Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 23 Nov 1988

Vol. 121 No. 7

Diplomatic Relations with Nicaragua: Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That Seanad Éireann calls on the Government to establish diplomatic relations with Nicaragua.

—(Senator Ross.)

Mr. Norris

When the debate was adjourned on the last sitting day there was a certain wrangle about the use of unparliamentary language. I used a word which had a certain vulgar flavour about it. I was quoting from Senator Barry Goldwater. I would like to take up that point because I think one must evaluate the significance of that small unparliamentary expression and place it in the context of the real obscenity of what is going on in Nicaragua. I think it is important that we underline that point. I will not try the patience of the House by reading into the record precisely what this kind of obscenity consists of, but a book recently published called Nicaragua — an Unfinished Canvas contains eyewitness accounts of multiple rape and mutilation of bodies. It seems that this rather than any parliamentary language should be the subject of our delicate considerations.

I want to say that I feel, as a friend of America — I consider myself a friend of America, it is a great country, there is no doubt about that — that it behoves us as friends of America to point out where their foreign policy has gone seriously wrong. I am reminded of a text by the great French novelist, Emile Zola, called J'accuse— I accuse. I would like to say that on the basis of the evidence that I have seen recently it would be appropriate to accuse the American administration of certain irresponsible behaviour amounting to an aura of international criminality. I would have to place on record, with regret, the fact that a book recently published, which I referred to the last day, Out of Control by a very distinguished television journalist, a woman called Cockburn, clearly places on the record the fact that the American administration have flagrantly violated international and domestic laws and the rules of their own parliament. Among the other things in which this administration has engaged appears to be the massive importation of cocaine, with which they have drenched the young people of their own population, in order illegally to acquire money to fund arms for Nicaragua. That seems to me to be a seriously worrying prospect. It indicates to me that Contragate is a much worse and much more far-reaching scandal than ever Watergate was; and if Watergate was sufficient to indict an American President, President Nixon, there should surely be some serious examination of the situation in the light of Contragate. However I am an optimistic person. I believe it is possible even for the most deluded to learn and I hope, although I am not particularly confident, that Vice-President George Bush, soon to be President of America, will learn from his experience in Contragate. I am not under any illusions that he will read the record of this debate, but I believe that as concern grows internationally about the American treatment of Nicaragua these issues will surely rise to haunt the American Administration.

What can we do? Why am I mentioning this here? I am mentioning it because it seems to me that we as a small country with many similarities to Nicaragua in terms of population, size and history can in fact extend a degree of protection to this valiant and brave country by granting to them the proper recognition by according full diplomatic status to our representation there. I am encouraged in this by virtue of the fact that this is called for in many documents originating in this country by Irish groups and in particular a publication of the Irish Nicaragua Support Group, an important briefing document just entitled Nicaragua which is published and circulated to all Members of this House, I understand, this week and the final page carries a series of eight recommendations to the Irish Government. I am not going to put them all on the record. The Minister, I am sure, will by now be familiar with them but it will not surprise him that item no. 3 states that the Irish Government should establish formal diplomatic relations with Nicaragua on a non-resident basis. This also formed a principal plank of the report compiled by distinguished representatives of both Houses who supervised Nicaraguan elections.

Some Senators have mentioned some of the errors made by the administation in Nicaragua. One has to admit that there were errors but in the context of the appalling situation in Latin America they were small and marginal errors and they have been corrected. I think it would be wrong to emphasise the existence of these errors. For example, it was indicated that a state of emergency had been declared and there were certain censorship regulations. I need not remind this House that we have section 31 in this State; that we are still in the last number of decades in a state of suspended animation as far as the declaration of state of emergency is concerned. We still in this country have a state of emergency and I think it would be quite extraordinary if we were to criticise too severely this small, fragile and vulnerable state simply on the basis that it has a state of emergency in existence. It is clear that without a political solution the Nicaraguan people will continue to suffer and die. As war cripples the economy further, the poorest will be worst hit. We have had the example of the hurricane. I appeal to the Minister to put in context the remarks of Senator Haughey, which I was most surprised to hear in the last day's debate, that while establishing diplomatic relations may be the moral thing to do, he asked the question: can we afford it? I would like to feel that this country in the exercise of its foreign policy options makes international morality an important plank and answers that question by saying that we cannot afford to support a foreign policy that is not moral. On this occasion I am in the unusual situation of agreeing with and applauding the position of members of the Roman Catholic Hierarchy who have courageously, with dignity and quite correctly supported the Nicaraguan people and the Nicaraguan Government. I need not say that the foreign minister and a number of other prominent political people are Roman Catholic priests. The final thing I would like to say is that there is, in this excellent book, Nicaragua — an Unfinished Canvas a definitive answer to the charges of atheism, corruption and communism levelled against this small and vulnerable state in an article by Father Miguel D'Escoto, a distinguished Jesuit priest who says: “I am a man, a Nicaraguan, a Christian and a priest, all of which demand of me certain things but not contradictory demands”. I honour a country which is able to reconcile these various and strong demands and I urge that the Minister should live up to the obligation placed on us by our own tragic history and do the decent thing by extending full diplomatic recognition to the State of Nicaragua.

Mr. Farrell

It is nice to hear so many glowing tributes to the Church and to priests because in this House on that same side at times, down at the lower end anyway, I want to be careful in saying where I am talking about, we hear criticism of what the Catholic Church and the priests and the bishops are doing. It is nice to hear someone appaluding them for what they are doing. I have always done that and maybe my little bit of gospel has not fallen on deaf ears, that certain people listen and realise that they do a lot of very good work. Nobody can deny that. There are many people who would say that we have more embassies than we can afford at present.

There are 160 states in the world and we have 67 embassies. There are 93 states without embassies. If we were to carry this to its logical conclusion and put an embassy in every state you would be talking about spending £100 million. Can this country afford that kind of money at a time when we are trying to get our finances right and when the Government are doing a great job to try to rectify our financial problems and get the country on a sound and prosperous basis? I would hold that embassies should follow and contribute to trade. Our trade with Nicaragua is very small. Last year our exports amounted to £123,000 and our imports to £349,000. I do not think that kind of trade would in any way justify an embassy in that country.

Some Senator said that he did not believe there would be any concrete results but that it would be symbolic in showing our independence and our neutrality. Can we afford this type of symbolism? I do not think we can. It is right and proper for this nation to show solidarity with any oppressed people and we have done that on all occasions. We do not do that by throwing taxpayers' money away on expensive embassy structures. That would be very foolish. If we were to have an Irish embassy in Nicaragua, would it be any advantage to the Nicaraguan people? How many of them would even know we were there? In a country that is squeezed between two big states, we would be of no assistance and no speaker so far has put up any case to suggest that we would be of any assistance to the ordinary people of Nicaragua.

The point has been made that Ireland has been cutting back on aid. That is not true. It is only true if Irish aid is seen as only coming from official sources or from the Government. That is an unfair angle because the Irish people are extremely generous. As a people, both through our taxes and through voluntary contributions to bodies like Concern and Trócaire, we contribute on a per capita basis more than any other people in the EC.

We do not need the vanity of embassies to express our neutrality.

Mr. Norris

We are not talking of embassies; we are talking of diplomatic recognition.

Mr. Farrell

You cannot have diplomatic relations unless you have some place to put them. Call a rose by any other name, it still smells the same.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Now, Senator Farrell.

Mr. Farrell

I am sorry. Our neutrality is expressed in this House and it is expressed in the actions and policies of our Government and past Governments. It was expressed particularly by this Government when the Belgrano was sent to the bottom of the South Atlantic with the loss of hundreds of young men. The expression of our neurality on that occasion was not welcomed by all those who posture about it now. It is like religion; we always play the ball to suit the particular game we are playing. We are not consistent in our views and our arguments.

In my opinion neutrality is not expressed in bricks and mortar. It is expressed in the spirit of the people. I am fully convinced that what is proposed here would be a very foolish move because it would not be of any advantage to the Nicaraguan people. Unless we do something that is positive and will be a help to those people there is no good in doing it for the sake of vanity or for the sake of honour or for the sake of saying we have an embassy there.

Mr. McCormack

We have a lot in common with Nicaragua. We have roughly the same population of about three and half to four million people. A hundred years ago in Ireland we suffered the same social and economic hardships which they now have, inadequate housing, poor health care, lack of proper schooling, etc. Their history is not dissimilar to our own. The present State of Nicaragua was ruled by a foreign country for over two centuries. It was under Spanish control. Also, like Ireland it is mainly an agricultural country with about 50 per cent of its population actively involved in working on the land — a higher percentage than in Ireland.

For most of the 1970s Nicaragua was under a type of dictatorship which only ended in 1979. It really came into the world news in October 1972 when it was struck by a massive earthquake killing thousands of people in the capital of Managua. The death toll was estimated to be over 12,000 people. Recently it was in the news again when it was stuck by Hurricane Joan. Great damage was caused to housing, crops and large sections of topsoil were literally blown away in the central plain. It was believed that up to half a million people were left homeless as a result of that hurricane.

In 1979 after the dictatorship was overthrown civil rights were restored to the people by law in 1980. Elections were promised but postponed despite protests and in 1982 guerrillas began to attack Government installations in Nicaragua. In 1982 the United States Government cut off economic aid to the country apparently connecting this to the troubles in neighbouring El Salvador. A delegation from Trócaire in Ireland visited Nicaragua in November 1985. This deputation included the Bishop of Galway, Eamonn Casey, and I will quote part of the document this deputation published on their return:

Although the Nicaraguan Government appears to be containing the threat from the Contras, the economic effects on the country are serious throughout Nicaragua. Popular support for the Government remains high. The continued US support for the terrorist actions of the Contras, despite worldwide criticism, indicates that there can be no peace until the US ceases its aggression against Nicaragua.

Those are not my words but the words of the deputation which visited Nicaragua in 1985. That deputation included two Irish bishops.

As I said at the outset, our country and Nicaragua have a lot in common. Therefore, why not diplomatic relations, why not diplomatic relations with all other Central American republics? One Ambassador would cover the capital cities in Central America. I am aware that on three occasions since 1981 Nicaragua has tried to establish diplomatic relations with Ireland and the answer on each occasion was that the resources of the Department of Foreign Affairs did not allow any extension of our diplomatic presence overseas. That is a diplomatic way of saying we have not any money to do this. In fact, the present Government has cut back overseas aid by 21 per cent in 1988 over the figures for 1987. Senator Farrell said this is being partly made up from the general public. I do not think we should pass on what is our duty as a Government to the general public. Whatever contributions come from that source — I know they are generous and good — should be over and above the contibution from the Government for overseas aid.

In the Estimate for 1989 it is proposed to reduce our bilateral aid programme by a further 10 per cent. That action shows how little chance this motion has of becoming a reality in the present economic climate. Last year we closed our Embassy in Kenya, one of the important countries in Africa. While we would support the motion that we establish diplomatic relations with Nicaragua, the evidence of Government decisions regarding the cut backs in foreign aid would indicate that it may not become a reality.

Mr. Harte

I do not think the motion really talks about an Embassy. Senator Farrell seemed to think that the inevitability is an Embassy. The inevitably is not a Embassy at all. There are many ways in which you can play a role. For example, Mr. Frank Aiken played a very good role for Ireland as a neutral nation. He exercised great influence over people, events and situations and was trusted because he was neutral. There is no reason why Ireland cannot get into some sort of a similar role in this case. It is not on the basis of going into opposition against America, because you cannot cut off your nose to spite your face. We have a problem in dealing with this situation. We are probably the friendliest of nations with the US. For that reason the time is right for us to suggest to the United States that we are thinking seriously about opening diplomatic relations with Nicaragua and in that way we could assert some pressure on the American people and open up dialogue in a wider way.

As long as guerrilla war is being waged against people you cannot follow a philosophy that we are just bystanders. You cannot claim to be free as long as there are other people who are in trouble. The situation is that in guerrilla warfare there are no bystanders and the guerrillas do not look on innocent people as innocent bystanders. Therefore, small democracies like our own have a role to play particularly in the light of our own history. We should say to America: "You are saying one thing, the Contras are saying something else and the Sandinistas are saying other things. The problem, will not go away; therefore you need the assistance of a friendly nation like us. We believe the best way to go about this is for us to open up discussions with Nicaragua with a view to having diplomatic relations with them."

Diplomatic relations do not mean an Embassy. It does not matter that we are not going to get into a good trading situation with them, but there is no reason at all why we cannot invite the Nicaraguan people here to enter into talks and discussions with them. We have a right to bring them in. We have a right to bring in the PLO if we wish to see how they stand with regard to the new state and what sort of assistance we can lend. We are entitled to do that. That is a form of diplomatic relations. It is not all down to the question of an embassy and trade. We do not have to get caught up in the argument by taking sides. Obviously, we would have to observe all the wrongs that are being done inside the country, but that does not mean we have to come down on the side of one or the other in the course of our discussions with them. We can say in a friendly way to the Americans: "We believe you are doing this and we believe it is wrong. We believe that because of the money you are paying to people there are thousands of innocent victims being killed on a regular basis. We believe the course of action you are following is one that is not followed by any other nation in the world to this extent." A major leading nation in the world is supplying millions of pounds to terrorists to overthrow the legitimate government of that particular country. That does not happen anywhere else. We must whether we like it or not, whether the Americans become a little disenchanted with us or not, start bringing those things home to those people.

In America about 60 per cent of the people are not in favour of money going to the Contras. That is a difficult argument to establish. But when President Reagan was elected a second time he got about 60 per cent of the vote of the 30 per cent of the people who voted. Here we have somebody in a minority situation in America who is actually pursuing this policy. One might say it is against the wishes of the bulk of the American people. The American people have bitter memories of the Vietnam war and there is a parallel. The CIA went in to do certain things and suddenly started to control the whole situation and everything got out of hand. The most brutal events that ever happened in the world happened in Vietnam eventually and quite a lot of it is going on now in Nicaragua. There are people who have had experience of Vietnam and who are fasting on the steps of the Capital building.

People who have served in Vietnam are prepared to fast to the death. They know exactly what is going on under the Reagan administration. They know that the catch cry of "unpatriotic lefties" is not going to stop them from raising their voices in support of oppressed people. When you do that you are called a lefty, a coward, an outlaw or a traitor to your country. These people have fought for their country. They are now prepared to put their life on the line to see that the atrocities that were committed in Vietnam in the name of American people do not continue in Nicaragua and that eventually the American people will come to their senses and start finding some way of pulling back or some way of coming to terms with the situation.

You just cannot go in and overthrow the legitimate government of any other country. How would we feel if the United States decided to go into the North of Ireland, for example, and tried to take control in a political way? That may be an extreme example. Nevertheless, it is tantamount to the same thing. They are in a country that does not belong to them. It has not set out to do them any damage. All the killings and conspiracy, all the bad things that are happening in Nicaragua are American inspired. The result is that the government cannot function. One cannot talk forcefully enough about what is happening in Nicaragua. People are prepared to go on hunger strike and die. There are people who have received the Congressional Medal of Honour. You cannot make a coward out of a man who has got the Congressional Medal of Honour, yet these people are being branded as traitors and cowards. All they are doing is bringing their experience of Vietnam, which was a similar situation, right into the hearts of the American public to try to bring it home to them that the lies and hypocrisy of some of the American propaganda is far from the truth. They are trying to bring it home to them what exactly the truth is.

It is not a question of us being disloyal to the Americans or asking Irish-Americans to be unpatriotic. We have a role to play. Because we have to look for assistance from them now and again does not mean that we have to put a clamp on our views. We do not have to do it in a sort of blatant, opposing way. We can put it to the Americans that this is what their forces are into. We can put it to the Nicaraguans that we have a role to play. We should take our courage in our hands and start thinking strongly about the question of setting up diplomatic relations to assist in this situation rather than do anything else, and assist the American people.

Some people say that it is only leftists and Church groups who oppose the £100 million funding voted for the Contras. Many of the Churches that are involved are far from being leftist. Certainly they would be opposed to any action, either in the House of Representatives or in the Senate, that supports the concept of putting millions of pounds into the hands of people who are trying to overthrow the legitimate government and who, in the process, are killing everybody in the way. There is no such thing as an innocent bystander when you get into guerilla warfare or when you get into these terrorist situations. We are aware of that from our own experience in the North of Ireland.

We could stand by for many years and see a situation developing whereby the Americans may not win in Nicaragua. What happens then? Do we wait, without expressing a voice, until such time as the Americans decide to send in the Marines? Will it come to that? If it comes to that, why did we not say something about it earlier? Why did we not approach the American Government and why were we afraid of getting off-side — if they said we were off-side on this issue? What do we do? Do we wait until the vultures are flying over the dead bodies? Do we continue forever standing by and reading about legislation that will vote more and more money into it? With the election of the new President obviously the same policies will be carried out. Somebody has to stand up and say to him, "Look, pull back, we do not want you going in there; we do not want you sending money in there to blow pregnant women up, to burn out villages, to loot all around, to kill children".

We have a role to play. We are always talking about our neutrality in the sense that we should use it to be an influence in certain situations. Here we have an opportunity. We can talk to people who are friendly; we can tell them that great concern has been expressed by many of our Senators in this House. Even though we do not agree with a lot of what they might say, nevertheless grave concern has been expressed on behalf of many of the Irish people. Therefore, we want to talk to them about the question of Nicaragua, because we believe that if we set up diplomatic relations with them we might in fact be able to play a role. We should not be frightened of doing that. We should go after the question of diplomatic relations. It is a long way off establishing an embassy.

It is a bit of a joke in this day and age, when you cannot get hospitals open, to talk about opening an embassy abroad. We are not talking about that. We are opposing the closure of hospitals but certainly we are not advocating that a whole lot of money should be spent all over the world on embassies. We believe we have a right to do something as a small nation which was oppressed for many years. Here we have people who are in a similar situation. Because the times are different and the circumstances may be different, nevertheless it is relative to the Nicaraguan people who are forced into a situation where they have to put up with the intrusion by another government into the affairs of their country in such a way that it is a blood-letting exercise.

Even if you put terrorists into a country you cannot say, "We only want you to do this, do not do that or the other" because once you let people loose with guns and bombs that is the end of it. The bombs and the guns will go off in all directions. We should speak up and stand up to the American people and tell the American information service that everything they are issuing on the question of Nicaragua is not believed and tell them why it is not believed and that many people here do not believe it. We do not believe everything that comes from the Nicaraguan Government either. Nevertheless, we have a role to play.

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs (Mr. Calleary)

I want to thank all the Senators who have contributed to this motion and try to answer as many as possible of the points raised. Of the world's more than 160 independent States Ireland has formal diplomatic relations with only 67, with 28 on a residential and 39 on a non-residential basis. Although our network of embassies has expanded over the years it is still fairly modest. Almost all our ambassadors are accredited to two or more states.

Decisions about the establishment of diplomatic relations are determined, contrary to what has been expressed here, by our own criteria and interests. Prospective advantages in the political and economic fields have to be weighed against the long-term commitment of resources that would be involved. In the economic climate of recent years it has become very difficult to justify any increase in the number of states with which we have formal diplomatic relations. As Senators are aware — indeed this is a matter which was referred to by many of them — the embassy in Nairobi had to be closed last year for budgetary reasons.

It would be contrary to normal international practice to speculate about the establishment of diplomatic relations with any particular country. However, I can say that some of the arguments advanced in support of this motion would not appeal to any Irish Government. The suggestion that we establish diplomatic relations with one country as a way of criticising and demonstrating that we are not subservient to another country, one with which we already have long-standing friendly relations, can hardly be taken seriously. A decision about establishing diplomatic relations should be more firmly based than that. May I say to Senator Harte that we do not have to tell any Government whether we intend to establish diplomatic relations with another State. Similarly, the Government have confidence enough in the reality of our independence and neutrality not to want to prove it in this way.

As I have said, decisions about the establishment of diplomatic relations are determined by our own interests. We have to have regard to the political and economic interest in each particular case and set this off against the cost in terms of resources, which is long-term. Even on a non-resident basis this is a matter that was raised by quite a number of Senators — maintaining diplomatic relations imposes demands on our resources not least on the time of our ambassadors if the establishment of relations is to have any meaning. Most of our ambassadors are already accredited to several countries and we have to consider seriously the desirability and the good sense of adding further assignments of this kind.

Of the 20 or so states in Latin America we have diplomatic relations with four — this is of some relevance to what Senator Connor and Senator McCormack were saying — with Argentina, where we have an embassy, and with Brazil, Mexico and Venezuela, to which the ambassadors in Lisbon, Washington and Buenos Aires are accredited. There may be good reasons, indeed very good moral reasons, for having formal relations with other Latin American states and indeed with states in other parts of the world. Again, this is a point that was made by Senator MacCormack and Senator Connor, that we should establish diplomatic relations as soon as possible with all the countries in Central America. However, it has been the views of successive Governments in recent years that the limitations of our resources in finance and personnel did not allow any further increase for the time being in the number of states with which we have diplomatic relations. Changes in our representation abroad can be made when circumstances justify them. We have no plans at present to establish formal diplomatic relations with Nicaragua. For Senator McCormack's information, this was also the view of the last Government. Could I inform the Seanad that the Nicaraguan Government are aware of this position.

The primary purpose of diplomatic relations is to serve as a channel of communications between Governments. The absence of such a channel is not a serious obstacle to good relations with the Government of Nicaragua. There are regular meetings at Foreign Minister level during sessions of the UN General Assembly and during the annual conferences of Ministers of the Central American and EC States such as took place in Hamburg in February. I have met my Nicaraguan counterpart and discussed with him some of his country's problems.

Reference has been made during the debate to Nicaragua's need of our moral support and sympathy. There has also been criticism of the Government for not condemning US actions and for not giving more aid, although Senator Murphy differentiated between the American people and the American Government.

The Government share the interest and concern for the welfare of all the people of Central America which is widespread in this country. Violence and political instability, rooted in long-standing shortcomings in the fields of economic development. Social justice and respect for human rights, have characterised the region for years. We believe that these problems can best be overcome in the context of an agreement emanating from the countries themselves and supported by outside countries. The Guatemala Agreement also know as "Esquipulas II" or the Arias Accord signed by the Presidents of the five Central American countries in August, 1987 is such an agreement. It has been endorsed by the UN General Assembly and The Twelve, with our support. The Dáil adopted an all-party motion expressing support for it last November.

In co-operation with our EC partners and jointly with other states at the United Nations we are able to exert influence on the situation in Central America. I know Senator Ross's problems in relation to my continued use of the words "with our EC partners". We and our partners have frequently expressed support for the "Esquipulas II" Agreement. Two of the provisions of which are a cessation of outside aid to irregular forces or insurrectionist movements and prevention of the use of territory to destablise other Governments. We have previously said that all states should refrain from interference of any kind in Nicaragua and we will continue to do so.

We, and indeed the previous Government, have supported UN General Assembly Resolutions calling for compliance with the June 1986 Judgment of the International Court of Justice concerning military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua. How often more have we to reiterate our concerns before people will take us seriously.

We have thus taken position in the UN and among the Twelve on the issues arising in Central America. What is important is to advance and reinforce the impulses arising within the region itself which tend to a settlement of its problems by peaceful means. Considerable progress has been made — there is a cease-fire in Nicaragua, for example — but a great deal more remains to be done. I share the hopes of Senators that the immediate future will see further progress towards an overall solution of the problems of Central America.

As far as aid is concerned, we try to use our limited resources to best effect. Our Bilateral Aid Programme caters for the needs of selected priority countries in Africa. Projects carried out by organisations such as Trócaire are funded under our NGO Co-financing scheme on the basis of applications submitted. The number of projects deemed worthy of support in any particular country fluctuates from year to year. Following the extensive damage caused by Hurricane Joan in Nicaragua and other Central American countries a major international assistance effort was launched which appears to have resulted in sufficient funds to deal with immediate needs. It included a substantial allocation from the EC to which we contribute. It may be of interest to Senators that 21 per cent of all community aid to Central America goes to Nicaragua.

We decided not to make a special contribution on this occasion both because sufficient funds already seemed to be available and because we recently made large contributions (£800,000) for disaster relief in countries in Africa and Asia. Again, contrary to what has been said, it was the largest sum ever contributed to disaster relief. In summary, we must take account of the balance of advantage to us in establishing diplomatic representations having regard to real political and economic interests, the resources available to us and the effective and meaningful use of these resources.

As will be clear from what I have said, we continue to take an active interest in the problems of Central America in the appropriate fora and will continue to do what we can to advance peaceful solutions to the conflicts there, repeating what we feel is necessary and using any help we can obtain from our Community partners to boost our arguments. In regard to aid we find it necessary to focus the resources available to us in a sharp fashion which means in this case that the monies allocated to us have to be concentrated elsewhere. I might add that the two project proposals submitted by HEADCO for Nicaraguan universities were approved and funded and that about £11,500 has been given up to now this year. To conclude therefore while I do not wish to speculate about the establishment of diplomatic relations with any country, I would like to restate what I have already said earlier. We have no plans at present to establish diplomatic relations with Nicaragua.

Mr. J. O'Toole

I have a few words to say in response to what the Minister said and also to make the point again, which has been stated and restated both today and last week, that under international law and in a sense in the way we operate ourselves before we recognise a country or a state, we have certain preconditions that we ensure that that state or country will meet. Two of those are very simply that the country would have a clearly defined geographical area and also that the country and the Government in control there would be clearly seen to be in control and to be ruling the country. Those are two of the preconditions that we put before we would approve and recognise a state. There are two more, one of which I will now elaborate on, that is that a country should be in a position to establish external diplomatic relations with other countries.

We then find ourselves in a situation where we recognise the state of Nicaragua and as one of the conditions which we normally apply through the application of international law, we insist that before we recognise a country that it be in a position to set up external relations. Of course, external relations are a mutual operation and the attitude we take in Ireland towards Central America and similar countries is very difficult to define. For instance, to give another example, as far as I know we are the only country in Europe that does not have diplomatic relations with Cuba.

To fly to Nicaragua from Ireland at the moment or to different parts of South America and Central America is an exercise in international diplomacy because to get to Nicaragua one could get a flight from Shannon to Cuba to Managua otherwise one has to go to the States, go to a neutral country and try and get into Nicaragua. Because we as a country refuse to open an embassy and exchange diplomatic relations with Nicaragua we are supporting that kind of negative international interaction. We have a very clear role which goes back historically, the role that we have taken over the years which, unfortunately, has normally manifested itself as a kind of proselytiser, but at least we have sent people abroad for whatever reason over the centuries and we have a very sincere interest in what happens in Central America.

I recall that on the occasion of the recent visit of the President of the United States to this country a huge group of people under the general banner of the organisation of people opposed to Reagan's foreign policy organised a campaign against the visit and against what the President represented in this country. I spoke to many journalists from the US at that stage and the matter which they found most difficult to understand was that their reporters could walk down O'Connell Street or walk into pubs, do a vox pop with ordinary people and ask them their views on American foreign policy on Central America. On all occasions they were able to get a cogent and enlightened response from ordinary people on the street.

It seems that what we are doing in Ireland at the moment by refusing to open an embassy in Managua, by refusing to exchance diplomatic relations with Nicaragua, is supporting American foreign policy, the foreign policy of the States which was defined by President Monroe well over 100 years ago of America for the Americas, which was that no country on either continent of the Americas should in any sense oppose the views and the philosophy of the US. We are in a sense subscribing to that because it seems to me that the only reason we are refusing to recognise Nicaragua, Cuba and similar countries is because they stand for a different political philosophy than the US at the moment.

It might be of interest to the House to know that the first the normal American punter heard about the US involvement in Nicaragua was when the mining of the ports of Nicaragua became world and international news some years ago. Before that it was just considered another one of the US operations in Central and South America. I spoke to a young American student in this country recently whose father had been stationed in Central America and he told me that what he knew about Nicaragua was that when his father worked there some years ago that he could hear the political prisoners screaming and shouting in the jails of Managua. It was something that was totally unreal and untrue but it was being presented to him as the position of the state and the ruling body in Nicaragua.

We find, of course, in Nicaragua the epitome of the contradiction of the US foreign policy for Central America to which we are now subscribing, the idea that in one state you support the democratic Government and in another state you oppose the democratic Government. If we look at the precise position between El Salvador and Nicaragua we see this contradiction very clearly. In order to express ourselves as being non-aligned, in order to express our neutrality in a positive way, in order to manifest in a positive way what we stand for, it is essential that we be seen to act independently in world affairs. One way we can do that in the area of Central America would be to do it by opening an embassy in Nicaragua.

I might put it that if the matter was cash, which has been referred to by the Minister in his response, that the very least we might do is that we might nominate the Irish Ambassador to the nearest point, which would be either Buenos Aires or Washington, and for the moment add to the responsibility of that ambassador responsibility as ambassador to Nicaragua. That would be a first step towards opening an embassy. It would not fulfil the requirements as outlined in this motion but at least it would be a first step in that direction. I put it to the Minister that that could be done at little or no cost at the moment.

It is quite a usual thing. I believe, for instance, that the Irish Ambassador to Washington also covers Mexico. It could also be extended beyond that. I would certainly put that as one step in that particular direction. It seems that, by not opening an embassy in Nicaragua we are really saying that the Irish Department of Foreign Affairs are merely an extension of the American State Department in Washington. I propose that this House urge the Minister to immediately open diplomatic relations with Nicaragua.

An Cathaoirleach

Senator Lanigan and Senator Brendan Ryan wish to speak. Senator Ross has to be called at 7.45 p.m. There is a quarter of an hour left. Perhaps if Senator Lanigan——

Mr. Lanigan

I do not think that justice has been done here today to the plight of the Nicaraguans by introducing this motion. In actual fact, this motion might have been better not to have been tabled. There has been a suggestion by Senator O'Toole that we are subservient in our foreign policy to other states. I am a person who has involvement in problems outside this state and I must say that I have never seen a subservience by this country to the wishes of outside states. This Government in particular are cognisant of the problems which are associated with the Nicaraguan situation. It is totally wrong to have it said in this House that the Minister and the Department of Foreign Affairs are subservient to the wishes of another State. It is not so and I would sincerely hope that no Government in this country would ever become in its foreign affairs principles subservient to the wishes of another state. We are not subservient. We do recognise that there are problems in Nicaragua and the problems in Nicaragua are no less or no more than the problems associated with deprivation and possibly misrule in many other areas in the world.

It was said by Senator O'Toole that we refused to recognise Nicaragua. We do not refuse to recognise Nicaragua. We do recognise Nicaragua but this does not mean that we have to have an embassy in that country. I have perceived the need to have an extension of diplomatic relations or diplomatic presence in various countries, but I go along with what the Minister says: we are not a country which can afford to have embassies every place that we would wish to have them. We cannot afford to have them and we have to accept that. I have seen excellent diplomatic personnel who have not alone to deal with the problems of one country but in actual fact who have to deal with the problems of the whole areas. I have seen how they are extending themselves to the limits in trying to ensure that we have a diplomatic presence in various areas throughout the world.

The Minister did say that the fact that we do not have an embassy in a particular country does not mean that we do not have contact at both official and nonofficial level. We have a small number of embassies around the world, more than many countries of our size have, and our viewpoints are well represented by our diplomats abroad.

There are times when I would have conflict with people in the Department of Foreign Affairs but I do wish that it would go out from this House that because we do not have an embassy in a particular country we do not have friendly relations and are not cognisant of the problems of these countries. We are cognisant and the Minister made certain that he said that. He mentioned the fact that relationships are not strained between ourselves and the Nicaraguans. It is essential that we maintain contacts with the Nicaraguans the same as with a lot of other countries.

The putting down of this motion has not served the people of Nicaragua; it has not served the people of Ireland in our relationships with the Nicaraguan Government, because I think that it has forced a stance to be expressed that we will not at this moment set up an embassy in Nicaragua. I do not think it is helpful. Diplomatic relations, as the Minister said are a means of communication. You do not have to have an actual embassy to have communication.

We are very positive in our foreign affairs attitude. It is recognised right throughout the world that, even though we are a very small country, our attitude has not been subservient to the wishes of other major powers. It is one of the hopes I would have in this House that we will never become subservient to any outside power; that we maintain a foreign affairs attitude which is Irish, which serves the people with whom we have connections, that we will not be subservient to major power blocks, whether they be eastern or western. For this reason I regret that this motion was placed before the House.

Our independent attitude in foreign affairs is well recognised throughout the world. There is not a country that we are not allowed to go into and have our troops available in the peacekeeping sphere. There is no country in the world where there have been problems where we have been asked to serve that we cannot go in, because we have adhered to the foreign policies of one or another of the major powers. It is not true to say that we are subservient.

The Department of Foreign Affairs, the Minister and his predecessors have been very strong in their attitude. Neutrality is not a word to be bandied about in world affairs at present. Our neutrality is a positive neutrality that recognises the fact that we are a small nation but that we can play a part in international relationships. We do accept the State of Nicaragua. We do accept their role in Latin American society. We do accept that there are problems which are exacerbated by outside influences. We do recognise as the Minister has stated quite positively, that we have made suggestions and gone along in co-operation with our EC partners and jointly with other states of the United Nations to exert influence on the situation in Central America. We and our partners frequently express support for the Esquipulas II Agreement, two of the provisions of which are a cessation of outside aid to irregular forces or insurrectionist movements and prevention of the use of terrorism to destabilise other governments. Interference from outside has created the situation in the Lebanon. It has created a conflict in Afghanistan. It has created conflict in Pakistan. It has created problems in Nicaragua. It has created problems in Cuba. It has created problems in Ireland. We as a nation can stand with our heads high in regard to our attitude in foreign affairs.

We mentioned earlier today the situation on the universal declaration of human rights. We stand over the universal declaration of human rights. We make no apologies for it. The universal declaration of human rights to the people in Nicaragua is as important as it is to the Jews in Russia. We accept the necessity for the universal declaration of human rights. Unfortunately, a conflict might seem to be arising in this country about our role in Nicaragua. I would suggest that our role has been very positive in terms of the problems of the Nicaraguan people. The people of Nicaragua have expressed their knowledge of our concern. They have expressed to a number of people that they are quite satisfied with the situation where they can have consultations with the Irish Government at official and semi-official level at all times.

In conclusion, I want to say that the Minister's speech expresses in total what our attitude is and should be and that there is interest and concern for all of the people of central America and in particular the people of Nicaragua. I would hope that the proposer of the motion would withdraw the motion in the spirit of the statement made by the Minister in reply to the debate.

Mr. B. Ryan

What I have to say will be pointed, blunt and quite succinct. I find it fascinating that people can take umbrage. It is one of the difficulties of dealing with the Department of Foreign Affairs at present in that both the Minister and the Minister of State are particularly likeable individuals and, therefore, it is particularly difficult and painful to have to take umbrage and to get very cross. But, I am quite cross, for this reason: we have run around this issue and I know, and I suspect the Minister knows, that while there are many reasons we can put up to justify not establishing diplomatic relations with Nicaragua and while many of them are plausible, they are also extremely convenient because they enable us to throw a cloak over the real one, which is, that our friends in Washington would be absolutely outraged if we were to establish diplomatic relations with Nicaragua.

Mr. Norris

Exactly.

Mr. B. Ryan

Our friends in Washington have never heard a direct word of condemnation from an Irish Government about what they were doing. Irish Governments have been very good at expressing concern about what is happening in Nicaragua in diplomatic language but I have not yet heard a Government Minister say that what the United States is doing in Nicaragua is wrong. I have heard them express concern about what is happening in Central America. I have heard them put forward various formulae that could be interpreted by sensitive Americans interpreting Irish policy as criticisms. I have not yet heard an Irish Government Minister prepared to stand up — and it was not said by the Minister, he expressed all the appropriate concerns that all of us would share — and to be as explicit in his criticisms of United States policy in Central America, as the Minister here was prepared to be explicit in his criticisms of the abuses of human rights in the Soviet Union earlier today. That is the sort of explicitness that I welcome.

Whatever my qualms and reservations about that motion which I supported we did have quite explicit statements from the Minister that we were not happy, that we did not like what was going on. We were not talking then, in that case about the Soviet Union, about systematic massacre of civilians. We were not talking about army drug pushing mercenaries, who were going to deliberately massacre innocent civilians in the name of freedom and democracy. We were not talking about arming the ex-agents of state terror and torture to attempt to undermine and destabilise a democratically elected government. We were talking about serious abuses of human rights but abuses that stop far short of systematic murder, systematic rape and systematic torture. Yet, we are quite happy to tell the Soviet Union that they must get their house in order.

We have never in the barbarous period of barbarous assault on Nicaragua by the Government of the United States been prepared to issue even a sort of mild reproof to them that we have issued today to the Soviet Union for what is by any standards a lesser offence, however much regrettable. It is in that context that you have to judge the pussyfooting about the question of diplomatic relations with Nicaragua because Nicaragua has become and is a symbol.

Mr. Lanigan

Is this in order?

Mr. B. Ryan

I am under the impression that the Cathaoirleach is pretty good at telling me when I am out of order. I do not think you need assistance from the Leader of the House. Is it in order for Senator Lanigan to interrupt me particularly when I am short of time?

An Cathaoirleach

I think Senator Ryan is in order.

Mr. B. Ryan

Thank you. I try to be in order. This is the context in which this has to be discussed. Nicaragua is not just a little country in the middle of Central America: it is an extremely important symbol of the past relationships between the superpowers and what they saw were their client states and what many of us would hope to be the future relationship between the superpowers and their formally client states. The issue in Nicaragua is not actually whether I agree with the Government; it is the right of the people of Nicaragua to build their own country in the way they choose to do it without outside interference.

Mr. Calleary

We have said it——

Mr. B. Ryan

We have not been prepared to identify who is the major culpable cause of the destabilisation of Nicaragua. We are prepared to tell the Soviet Union.

Mr. Calleary

We have condemned the laying of mines and who laid them.

Mr. Lanigan

It is quite obvious there is a one-sided argument going on here. When the Minister replies in detail he is not listened to.

Mr. Calleary

I am sorry for interrupting.

Mr. Norris

We cannot afford morality. Senator Haughey put it on the record.

An Cathaoirleach

The Minister has a constitutional right to interrupt, to intervene or to defend, or whatever.

Mr. B. Ryan

The Minister is a nice guy. It is difficult to get very mad with him. I am not aware that we did actually specifically condemn the United States and accept that the United States had mined the harbour of Nicaragua. I would defy the Minister to give me one statement by a Government Minister which actually named the United States as being responsible for anything that has been done by the mercenaries who have massacred women, children and civilians in Nicaragua. I defy the Minister to give me one reference to that.

We have had a lot of words which can be interpreted, I said that at the beginning of my speech. I have heard eminent American historians interpret what Government Ministers have said as being a criticism but you do not need to interpret what the Minister, Deputy Calleary, said here this afternoon, because he named the Soviet Union. Why can we not say to our friends in America, "We think you are totally, utterly and morally wrong"? That is the fundamental issue. Why can we not say it and name them?

Mr. Calleary

If Senator Murphy and Senator Ross had put down a motion in that respect maybe we might have. All the motion calls for is the establishment of diplomatic relations with Nicaragua. If you look at the other motion you will see the vast difference. We cannot have it both ways. My apologies again.

Mr. B. Ryan

If he interrupts again I will not accept his apologies

An Cathaoirleach

Senator Ryan, your time is up now.

Mr. Ross

I am prepared to give him a few minutes.

An Cathaoirleach

Wait a moment. The Senator is not running this House.

Mr. B. Ryan

With your permission, I will accept his two minutes. This is the crux of this issue a Chathaoirligh: this is a country which for an awful lot of people in this country — one of the previous speakers mentioned this — symbolises something. I saw a Government when President Reagan was visiting here forced against their wishes to move from positions of total silence on Central America to saying something because Irish public opinion would not wear their silence. I have seen that happen. Now we have a symbol and that is what this is all about. This is not about trade or politics or anything else. This is about the symbolic identification of one ex-colonial power which believes in its own right, and very jealously in its own right, to be sovereign, the symbolism of our being prepared to extend our relationship to a diplomatic recognition based on mutual exchange of ambassadors, to say "We understand your history; we understand your problem and are on your side". That is the one thing we most manifestly have never been prepared to say, that in the conflict between the Nicaragua and the Government of the United States we will not say to the people of Nicaragua who have suffered so much that we are on their side.

That is what diplomatic exchange of ambassadors and diplomatic recognition is about. It is about the symbolic statement by one formerly oppressed people, that we are on the side of another people who are struggling to be free. That is what our Government, both this Government and their predecessor, have been afraid to do because Big Brother in Washington would not approve.

Mr. Lanigan

Rubbish.

Mr. S. Haughey

On a point of order, Senator Norris on several occasions has attributed remarks to me which I simply did not make. Do I get an opportunity to correct the record or what is the procedure in that regard?

An Cathaoirleach

We cannot re-open a debate. The record speaks for itself and that is obviously where you are going to lose out. There might be an occasion in the future.

Mr. B. Ryan

On a point of order, the record will clearly show who is correct.

Mr. Ross

It is rarely that I agree so wholeheartedly with my Independent colleague as I do with this speech by Senator Ryan which he has just made.

Mr. Calleary

A big change.

Mr. Ross

It is a change and no less sincere for the change. What surprised me a Chathaoirligh, about what the Minister said today was not so much what he said — which you could not argue with, because he said nothing — but what he left out, which is important. What he left out has been touched on very forceably by Senator Ryan in his speech: the Minister did not say anything about the Contras. What he did not say was that he condemned specifically the Contras in Nicaragua and all they were doing. What he did not say was that he condemned United States policy in Nicaragua. It is very easy——

Mr. Lanigan

It is wrong of Senator Ross to bring in red herrings here. The Minister said specifically that we accord to Nicaragua co-operation and that we and our partners have frequently expressed support for cessation of outside aid to irregular forces or insurrectionist movements.

Mr. Ross

Exactly. That is exactly the point that I have been making. If the Leader of the House had not interrupted me I would have more time. I want to hear him specifically condemn United States policy and not hide behind general language, not hide behind the EC, not hide behind the UN. What I want to hear him say, and what I would like to have heard him say in this House, was quite specifically that the Irish Government disassociates itself from United States Central American policy. That is what I want to hear. I do not want to hear this sort of language and I do not want to hear this sort of thing: "The Government share the interest and concern for the welfare of all the people". Sorry, Minister——

Mr. Calleary

The motion is: That Seanad Éireann calls on the Government to establish diplomatic relations with Nicaragua.

An Cathaoirleach

Wait a moment, this is getting out of control. Senator Ross would you reply and conclude Item No. 4 on today's Order Paper and leave out all of these asides that are drawing interruptions from all sides? Just reply to that.

Mr. Ross

I will reply to the Minister's speech. If I am not allowed to speak on the Minister's speech, I really am being very restricted——

An Cathaoirleach

You are telling him what he should have in it.

Mr. Ross

Of course I am and I am entitled to do that. What I do not want to hear from the Minister is statements like "the Government share the interest and concern for the welfare of all the people of Central America which is widespread in this country." It means nothing. It means absolutely nothing. What I do not want to hear from the Minister is things like, "What is important is to advance and reinforce the impulses arising within the region itself which tend to a settlement of its problems by peaceful means". Again, it means nothing.

Mr. Calleary

With all due respect, that is the most important thing that is in that speech.

Mr. Ross

It is a general avoidance of the specific issues involved in this motion. We all subscribe——

Mr. Calleary

That is the most important thing in that speech.

Mr. Ross

If it is the most important thing let me say to the Minister, we all subscribe to those sentiments. It is nothing new. It is nothing interesting. Every Member of this House subscribes and every person in the country subscribes to these sentiments. It means he has got nothing to offer. It means his foreign policy is vacant and has nothing to say. That is exactly what I do not want to hear from him.

Mr. Lanigan

Put the question.

Mr. Ross

If I may continue without the Leader of the House interrupting——

An Cathaoirleach

I cannot put the question just because somebody does not like what Senator Ross is saying.

Mr. Ross

The Minister went on to say that it is not normal practice to comment — and I may be slightly wrong in the quotes — on diplomatic relations with a particular country. This is one of the points which we have just been trying to emphasise. It is most important that the Minister and the Government should be accountable for foreign policy in general and in detail. It is very wrong that the Minister should be able to come to this House and say "We do not answer specific questions on specific diplomatic relations or specific foreign policy". That is exactly why the Independents and nearly all the parties in this House have found it important and necessary to set up a foreign affairs committee because we are continually being met by lack of accountability in these issues. I would have preferred if the Minister had told us specifically why but had not said, "Sorry, we do not do it". I do not know why he has to say that.

The Minister predicted quite rightly one of my comments on what he had to say. I think it is a pity that the Minister has come to us twice today and the basis of both his speeches has been that we support EC and UN motions. That, to me, is not very brave, it is not very independent, it is not very courageous and it certainly carries very little weight.

I am beginning to wonder whether I was wrong in supporting the Single European Act and whether those who said that its passage would compromise our neutrality were not right. Because, while having been enthusiastic about it and having believed that this was not the case at the time, I see very little evidence of an independent stand of any sort from this Government in regard to foreign policy. Indeed I, see in the Minister's reply today a great deal of welcome for the fact that we do have the EC to rely on. It is something which I regret because I genuinely believed, and I still hope, that maybe our neutrality did mean something, that maybe those who made such a loud noise about our neutrality meant it. However, I am beginning to believe that it served political purposes at the time but had absolutely no genuine use in practice. That is what I am beginning to believe. What it does not mean is muteness. It does not mean saying nothing. Neutrality, if it means anything, means being positive; it means sticking up as we did this afternoon on the Soviet Union; it means, regardless of great powers, sticking up for human rights. It means saying to America, "This is wrong" when this is wrong and saying it without fear.

What I would like to see is a coherent policy on embassies and on diplomatic relations. What I do not see is any consistency in what the Minister said or what anybody on the Fianna Fáil side has said. Whatever the quibble about the record is from Senator Haughey, the main defence and the argument against and in opposition to this motion was that it could not be justified on commercial reasons. That was the argument that was made by Senator Haughey. The details I do not know about. If those are the reasons why we open and close diplomatic relations, let the Minister say so.

I will make a suggestion to the Minister. First, nobody on this side of the House suggested that it was a precondition to this motion that we set up an embassy. I wish people would not have talked — and I hope not deliberately — on that side of the House about setting up an embassy. We did not suggest it. We deliberately did not put that down because it would have given too easy an "out" to the Government. We asked for diplomatic relations. Diplomatic relations, as the Minister knows, can mean non-residential diplomatic relations. What I did not see from the Minister or anybody else on that side of the House was a costing of that. I suggest it would be very small. If it is very small, which it must be, then it is an obligation on me to suggest how it should be paid for. I think that is right.

What I suggest to the Minister is: that we no longer continue non-residential diplomatic relations with Libya and we open them with Nicaragua. Presumably the cost will be vaguely equal and we have a good deal better reason to have diplomatic relations with Nicaragua than to have them with Libya and the cost will then be paid. What I do not see is any consistent thought or reasons running through the Department of Foreign Affairs for opening embassies or diplomatic relations. The cost argument could go if you close down one like Libya who is no friend to this country. Do I get to ask the Minister a question at the end?

An Cathaoirleach

No.

Mr. Ross

Finally, I want to say that in many ways the opening of diplomatic relations would be symbolic. Yes. The material effects might not be great but it would be symbolic. It would be saying, Yes, Ireland in its foreign policy is not only independent in name but is independent in fact, that Ireland is prepared to do things which the United States of America does not wish it to do, that Ireland condemns in unequivocal form the policy of the United States Administration in funding the terrorists in Nicaragua. That is what it means. It may not have any great material effect, but we are not talking about commerciality in this particular area.

Finally, the Minister has turned down a great chance, when a new Administration is coming in in America, to tell them that the eyes of the world are upon them in respect of this disastrous policy in Central America, and that the Irish Government, regardless of what the EC say, which we seem to be so concerned about, disapprove of it and will show this by opening diplomatic relations.

An Cathaoirleach

Is the motion agreed?

Senators

No.

An Cathaoirleach

The question is: "That the motion be agreed to." I think the motion is defeated.

Senators

Vótáil.

An Cathaoirleach

The question is: "That the motion be agreed to." On that question a division has been challenged. Will those Senators calling for a division please rise in their places?

More than five Senators rose.

An Cathaoirleach

The division will now proceed.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 13; Níl, 24.

Tá

• Bradford, Paul.
• Connor, John.
• Doyle, Joe.
• Fennell, Nuala.
• Ferris, Michael.
• Hogan, Philip.
• McMahon, Larry.
• Norris, David.
• O'Shea, Brian.
• O'Toole, Joe.
• Robb, John D.A.
• Ross, Shane P.N.
• Ryan, Brendan.

Níl

• Byrne, Seán.
• Cassidy, Donie.
• Cullimore, Seamus.
• Farrell, Willie.
• Fitzgerald, Tom.
• Hanafin, Des.
• Haughey, Seán F.
• Hillery, Brian.
• Kiely, Dan.
• Kiely, Rory.
• Lanigan, Mick.
• Lydon, Donal.
• Doherty, Michael.
• Eogan, George.
• Fallon, Seán.
• McEllistrim, Tom.
• McKenna, Tony.
• Mullooly, Brian.
• Mulroy, Jimmy.
• O'Callaghan, Vivian.
• Ó Conchubhair, Nioclás.
• O'Toole, Martin J.
• Ryan, William.
• Wallace, Mary.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Ross and Norris: Níl, Senators W. Ryan and S. Haughey.

Question declared lost.

An Cathaoirleach

When is it proposed to sit again?

Mr. Lanigan

Tomorrow at 10.30 a.m.