Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 8 Jun 1960

Vol. 182 No. 6

Committee on Finance. - Vote 53—External Affairs.

Aire Gnothai Eachtracha (Proinsias Mac Aogáin)

Tairgim:—

Go ndeonófar suim nach mó ná £306,090 chun slánaithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an t-aonú lá is tríocha de Mhárta, 1961, le haghaidh Tuarastal agus Costas Oifig an Aire Gnóthaí Eachtracha agus Seirbhísí áirithe atá faoi riaradh na hOifige sin (Uimh. 16 de 1924), lena n-áirítear Deontas-i-gCabhair.

Le cead an Cheann Comhairle agus de réir an chleachtais a bhí ann sna blianta roimhe seo tá fúm an Meastachán le haghaidh Gnóthaí Eachtracha agus an Meastachán le haghaidh Comhair Idirnáisiúnta a thógáil le chéile.

I gcás an Mheastacháin le haghaidh Gnóthaí Eachtracha £459,130, is méadú glan de £28,380 é ar mheastachán na bliana anuraidh. Is é an phríomh-chúis atá leis an méadú seo sa mheastachán an soláthar breise le haghaidh (1) tuarastal, pá agus liúntas (£24,250); (2) teileagram, teileafón agus postais (£1,400); (3) comhar cultúir le tíortha eile (£2,000); agus (4) aíochta oifigiúla (£1,500). Mar pháirtchúiteamh éigin sna méaduithe seo tá laghdú £2,800 sa soláthar le haghaidh costais taistil dár n-ionadaithe ar an gcoigrích.

Is iad na méaduithe ar luach saothair do Státseirbhísigh, a deonaíodh le gairid, is cúis le suim £13,830, as an soláthar breise £24,250, le haghaidh tuarastal, pá agus liúntas. Gnáthbhreisithe tuarastail, agus poist nua áirithe a bunaíodh, go mormhór san Ambasáid i Londain mar ar méadaíodh de bheagán líon na sóisear ar an bhfoireann eacnamaíochta, agus sa ChonsalachtGhinearálta i Nua Eabhrac áit a bhfuil líon na n-oifigeach consalachta le méadú go dtí an líon a bhí ann ó thús na dtríochadaí go dtí le deireanas.

Is deacair meastachán cruinn a thabhairt ar chostas teileagram, teileafón agus postais toisc nach féidir bheith cinnte cad é an méid úsáide is gá a bhaint as na seirbhísí sin. Tá an Meastachán seo bunaithe ar ráta reatha an chaiteachais, agus is é an t-ardú ar chostas an phostais coigríche is bun le cuid den mhéadú.

Tá an deontas-i-gcabhair, £9,000, do chaidreamh cúltúir le tíortha eile £2,000 níos airde ná an tsuim a soláthraíodh anuraidh. Cé go bhfuil sé £1,000 níos ísle ná an tsuim a soláthraíodh gach bliain ó 1948/49 go dtí 1956/57, tá áthas orm gurbh fhéidir an tsuim mhéadaithe seo a sholáthar don bhliain seo chugainn, agus ba chóir go gcuirfeadh sé ar ár gcumas níos mó a dhéanamh i gcúrsaí cultúir. Ní féidir airgead a chaitheamh as an deontas-i-gcabhair ach ar mholadh an Choiste um Chomhar Cultúrtha. Ba mhaith liom a chur in iúl athuair go bhfuil an t-ardmheas agam ar an saothar atá á dhéanamh ag an gCoiste chun an t-iomalartú cultúir idir Éire agus tíortha eile a chur chun cinn. Is comhlacht saorálach, ar ndóigh, an Coiste agus i gcónaí riamh chaith comhaltaí an Choiste am agus dúthracht, go fonnmhar agus go fial, leis an gcomhthuiscint idir pobail tíortha a mhéadú an oiread agus is féidir ar an mbealach fóinteach tairbheach seo.

Is é is mó is cúis leis an méadú ar an soláthar le haghaidh aíocht oifigiúil go bhfuil breis ag dul i gcónaí ar an méid comhdhálacha agus comhthionól idirnáisiúnta a dtoghtar an tír seo mar láthair dóibh. Níorbh fhéidir aíocht mar is cuí a thabhairt leis an méid airgid a bhíodh sa Mheastachán roimhe seo agus, go deimhin, b'éigin tuilleadh a chaitheamh i mblianta áirithe.

I gcomparáid leis an mbliain roimhe seo, tá £2,800 níos lú á sholáthar le haghaidh costais taistil ionadaithe ar an gcoigrích mar gheall ar laghdú measta ar líon na n-oifigeach a bheidh á n-aistriú, nó á n-athsholáthar, agus ar na turais saoire abhaile.

Is gnách leis an Roinn Consail Oinigh a cheapadh i gcathracha inar chóir sin a dhéanamh ar mhaithe le leasa na hÉireann agus dá réir sin ceapadh triúr Consal Oinigh i rith na bliana sna cathracha seo—Tokyo, Johannesburg agus Barcelona. Tá ceithre dhuine dhéag mar Chonsail Oinigh againn anois ar an gcoigrích.

Maidir leis an Meastachán um Chomhar Idirnáisiúnta £95,470, tá glan- laghdú £500 ar fhigiúr na bliana roimhe seo mar gheall ar laghdú £7,350 ar roinnt fo-mhírcheann, lúide £6,850 d'ardú i bhfo-mhírchinn eile.

Sa ranníoca i leith caiteachais Chomhairle na hEorpa tá £1,450 d'ardú ar an mbliain roimhe seo. Méadú i gCáinaisnéis na Comhairle, a fhaigheann ranníoc céatadánach ó gach Tír-Chomhalta, is bun leis an ardú sin. Mar a déantar i gcás Chomhairle na hEorpa, íocann an tír seo céatadán áirithe de chaiteachais an Eagrais um Chomhar Eacnamaíochta san Eoraip. Níl Cáinaisnéisí an Eagrais don bhliain 1960 ar fáil fós. Is gá, mar sin, ár ranníoc do 1960/61 a mheas de réir an ranníoca iomláin do 1959/60 agus liúntas beag a áireamh i leith mionardú is tuigthe dúinn a theacht ar mhíreanna éagsúla. Thárla, áfach, £3,150 de laghdú sna figiúirí i leith caiteachais taistil agus fochaiteachais faoin mír seo. Tá an laghdú seo bunaithe ar an gclaonadh atá ann i gcúrsaí caiteachais maidir le freastal Airí agus oifigeach ar chruinnithe an Eagrais um Chomhar Eacnamáíochta san Eoraip.

Maidir le fo-mhírchinn na Náisiún Aontaithe, is ionann beagnach is anuraidh an soláthar le haghaidh an ranníoca. Tá £1,300 níos mó san fho-mhírcheann taistil mar nár leor an soláthar a rinneadh don bhliain seo caite. Tá £1,500 níos lú sa ranníoc do Chiste Leanaí na Náisiún Aontaithe. Os a choinne sin, áfach, tá a chomhmhéid d'ardú sa ranníoc do Ghníomhaireacht Fóirthinte agus Oibreacha. Tá £2,000 de laghdú sa ranníoc do Fhórsa Práinne na Náisiún Aontaithe toisc gur chinn Stáit áirithe íocaíochtaí saorálacha a thabhairt in éineacht le na gcuid ranníoc. Sa chaoi sin ní bheidh an t-ualach comh trom céanna ar thíortha eile.

Sa Vóta le haghaidh Gnóthaí Eachtracha is ea a dhéantaí roimhe seo an £500 a sholáthar le haghaidh síntiúis do dhá Dhlí-Chomlacht Idir-rialtais. Meastar gurb oiriúnaí an caiteachas seo a mhuirearú ar an Chomhar Idirnáisiúnta.

I wish to deal now with the work of the 1959 Session of the United Nations.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister has not been able to circulate a copy of this part of the statement?

Mr. Aiken

This is in English. I shall send the Deputy a copy.

Risteárd Ua Maolchatha

Cad mar gheall ar an méid atá léite ag an Aire?

Prionsias Mac Aogáin

Tá an aistriú ag teacht.

As Deputies are aware, at the last Session of the General Assembly our delegation was particularly involved in the introduction of two Resolutions both of which were ultimately adopted. The first was the Resolution submitted by the Federation of Malaya and Ireland on the question of Tibet. That Resolution was adopted on 21st October last by a vote of 45 to 9 with 26 abstentions. The second was the Resolution, of which we were the sole sponsor, on Prevention of the Wider Dissemination of Nuclear Weapons. That Resolution was adopted by a vote of 68 to nil with 12 abstentions on 20th November last.

There are only a few points that I need make here in relation to these two Resolutions as the course of the proceedings regarding them was very fully reported in the Press here. The booklet "Ireland and the United Nations 1959" which has just been published by Messrs. Browne & Nolan and is available in the Dáil Library, carries the full text of both Resolutions and also the full text of all statements made by me in relation to them.

First, as regards Tibet, I think all of us here, sharing the same feelings of resentment at what has been done to that small people by their powerful neighbour, will regret that the United Nations was not able to take more effective action in relation to Tibet than to pass the Resolution sponsored by Malaya and ourselves. There were however formidable difficulties barring the way to any more effective action. One difficulty was of course that the United Nations can only take action— as distinct from making recommendations—through the Security Council, not the Assembly, and that in the Security Council the Soviet Union would certainly veto any proposals to which the Peking Government objected.

The second difficulty was that many countries—perhaps the majority in the United Nations—regard Tibet as legally a part of China. That, as Deputies are aware, is the position, not only of the Peking Government but also of the Government of Formosa which represents China at the United Nations. For many countries which are in diplomatic relations with one or other of these Governments the situation presented itself, therefore, as a Chinese internal problem and this point of view was brought out by many speakers in the debate. Several leading countries, take a conservative attitude on Article 2.7. of the United Nations Charter— the article that forbids the United Nations to intervene on matters "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of a member nation." These countries took a correspondingly reserved attitude on the question of Tibet. A third difficulty was of course that a number of important Asian countries held that the Peking Government, not being represented in the United Nations, was not answerable for her actions to the Assembly.

In these circumstances, not only was it impossible to secure any substantive international measures in relation to Tibet, but it was a matter of some difficulty to place the question on the Agenda at all and, having done so, to secure the necessary degree of support for the Resolution. However, the Resolution was eventually carried with only 9 votes against it—the votes of the nine Warsaw Pact countries led by the Soviet Union. This result was by no means a foregone conclusion; and at one stage it seemed probable that, in view of the Chinese representation situation, a number of Asian votes would be cast against any such Resolution.

Great efforts were in fact made to secure Asian votes in opposition to the Resolution. That these efforts failed was due in great part to the devoted efforts of our friends in the Delegation of Malaya as well as to the unofficial Tibetan delegation headed by the Dalai Lama's brother, Mr. Gyalo Thondup. The final result was regarded as very satisfactory by most members of the United Nations, in that it showed that China's acts of oppression in Tibet found no support outside the Communist world. This in the view of many delegates—including several from Asian countries which had abstained on the actual voting— was of considerable importance as demonstrating that aggressive actions against weaker neighbours have wide and unfavourable repercussions in world public opinion.

The Resolution which we sponsored for the Prevention of Wider Dissemination of Nuclear Weapons is now before the Ten Power Disarmament Committee. The dangers of a wide diffusion of nuclear weapons are so serious that great Power agreement to prevent the further spread of these weapons and the acquiescence of other Powers in such an agreement constitute a great common interest of humanity.

The object of our Resolution was primarily to focus attention on the dangers which exist and secondarily to suggest a possible set of measures for dealing with it. We believe that the large vote in favour of our Resolution at the last Assembly, as compared with the reserve it encountered in the previous year, is some index of a growing international consciousness of the need to restrict the specific dangers involved in the spread of nuclear weapons, as distinct from the ever present danger involved in the existence of such weapons at all. We all must hope that the Ten Power Disarmament Committee will be able to achieve a sufficient measure of agreement, in the face of danger common to all humanity, to stop the present progress towards indefinite, dissemination of these weapons. At present the fact must be faced that the outlook in that respect is uncertain. All that a small country can do is to keep trying and hope for the best.

The present voluntary and indefinite suspension of above-ground tests by the United States, the Soviet Union and Britain is welcome but of its nature precarious, and progress towards agreement on cessation of tests, accompanied by inspection, has been slow though not entirely insignificant. Agreement on cessation of production still seems far off. Agreement on destruction of existing nuclear stocks seems almost impossible to achieve in the absence of international confidence or of some scientific discovery making effective inspection possible in this field. It is, however, precisely because we feel that progress in disarmament is likely to be painfully and dangerously slow that we decided to concentrate upon the most dangerous aspect of the arms race and to do what we could to prevent a further deterioration in an already dangerous situation; in other words, our approach was that, if the situation cannot be cured, let us at least stop it becoming worse.

We also took part in the debates on many other important problems coming before the Assembly.

As regards the French nuclear tests in the Sahara, we appealed to the Government of France to test its nuclear device, if at all, underground in conditions which would not add to the radiation in the Sahara and in the rest of the world.

We abstained on a draft Resolution on the Algerian question which called for negotiations leading to self-determination because it seemed to us that its passage might have unfavourable repercussions on the hopeful prospects opened up by General de Gaulle's statement of 16th September 1959. While subsequent events have again demonstrated the difficulties in the way of a settlement, it is our earnest hope that a spirit of understanding and accommodation on both sides will bring about a solution to this very difficult problem on the basis of self-determination for the people of Algeria as proclaimed by General de Gaulle last September.

Our delegation again supported the Indian proposal for a discussion on the issue of Chinese representation in the United Nations. Our grounds for doing so were the same as in previous years and have already been discussed by the Dáil.

We also supported the view that the United Nations is entitled to express an opinion on the racial policies of the Union of South Africa. Since our admission to the United Nations we have held in common with the very great majority of member nations, that the Government of South Africa is embarked on a policy which is disastrous for the South African people and for the world.

It is hardly necessary to say that we are not actuated by any hostility towards that country and that we have always tried to express our views on this problem with moderation and due regard to the difficulty of securing a peaceful change which will safeguard the rights of all sections of the South African people. As the House is aware the Government of South Africa, following the tragic events at Sharpe-ville, which shocked the conscience of the world, has agreed to discuss the situation with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. We must all hope and pray that these discussions, which will take place this summer will be fruitful of good and will avert further tragedies in that country. In view of these pending discussions, the House will understand that it is not desirable for me, as Minister in a member Government of the United Nations, to comment further on the state of affairs in South Africa.

The Assembly again considered the long-standing, complex and grave problem of the million Arab refugees, living in camps around the borders of Israel. We voted for a Resolution which asked the Palestine Conciliation Commission, consisting of the United States, France and Turkey, to endeavour to secure the implementation of that part of a previous Assembly Resolution which provided that those refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so and that those, who did not wish to do so, should be compensated by Israel. I very much fear that unless some honourable compromise can be found, the Arab refugee problem will continue to poison the situation in the Middle East and dangerously affect international relations. In the meantime the United Nations' teams in the Middle East continue to perform a very useful function. I may add that officers of our Defence Force have been rendering with distinction a valuable international service in the United Nations Truce Supervision Organisation which observes the implementation of the Palestine Armistice Agreements.

Refugee problems generally—in Central Europe, in the Far East and in North Africa as well as in the Palestine area—have become more familiar to the Irish people as a result of the World Refugee Year. The response to the Irish Red Cross appeal has been and continues to be a generous one. Up to the present a sum of approximately £60,000 has been realised. The Irish Red Cross are to be heartily congratulated on the result of the appeal, and I trust that the individuals and firms who have not yet subscribed will do so without delay.

The success of the World Refugee Year could probably eliminate the refugee problem altogether in certain areas of the world and would greatly diminish it in most. Even in the case of the most intractable refugee problem—that of the Palestine Arabs— the success of the appeal can considerably improve the prospects of solution, especially by making rehabilitation programmes possible. At present the sum available to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for the maintenance and rehabilitation of these refugees works out at little more than 8d. per head per day. It is clear that such a budget leaves hardly any margin for educational or rehabilitative work; it is indeed remarkable that the Organisation, with such limited means, can provide for the subsistence and health of the refugees.

We in Ireland have recently been given a valuable insight into refugee problems by Father Pire, the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1958. I feel that our thanks are due to the new and thriving United Nations Association for its initiative in inviting him to visit us. Father Pire was an eloquent spokesman for the hapless victims whose cause he so nobly espoused.

In surveying our United Nations activities I have only touched on some of the problems coming before the main Political Committee, but, of course, much of the most important, and fortunately less contentious, work of the organisation relates to other fields and is discussed in the Committees which deal with economic, legal, social, humanitarian and cultural affairs. Our very effective representation on these Committees has contributed significantly to the building up of the influence of the Delegation as a whole.

Our Delegation is small and is heavily taxed by the requirements of analysis and consultation posed by the many delicate and controversial issues arising in all seven main Committees. Little time is left for the considerable effort required to secure inscription on the Agenda and to pilot the passage of resolutions such as the two on which our Delegation took a leading role in the last Assembly. While it is hardly likely that such circumstances will recur, it is certain that the demands on our small team will continue to be heavy. Among all the Delegations attending the Assembly ours is, by far, the smallest of those that play an active rôle in the proceedings. I feel it right to say this because in the past there have been suggestions that our Delegation may be excessive in size.

Deputies will be aware that the Government have put forward the name of Ambassador Boland, our Permanent Representative to the United Nations, as a candidate for the Presidency of the General Assembly. A number of countries were kind enough to urge us to nominate Ireland's representative for the Presidency, and promised their support. The position of President of the General Assembly of the United Nations is a heavy responsibility as well as a high honour. It is because we feel that our Permanent Representative has in abundant measure the qualities required for such a responsible office and that, under his Presidency, the Assembly would conduct its business efficiently and fruitfully, that we hope for the success of his candidature.

Deputies will remember that almost exactly a year ago the Council of Europe celebrated the tenth anniversary of its founding. I think the House will agree with me that the developments of the past year, so crucial a one for Europe, have demonstrated the importance of an organisation which brings together in a common forum the parliamentary opinion, not of six or of seven, but of fifteen European nations.

The same cohesive spirit is now more than ever a vital element also in the work of the Council's technical Committees, which have again this year a record of considerable achievement to show. The European Social Charter is reaching its final stages after exhaustive consideration both by ILO and the Assembly; the Conference of Posts and Telecommunications Administrations convened with the approval of the Council is now established and functioning as a permanent body; the Council's Cultural Fund, created in May 1959 and financed by voluntary subscription from the Government and other sources, has settled down under its Administrative Board to implement a wide and varied programme of encouragement and subsidisation; in the domain of Human Rights the establishment of the European Court has brought the entire machinery provided for in the Convention into force; the Committee for the Simplification of Frontier Formalities continues to report concrete progress with which we in this country are steadily keeping pace.

In many other fields, of practical interest to us all. Conventions are under consideration covering such matters as consular regulations, arbitration in private law, treatment of legal persons, foreign money liabilities, liability of hotel-keepers, the exchange of television programmes and the prevention of crime and treatment of offenders. From all these painstaking and devoted efforts towards harmonisation and co-operation a stronger sense of European solidarity continues to emerge, unspectacularly perhaps, but steadily and surely. It is, I know, a source of satisfaction to the Dáil, as it is to me, that Irish representatives have carried their full share of these activities.

During the years 1957/58 and 1958/59 the grant-in-aid for cultural relations was reduced from its earlier figure of £10,000 to £2,100. Consequently the number of cultural activities assisted by my Department, with the advice and co-operation of the Cultural Relations Committee, had to be reduced to a bare minimum and the majority of Irish cultural activities abroad had to be abandoned.

During 1959/60 the grant-in-aid was increased to £7,000, thus permitting the reconstitution of the Cultural Relations Committee, and a renewal of the Department's efforts to spread a knowledge of Irish culture in foreign countries. For the current financial year the figure has been increased by a further £2,000 to £9,000. There is no doubt that, considering the very limited funds available, the work of the Cultural Relations Committee in increasing a knowledge and appreciation of Irish culture abroad has been most valuable.

Projects for the coming year include the publication of further booklets in the "Irish Life and Culture" series, the distribution of films and other material and assistance to a wide variety of bodies concerned with the promotion of a knowledge of our national heritage abroad.

The provision for Information Material is the same as last year's— £8,000. The amount now being provided for will finance the operations of the Information Section of the Department. Included among these is the publication of a weekly Information Bulletin which, with an overseas circulation of over 8,000, is a valuable medium for the dissemination of topical information on current significant events in this country and Government policy generally.

We have had many letters from readers abroad expressing their appreciation of the Bulletin in general and their interest in particular items carried in it. The Bulletin represents a great single item of expenditure under this Subhead. The Information Section also has the function of ensuring that the Department's Offices abroad have adequate stocks of such information media as books on Ireland; gramophone records of Irish music; photographic prints; and such suitable films as can be made available within our limited budget.

These items are in constant demand from foreign cultural and educational bodies, journalists, lecturers, and authors—to name but some of the classes of interested individuals and groups. It is clearly important that provision be made for the supply of information material of this nature. I should like here to express the hope that in future years we shall be able to make available the resources, both in staff and material, for a more extended effort in this very important field.

With regard to the OEEC, the Taoiseach referred in the course of the Adjournment Debate on 26th April to the Report of the Group of Four charged with making a study of the reorganisation of the OEEC in the light of changes which have occurred in the European economic situation since the OEEC was originally established and so as to enable the U.S.A. and Canada to become full members of the reorganised body.

The Report and the draft of a Convention for the reorganised body are being considered by the Government. A meeting of senior officials of the twenty Governments concerned, i.e. the eighteen full members of the OEEC and the two associate members —U.S.A. and Canada—was held in Paris at the end of last month and arrangements were made for a detailed examination of the draft Convention.

Deputies are aware that the establishment of the two trading groups— the European Economic Community and the European Free Trade Association — in Europe raises certain problems for this country. I do not propose to enter into the substance of these problems which have been fully explained in various statements by the Taoiseach. I should mention, however, that we are represented on the Committee on Trade Problems which met in Paris from 29th-30th March last to discuss future trade relations between the EEC and EFTA and between these groups and other countries, with particular reference to the situation which will arise when tariff reductions are made by both groups.

At the conclusion of the meeting of the Committee in March it was decided that information should be collected and analysed as to the effect of the various proposals for tariff reductions. I, myself, have since had discussions in Paris with the Chairman of the Committee, Mr. Luns, the Netherlands Foreign Minister, on the position of Ireland in relation to these matters. The Committee is to meet again this week.

Apart from the Trade Agreement with Britain, we have concluded trade agreements during the past year with France, Finland and Germany, fixing the amounts of the quotas for the import of non-liberalised goods of Irish origin. I should state here that, as far as industrial goods are concerned, the need for securing such quotas is diminishing rapidly owing to the increased liberalisation of these goods. Difficulties are, however, still being encountered in securing adequate quotas for our agricultural products.

As the House knows there was recently held, under the aegis of the United Nations, an important conference on the Law of the Sea. This was the second such Conference organised by the United Nations. That of 1958, while it achieved substantial agreement in respect of all other aspects of this great subject of international law, failed to reach agreement on the breadth of the territorial sea and exclusive fishery limits. The recent conference was called in the hope that it would succeed where the first conference—and indeed the Hague Conference of 1930—had failed. Unfortunately these hopes were not realised, but the conference failed by the narrowest of margins.

Of a total of eighty-eight States represented fifty-four, including Ireland, voted for the joint United States/Canada proposal, twenty-eight voting against and five abstaining. Had even one of those voting against the proposal abstained the necessary two-thirds majority would have been obtained. The joint proposal which failed so narrowly would have permitted States to have a six mile, or narrower, territorial sea measured from the applicable baseline with exclusive fishing jurisdiction up to twelve miles subject only to the right of those States, which could prove historic rights, to fish in the outer six miles; and even these rights would disappear at the end of a period of ten years.

As was stated in Geneva by the leader of the Irish delegation, the Attorney General, we believe that this proposal should have satisfied those States which sought increased fishery jurisdiction over their coastal waters while at the same time providing for a period of readjustment for the fishery States.

Although a two-thirds majority was not reached in Geneva for any proposal, it is questionable if the conference can properly be described as a failure. The problem facing the conference is a very old one; and it is one of such complexity, because of the extraordinary diversity of interests of the States concerned, that it must be regarded as a major achievement that fifty-four States could find common ground in a single short proposal. This very fact gives hope for the future. Age-old questions of such intricacy may not be resolved at the first or second attempt; but in view of the remarkable progress that has been made, we should not despair of finding a reasonable and generally acceptable solution.

Various suggestions have already been made for a further effort to secure agreement, such as another conference and the conclusion of an agreement between those countries who voted for the U.S./Canadian proposal. As I have stated more than once in this House our preference in the matter of extended fishery limits is to get agreement with other States rather than to take unilateral action. Accordingly the Government are watching anxiously all suggestions for a solution in this important field because they believe that international agreement is desirable not alone in our own interests but for the development of the rule of law.

Mr. D. Costello

I move:—

That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration.

It will be noted by most observers on the foreign affairs of this country that the Minister, and the Government of which he is a Member, have maintained what can only be described as an equivocal silence on the principles which guide the foreign policy of the present Government, and in the speech which he has just read to the House the Minister has maintained that silence. For those who do not follow in great detail the speeches of the Minister and the activities of his Department there will be some value in the remarks he has made to the House in that they afford a brief résumé of what the Department, and the Minister as head of the Department, have been doing over the last 12 months or so but, for those on this side of the House and outside it who feel the country is entitled to know what are the principles of foreign policy which this Government are following, there was nothing in the Minister's speech to indicate what that policy is, or to give us and the country what we are entitled to know, namely, the principles guiding him in his activities in the United Nations and elsewhere.

Because of this equivocal silence it has been our task to try to interpret the Minister's speeches and votes in the United Nations and to ascertain from these speeches and votes what principles are guiding the present Government, what principles are informing and moulding the actions and votes which they take and give in the United Nations Assembly. For the purpose of trying to ascertain the views of the Government on this important matter we, on this side of the House, have asked the Minister whether he agrees with the principles which we suggested should guide our actions in the United Nations. We asked this question on more than one occasion and I make no apology to the House for asking it again because, if it is wearisome to the House to have repeated what we say should be the principles guiding this country in the United Nations, the blame must lie on the Minister and the Government who have not answered the question.

I want to repeat that we have asked the Minister on more than one occasion whether he accepts the three principles of action which our Minister for External Affairs laid down in, 1956, and that the Minister has refused to answer the question. I hope note will be taken by those who concern themselves with these matters if the Minister, in the course of his reply to this debate, again refuses to answer the question. I want to recall to the House that in 1956 the Minister for External Affairs of the then inter-Party Government made a speech in which he laid down the three principles of action which would guide his Government in the United Nations. He said, first of all, that it would be our task in the United Nations to secure the observance of the Charter of the United Nations Organisation; secondly, it would be our task to maintain a position of independence, judging each question on which we have to vote on its merits; and, thirdly that we should do what we can to preserve the Christian civilisation of which we are a part and, with that end in view, support whenever possible those Powers principally responsible for the defence of the free world in its resistance to the spread of Communist power and influence.

The question which I would have thought would have been a simple one to answer is whether the Minister and the Government accept those three principles? If he does, then the debate on this Estimate may take a very different turn, though we may be forced to criticise the Minister and the Government for errors of judgment in the application of these principles, but if he does not accept them, then there is a wide divergence of opinion between the two sides of this House on the foreign policy the country should adopt. As I say, because of the absence of any clear statement of principle from the Minister or any of his colleagues, it is our task to try to interpret what has been said and done, and to try to gauge from what actions have been taken in the United Nations Assembly and elsewhere what are the fundamental principles of action directing the Government's policy. That task has not been an easy one for us, one reason being that the Minister's own colleagues have interpreted in rather different ways the actions taken by him over the last three years.

Deputies no doubt will recall that the Tánaiste referred to the present Minister as a non-committed statesman, and he criticised his predecessor for what he called stringing along uncritically and unthinkingly behind the Western bloc. Apparently the Tánaiste thought there was a considerable difference between the Minister for External Affairs in the present Government and the Minister for External Affairs in the previous Government. He felt our Government was stringing along uncritically and unthinkingly behind the Western bloc whereas his Government did no such thing but, quite recently, a member of Fianna Fáil spoke at a debate in Kilkenny and his view was that there was no great difference between the foreign policy put forward by this Government and that of the previous Government. Deputy Booth's view was that the foreign policy of this country had not altered except in degree and what he described as political emphasis.

The Minister and his colleagues have spoken little on foreign affairs. The Minister has spoken not infrequently in the United Nations but, on foreign policy as such, little has been said by him or any of his colleagues either in the House or elsewhere.

Last year the Minister departed somewhat from the practice which he had heretofore adopted. Up to last year he had treated the House in a most perfunctory manner. He had given a brief introductory speech in Irish which an accountant from his Department could as well have done and in replying to the debates in this House, up to last year, he spoke very briefly and did not deal with many of the matters on which this House and the country were entitled to get his views. But, last year he did depart from that practice and he spoke at some length, as he did this afternoon, giving an outline of what he had done and said in the United Nations for the previous twelve months but, as for principles, it was very difficult to discover any concrete statement other than a few observations which can only be described as of a most platitudinous nature.

Last year, when introducing his Estimate, the Minister said—he was dealing with world problems then— that our part in regard to such world problems was to make the best contribution we could to the consideration of the issues involved as they arise at the United Nations. We were to do the best we could. I hardly think that such a statement can be regarded as an important statement on foreign policy.

In his reply to the debate the only statement that could be regarded as anywhere approaching a declaration of principle was when he said that the rôle of the Irish delegation in the United Nations—and I am sure at this point many Deputies were interested to know what the rôle of the Irish delegation was—was not to exhaust our energies in denouncing injustice and war, much as we detest them, but to make constructive contributions to the search for true peace. The first statement was that we were to do the best we could and the second statement was that we were to work for true peace.

I do not think anybody in this House would disagree with those views, nor anybody in the world for that matter. If the Minister were to wish that all men would be good or if he were to wish that he would have fine weather on his holidays, we would all support such views also but, for statements of foreign policy, we find little or nothing there and nothing in to-day's speech to the Dáil.

There is, however, one matter to which I should refer en passant. During the course of his reply last year to the debate on the Estimate the Minister criticised some of the speeches made in the course of the debate. He criticised in particular Deputy McGilligan and Deputy Dillon and described them as “loud mouths” and bellicose participants in the cald war. He clearly indicated that such types of speeches were not the types of speeches that should be made in the United Nations General Assembly. It is a curious thing that within a few months after that the Minister himself and bellicose participants in the cold war, and I think quite correctly, in the motion he put down dealing with the matters that arose so tragically in Tibet.

The Minister having criticised us on this side of the House for what he called this loud-mouthed and bellicose participation in the cold war, did himself in quite a significant degree participate in the cold war and was criticised in the United Nations for so doing, for having dispelled the rather weak ectoplasm of the spirit of Camp David, for threatening to break down the mood of détente that was then thought to be in existence, and the very criticisms which were levelled against us by him last year were levelled against him in the United Nations Assembly a short time subsequently.

For these reasons, as I say, we must search around to try to discover what the Minister's attitude is towards world affairs and, in particular, our rôle in the United Nations. I want to say unequivocally that I do not regard our country as being an uncommitted country and I do not regard it as our rôle to be such a country as the uncommitted groups in the United Nations, such as Yugoslavia, Egypt or part of the Afro-Asian group. We I repeat, are not an uncommitted country and if it is the view of this Government that we are, if it is the view of this Government that we should take up a more neutralist position than that of its predecessors, then I think, as I said earlier, there is wide divergence of views between the two sides of the House.

The reasons which make us believe that the Government are taking up a different attitude from that of their predecessors are the type of speeches which the Government, through this Minister, have made in the United Nations and the way they voted on a number of crucial issues.

The Minister made very brief reference to the vote of the Irish delegation on the question of the representation of China. I want to refer to it at some greater length because I think it is of considerable importance. To my mind, there are two possible attitudes to be taken to what is, after all, one of the great world problems of the present time, namely, the problem of Communist China.

It is possible, first, to take the attitude that it would be desirable and in the interests of peace that Red China, the Peking régime, should be represented in the United Nations; or, it is possible to take the other view, namely, that it would be dangerous for that Organisation, that it would increase considerably the Communist influence in the Far East, that it would disrupt the admittedly tenuous links that are there in the Far East at the present time keeping the peace and that, for these reasons, at the present time it is undesirable that Red China should become a member of that Organisation.

As I say, there are people, honourable people, who hold these two separate views, divergent and different. I myself believe that the arguments are overwhelmingly against, at the present time, the recognition of Red China by membership of the United Nations. Neither of these is the Government's view. The Government try to take up a middle position which I believe to be an intellectually dishonest one and a nationally damaging one to this country. The Government say that they have not yet made up their mind whether Red China should be or should not be in the United Nations. The Taoiseach last year came into the House and said the Government had not yet made up their mind as to whether Red China should be in the United Nations or not. It was repeated by the Minister for External Affairs.

What facts are lacking, what information do the Government want that they have not got in order to make up their mind as to whether it is desirable or not that Red China should be in the United Nations, and when will they make up their mind? Supposing the Minister is successful in the Assembly next Autumn and supposing he gets his discussion on Red China and supposing there is a vote to be taken on the issue of whether the Peking regime or the Formosa régime is to have the China seat in the United Nations, what is the Minister going to do? Will he telegraph home to his colleagues to ask them then to make up their mind? Surely it is an intellectually dishonest position to say that the Government have not yet made up their mind? The facts are there. The facts can be weighed up one way or the other. To say that the Government, after three years of experience of this matter, are not able to know which way they will vote, seems to me to be a most extraordinary statement.

The Minister's position was, however, that not having made up his mind on the matter as to the representation of Red China, he was in favour of a discussion of the subject. Let me recall to the House the words which the Minister used addressing the Assembly last year when he said that he was in favour of discussion on this matter. He said he was in favour of a discussion, not a formal and inconclusive confrontation of rigidly opposed views but a careful deliberation leading to a generally-acceptable, constructive solution. This must have caused some amusement even to the most hard-boiled and experienced delegate in Turtle Bay. Rarely, I would suggest, could delegates to the United Nations Assembly who are accustomed to meaningless phrases and platitudinous aspirations have heard them both so deftly combined in a statement such as that given by the Minister.

There was to be a discussion which was to lead to "a generally-acceptable, constructive solution." I presume that many of the Deputies who are interested in these matters will have read the debates in the United Nations Assembly on this matter. The Minister was present and had been present for two hours previously. He said he was not in favour of a formal and inconclusive confrontation of rigidly opposed views, but the facts of the situation, as known to anybody who reads the debates and as they must have been known to the Minister, were such that it would have been impossible to have a debate of that sort on a subject of that nature and the pages of the United Nations Assembly's debates practically burn with the denunciations of the Americans and of those who supported the United States on this matter by the Communist group.

It may be desirable, it may be a nice idea to have a gentlemanly, fair and reasonable discussion on it but to think you are going to get such a discussion in the circumstances of the present time is, I suggest, illusory and dishonest because it must be known that such a type of discussion could not be held. If there was no prospect of such a discussion; if in fact all the scars of the cold war were to be exacerbated again, if in fact the type of discussions held in previous years in which there was this confrontation of bitterly opposed views—if that was the type of discussion to be held surely it was our duty, even if in favour of such a discussion, to vote against it under the circumstances.

I think I cannot put it any better than the Greek delegate who spoke in the United Nations Assembly on this aspect of this statement of the Minister on the matter. The Greek delegate said that the settlement was the goal and not the discussion and if, in fact, the discussion which the Minister favoured was to make more difficult the settlement which we all desire, I think it was our duty, even with this equivocal attitude of not making up our minds on the matter, to vote against the motion then before the General Assembly.

The Minister has made no reference in his remarks to the proposals made by him for several years concerning disengagement in Europe. In fact, the Minister's proposals in this regard amount to suggestions for the neutralisation of Germany. His proposals, with regard to disengagement, are directly contrary to the declared foreign policy of the West German Government and the Government of the U.S. I can see no reason for the Minister's suggestion in this matter; it is wrong for him to suggest—as he did in the reply to the debate last year —that there were certain professional military men who do not like his proposals. It is wrong to infer that it is only professional men who are against such proposals as his for disengagement in Europe.

A book published quite recently deals with this problem of disengagement. I think there have been over 100 different types of proposals put forward under the generic term of "disengagement." I certainly am not going to deal with them all or with the Minister's own particular brand but, to suggest that disengagement in Europe has been opposed only by a few military men, is not the truth. Disengagement in Europe has been espoused by the British Labour Party; it has been supported by some elements in the Social Democrat Party in Western Germany; there are no other political groups that I know in Europe that have supported any of the existing proposals for disengagement.

The idea of a détente in Europe is, of course, one with which every person would agree. The attitude of the Christian Democratic Party as expressed in the Council of Europe, the attitude of the Liberal Parties and of the Socialist Parties, with the exception of the British Labour Party, and some of the German Socialist groups, has been that any proposals dealing with disengagement would be to the disadvantage of the West and to the advantage of the Communist bloc. Then the Minister goes out to the United Nations and makes proposals for the neutralisation of Germany and disengagement in Europe which are directly contrary to the expressed foreign policy of Powers friendly to this country and directly contrary to the views of influential people in Europe and elsewhere, people to whose views we should have particular regard.

As I am dealing with this proposal of disengagement and the attitude of the British Labour Party on it, may I say that it might not be a bad thing if the Minister were to give up his subscription to the New Statesman and Nation? I find myself in considerable sympathy with a number of views of the British Labour Party but I am not in sympathy with any views expressed by certain wings of that Party on foreign affairs. It does, indeed, happen all too frequently that the funeral baked meats of the New Statesman and Nation are coldly furnished forth in the United Nations by the Minister. It is a curious, almost ironical development, that the Minister, who believes in the restoration of the Irish language, who thinks that because we speak English we shall be under the dominance of Great Britain or an alien culture, should be so influenced by British Labour Party thinking on this problem. To think that the views of the British Labour Party on foreign affairs are the views of all progressive, Liberal and Socialist people is wrong and is not the fact as the Minister would find if he took the trouble to discover what the position is among the Socialist Parties of Europe. He would find that the British Labour Party is very frequently opposed by the Socialist groups on the Continent, particularly by the French Socialists, by the Austrian Socialists and by the Socialists of the Benelux countries.

We said that it would be an elementary principle for any Government to seek to avoid by their actions and by their speeches unnecessary offence to friends of this country abroad. We have been accused by various parties, sometimes of boot-licking, and sometimes of stringing along behind the Western bloc because we were of the view that it was an elementary principle that one should have regard to the views of one's friends and not give unnecessary offence to them.

The Government, and the Minister in particular, have endeavoured to pose as seagreen incorruptibles; they have endeavoured to signify that they will not play politics and that they will have regard to every measure that comes before the United Nations strictly without regard to the views of anybody else. It has been, I think, worthy of note that, in fact, the Minister has had particular regard to the views of some countries that are traditionally friends of this country. I refer particularly to France. The Minister's attitude, generally speaking, with regard to the French has been correct but I desire to point out what, in fact, his attitude has been.

About 18 months ago at the United Nations General Assembly the Minister made proposals against the wider dissemination of nuclear weapons and he suggested that they should be kept by the existing nuclear Powers and that they should not be disseminated further. Who were the existing nuclear Powers? They were the United States, Britain and Russia. It was not until the earlier part of this year that France became a nuclear Power. But France was included in the Minister's resolution of 18 months ago and it was suggested then by the Minister that the four nuclear Powers should maintain their nuclear weapons and not distribute them any further. France was not then a nuclear Power and France was not a nuclear Power this spring when again these proposals were brought before the assembly.

That may have been good tactics. France may have been included in order to get votes for the Resolution but that was not the attitude of the Minister. In addition there was the extraordinary position that arose when it came to the Sahara test vote when, in order to become a nuclear Power, France had to set off her own bomb. The Minister apparently accepted that but he gave no support to the French view that they were entitled to set off their own bomb. He indicated that perhaps, after all, the French should not let off the bomb that would make them a nuclear Power.

Having gone a bit far on the Sahara resolution, he felt he should not support the Pakistan resolution in favour of self-determination for Algeria although the previous year the Minister had voted for a resolution of a similar character. The Minister may have been right on the vote for the Pakistan resolution and he may have been right in including France as a nuclear Power, when everybody knew she was not, but to suggest that we are stringing along behind our friends and have no views of our own and that the Government have declined to do so and will not play politics does violence to the truth. The fact is that that principle is an elementary one of politics, national and international. Our criticism of the Government is not that they have not adopted that principle but that they did not have proper regard to it when a number of important matters came before the General Assembly.

There is one other aspect of the work in the General Assembly to which I wish to refer. The newspaper reports on the matter of Ireland's vote for the non-permanent member of the Security Council have been rather scanty and the Minister made no reference to it in his speech this afternoon. The reports which I have been able to get appear to indicate that the Government voted for the Communist bloc nominee against the nominee put forward by the Western bloc. Deputies will recall that there was, last year, in the Assembly a considerable trial of strength between the Eastern and the Western blocs on the question of the non-permanent seat. The Communist bloc put forward Poland and the Western bloc, and particularly the United States, put forward Turkey. As I understand from the newspaper reports, we voted for Poland as against Turkey. If that is correct I would be glad if the Minister would explain how he feels that the best interests of this, country are served by such a vote.

The Minister has made a very brief reference to affairs in Europe in the course of his remarks here today. I want to charge him and the Government with indifference and neglect of European problems. It may not be generally realised that the Minister has not spoken once since he became a Minister in the General Assembly in the Council of Europe. Deputies know that that Assembly is a Parliamentary assembly and that representatives from the Council of Ministers come there from time to time to speak to that Assembly. It is not of little significance in European affairs and it has been ignored by the present Minister who has not spoken once to that Assembly.

I understand also that he did not attend at the recent meeting of the Council of Ministers of the Council of Europe. I feel that we should realise in this country the importance of the Council of Europe, not only for Europe generally, but also for this country. I feel it wrong for an Irish Government to ignore it and that it is in our national interests to strengthen it as best we can. The Minister is not serving this country by failing to attend at these meetings, and failing to express our views there and failing to contribute what he can to the aims and objects of the Council of Europe.

The reality of the situation in Europe at the present time very substantially reflects on this country. It is known that there are differences between the Community of the Six and the Association of the Seven but it is not generally appreciated that they are very real and appear to be very deep. If there is no real coming together between these two blocs it will have very serious repercussions on our future. This country is a European power and it should play the part of a European power even though it is a small one. To ignore the Council of Europe, the one vehicle we have for expressing our views and for influencing developments, is very wrong.

Reference has been made to the future of the O.E.E.C. The unexpected and sudden demise of the O.E.E.C. is to be regretted but there is little that we can do about it. I have no great hopes for the future of the new organisation that it is proposed to build on the ruins of the O.E.E.C. Certainly on the basis of existing information it does appear that the new organisation will be an even less powerful body than the one whose place it is taking. I would have welcomed the views of the Government on the developments that are taking place there. It would be of considerable assistance if, instead of telling us that committees are meeting and that delegates are being sent to these meetings, the Government would inform us of their views and of their attitude to these developments so that we can have a full debate on them here.

It should be our task to see that the divisions in Europe are healed as quickly as possible and that the new Organisation which is coming into being will not in effect perpetuate those divisions. The Minister very correctly paid a tribute to the work of our Ambassador at the United Nations, Mr. Boland. We are most fortunate in having a person of Mr. Boland's great integrity and experience, knowledge and intelligence. We on this side of the House sincerely hope his candidature will be successful.

By way of conclusion might I reiterate very briefly the principal point I wish to make in this debate. If in fact we in this country could have a bi-partisan foreign policy, I should like to think as President de Valera, the then Leader of the Party of which the Minister is a member, said here in 1956, that there are not any wide, deep differences between the two sides of the House. That is why we are entitled to know what are the principles of action guiding the Government. If the Government believe that we are an uncommitted State, if they believe that it is not our duty to support whenever we can the Western democracies in their struggle against Communist countries, then there is indeed a deep cleavage between us. We believe that our views on this matter, and not the Government's, reflect the traditions of the Irish people, that they represent the true principles which should guide our conduct in world affairs and would serve our interests and the interests of the Christian civilisation which we and our friends in the Western democracies are endeavouring to support and defend.

General Mulcahy

I should like to intervene in relation to the last of the three principles that Deputy Costello mentioned on which he challenged the Minister, that the policy of any Irish Government ought to be to support the actions of those countries in the world standing for Christian civilisation and to be prepared to support those Governments and those Powers acting in defence of that civilisation or the Power upon which the defence of that civilisation against the Communist forces depended.

We have a very long tradition in this matter. When Deputy Costello speaks about Ireland being a Power, the Power of which we think is not a Power in the sense expressed in our National Anthem: "Soldiers Are We." Unfortunately the circumstances that gave us our National Anthem, whose strains are now carried out to the world on official occasions, were circumstances which disturbed the atmosphere for the composing of a National Anthem.

In looking at the situation to-day we must bear in mind the roots of our strength and the roots of our civilisation. I do not want to go exhaustively into this matter now, but it deserves to be referred to in this discussion. When the Minister and his colleagues, in common with ourselves, were originally being drawn into the work of politics in Ireland and into the consideration of world affairs in general, Europe was a very different place from what it is to-day. The France, the Italy, the Germany and the Britain that we knew, seemed to us in our youthful days to be monuments of strength and of common sense. We certainly saw no signs on the horizon to indicate that the Italy, the Germany, the Spain and the Austria we knew would tear themselves to pieces as Europe has torn itself and has been torn to pieces in the two great Wars that have since intervened.

We were quietly expecting that in the general operation of our political life in Ireland, we were coming to a point in which an Irish Parliament would be set up with, if you like, limited powers, but that through the instrumentality of this institution, in which there was fair representation for all, the differences and the antagonisms that developed from political consequences would be exorcised.

Going back to that time we see an extraordinary resemblance and similarity in the heart cries that were issuing then and the heart cries that are bursting through the statements and public pronouncements to-day. I remember in 1910 reading a work of Monsignor Bougaud, Bishop of Orleans, writing in 1880 and describing the circumstances of that particular time. Parallel with and in juxtaposition to some of the writings to-day, we see an extraordinary resemblance as between the two epochs, on the one hand, and the much greater power of catastrophe to-day on the other.

The Bishop of Orleans, writing at that time, with a pen which, he said, was knocked out of his hand by the guns of Reichoffen and only put back into his hands in the middle of the Commune, described what appeared to him to be then the extraordinary and unprecedented developments taking place in the century which was drawing to a close. Eloquent voices had stirred thought, releasing liberty throughout the world, and aspirations of hope and contentment for people. The Alps had been pierced and the Pyrenees crossed. Communications were passing with the speed of light from one end of the world to the other. The science of geology had come into its own. Sciences generally were opening up new knowledge on the material aspects of the world in a way hitherto unprecedented and unthought of; that which was thought impossible to-day was shown tomorrow to be within the compass of mankind. The advances made then are regarded as kindergarten developments and discoveries compared with modern advances.

Stress was laid on the fact that side by side with these developments greater possibilities of disaster and destruction were facing mankind generally. And the cry went forth that nothing would save the people except religion. At that time the Bishop of Orleans did not of course foresee the disasters which would be brought about by the First World War and the Second World War. To-day, science has astonished itself. Developments have occurred that were beyond the imagination even of anybody writing towards the close of the last century. Writers to-day, who write thoughtfully and observantly, are telling us much the same tale. Professor John U. Nef of Chicago University says that science has armed itself to-day with weapons which would be safe only in the hands of God, and nothing can save the people of the world except religion. It is the same cry as that which was heard at the end of the last century.

We find philosophers like Guardini and de Chardin, men steeped in philosophy and science, as well as being distinguished priests of the Catholic Church, writing from a purely scientific point of view in relation to the world situation, asserting that it is not economics, and it is not materialism, but emotions, that will dictate how the world will move tomorrow. There are men like Guardini saying that political, economic, and other affairs, in the modern world will be in the hands of massed men; that men have lost their traditional roots; that the traditions which moulded civilisations are going, if not completely gone, and forecasting that in a world of that kind, those who stand for religion, for the essential element of what connotes western civilisation, will have a greater martyrdom to face, and greater labours, than were ever faced, or even conceived, in any past age.

It is because voices and forces are being raised on the political and scientific side in this particular way that we, as a small nation, are challenged by our traditions. We are faced with the question then, holding on to those traditions, as to what extent we are preparing our intelligences and our intellects for the work that has to be done. To what extent are we trying to bring about a common understanding which will strengthen our minds and unify our feelings in order to arm us to face the future?

The third point Deputy D. Costello made this evening is one of vital importance. I suggest it is, perhaps, the most vital element in our approach to foreign affairs. It is not just a question of a plan. Principles are involved. So are unity of feeling and approach. Deputy D. Costello talks of a bipartisan approach to foreign policy. I do not see where the "bi" comes in. A certain job requires to be done. There is a certain element in our people's strength, in our people's nature, and in our people's thought. Certain matters were referred to along certain lines by Government speakers here during the debate on proportional representation. It was alleged that Ireland's political work, and all that flows from it, should be done through the medium of two massed Parties in opposition in our Parliamentary institution.

It would, I think, be wrong to face foreign policy on a purely pro and con basis. That could not supply the answer if we understand and properly evaluate the traditions of our people in the field of international co-operation which various Christian communities are endeavouring to bring about to-day. It is not a question of a bipartisan or a tri-partisan approach. It is a matter of enabling those who constitute our Irish Parliament to appreciate our traditions and the manner in which we should express ourselves to-day in the light of those traditions in relation to issues of vital importance at international foreign affairs level. These are matters which have a vital influence on western civilisation and are deeply bound up with religion.

Mr. Dillon

Deputy Costello has dealt as fully as possible with the statement made by the Minister, and I wish to reinforce his representation that, as far as Government policy on foreign affairs is concerned, the Minister has not done much to enlighten us. I think it behoves him to answer the question addressed to him by Deputy Costello as to the foundation on which the foreign policy of the country at present lies. I want to renew to the House the representation I have made before, and that is that the vital, the essential test of foreign policy is whether it serves the vital interests of Ireland. I think any other approach to foreign policy is illusory and pregnant with great danger both to ourselves and to our friends.

It is right to defend principle; it is right to champion the right against the wrong; but all these things must be consistent with the vital interests of our country. I consider that one of the most vital interests of a small country, in the tempestuous world in which we all now live, is to multiply the number of its friends. I sometimes detect in the attitude of the present Minister for External Affairs a desire rather to cause alarm, uncertainty and confusion in the minds of those on whom we traditionally look as our friends rather than that sense of confidence and regard, which, I think, could be of very vital interest to Ireland as a whole.

I want to emphasise again what I have repeatedly submitted to this House. There is no need for this country to adopt a subservient policy or dependent attitude in our external relations. Nobody expects it of us, and fortunately our natural friends are not the kind of friends who demand that from us. It is true that if we were in the position of the satellites of the Communist countries we would be obliged to submit to that kind of dictation from Moscow and Peking. But I imagine all sides of this House would agree that our friends are to be found among the democracies and those who support freedom and individual liberty in the world. In my experience certainly, such countries never expected from their friends subservience or the submission of their judgment to the judgment of their friends. But they have expected, and they have a right to expect, where their vital interests are concerned, where they are the traditional friends of Ireland, that, if Ireland's vital interests are not in conflict, then Ireland will support her friends.

On the other hand, they readily recognise and expect even where their vital interests are concerned, where Ireland believes her vital interests legitimately conflict with theirs, that Ireland will defend her vital interests even at the expense of theirs. But they do expect what we ourselves would expect, what we ourselves would have a right to expect, and that is, that if a friend has to part company with us, he should have at least the consideration to tell us why and he should allow our ways to part with the least possible injury to the legitimate feelings of either of us. In short, if we are to be the good friends of those whom we wish to have as good friends, we should act like good friends. It should be our desire to avoid on every possible occasion confounding our friends to the satisfaction of our enemies.

I think one of the greatest mistakes the present Minister for External Affairs makes is that he believes it is an adequate substitute for friendship to acquire a reputation in bodies like the United Nations of being so unpredictable that everybody must deal with him on the basis of minima fides rather than maxima fides because you will never know what he will do and say next. I quite agree that if you manage to establish that reputation in an international gathering such as the United Nations, you may acquire the description of being bouncy, interesting and unpredictable, and that may acquire for you a good deal of limelight and publicity. But those of us who have such long experience of public life as the Minister and myself ought to realise how ephemeral is the value of limelight and publicity when considering the long-term policies of a small nation in a very disturbed world.

I should much prefer the respectful friendship of influential friends than the intrigued admiration of columnists and sensation-mongers who consider that only that which makes people gasp is news. We can always make people gasp by letting down our friends at difficult moments. We can always get a little publicity by double crossing at unexpected moments those who trust us. We can always acquire a certain amount of temporary influence by acquiring a reputation for being unpredictable and prepared to do the unexpected, but, in the long run, I believe we do it at the expense of the vital interests of Ireland, and in so far as we do that, I think that this Government and this Minister have on more than one occasion been gravely mistaken.

There is a good barometer by which to judge whether the foreign policy of our Government is serving the vital interests of Ireland, and that is to ask ourselves how far our foreign policy is helping our foreign trade. I certainly cannot see that in that respect our activities in the United Nations or elsewhere have been paying very large dividends. I am by no means one of those prepared to take the popular line of denigrating our foreign representatives in the various capitals in which our Government are represented or where their trade attaches are doing a valuable service or where there are consular officials doing useful work as well. However, I believe it is not at all improbable that if the general foreign policy of our Government were more clear and more predictable, these officials could produce very much more substantial results in trade benefits which would serve the interests of our people.

There is one matter on which I should like to have the Minister's comment when he is replying. He referred at some length to World Refugee Year, which is now coming to a close, and very properly congratulated the Irish Red Cross on their efforts to raise money as a contribution to the general fund. I think the Minister was right in referring to the extreme complexity of this whole refugee problem. Whether it is a problem capable of solution by voluntary effort is, I think, a matter open to doubt.

I think the Minister would probably agree that expert inquiry into the details of the Palestine refugee problem revealed that there are complexities there which are not capable of solution by direct measures of relief. It has been suggested to me that at this moment one could inaugurate a scheme designed to evacuate all the refugees in all the camps in Palestine but that over a period of 10 years the influx of additional refugees would be such as to leave the problem at the end of that period almost as great as it is today. How actually one is to reach the end of the problem of the added refugees is a very difficult question, and it does occur to me that, with the best intentions in the world, to attempt to deal with the problem piecemeal may operate no more than to perpetuate the problem. If the problem is to be dealt with effectively there must be a massive effort forthwith by a commission of Governments who would take all the existing inmates of all the camps and provide for them at one stroke and close up the camps altogether.

Otherwise, as the Minister has rightly said, this standing menace to the peace of the Middle East may continue to wax and wane but never cease, and well-intentioned efforts to reduce the net refugee problem in that area may, in fact, instead of reducing it, extend and perpetuate it. These are extremely difficult questions and the Minister himself, or our delegation, is not in a position to make recommendations in regard to them because we have not got the resources to make any very large contributions. It is the Great Powers, who have the resources, who must ultimately resolve this business. Perhaps the Minister would give consideration to the aspect that ameliorative measures may do more harm than good, that what is wanted is inter-Governmental action which would bring permanent remedial action to the whole problem as it is at present constituted in the camps to which he has referred.

Unhappily, the question is not one exclusively of the Arab refugees. There are now, in every country, refugees from Middle Europe. I understand we have here in this country a certain number of refugees, some from Hungary, some from elsewhere, who have been settled in one way or another in employment but who are in the unhappy position of being Stateless persons who are working out the protracted period of residence necessary to qualify for naturalisation.

I wonder could we not consider as a special gesture in this World Refugee Year the cases of those refugees we have settled here and who apparently intend to make their homes amongst us. I think it would be a gesture well worthy of consideration—that, in order to mark this international effort to help the refugees, we should shorten the period of residence necessary to qualify for naturalisation for any persons who are here as refugees and whom we intend to allow to remain permanently resident in Ireland. It certainly will not make any formidable contribution to the world refugee problem—it is not within our power, with our resources, to do that—but it would be a gesture and might set a headline for other countries where a corresponding gesture might do great good.

I should like the Minister to explain, when he is concluding—if there is an explanation—how he thought it was in our interests to vote for the Communist nominee from Poland instead of the Western bloc nominee from Turkey for the temporary post on the Security Council? These are the kind of gestures which I think do an infinity of harm. I do not suppose anyone could maintain that it was in the vital interests of Ireland that we should have a Pole rather than a Turk on the Council of the United Nations, but it was manifestly a matter of very deep interest and prestige to our friends that the Turk should be appointed rather than the Pole, and it is in circumstances such as these that, it seems to me, we ought to support our friends rather than our natural enemy.

I do not want to add a word to what Deputy Declan Costello stated on the subject of our attitude in regard to the discourse as to the admission of Red China to the United Nations, but I do want to say that I agree most emphatically with him that it is highly to be deplored that we should be flapping about the world, proclaiming that we have not made up our minds on that issue, and that we shall not be able to make up our minds on it until it has been discussed at the United Nations. I think that is part of the folly of our Minister for External Affairs and the Government he represents in desiring to create sensations rather than take a long-term view of the vital interests of our country. I would urge on the Government that, pleasant as they and the Minister for External Affairs may find the limelight of the United Nations, there are more important matters to be considered than temporary notoriety.

I endorse what the Minister has said in regard to our permanent delegate to the United Nations and I recall with satisfaction that the Government of which I was a member, and of which Deputy Cosgrave was Minister for External Affairs, sent him where he now is. I have no doubt that if he is chosen for the responsible position of President of the General Assembly he will reflect well not only upon Ireland but upon the United Nations itself, and he will certainly have the best wishes of all sides of this House in the responsibilities he will be called upon to shoulder. If he is not chosen, that is as may be but I think it is probably right now to state that, if he should be chosen for that position, he will have the confident support of all sections of this House, in the firm belief that he is eminently equipped to discharge the responsibilities of such a heavy office.

Mr. Coogan

I do not propose to enter on the plane of international politics; neither do I intend to descend to the level of the parish pump, but I think the Minister has left one matter open by not referring to it and that is the question of Partition. It was one of the promises which Fianna Fáil held out when they were trying to secure office that they had a solution for Partition. Unfortunately that solution has gathered a lot of dust and seems to be forgotten. Maybe the Government and the Minister were too occupied with Tibet, China, and other countries to descend to the level of the political platform again but the people do not forget this. I merely raise the question as one of the election promises, one that was fair game, especially for the Minister when seeking power. So much for Partition; there has been very little about it to-day.

I should like to ask the Minister what method his Department has adopted in making selections for international exchange scholarships? It has been very hard to get any information on this matter from the Department, and I think he should make that information readily available.

There is another matter which I have already mentioned on the Vote for the Department of Justice and I think it concerns the Department of External Affairs as well. That is the question of the advisability of introducing visas for children leaving this country. I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that Irish children of very tender years have been found wandering around London. I would suggest that children under 19 years of age should not be allowed to leave the country without visas, or without permission from their parents. It is a question that is causing a great deal of concern to parents and it is very strange that these children can board a boat at Dún Laoghaire or the North Wall just as easily as they can board a bus. That is all I intend to say about it but I should like the Minister to take some action because it is something which could lead to a lot of abuse if not attended to officially.

Mr. P. Byrne

I should like to take up where Deputy Coogan left off in relation to the question of our young people emigrating to Britain. There is no doubt whatever that the Minister and his Department have a responsibility to Irish parents to look to the moral and material welfare of our young people, who all too frequently fall by the wayside when in foreign countries. This is a very serious problem in Great Britain where there are at present 1,000,000 people of Irish birth. Most of them have emigrated since the end of the war and in all there are 4,000,000 people of Irish origin there. Most surely it is the function of our Ambassadors abroad to help our people when they get into trouble, to give them a leg up over the stile when they fall. Let us face up to the facts; some of our people let themselves and their country down. That is most unfortunate and we cannot pretend that the problem does not exist by choosing to ignore it.

I think it is not unfair to say that over quite a considerable period the policy of the Department of External Affairs has been to ignore this problem. Probably it was felt that it was undesirable to take any step which would serve to encourage emigration to Great Britain but that, I think, is a very shortsighted, unrealistic and futile policy. I know that the matter has been frequently considered in the Department and I believe it to be true that at one time it was thought in the Department that the question of seeing to the welfare of our young people in England was a matter which primarily was best left to voluntary organisations, mostly religious organisations, and there is no doubt that the zeal which inspires such organisations is the proper mainspring upon which the Government very rightly should rely. Over the past three years there has grown up, primarily I think at the behest of the Irish Hierarchy, a splendidly inspired movement of voluntary workers who cater for the welfare of our people who fall into trouble in Britain, and a movement also designed to stop them from falling into trouble. That, after all, is the sensible approach to it.

What is the problem? The problem is a very grave one. It takes many forms. At its worst it is a moral problem, the problem of the unmarried mother, the problem of drunkenness, disorderliness and the problem of those who jeopardise their souls. At its best it is a problem of the country boy or country girl in a strange environment, unable to face up to the rigours of a society where Christian standards have largely lapsed.

My main purpose in referring to this matter is to point out to the Minister that this splendidly inspired voluntary movement has developed in recent years and, secondly, to point out to him that that voluntary movement is tremendously handicapped by lack of funds. I do not want anyone to think that Deputy Paddy Byrne has a bee in his bonnet about this matter and is expressing purely a personal opinion. If I may, Sir, I should like to quote from a most authoritative source, the January, 1960, issue of the journal, Christus Rex, published under the imprimatur of the Bishop of Kildare and Leighlin, from Saint Patrick's College, Maynooth.

At page 59, under the editorial notes, the following is said:

And it is the considered opinion of all those who are dealing with the problem that the number of Irish boys and girls—many of them really children — arriving penniless and jobless into English cities is something of a national scandal.

For that reason no praise can be too great for the brave souls who have undertaken the work of providing Irish centres for our emigrants. To our shame it must be said that successive Irish governments have refused to help and have washed their hands of responsibility for Irish citizens. But it would be dishonest if we did not point out that the response from the Irish people as a whole has been thoroughly disheartening, and the Irish centres have been forced to depend in large measure for their foundation and their continued functioning on that mammon of iniquity, the football pool, and other similar methods of collecting funds.

You have there very strong denunciation of official policy in relation to our emigrants in Great Britain.

One most serious aspect of this problem is the prevalence of drunkenness amongst our people and on that point it is important to quote from another very worthy publication, the journal Blackfriars, published by the Dominican Fathers, English Province. In a recent issue, March, 1960, they have this to say:

Thus in some centres where there are a large number of Irishmen, something like fifty per cent. of the ‘drunk and disorderly' cases on Saturday and Monday morning will be young Irishmen, sometimes mere youths of sixteen and seventeen. In fact, the marvel is that many more do not get into trouble, for their lodgings are unattractive, and in many cases they are not allowed to stay in after their evening meal, and so must roam the streets or go to public-houses.

We must all have tremendous sympathy for the young men of sixteen to eighteen years of age in a strange environment, living in squalid "digs" at a high rent which they can ill-afford. Small blame to them if they resort to public-houses. They have nowhere else to go to meet their countrymen and to have a bit of pleasant society. I am afraid it is only too true that young fellows who never touched a drink while they were in this country start drinking, some of them far too heavily, when they find themselves at sea in Britain. They seek some solace for the pangs of loneliness in the public-house.

There has been an effort to establish Irish centres for these young people. The Columban Fathers are doing tremendous work in Britain but they themselves would be the first to agree that their efforts are on a very trifling scale. If they had the money they could do tremendous work.

The voluntary effort about which I have spoken is deterred from doing even finer work than it is doing purely by lack of funds. In particular, the work being done by the Legion of Mary is most praiseworthy indeed. There is not an Irish mail train arriving at Euston station which is not met by representatives of the Legion of Mary and we in this country are under a tremendous debt of gratitude to these people who are doing this fine work on our behalf.

I want to impress on the Minister that he should accept in principle that Government funds should be made available where needed. I am happy to say that in a recent issue of the journal Hibernia the suggestion of forming an emigrants council was adverted to. If the Minister would accept that obligation in principle, much would be achieved.

Again I want to quote, this time from the report of the Commission on Emigration and other Population Problems—page 139:

We learned in evidence that there is much support for the view that some type of social bureau should be established in Great Britain to look after the welfare of our emigrants there.

At the end of that paragraph the report says:

If it were then considered necessary that there should be an initial grant of reasonable amount to help to establish a bureau we think it should be provided out of State funds.

I understand that the Minister's predecessor, shortly before he left office, was contemplating the appointment of a welfare officer in the Embassy in London. I do not think that that is going nearly far enough. Indeed, I feel, as I think the Minister's advisers felt, that the voluntary impulse behind this movement must be preserved at all costs and, for my part, I would be satisfied if the social welfare organisations catering for this problem in Britain were given the green light and if funds were made available to them so that they would no longer be dependent on the penny pool and the sixpenny raffle. Certainly, it would ease the minds of many worried parents in this country if the Minister were to accept in principle that obligation.

I want to emphasise that I am not advocating that we should encourage our people in Britain—there are so many of them—to set themselves up as a class apart from their neighbours. I recall Bernard Shaw's advice to his fellow-countrymen in Britain shortly before his death when he was invited to become a patron of the Irish Club. He declined, and said that the best advice he could give to his fellow-countrymen was not to see too much of one another and to integrate themselves with their "fellow-Britishers", as he termed it, as quickly as possible. Perhaps he expressed it in a manner which some here would consider offensive—I do not know. Certainly, it was good advice.

The people to whom I refer are a very small minority. We can be very proud of the fact that the vast majority of our people in Britain are splendid citizens of that country and of this country also. That the vast majority of them succeed in fitting themselves in so well is a tribute primarily to their own individual worth, character and integrity and also, I think, a tribute to British tolerance and goodwill for our people who are certainly made most welcome there. We need never worry on that score. Our people, by and large, are certainly not regarded as foreigners no matter how much some Deputies would choose to regard the English people as foreigners here. If anything, our people are regarded, perhaps, as wayward children and are held in great affection.

So many of our people are working in Britain and sending money home that it constitutes another reason why the Minister should face up to this obligation. Surely the vast amount we are receiving in emigrants' remittances imposes on us a reciprocal obligation to return some of these amounts to those who need them, but, in relation to the vast number of our people who are there and who obtain employment there, which they cannot find at home, it is appropriate that we in this Parliament should acknowledge the friendship that has been extended to them. For my part, I thank God for the fact that the privileges of British citizenship are so freely extended to our people: we would be in a poor plight if they were not. Let us face up to this: we now choose to regard ourselves as foreigners in Britain, but there are up to 100,000 Italians at present in a long queue clamouring to enter Britain and they will not be admitted because they are not entitled to the privileges of British citizenship and are debarred from taking up employment in that country.

I have very little more to say on that aspect of the problem except to implore the Minister to face up to the problem and to drop the pretence that it does not exist. It is futile to ignore it any longer because it is too serious a matter.

Deputy Coogan queried the Minister about Partition. I suppose some other Deputies will have something to say about it before the debate ends. I do not wish to say very much about it except to record how much I welcome the change in the emphasis of public policy which has developed here recently. We are now extending the hand of friendship and co-operation to our fellow-country men in the North. Thank goodness for that; it was not always so. I recall in my childhood, twenty-five years ago, when the Lord Mayor of Dublin at that time went up to Belfast to attend the opening of a water-works there, the furore there was from the Minister's Party. It is well we should remember that, and I welcome the development and evolution of Fianna Fáil policy. I welcome the fact that Fianna Fáil are now prepared to extend the hand of friendship to our fellow-country men.

I am about to express an unpopular opinion, one which will probably be unpopular with all my listeners. I shall probably be misquoted but the fact that it is unpopular or that I may be misquoted will not stop me from expressing it. I think there is some merit in the viewpoint put up occasionally by the Ulster Unionists when they say that, as far as Partition is concerned, it is we in the Twenty-Six Counties who are partitioning ourselves from our kinsfolk, our fellow Celts, perhaps, in Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland. May I say frankly that I greatly regret that Ireland is no longer a member of the British Commonwealth? I believe that common sense demands some form of recognition of our common interests with the people of Britain and with our fellow Celts in Scotland and Wales.

I have a very simple analysis of the Irish struggle for freedom in the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries; I think it was primarily a struggle for social freedom, a struggle for reform, primarily a class struggle. A similar class struggle was also taking place in every other European country. The common people of Ireland and of Britain, both having come into their heritage of freedom, both having taken control of their own destinies, should in my opinion combine where possible for the advancement of their mutual interests, to serve humanity and Christianity. These are evil times in which we are living and we cannot afford to perpetuate dissension among those of us who strive for the same goal.

I remember a Labour journal that was at one time published in this city. I forget the exact name of it, but blazoned across the front page of every issue in banner headlines was: "Workers of the World, Unite." That, I suppose, was the clarion call of international Socialism but there is a lot of sense in it. We are all workers nowadays. Essentially, I deplore the fact that we are no longer members of the Commonwealth because we have a particular flair for leadership and we have contributed very considerably to the advancement of Christianity and to the development of civilisation throughout the English-speaking world and the place where our contribution has been most significant is the British Commonwealth countries. There is more Irish blood in the Commonwealth than in any other part of the world. We could do tremendous good for humanity if we were still participating in that effort. Nations, like individuals, get more when they give to others than when they make egotism and chauvinistic nationalism the overriding goal of their ambitions.

We share with the Scots a flair for leadership of the unimaginative English people. We should not lose this talent but should use it for the good of humanity and the British Commonwealth provides the best scope for the use of that talent. We should strengthen our ties with Australia and with Canada too. What a tragedy it is that we, who contributed so much to the constitutional development of the Commonwealth and who made it possible for Republics to be members of the Commonwealth, were absent from the recent Commonwealth conference and were unable to participate in extending the hand of friendship to the African and Asian countries there present? I recall that Michael Collins anticipated that the Commonwealth would develop into a league of free States. That situation has now come about but we were absent.

Mr. Aiken

I, first of all, want to call attention to the statement of Deputy Declan Costello, that we voted against Algerian self-determination. That is not so. We voted for resolutions calling for self-determination for Algeria many times. In the United Nations last year a resolution was put forward which contained a clause calling for self-determination for the Algerian people. Paragraph 5 of that resolution which was concerned with the stoppage of hostilities in Algeria said:

"(1) Recognising the right of the Algerian people to self-determination".

We voted for that clause. We abstained on the total resolution because we held that it should have contained a clause recognising that General de Gaulle had offered self-determination to the Algerian people in September, 1958. It was completely wrong for Deputy Costello to say that we had changed our policy in regard to self-determination. We did not.

I do not think that it is any sort of valuable exercise to debate general principles stated in general terms. It is much better to test the general policy of the Minister by examining in detail the actions which he took. I am prepared to be judged and the Government are prepared to be judged by our acts or lack of action in any international matters in which we should appropriately have acted. We are not bound to comment on every incident in international affairs. We have the freedom to remain silent as well as the freedom to speak and sometimes it is valuable to keep silent just as on other occasions one must be prepared to speak one's mind and to represent clearly and definitely where one's country stands.

Another matter which arose, and which has not been discussed before, was this question of refugees. Deputy Dillon suggested that we should stand for mass international Government action to get rid of the refugee problem in the Middle East. I wholeheartedly agree with Deputy Dillon's approach to that question. Indeed, three years ago we suggested in the United Nations that a mass general effort should be made to settle the Arab refugee problem. It is not merely a matter of finance but I said on that occasion that it would pay us all, even if it cost us $1,000 a head, to settle the million Arab refugees once and for all. It would pay us all to contribute our proportionate share of that amount. One or two hydrogen bombs would cost more than it would cost to deal in a wholesale way with the Arab refugee problem. But, of course, that effort could not be contemplated unless there was some better agreement between the Israelis and the Arabs.

The Arab refugees are very insistent that they will be content with nothing less than resettlement on the lands from which they were driven. One can sympathise with their attitude. Certainly a great number of them were driven out by force and others went in sympathy without direct pressure upon them but it is difficult to get the Israelis on the one hand and the Arabs on the other to accept a settlement which would permit a reasonable number of the Arab refugees to return and which would permit the remainder to be settled where they could in Arab countries. I agree with Deputy Dillon that if the wholesale approach of mass international co-operation to raise the funds necessary to deal with the problem were possible it would be the correct way to do it. As far as we can give support to that idea and to the preliminary steps necessary to make it possible, we shall do it.

Another question raised and which has not been raised before was that of under-age children going to Great Britain, and the care that should be taken of them across the water. Deputy Byrne and Deputy Coogan referred to the problem and Deputy Coogan suggested that we should issue visas to these young people and not allow any of them to leave the country without a visa. A visa is a paper issued by the recipient country and not by the country which a person is leaving. However, I know what Deputy Coogan has in mind, that we should have some system of permits which would be presented at the boat, train, plane, or wherever necessary, and that young people who appear to be under 18 or 19 years of age would not be allowed to leave without such a paper.

We had such a system during the war when travel permits were necessary, but that system was workable only by the co-operation of the British. They had an interest in seeing that people who were not fully authorised should be kept out of Britain. To-day there are no travel permits between Ireland and Great Britain and there is no way of stopping any young person who has a little bit of intelligence finally reaching Great Britain by slipping across the unfortunately-created land frontier. I do not think what the Deputy suggests is a solution. However, I do not reject it out of hand. I am certainly prepared to examine it in conjunction with the Department of Justice to see whether there is anything we could do in that regard.

Some of the reports quoted by Deputy Byrne as to drunkenness and disorderliness by some of our people in Great Britain are largely exaggerated. Young people sometimes are boisterous without being drunk, and I do not think there is any more drunkenness—in fact, I would say there is a great deal less—than among other elements who live in England. It would be absolutely impossible for us to take responsibility for the large number of Irish people and people of Irish extraction in Britain. They are a large enough community and in sufficiently affluent circumstances to take care of themselves or of the strays from the Irish community in the various cities. In fact, the Irish community in various cities have come together and put up the money for the founding of various hostels and amusement places to which young Irish people are invited to go.

Mr. P. Byrne

They are very restricted for funds.

Mr. Aiken

I grant they are restricted for funds, but the effort will have to be on a voluntary basis, first of all, in Britain and, secondly, here. I have discussed this with a number of people from Great Britain and with representatives of these charitable organisations to which Deputy Byrne refers and for which I have great admiration. I pointed out to them that when a Government spend money they have to do so by rule. The Comptroller and Auditor-General and all the red tape attached to Government accounts enter into it, whereas money that is collected on a voluntary basis can be spent more freely and the people issuing it can decide, having interviewed, say, two persons with the same story to tell, which is the more deserving case.

Recently we have had a number of highly successful drives to raise funds for charitable purposes. The Red Cross Society have on a number of occasions raised funds for disasters abroad. This year they are raising money for European refugees; they have raised over £60,000 already and the year is not yet closed. I certainly would be very sympathetic to some drive like that being made here by organisations of a charitable nature. If they came together for that purpose I do not think the Irish people would refuse provided they were certain that the recipients of the money on the far side were well organised and could be relied upon to administer the funds in a fair, reasonable and honest way.

Mr. P. Byrne

Which they can.

Mr. Aiken

I know, but it would have to be organised and I for one would be prepared to co-operate in any such suggestion. Those were the three matters of some note that were raised. I do not think I need follow Deputy Costello or Deputy Dillon into matters that were discussed here before in great detail. We voted for the discussion of the representation of China on a couple of occasions and it was discussed here. Anybody who wishes to see what my opinions are on that can read it in the Dáil Official Report or they can read it in the collected speeches in the United Nations. It is not necessary to deal with them now because I have nothing to add and I do not like repeating myself or quoting myself from these various statements.

On the question of trade which Deputy Dillon suggested we were jeopardising by our activities and our stand at the United Nations, I do not think that the results bear out that contention. In fact our external trade is growing. We are exporting more industrial goods than ever we did before and this year we have had improved opportunities of export to France, West Germany and other countries; indeed in some cases where we have opportunities to export we are not able to fill the quotas which would be allowed to us. Our delegation has given a very good account of itself and I am grateful for the way in which the members of the Opposition received our proposition for nominating Ambassador Boland for the position of President of the United Nations. If elected, I feel sure he will act in a manner of which the country can be proud.

Mr. D. Costello

I hope it will be noted that the Minister has again refused to state his principles on foreign policy and has also refused to state the way in which he disagrees with the three principles we enunciated.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Palmer)

There is a motion to refer back. Is the motion withdrawn?

Mr. D. Costello

No.

Question:—"That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration"— put and declared lost.

Vote put and agreed to.