Vol. 354 No. 5
andMr. G. Collins asked the Minister for the Public Service if he will place before Dáil Éireann the terms of the agreement with the British Government providing for an exchange of civil servants; if he will explain the Government Departments that are to be involved; and the steps he proposes to take to ensure that the security of this State is ensured and our national interest protected.
14.
asked the Minister for the Public Service whether it is correct that as a result of secret negotiations with the British Government it has been agreed to place some British civil servants in: (a) the Department of Foreign Affairs; (b) the Department of Justice; and (c) the Department of Defence; and, if so, if he will state the steps, if any, which have been taken to ensure that such British civil servants will not act in a manner detrimental to the interests of Ireland and will conform with, and give their allegiance to, the Constitution of Ireland.
15.
asked the Minister for the Public Service if he will state in regard to British civil servants whom it is proposed to introduce into Irish Government service, the steps, if any, which have been taken to ensure that such civil servants shall not transmit sensitive information concerning economic, defence or foreign policy matters to the British or to other Governments of other states which might adversely affect the national interest.
16.
asked the Minister for the Public Service whether the British civil servants whom it is proposed to introduce into the Irish Civil Service shall owe allegiance to the British Crown or to the Irish Constitution; and the extent to which the Treason Act and the Official Secrets Act enacted by the Oireachtas will be applicable to them.
17.
asked the Minister for the Public Service the steps, if any, he has taken to ensure that any British civil servants introduced into the Irish Civil Service, the security forces or the Defence Forces, have accepted the provisions of the Irish Constitution, and in particular, have accepted the provisions of Articles 1 and 2 of the Constitution.
18.
asked the Minister for the Public Service whether he is prepared to submit the proposal to introduce British civil servants who do not owe allegiance to the Irish Constitution into the Irish Civil Service, to the Supreme Court, to ascertain whether such a proposal is repugnant to the Constitution, and ultimately to refer this whole matter to a referendum of the Irish people.
19.
asked the Minister for the Public Service whether the British civil servants it is proposed to introduce into the Irish Civil Service shall be paid at the same rate as Irish civil servants; and if he will state who shall be responsible for their payment and supervision.
20.
asked the Minister for the Public Service whether the proposal to introduce British civil servants into key positions in the Irish Civil Service does not constitute a violation of our neutrality and endanger the future independence of action of Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
21.
asked the Minister for the Public Service whether the introduction of British civil servants into the Irish Civil Service and in particular, into such Departments as Defence, Foreign Affairs, Justice and Finance, does not constitute an erosion of our neutrality and a usurpation of the functions of the Oireachtas to decide in accordance with the provisions of Article 28 (3) of the Constitution whether or not Ireland shall participate in any war; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
22.
asked the Minister for the Public Service whether Irish civil servants of Army of Garda personnel have been placed in the British civil service, army or police force to date; and, if so, if he will give details.
23.
asked the Minister for the Public Service whether it is intended to place Irish civil servants, Army or Garda personnel in the British civil service, army or police forces; and, if so, if he will give full details.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 13 to 23 together.
As indicated in the Reports on Anglo-Irish Joint Studies, presented to both Houses of the Oireachtas on 11 November 1981——
I do not wish to interrupt the Minister but I have been complaining for years that there is no sound on the back benches. The Minister is taking many questions together and I ask him to speak up a little. I realise it is not the Minister's fault and I am not blaming him. These microphones might as well not be here.
We can hear the Deputy.
I know that but I want to hear the Minister.
It does not matter.
I am not sure if Deputy Haughey is not inviting Deputy Blaney to come down to this part of the House where he could hear better. For the Deputy's information I shall start my reply again.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 13 to 23, inclusive, together.
As indicated in the Reports on Anglo-Irish Joint Studies presented to both Houses of the Oireachtas on 11 November 1981, a study carried out in 1981 into measures to promote mutual understanding recommended, in principle, the setting up of a formal scheme for the exchange of Irish and British civil servants.
The study was undertaken jointly by senior officials of the two Governments. In carrying out their task, the officials bore in mind the already close relations between the two countries and their common membership of the European Community. A Memorandum of Understanding between the Irish and British Governments was signed on 19 October 1984. The Memorandum of Understanding was laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas on 24 October 1984; there is thus no question whatever of a secret agreement between the two Governments.
The Departments of Defence, Foreign Affairs and Justice will not take part in the exchange scheme nor was it ever intended that they should. Neither was it ever intended that Departments such as that of the Taoiseach, Finance, the Gaeltacht or Labour would be involved. It is, therefore, clear that all issues of national security, including our policy on neutrality, are absolutely excluded from the range of work areas envisaged under the agreement.
The Departments which it is envisaged might be involved in the exchanges are: Agriculture, Education, Environment, Fisheries and Forestry, Health, Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism. The participation of the Department of Social Welfare is also under consideration.
The exchanges on either side will not work in key positions or in sensitive areas in the respective administrations. Nevertheless, while working in Irish Government Departments, the British civil servants will be subject to the Treason Act, 1939, and the Official Secrets Act, 1963.
I am satisfied that the exchange scheme is not repugnant to the Constitution. I would add in passing that there is in any event no provision in either the Constitution or the Irish legal system for seeking the opinion of the Supreme Court on a memorandum of understanding of this kind.
To date no civil servants have been exchanged. It is intended that the scheme will come into effect early in 1985. About three exchanges each way at any one time are envisaged. Officials on each side will continue to be paid by their own Department and will receive allowances and travelling expenses between the two countries from that Department.
The exchange scheme is modelled on schemes operated between the civil services of several member states of the European Communities. It is perhaps worth noting that the main objections to the scheme hitherto voiced have been based on wrong or distorted information.
I also asked a question.
And Deputy Gerry Collins.
Is it a fact that in the memorandum of understanding to which the Minister has referred there is no reference whatever to the exclusion of any Department? Would he indicate the status of the exclusions he has mentioned? He has mentioned the Departments of this State which would be involved. What corresponding Departments in the British Public Service are involved? Apart from the exclusions he has mentioned, which are not mentioned in the memorandum of understanding, there are areas such as agriculture and fisheries, to name but two, where our interests are very often totally divergent from British interests, both bilaterally and particularly in relation to the affairs of the European Community. Does he not see that in making an arrangement of this sort, apart from the security aspects, he is engaging in a process which could be very damaging to the economic interests of this country? In regard to the general situation, does he not think that in the aftermath of the humiliation following the Chequers meeting last week this is an entirely inappropriate time to proceed with any arrangement of this sort?
In relation to the first part of the Deputy's question, the text of the memorandum of understanding does not advert, as the Deputy has suggested, to particular Departments. I would mention again that the memorandum of understanding is in the Library of the House and has been available for inspection by Members for a month or so. In general it is anticipated that the Departments chosen would participate in an exchange with the equivalent Departments on the British side. The whole purpose of the scheme is to select officers with expertise and talent in a particular area who might themselves benefit and bring benefit into the service of the visiting country. If an official from, say, the Department of Health or the Department of Social Welfare were chosen, it is probably unlikely that the exchange would occur unless the equivalent Department in Britain had a civil servant deemed to be suitable who was willing to participate. In every Department there are some areas that are more sensitive or confidential than others. It would naturally be the intention, presumably on both sides, to ensure that the assignment of officials to any particular area would take due cognisance of the nature of the work and the work area to which the officer might be assigned. The Deputy has mentioned that where the aims and aspirations of the countries might not be ad idem at Community level it would not be appropriate for either country to assign an officer to such an area. In general the exchanges are designed to promote mutual understanding. I would have thought that the Deputy would have favoured such exchanges in view of the fact that it was arising from his discussions with the British Prime Minister that the arrangements for these exchanges took place.
It was not. I have asked a number of specific questions.
There is not unlimited time left.
We should extend the time for these questions in view of the fact that the Minister has seen fit to take 11 questions together. I asked a number of very specific questions. First I asked him to state the specific status of the exclusions. The memorandum of understanding does not indicate that any Departments are to be excluded. What guarantee has this House that the Departments he mentions will be excluded? Secondly, does he not understand that in the case of agriculture and fisheries there is no security in relation to what he said about the particular areas of Departments because the memorandum of understanding states in relation to civil servants that they will be integrated to the fullest extent possible in the work of the receiving Departments? In the case of agriculture, does the Minister not realise that one of these British civil servants would have access to the full range of activities of the Department, as would be the case in relation to any other Department? The Minister did not advert to the important aspect of this matter which is on everybody's mind. In the humiliating aftermath of the recent meeting in Chequers, does the Minister think it appropriate to proceed at this time with an arrangement of this sort? Should the whole business not be postponed indefinitely?
The arrangement whereby the officials will be exchanged is based on mutual understanding and the Departments which either Government feel are appropriate are the only Departments which would participate in the exchanges. Obviously the Departments outlined in my initial reply would not be regarded by this Government, or I presume any other Irish Government, as appropriate to participate in the exchanges. I have given that undertaking and guarantee to the House. Much of the difficulty in this regard is based on a statement made by a person in the immediate aftermath of the signing of the memorandum of understanding which contained a series of factual inaccuracies and in particular suggested that Departments which were excluded because of their security nature were to be the subject of this procedure.
Agriculture is more important than any other Department with regard to the British.
No one Department is more important than another. Deputy Haughey mentioned the Department of Agriculture. There is no one civil servant in that Department who could be privy to the full and diverse range of all the activities in which they are engaged——
That is wrong.
——with, perhaps, the exception of the Secretary of the Department. The intention is that officers who would have expertise would be based in particular Departments where it was recognised by each Government to be of benefit to them. The apprehensions expressed by Deputy Haughey could presumably be equally expressed by somebody who was churlish enough to be opposed to this move on the British side. That in many ways reflects reservations expressed by the team, by many members in the Unionist tradition in a debate on this matter in the Assembly recently.
In particular, I wish to answer the last part of the Deputy's question. I do not see that arrangements such as these, which are based on encouraging mutual understanding, for any particular reason should be set aside or postponed at any stage. Indeed, I suggest to the House that one of the difficulties our country has been suffering from is lack of initiative to promote better understanding between the two countries over the years, and the fact that too many people are too ready too easily to suggest the postponement or abandonment of anything that is designed to encourage or to promote mutual understanding for reasons of their own. I want to make it clear that the events leading up to the signing of the memorandum of understanding arose——
Answer my questions.
——from discussions which the Leader of the Opposition had with the British Prime Minister in 1980. As a result of those, it was decided that a further series of meetings should take place. The discussions in December 1980 between then Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister commissioned joint studies by groups of officials "to assist them in their special consideration of the totality of relationships within these islands." One of the studies was to be into "measures to encourage mutual understanding". On 30 January 1981 the terms of reference for this study were agreed. One of the items was "secondment of officials".
We are dealing with Questions Nos. 13 to 23, which are being taken together. According to Standing Orders, Question Time ends at 3.30 p.m. Many of these questions are in the name of Deputy Blaney and I think it would be reasonable to extend Question Time to not later than 3.40, with the consent of the House. Is that agreed?
Extend it to 3.45.
We have Private Notice Questions as well. With the consent of the House, we will extend Question Time to 3.45. I ask Deputies to keep their questions short.
Would you ask the Minister to answer the questions I put to him?
I am supposed to be in the other House at 3.30 p.m.
The extension is not nearly long enough. Ten of the questions are in my name and two of them have not been even mentioned by the Minister.
I asked the Minister to give me a number of assurances and he has failed to do so. I ask him again to tell us what assurance we can have that the Department he mentioned will not be included in this memorandum of understanding. I want to know if he is satisfied that other very important Departments will not be included in this exchange which could result in very serious detriment to the interests of the country. He has said that only three exchanges will be made at any time. Can he possibly think that would be any safeguard in view of recent events which have shown us in regard to the British public service that only one mole could bring disaster to the national interests of that country? I want to ask him in view of paragraph 2 of the memorandum, how he can be satisfied — that paragraph refers to responsible work in the field of administration and states that the exchange civil servant will be integrated to the fullest extent in the work of the receiving Department — in such circumstances and how can he possibly maintain that our security and our economic interests will be protected? Will he please answer the questions that I have put to him? Does he not understand that it would be the overwhelming wish of the Irish people today that this agreement would not be proceeded with in the circumstances?
In my original reply to the series of questions I made it clear that three Departments — Defence, Foreign Affairs and Justice — will not take part in the exchange scheme nor was it ever intended they should. I went on to say that it was not intended that Departments such as that of the Taoiseach, Finance, the Gaeltacht and Labour would be involved. That is the undertaking which the Deputy sought and I have reiterated it on a number of occasions. Those Departments are not involved in the exchange scheme and I hope the House will accept my word on that.
In relation to the integration of officials into the Departments to which they might be assigned, it is reasonable to expect that a visiting official would be involved to the fullest possible extent. If the benefit of the expertise they have is to be made available to the receiving Department, the visiting officials should be given meaningful work. The Deputy referred to the disruption to a civil service through the activities of one person. I am not in a position to comment on that. I am not clear what the Deputy was referring to. In any large organisation the activities of one or more can often be unhelpful, and one must always guard against infiltration of the public service by members of subversive organisations.
I am disappointed to hear the Deputy suggest that the Irish people would be totally opposed to the concept of not more than three British civil servants with particular expertise or knowledge coming on exchange to the Irish Civil Service and three of our civil servants going to get the benefit of experience in Britain. A scheme similar to this is operated between Britain and France and Britain and West Germany without difficulty. That has been so for years. This, once again, is perhaps an indication of our basic insecurity and lack of self confidence.
The relationship is slightly different.
May I ask the Minister to reply immediately to Questions Nos. 22 and 23 which he did not even refer to? Is it his opinion or the opinion of his Department that this whole matter is constitutional, and, if so, what tests have been used? Should it not be put to the test? Should the people of this country not be asked by way of referendum whether the alleged close ties which we saw so much of in the recent past are a justification for infiltration of our Civil Service by the occupier of this country?
Are the "in" words today in reference to Defence, Justice and Finance out, out, out? Is that what we are to understand? Has this memorandum of understanding anything to do with the well-being of this country from the point of view of the enemy of this country? Do not let us have any doubt that they are.
A question please, Deputy.
We must not be in any doubt about that. Because of the fact that there are so many questions I still wish to ask, I want at least an answer to Questions Nos. 22 and 23. Have we or have we not placed Army personnel in the institutions in England for training, risking the brain-washing of having British officers in charge of our Army? Are our police collaborating with the British police forces as well? The Minister should answer that one before 3.45.
The Deputy wants specific answers to Question Nos. 22 and 23?
There was no answer.
The answer to Question No. 22 is no, no and no.
The Minister sounds like her: out, out and out.
The answer to question No. 23 is also no, no and no.
The old jackboot.
In relation to the Deputy's other questions, it is stretching credibility not only a little too far but far too far to suggest that the exchange of three civil servants, including a forestry expert, is the infiltration of the apparatus of our Government by people from Britain. If these civil servants are to be conspirators deep in the machinations of the secret services of their respective countries, presumably the Administration in Britain is equally in fear and trembling of the nefarious activities which the three civil servants from Dublin will presumably carry out.
Surely we are grown up to a large enough extent to be able to realise that increased mobility between our public service and public service institutions in other countries can only be to our benefit and in this case can only be of particular benefit in increasing the level of mutual understanding between the two countries.
The Minister is on his knees.
Presumably this was the intention of the Leader of the Opposition, then Taoiseach, when he jointly commissioned this study in 1980 and 1981.
I never did.
He is now endeavouring for short term political advantage to gain media publicity.
I stood up to them. I did not crawl to them.
A final supplementary from Deputy Blaney.
Deputy Haughey crawled out from Maastricht after four minutes.
The Minister is on his knees.
Order.
The Minister is incoherent like his Leader.
Deputy Blaney should be allowed to ask his questions without interruption.
From the Minister's point of view, it might be better if they were not put. Will these infiltrators, of whom we may have already many of whom we are not aware, owe allegiance to our Constitution and particularly to Articles 1 and 2 and 28.3? That is a specific question to which I want an answer. Not only are the British totally and absolutely our adversary in many sensitive areas in so far as agriculture is concerned but also in the fisheries area they are our greatest adversary in the EC. In view of the debacle and the disaster of the summit, would the Minister and the Government not scrap the whole idea? We have had too much of Britain for too long. We do not want any more of them. Let us not take them in and give them access officially to everything we do. Surely we have gone past the stage where we have to keep creeping and crawling after them, and to them, and for them, while they occupy this country.
It is madness in the highest degree.
If it is madness it was commissioned by a Government of which the Deputy was a member. I do not want to take issue with Deputy Blaney. On reflection one must ask: how well can he reconcile his remarks with his membership for five years of the European Parliament?
I know them. The Minister does not.
They are the biggest enemies of Europe too.
The requirements expected from these civil servants while they serve here will be precisely the same as the requirements expected of entrants to the Irish Civil Service.
What about Article 2 of the Constitution?
They will be bound by precisely the same requirements as are expected of civil servants serving here. For the information of the House, I might mention that not all civil servants in the employ of the Irish Government are Irish nationals, nor were they ever always Irish nationals.
That is not the point.
The Minister is missing the point.
One final supplementary from Deputy Blaney.
I would not like to dismantle something Deputy Haughey initiated.
I did not initiate it.
The Deputy did.
Never.
The Minister should not tell lies. He is a smart aleck.
Order.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I should like to raise on the Adjournment this matter or any of the other matters I have asked about.
The Chair will communicate with the Deputy.
Is the Minister saying that the ludicrous situation will obtain that British civil servants will be subservient to and recognise Article 2 of the Irish Constitution which is our claim — and I hope it will remain our claim — to the Six Counties they occupy at the moment? The thing is daft — that British civil servants will accept Article 2 of the Constitution.
If I were a British civil servant listening to Deputy Blaney I would think the whole thing was daft myself.
It is daft.
The Minister should go and join them. He should pack his bag and go.
The remaining questions will appear on tomorrow's Order Paper.
