I move:
In view of the vital necessity to increase the nation's export trade in order to achieve economic expansion and the consequent need to improve our marketing methods and machinery, Seanad Éireann is of opinion that our representatives abroad should increasingly devote their attention and energies to the support of trade and that missions should be directed primarily to those countries where there is a prospect of satisfactory trade relations.
When this motion was put down several months ago, Senator McGuire and others realised that there was an urgent necessity then and, indeed, for a considerable time past to improve the nation's export trade in existing markets and to acquire markets in countries where we had not already got them. We thought that one of the best ways of attaining that object was through the diplomatic service.
Events which have recently happened and certainly happened long after this motion was put down bring home to all of us the necessity for having a wide range of export markets and for making the best possible bargain with every country with whom we have any dealings. We should see to it that there is no one-sided trading, so to speak. Where we buy something from another country, we should use every device at our disposal to ensure that that country will reciprocate and buy an equal amount, if possible, from us.
We have a very unfavourable trading balance with practically every country in the world with whom we deal. We are in deficit with each of the Common Market countries. If we total the deficit with each of these countries for the year 1962, the adverse trade balance there alone comes to something over £32 million. That is a substantial figure.
It does not take any great knowledge or powers of advocacy to demonstrate that we are not selling as much to other countries as we should. It is only necessary for a person to attend, say, a sporting fixture, in England which is attended by thousands of Irish people and there to try to purchase the minimum quantity of, for instance, Irish whiskey. He will find that at a place so notoriously Irish as Cheltenham he cannot get Irish whiskey. That means that somebody is slipping. Either our manufacturers here are not doing their best to sell their goods abroad or they are not getting the proper assistance from the Government and the appropriate Department.
In the great cities of England where masses of population have to be fed, one can see Danish agricultural produce being pushed and bought while very little is heard of the Irish equivalent. Our adverse trade balance is growing year by year. The alarming part of it is that it is mounting. Were it not for what I will describe as an unnatural inflow of foreign capital to pay for land and other real estate purchased by foreigners here, the balance of payments would be a lot worse than it is and would constitute a major problem. This, temporarily, I hope, inflow of foreign capital will not continue and the only satisfactory way of righting our balance of payments is by securing a favourable trade balance.
The Taoiseach admits and is on record as admitting that in spite of the inflow of capital that I speak of we have here a balance of payments problem. It is clear, therefore, that we have this problem. It is not enough for the Government to say that exports must be stepped up. We have a strong case to make. We can make that case to most countries with which we deal. It is up to the Government, through our diplomatic service, as I hope to show later, to make that case.
I do not propose to launch an attack on our diplomatic service either past or present. Our ambassadors are carrying out the work which they were appointed to do and carrying it out well. At the risk of being slightly controversial, I cannot help remembering that at the Fianna Fáil Árd Fheis yesterday our ambassadors were referred to as a bunch of stuffed shirts who could not tell you where to buy a postage stamp. I am not saying that that remark was made by anybody carrying great weight but it was made in the presence of the Taoiseach and, I think, of the Minister. I certainly do not subscribe to that sort of attack on our ambassadors. This motion is not put down to criticise adversely our ambassadors. I hope that the Taoiseach and the Minister have dissociated themselves from that ignorant criticism. I repeat our ambassadors are doing the work which they were appointed to do.
There was, indeed, a time, in the past, when this country found it difficult, if not impossible, to either take their place, or make their case, in the international sphere. It was due to the excellent work of our diplomats abroad that Ireland is now favourably known for what we are and what we believe in. It is appreciated abroad that we are a people with a long tradition of culture, love of freedom and love of people who are playing our part in the United Nations as a peace-loving nation.
This is due to a large extent to the role played by our diplomats since the foundation of the State. I should like to put that on the record lest there should be any misunderstanding as to the reason for putting down this motion. The motion is not designed to be critical of our diplomats. It is intended to suggest that the time has come for a new look and, indeed, a new approach to the duties and responsibilities of our diplomatic missions abroad.
It might also be opportune, perhaps, to consider whether the time has not come when, in future, special educational qualifications should be sought when making appointments because added duties and responsibilities might be expected. I understand that in University College, Dublin, management courses are now being given and a special lecturer is available. I further understand there may be more development in this direction. I also understand that in Trinity College there is a professor of what I may describe as a course of management as well. Therefore, in future, it should be possible to find people highly educated, highly trained in industry, in commercial matters and in management as well as having the other high qualifications necessary for diplomats.
It is not unreasonable to plead that in future the people appointed should have these qualifications. It is absolutely essential that we should fight for a fair measure of the trade available from other countries from whom we purchase. I believe we are getting a fair crack of the whip. That is admitted. It is not necessary to make the case that our balance of trade is hopelessly imbalanced. It is not necessary, to acquire this desired end, merely to conclude trade agreements although the conclusion of trade agreements is a necessary first step. It must be followed up by a selling and marketing drive by all the forces we can muster.
I heard the Minister for Finance state in this House, since I came into it, when we were discussing agriculture, that everything was all right with agriculture until it came to marketing, then everything seemed to go wrong, or words to that effect. The Second Programme for Economic Expansion relies for the attainment of its objectives on a dramatic increase in industrial and agricultural exports. This must, of course, not only mean an increase in industrial and agricultural production but increased and efficient selling, marketing methods and skills, if it is to be efficient.
Every available resource at our disposal of money and in manpower must, in my opinion, be used to market our exports. As I understand it, our embassies abroad, by and large, concentrate on diplomatic problems. I believe our embassies should put greater emphasis on trade and commercial matters. We have consuls in the USA. We have a trade representative in London. I understand, apart from that, that there are no trained or skilled personnel in matters of trade and commerce attached to our embassies. There should be attached to every diplomatic mission which we have abroad skilled and specialised personnel in trade and commerce. These trained and skilled personnel should be in a position to advise our exporters at home and to fight their case abroad.
The motion was really put down to make the case that I am making and to get from the Minister some information on the activities of our diplomatic missions abroad and some indication of his views on the future activities of these missions. I should like the Minister to tell us what co-operation exists between our exporters and the Department of Industry and Commerce and between Córas Tráchtála and the Department of External Affairs. The Minister could also tell us, if he agrees, in this day and age, that our diplomatic missions abroad should be equipped to give better services to our export drive. Is anything being done to utilise, in future, the staff of our diplomatic missions in the services of trade and commerce? Other countries seem to be taking a new look at the services which their diplomatic missions can provide.
The Plowden Report in England, which dealt with this particular problem, was critical of the British diplomatic service. The same criticism would not be justified here because a different type of person is appointed. But, what they had to say there shows how they are thinking. In England the diplomatic corps has been called the "last entrenched position of privilege" in that country. The emphasis of the Report to which I refer was upon a levelling of the diplomatic service to include all sections of the community. It wants diplomats to concentrate on matters of trade. Too often the commercial attaché has been regarded as unimportant, it says, but in future even the ambassador should have served in a commercial capacity.
That is the sort of thinking that is going on in England at the present time—in a country with a tradition for trade and commerce extending over hundreds of years, a country that has export markets very far afield. If that is necessary in Great Britain, and if they find it necessary to divert the services of their diplomats into channels of trade and commerce, how much more necessary is it for us to do so, seeing that we are still at a stage of only building up our industrial and export markets?
I understand we had a commercial councillor or attaché in Paris who was doing very good work there and I understand he died some four years ago. Since then, that position has been left vacant. That is my information and I should like to invite the Minister to tell me if it is correct. If so, it seems a pity that position has not been filled because France is one of the countries with which we have an unfavourable balance of trade. Therefore, I would summarise by saying that I think the time has come when our diplomatic missions abroad should, first of all, be equipped with the type of personnel who should be able to further our export drive by advising our exporters at home and, as I have said, fighting their case abroad.
I should like to conclude by referring again to the Plowden Report. It says: "No one can doubt the prime importance of safeguarding peace in the world but the promotion of trade is equally essential to us." If this applies to Great Britain, how much more does it apply here?