosing our own system of government is the fact that the United States is powerfully present on the world scene.

I join with the majority in this House in offering céad míle fáilte to President Reagan and I implore those who would offer him any discourtesy to think of the traditional hospitality with which we have treated our visitors, particularly those from the United States of America.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Taoiseach to conclude.

Mr. M. Brennan

On a point of order, I should like to go on record as supporting this motion.

The Taoiseach

I am grateful for the speeches in support of this motion from both sides of the House and even for the point of order. I found Deputy De Rossa unconvincing in what he had to say about investment in tourism. He suggested that investment was declining, as if that were a reason for taking actions which might make it decline further. He said that tourism had been more affected by Northern Ireland than it would be by anything that might happen during this visit. That is perfectly true but tourism that has been so badly hit by events in Northern Ireland cannot easily take further blows arising from adverse effects in the American market as a result of actions being taken that would seem to insult the office of the Presidency. Although something like half the American people disagree with President Reagan — whether it is more or less than half we will find out in due course — nonetheless he is their President and they respect him as such. They have a great respect for the office of the President and we should have a similar respect for it. If we show disrespect it will undoubtedly have adverse effects. It is right that these should be taken into account, though they should not be the primary consideration.

The credibility of any attitude in international affairs, especially in a country like ours which is outside military alliances, depends on the avoidance of double standards. The reason our position is respected worldwide is that we have been even-handed in our judgments. When we as a Government on behalf of the Irish people have expressed our concern about aspects of US policy in Central America our voice has carried some weight, despite our small size, because we have expressed concern also about the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Tens of thousands of Afghans defending the freedom of a small country have been killed.

Deputy Mac Giolla and his party carry no credibility because of their selective, pro-Soviet attitude. I challenged Deputy De Rossa on Afghanistan. He said he would deal with it but he did not do so. He chose to deal with other matters. His party do not have, to my recollection, a record of a clear stand on Afghanistan or a clear and continuous condemnation of the Soviet Union. I have not heard their voices raised anything like as vociferously on that subject as in regard to the United States. There is no doubt that double standards are being applied. It is clear that those who apply double standards carry no weight. Any party that applies double standards in that way will not carry weight with the Irish people who are fair-minded and concerned with human rights everywhere, not just in some parts of the world upon which for ideological reasons some people concentrate their attention.

The same is true of the nuclear question. On this, when challenged, Deputy De Rossa said that he had on some occasion deplored the deployment of SS20 missiles. The fact is that in this House his leader, when speaking, chose to omit any reference to the SS20 missiles and claimed that it was the deployment of Pershing and Cruise missiles that deploy-off the current Soviet missile deployment. That is a suppressio veri— the omission of the initial act which brought about the cycle of build-up of arms. I shall not go into the question here of whether the particular action in deploying Pershing or Cruise missiles was the most appropriate, or has been effective, or whether the matter might have been handled in another way. I am concerned that double standards are applied in this way and an attempt——

Mr. De Rossa

There are no double standards.

The Taoiseach

——is made to sway opinion because all the agitation that we hear about in the papers on the subject is about Pershing and Cruise missiles and does not refer to SS20s. There must be some reason why this activity relates to the reactive deployment but not the initial deployment which sparked it off. That reflects an inherent bias which leads to the attitudes of those concerned carrying very little weight with the bulk of our people.

There is no room in the modern world for double standards. We have to be concerned with human rights everywhere — in Central America, in Chile, in Poland, Afghanistan, South Africa or Iran and, indeed, it must be added, Northern Ireland. No authority which applies double standards in a manner designed to favour the Soviet Union, concentrating its criticism on the United States only, will ever make any great headway in this country.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

The Taoiseach

The Workers' Party will learn that the hard way in the years ahead. Having said that about The Workers' Party, I should like to add — and it should be added, because some comments from some Deputies in the heat of the moment could be otherwise interpreted — that amongst those who are concerned to express their unhappiness at aspects of US policy there are many genuine democrats. Amongst those concerned to protest on this occasion are people who do not apply double standards, who are as concerned, and in many cases more concerned, about Soviet actions than about United States actions. It would be wrong to apply epithets in this House to many people who are genuinely motivated and who are not governed by the double standards of The Workers' Party.

Mr. Mac Giolla

Oh, for God's sake.

The Taoiseach

I think that we should make that distinction. I would only ask these people of genuine motivation — and there are many — to express their concern in a dignified way during the presidential visit and to be vigilant in ensuring that they are not used by people who have a quite different motivation.

The debate has been useful. The House has on this occasion expressed the feelings of the Irish people as a whole in a way, perhaps, that has not happened during the last few weeks through the media — and that is no fault of the media because they, like other institutions, can be used and abused. Organised campaigns of letter writing can produce results which do not reflect the real feeling of the Irish people. This House, elected by the Irish people, has a greater capacity to reflect their views. I believe that it has done so here. These views involve, certainly, concern about aspects of American policy which we can and will properly express in an appropriate way, but also involve a sense of the dignity of the State and the concern that in receiving the leader of what has been rightly described as the greatest democracy in the world we should bear ourselves in a manner that will be dignified and will be seen throughout the world to reflect credit on this country. That is the will of the Irish people expressed through this House today and I believe that it will be very clearly——

Mr. Briscoe

Hear, hear.

The Taoiseach

——expressed in the motion which we are now about to pass.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is Item No. 1 agreed? I am putting the question that Item No. 1 be agreed.

Question put and agreed to.

An Ceann Comhairle

As we have a short time before Private Members' Business we can take the Criminal Justice Bill, 1983.

Mr. Haughey

I have a few Private Notice Questions that I could raise.

An Ceann Comhairle

Would you give me some notice of them, Deputy, and I shall consider them?

Mr. Haughey

Would that make any difference?

Mr. Briscoe

Could I draw the attention of the Chair to the fact that the clock in the Chamber is not accurate.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair cannot look behind him since he injured his arm, so he must be guided by the clock in front of him.

Mr. Briscoe

That clock is about two minutes slow.

An Ceann Comhairle

We shall move on now in accordance with the Order of Business. Criminal Justice Bill, 1983, Amendment No. 13.

Mr. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire): In fairness to the Opposition, I do not think the Opposition spokesman would be aware that this debate is going to be held and the Opposition Leader might prefer to have this matter left over until tomorrow, when it could be concluded.

Mr. Haughey

It would be unsatisfactory to spend just five minutes on an amendment.

Mr. De Rossa

If there is a vote to be called.

Sitting suspended at 6.55 p.m. and resumed at 7 p.m.