Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 11 Jul 1961

Vol. 191 No. 4

Committee on Finance. - Vote 49—External Affairs (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration—(Deputy Cosgrave).

Mr. D. Costello

It seems to me there has been a significant change and shift in the foreign policy of the Government over the past 12 months and since we last debated the Estimate for this Department. This shift is shown in the declarations of the Taoiseach in December of last year, and repeated later, to the effect that in the ideological conflicts which divide the world today, we are not an uncommitted State. It is to be seen, secondly, in the fact that this country is apparently not going to attend a meeting of uncommitted States which will be held in Yugoslavia next September.

We have long been pressing the Government for a declaration of its principles in relation to foreign policy. Since the Government came into office, we have had many debates on External Affairs and many debates by way of motion tabled in this House from time to time on the foreign policy of the Government. In all these debates, we suggested that it was desirable the Government should make clear to this House, to the country in general, and to the world, where this country stood in relation to the great conflicts in which practically all nations are involved.

Up to the debate last year, the most we could get from the Government was a statement by the Minister that he would prefer to let his actions speak for themselves. Whether it was pressure from this side of the House, pressure from elsewhere, or for whatever reason, we are glad that the Government, even though tardily, subscribe now to the declaration made by the Taoiseach last December when, for the first time since this Government took office, he declared in unequivocal terms that this country was not neutral in the ideological struggle.

Speaking on 1st December at a meeting of the Solicitors' Apprentices' Debating Society, the Taoiseach is reported as stating:

We do not profess to be indifferent to the outcome of the East-West conflict, nor present ourselves as neutral in the ideological issues which now divide the world.

A few weeks later in a message to Cologne Radio, he stated.

While we are not now in NATO, we are not to be regarded as neutral in the ideological conflict which divides the world. We are unequivocally on the side of those nations which support the democratic principles enshrined in our Constitution.

These are views which have been expressed from this side of the House since this Dáil was elected and expressed by spokesmen of this Party since we first entered the United Nations. We welcome the statement of the Taoiseach. It is now clear that we are not an uncommitted State. I apprehend, however, that there is a danger that the Minister may find himself suffering from a form of schizophrenia if he endeavours to act, out of principle, as if we are not an uncommitted State and, in principle, as if we are a neutralist State. Certainly, from the Minister's speech so far we have been given little to guide us to the view that the Minister is in complete agreement with the views of the Taoiseach.

We should impress on this Government that it is not possible to say that we are not an uncommitted State, that we are committed in the ideological conflict, and at the same time to take up a pose in the United Nations as if we were one of the so-called neutralist group.

This brings me to the second point, which I consider marks a significant shift in the Government's foreign policy, namely, the fact that we are not attending a meeting of neutralists which is to be held, according to newspaper reports, in September of this year. I put down a question some weeks ago to the Minister for External Affairs, and I was told by him that we had received no invitation to attend this meeting. Several other Deputies got a similar answer a few weeks ago. If that is so, this is a very significant fact. The meeting to be held in Yugoslavia, according to newspaper reports, is a meeting which is sponsored by President Tito of Yugoslavia, by President Sukarno of Indonesia and by Prime Minister Nehru of India. It is a meeting which, again according to newspaper reports, nations regarded as the uncommitted group of nations are to meet to discuss world problems. Nations from Africa, Asia and, it would appear also, South America, are to attend this meeting. Ireland was not asked to attend.

I have seen it said in reputable places in this country that it might be possible for this country to become the leader of a third force in the United Nations, that we might take the lead in the group of uncommitted States. The fact that we were not asked to this meeting, if that is the fact, demonstrates what nonsense this is. If, in fact, the group of so-called uncommitted nations are holding an important meeting in Bled, or wherever it is, in Yugoslavia, and did not see fit to ask Ireland to attend, it seems to us that we are rather misunderstanding the rôle that these other countries think we play in the United Nations. That is, of course, if we were not asked to attend. So we are told, and it is officially indicated that no invitation has been sent to us.

Whilst that, I am sure, is the truth, I wonder is it the whole truth? I wonder did President Sukarno fly from Vienna to Dublin merely to look at the Irish scenery and to shake hands with the leaders of our Government and State? I myself doubt it. I suspect—I may be wrong and the Minister can deny it if I am wrong—that in fact what happened was that we were asked if we would like an invitation to attend the meeting of uncommitted States and that we turned it down. This, of course, is pure hypothesis on my part and the only basis on which I can make the suggestion is, first of all, the well-known fact of diplomatic usage, that invitations to meetings such as this are not sent out unless it is known beforehand that they are going to be accepted and, secondly, the strange fact that President Sukarno, who is one of the promoters of this conference and one of the persons most interested in seeing that it is a success, saw fit to come and visit us for a few hours, went a considerable distance out of his way to Moscow. I suspect that what happened was that we were asked if we would like an invitation and that it was turned down. I would be glad if the Minister would deal with that point in his reply.

If that is the situation, I welcome the decision of the Government. I think the Government are quite correct not to request an invitation or to suggest to the promoters of this meeting that they would not like an invitation to it. That is a perfectly correct attitude to take up and I say so after giving considerable consideration to whatever information is available to an ordinary member of the public through the Press on the proposed meeting.

We all know the tremendous stature and the great gifts of Prime Minister Nehru and we know the work he has been doing in international affairs and that it is, by and large, greatly admired in this country. We also know where President Tito stands. President Tito is a confirmed Communist in somewhat dogmatic isolation in the Communist bloc. I should like to remind Deputies, though, of the position where it would appear President Sukarno stands as his position in the cold war may not be so well known.

In the issue of 11th June, 1961, the Observer correspondent refers to Dr. Sukarno's visit to Moscow and states:

President Brezhnev of Russia today gave a pugnaciously anti-imperalist speech at a rally in honour of the Indonesian President, Dr. Sukarno.

The Indonesian leader .... said the Russians were "beloved and trustworthy friends" whereas the imperialists "wish Indonesia to perish."

It is further stated:

The whole Presidium, including Mr. Khrushchev, attended the meeting, and President Brezhnev promised Indonesia full support for "the liberation" of West Irian (Dutch New Guinea).

It is perfectly clear from these and other statements where Dr. Sukarno stands in the ideological struggle in the world. His inclinations are much more to the Communist group of States. He has trade and military agreements with them and regards them as "beloved and trustworthy friends". I wonder do we? I think we do not. One of the few things one can be safe in saying in a form of generalisation is that the Irish people do not regard the Communists as beloved and trustworthy friends.

It is Dr. Sukarno and President Tito who, it would appear, are the principal persons organising this meeting. From the reports which are available, it would appear, in fact, that the meeting is not the type of meeting which it is in Ireland's best interests to attend or that we could significantly assist in world affairs by attending. If my suggestion is correct and if, in fact, the Government quietly suggested that they would prefer not to be invited to this meeting, that is a very correct decision to have taken.

On the general level of world affairs and our rôle in the United Nations, there is one matter in which I feel the Opposition are fully justified in criticising the Government, that is, their failure to state unequivocally where they stand on the China issue. Let this be clear; one of the major issues that will arise in the autumn session of the Assembly of the United Nations is the China issue and the question of whether Peking is to take the China seat in the UN Assembly and Security Council. We are entitled to know what way the Government intend to vote on that vital issue.

The Government, let it be said, have refused to state what they are going to do. They have taken refuge in every form of verbal deceit in order to avoid stating what their attitude is. Why are the Government afraid to tell the country whether they are going to vote in September, or whenever the debate may be, for the admission of Red China to the United Nations? That is a matter on which by now, after four years, the Government could have made up their mind. It is a matter on which the relevant facts are now well known. Very little, it can be anticipated, is going to happen between now and September to alter whatever decision the Government may have taken. It seems to me to be extraordinary that the Government have not made up their mind on this issue. If they have made up their mind on it, it is wrong for them not to tell the country what that decision is.

I asked the Minister for External Affairs, as recently as Tuesday, 27th June last, what the Government's attitude was and if he would make a statement. The reply I got was that:

... the attitude of the Irish delegation would be determined by a number of considerations which I have often outlined and most recently in reply to a similar Question by the Deputy on 21st March.

May I refer the House—I realise I am taking up some time in doing so but I feel it is desirable—to what the reply on 21st March was? It was in reply to a similar Question.

First, the Government stated why they had voted in favour in December. Then, the Taoiseach, who was answering for the Minister, went on to say, referring to an earlier statement of his:

I also explained on the same occasion that, whereas there are in the United Nations many countries whose form of Government we would not like to see repeated here, countries of whose policies we strongly disapprove and the philosophy of whose rulers is abhorrent to our people, we feel nevertheless that, if the United Nations is to become what we would like it to be, namely, an effective shield for world peace, then clearly it must comprise countries of that character, and that we would like to see a real United Nations whose members are pledged to peace and who are willing to accept the verdict of the other member countries in relation to any acts of theirs which might imperil peace.

May I pause there for a moment?

The Taoiseach has not given us any indication whether in his view China —Red China, Communist China, the Peking régime or whatever you like to call it—meets with this requirement or stands up to this very proper criterion. It is very little value to us for the Taoiseach to state that he would like to see the United Nations comprised of countries pledged to peace and who are willing to accept the verdict of other member countries, if in fact the Taoiseach and the Minister do not tell us, whether in their view, Red China will meet that requirement. I do not think it does. I think anything we can learn from the actions, statements, and policies of the leaders of the Peking regime indicate quite clearly that they would not fulfil the obligations of the United Nations' Charter as we believe they should be fulfilled.

Having said that, the Taoiseach went on then with these Delphic words:

The matter covered by the Deputy's question is not on the agenda for the resumed Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations, which opened on 7th March, and I do not think therefore that a statement on the subject is called for at the present time.

That is nothing but verbal parrying. It will be on the agenda. It may very well be on the agenda of the United Nations in the September Session, and it is something on which we are entitled to a view.

The Taoiseach then went on to say:

However, I may say that, if the question of seating Communist China in the United Nations comes before the Assembly, the Government, in deciding how to vote on this question, would have regard to the various considerations which arise, including such factors as the possibility of securing from that Government assurances to abide by the Charter and to accept an obligation to restore to the people of China fundamental human rights.

Where does that get us? How is the country to interpret that? How are we to know what way the Government intend to vote? All they say is they will take into consideration the various factors that may arise. I do not think I am exaggerating the position when I say that the Government kept from the country what their policy is. They should make known, so that it can be debated here, what their attitude is on what is a vital matter which will arise within the next few months, a matter in which Ireland's prestige, and indeed Ireland's whole position in international affairs, may be involved.

In the debate which has taken place annually on the Department of External Affairs it has been common for speakers from this side of the House to refer to developments in Europe, particularly to developments in the Council of Europe and the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation, as it then was. It is something which we on this side of the House had hoped would give the House an opportunity of debating the great issues which were taking place on our doorstep. It was a hope which was never realised because, if Deputies look back over the Dáil Debates for the last few years, they will find a very meagre contribution from the Government benches and from the Minister himself on affairs in Europe and on the attitude of this Government to European affairs in general.

We are now beginning to reap the harvest of that neglect. One of the principal criticisms of the Government's foreign policy which I think we are justified in making has been their neglect of European affairs. Since this Government took office, since the Minister took up his present position as Minister for External Affairs, he has never once spoken in the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe and no Minister of the Irish Government has spoken in the Assembly other than an ordinary Minister who happened to be a delegate to the Consultative Assembly and who spoke in his capacity as a delegate.

This Government have ignored the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe. I am not making this criticism as a result of any, perhaps, narrow parochial pride in the work of the Consultative Assembly, as a result of, perhaps, certain allegiances or ties one builds up over a number of years. I am making this criticism —I think with full justification—because, in fact, the failure of the Government to take any active part in the work of the Council of Europe is something which has been the subject of considerable comment, to my knowledge, in the Council of Europe.

This Government have ignored the work going on in Strasbourg. While indeed the Minister has attended the very rare meetings of the Committee of Ministers and while no doubt his very able and most lamented deputy, who has since died, attended regularly as the Minister's deputy, the fact remains that the public image of Ireland in Europe is that of a pale ectoplasm of Great Britain. For the last four years, in all the negotiations dealing with the E.E.C. and the establishment of a Free Trade Area, in all the vital things that have been happening on our door-step and that we have now come face to face with, we have all the time been merely a thin echo of the voice of our powerful next-door neighbour. We were told by the Taoiseach last week that we belong to Europe. Now we are told that we must go enthusiastically into Europe. Now we are told that, in fact, we have always regarded the aims, principles and clauses of the European Economic Community as having our full support, but, unfortunately, we have our trade pattern with Great Britain and we could not adhere to the Community.

Secrets are kept from this House and from Europe. It will come as a surprise to many that in their hearts the Government, in fact, have been good Europeans all these years. In fact, their strong desire and admiration have been such as to render them mute for so long. We are, I think, reaping the effects of this neglect now. We have ignored affairs in Europe; we have played no role of any significance. I am perfectly satisfied that we have a role there to play that we could have had influence there and could have been a country of importance there. We could have enhanced our prestige and influence, if we had played our cards properly.

What has been happening in Europe since the war is, I think, most important. One of the most important facts of the post-war world is the movement towards closer European unity which has been going on since 1945. It is something which, I think, future historians will regard as one of the most significant developments in the post-war years. It is a development which we should welcome; it is a development which we should, in so far as we can, aid; and it is a development from which we could gain benefit and strength.

Instead of that, we had occasionally lip service paid to the principles of the Council of Europe and the O.E.E.C., but where is there in this country, such as occurred in other countries, the tremendous enthusiasm, the tremendous drive and the tremendous desire to educate public opinion which has been going on among the responsible people on the Continent, ever since the idea of building up a unified Europe gained strength in the immediate post-war years?

In fact, our people are now to be faced with a considerable decision in respect of the European Economic Community—a decision for which they are not prepared because of the failure of the Government to educate and in-form the people on what is before them.

One of the extraordinary aspects of the Taoiseach's speech last week, when he intervened in the debate, was the way he glossed over the institutional factors and the political significance of the Rome Treaty. Nowhere will you find in his speech the statement which is, in fact, the truth, that if we join the Common Market, there will have to be some surrender of sovereignty on our part. I think that surrender of sovereignty is necessary. If it is economically possible, it should be done, but the people in other countries, particularly France, and also to some lesser extent, Italy and Germany, have been prepared for some years for such a surrender of sovereignty as is involved in supra-national institutions which are being created by the Rome Treaty.

Instead, this country has been largely uninformed on what is involved and we are not, I think, prepared for the matters which will face us in the very near future. Whilst the European Economic Community is an economic arrangement, it is primarily of political inspiration. Whilst I welcome the decision and the statement of the Government that if we join the European Economic Community, we must join it with enthusiasm and wholeheartedly, such conversion is of very recent origin. It has only been brought about because of the grim economic decisions and alternatives with which we are faced.

As recently as 14th June last, I asked the Taoiseach to state whether, should it be economically possible to join the European Economic Community, he is of the opinion that it would be politically desirable for this country to do so. I received the following tepid, lukewarm reply:

The factors which arise in connection with possible membership on our part of the European Economic Community are primarily of an economic nature. There are, as well, certain political implications which, in my opinion, are not such as to make it undesirable for this country to join the community on the hypothesis mentioned by the Deputy.

That is a series of negative statements which indicated no great enthusiasm for the political considerations involved in our joining the European Economic Community.

I should like to say on this matter that if, in fact, the economic considerations, which, of course, arise in this decision, and economic circumstances so permit, I would welcome Ireland joining the European Economic Community. Politically, this Community is one of the most important facts of the post-war world. It is something to which we have a contribution to make and from which we can gain.

In the course of the debate last week, some Deputies expressed certain hesitations and certain doubts concerning the military consequences of the establishment of the European Economic Community. The fact, of course, is that NATO is there and it serves the military needs along with the Western European Union of the Western States. This European Economic Community is an economic and political association which does not involve this country in any military commitments but it does involve us in political ones. I think it is those political considerations, as well as the economic ones, that we should have full knowledge of.

I cannot avoid repeating the criticisms made here and elsewhere about the manner in which the Government have handled this whole situation. It seems to me to be extraordinary that only last week we were told of committees being established to investigate the effects of Ireland joining the European Economic Community. The Rome Treaty was signed two and a half years ago. Three and a half years ago, it was known that it was very likely to be signed. Over a year ago, we knew that we were not going to be in the European Free Trade area and now at the eleventh hour, when through the decision of Great Britain, we, too, are now, it would appear, to join the European Economic Community, the Government decide that it would be desirable to set up these committees.

This matter was canvassed on this side of the House before. The circumstances of Ireland's joining have been adverted to before in this House. As recently as April of last year, the N.F.A. referred to the fact that it had asked the Government to establish a committee to investigate in detail Ireland's position in relation to European trade bloc developments and to formulate policy for action. This proposal, we are told in the Irish Times of 28th April, 1961, was turned down by the Government. Now, as a result of whatever discussions took place between President Kennedy, Mr. Macmillan and President de Gaulle, we are hurriedly deciding we are all good Europeans; we are all in favour of European unity and now, if Great Britain joins, we will do likewise.

I feel that one of the matters with which this country should concern itself, both in the European institutions of which it is a member and also in the United Nations, is the problem of the under-developed countries of the world. This is a fantastic problem. With the tremendous wealth there is in parts of the world, with the tremendous sums being spent on armaments, there is, at the same time, poverty to an extent which, to Irish people, accustomed as we are to poverty in our country, must seem absolutely appalling.

It seems to me that one of the ways in which a country such as ours can assist is in trying to expand the assistance given to the under-developed areas of the world, particularly in Africa and Asia. We are in the difficult position of being a comparatively poor country ourselves and the amount of wealth we have available to distribute is certainly of little significance. I feel that, in the realm of technical assistance, there is something which we could do, whatever it may be, on a fairly small level. Nonetheless, in the realm of technical assistance, in the realm of education, in the realm of administration, there is help that we could give and there is certainly support which we can give to those endeavouring to expand it.

I am aware that quite recently a decision was taken by the Government which was certainly a good one concerning teachers who may wish to go abroad for a year or two to one of the under-developed areas such as Nigeria, with which, I understand, the statement which was made was concerned. Such service abroad would be taken into consideration in their future emoluments. That is a decision that is to be welcomed. I wonder if it has, in fact, been put into practice?

I had the privilege and good fortune to represent the Council of Europe at a meeting in Lagos earlier this year which was very largely concerned with problems of technical assistance to Africa. The conference was made up of European states, but principally of African states. The great needs of the African states in this field were widely considered and supported. As a result of these discussions, a report was prepared by the Council of Europe and, on foot of that report, the Council of Europe adopted a recommendation, No. 279, dealing with technical assistance to Africa.

I should like to know if the Minister is prepared, in the Committee of Deputies, to support the Assembly's recommendation on this point. Briefly, what the Assembly unanimously suggested—and this suggestion arose only after the matter had been considerably discussed and the possibility of its implementation discovered—was that the Council of Europe should act as a sort of clearing-house for technical assistance, aid in the realm of youth organisations and education to African states.

There are undoubtedly possibilities of assistance which this country, small as it is, could give in the realm of technical assistance. There is the missionary enthusiasm which so very frequently and gloriously is canalised into religious communities but which can also be made use of in the secular field. I should think that, if properly presented to our people, we could help the states of Africa, particularly the English-speaking states like Nigeria and Ghana and the East African states, by doing a year's or two years' service in schools, hospitals and administration. If it were known that young people coming out from universities or starting their careers would not suffer any loss by so doing, I feel we would have people willing to take the opportunity and willing to give assistance to these people who so urgently need it. I should be glad to know if the Minister is prepared to accept this recommendation which I feel would be of value to this country.

I think that, in many ways, we are now facing a crossroads in our external relations. Take, for example, the uncommitted state of Indonesia. One of the problems it is currently engaged in trying to settle, apparently by military methods, is the problem of Dutch New Guinea, apparently with Russian assistance. As a member of the Council of Europe, as a member perhaps of the European Economic Community, we shall have close ties with Holland who, as everybody knows, is in very great disagreement with Indonesia. Where does Ireland stand in such a conflict of loyalties? Can we become good Europeans and remain an uncommitted neutralist State? I do not think we can.

I think the time has now come when it must be realised that our foreign policy can be guided by a few simple propositions. If it is realised that a victory for Communism in any part of the world involves this country in some loss then our actions in the field of international affairs will become clearer. If it is realised that a gain for Communism in Laos or in Saigon, for example, is not just a defeat of American interests but a defeat of Irish interests, if it is realised that a Russian victory over Berlin is not just a defeat, as was suggested here last week, for an old reactionary Chancellor of Western Germany but a defeat for the western world of which we are part, I think our difficulties in foreign affairs will be greatly overcome.

What I should like to see coming out now, after four years of this Government's activities in the field of foreign affairs is not only a realisation that we are not an uncommitted State, a realisation that we are not a neutralist State, but an acceptance of the fact that we must act accordingly in support of those nations whose interests are common to ours and who, in common with us, have an interest in seeing that the Communist aggression is halted and that our common ideals succeed in the world struggle.

Mr. Coogan

First of all, I must express disappointment that there was no reference whatsoever to Partition in the Minister's statement. The reason I mention this is that when Fianna Fáil came into office, they told us they had the cure-all for Partition. The matter has been shelved for the past few years and I feel that that plank in the Fianna Fáil platform has been washed downstream. To bolster up this question of Partition, we see that the Minister for Transport and Power has been detailed to the Border counties—

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Surely that matter may not be discussed on this Estimate? It does not arise.

Mr. Coogan

I am dealing with Government policy in regard to——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is out of order.

Mr. Coogan

I will go further afield. In regard to Irish emigrants, it seems that the Government's interest in them ceases, once they become emigrants. It is only when they are in this country for voting purposes that they are considered. I should like to refer to the need for the Government to take an interest in the Irish centres throughout the world. I have in mind an Irish welfare centre in London which cost about £25,000. That is taking an interest in the welfare of the Irish emigrant and I feel that the Government should come to the aid of this centre. They have money to fire here and there around the world for foreigners. That is laudable enough but charity should start nearer home. This welfare centre in London is fairly heavily in debt and I respectfully suggest to the Department that they should come to its rescue and help it. It is proving a valuable asset in the welfare of Irish emigrants in London.

I should like to refer also to Irish associations in the United States of America, some of which I had the honour to visit recently. The Minister was there himself. One can be justly proud of the activities of these associations but it is most regrettable that our Irish consuls do not take a more active interest in these groups. There is a great opportunity to push the sales of Irish manufactured goods through these associations. I have here a label for St. Patrick's Day of the type to be seen in New York. It is for Irish stew and on the label is a shamrock and everything else on it is in large letters except the words "Manufactured in Great Britain". Great Britain is not a great beef raising country. The offices of Irish consuls should be used to further these matters. If Britain can find a market there for St. Patrick's Day, I do not see why our representatives are not more active.

I was reliably informed by some of our Irish groups that the only time they see the Irish consuls in some parts of the United States, and in other places, is when they are photographed and invariably then there is a glass in their hands. That is as near as they get to them. It is about time we had a little more action from these people in the interests of our country. Let them get down to the ordinary emigrants who can do a lot for this country if their interests are properly channelled.

I should like to know what steps the Department have taken in regard to the statement made by the American Ambassador before he came to this country that he would treble the American tourist trade to this country. It may be said that that is a matter for the Tourist Board but the statement was made in the United States of America and I understand that the Minister was there himself at the time. Mr. Grant Stockdale made the statement that he was prepared to try to treble the number of American tourists to this country. I wonder what steps the Department have taken with regard to that statement.

Another matter to which I should like to refer is the possibility of amalgamating the offices in New York of the Irish consul with other Irish interests, such as Córas Tráchtála, Irish Airlines, the Irish tourist centre and C.I.E. which is hidden away in a back room of the British Railways office. These groups are worthy of better accommodation and in the interests of efficiency, dignity and economy, something should be done to centralise them in one building. As things stand, their accommodation is not worthy of their staffs and the Minister should try to do something to accommodate them all in one building. I should also like to stress the importance of our consuls keeping in touch with the Irish emigrant associations in order to further trade. I should like the Minister to let us know, if he can, what his views are in that regard.

Mr. Sherwin

My experience of the Department of External Affairs is that it is a sort of mystery Department. We seldom see the Minister and we seldom hear him. Of course, we read a little about him and his reputation internationally appears to be good. However, I am concerned about what the Minister does for this country and not so much about what he does internationally. The affairs of other people are largely the concern of other more prosperous nations than ourselves, those who have taken the goods of other people and have built themselves up over the centuries. They should do the worrying and the giving. Generally speaking, we should look after our own interests. In my opinion, our policy should be to keep this country afloat economically and to end Partition.

As one member stated here, little has been said about Partition but it is major policy for this Department to end Partition. The problem may appear to be latent, but it is there all the same, as large as life. It has been the cause of 40 years of strife and it may continue for the next 400 years. Therefore, it is a matter of major importance that the Minister should use every opportunity to bring about a solution of that problem. Even when it appears not to be practical politics, he should be on the look-out, because I hold it is one of his main problems and responsibilities.

It is also the Minister's duty, while trying to keep this country afloat economically, to keep us out of war and not to commit us. I do not agree that we should become politically involved with other countries. That is the thin end of the wedge. This country is poor and undefended and it would be a calamity if it were to become involved in any way. While helping in other respects, we should keep from becoming committed politically, even in the event of war. We could be of great help to Europe in supplying it with foodstuffs. We could always be of great service but we should not become involved politically in any sense of the word.

I do not claim to be an authority on the Common Market but like everyone else, I take an interest. I do not claim to be an authority on anything but I read, study and think a lot, and that is as much as anyone else can do. In my opinion, we should lobby with those who do not want Britain to enter the Common Market. The devil we know is better than the devil we do not know. There is a strong element in Britain who do not want to enter the Common Market and, in spite of the fact that we are told it is just a matter of time, she may not enter. In fact, it was stated by an influential source in an English Sunday newspaper that there is a chance that Britain may never enter it because she has commitments with her Empire which she does not want to lessen. The Empire is her strength in her own troubles.

I look upon this business as a sort of poker game in which everyone is trying to gain an advantage over everyone else. In my opinion, it is not Britain's policy to tie herself up with anyone else. In fact, her whole game in history has been to pretend, and actually to work against the strongest and for the weakest, and in the end, she herself was always the strongest body. If the Common Market became a political build-up, and let us suppose for argument's sake that it became a political build-up against Communism, if Communism collapsed tomorrow, Britain's policy would be to work against the very people she is now being asked to associate with, the Germans.

Britain's policy is opportunism. It always was and always will be. I am afraid she will not so freely desert her Empire and become tied up in some European affair. It should be our policy to lobby with those who do not want Britain to enter the Common Market. It suits us to have things as they are. We have a free market in Britain and there is no certainty of what the position will be, if we enter the Common Market. It could mean the collapse of our whole industrial system and it could mean that half of our people engaged in the manufacturing industry would find themselves out of employment, even in industries such as horticulture, fruit and so on.

The only way in which we can hope to gain is in the export of livestock. We all know that the rearing of livestock for export may get money for us, but it does not give a large amount of employment. In my opinion, it would be better for us if England never entered the Common Market. Our job should be to try to help her to make up her mind not to enter it. As I said before, the devil we know is better than the devil we do not know.

It is strange to read that we are completely dependent on our ability to export goods to Britain. I always look back and say: what was the Civil War all about? What was all the talk about Sinn Féin and "Ourselves Alone"? Now we are told that our entire economic salvation depends on whether we go in with Britain. That goes to show that we were a very confused lot at one time, in spite of our beliefs in ourselves. We should use Britain, and we should use her, realising that she deprived us of a great advantage. If we had not been dominated by her, and had always been free of Britain's domination, we might have a small empire of our own like Holland and Belgium. Do not think we would not dare: yes, we would dare. England deprived us of that advantage and we have a moral right to use her now.

I should like to deal now with the question raised by Deputy Coogan. The Minister should take a greater interest in the welfare of our people in England. I heard Deputy Costello refer to the people of Africa. In my opinion, we should think of our people in England and leave Africa to those who robbed it for centuries. We do our part in missionary work and that should be enough.

The vast majority of our people who emigrate have not twopence in their pockets. All they had on leaving was their fare and when they arrive, they depend on someone keeping them for a week or two until they get a job. A friend of mine who came back from Birmingham told me that many young men sleep in the parks for the first week, unless someone pities them and takes them in because they have not got twopence until they get their first week's wages. The Minister should do something about that problem. There should be some welfare organisation to which people could go and get at least a bed for a week and be given a chance to make a start.

Something should also be done about the protection of our girls. It is a well-known fact that there are many organisations which specialise in prostitution in British cities. They are always on the look-out for helpless girls looking for work, very often from the wrong people. There have been innuendoes in various pamphlets and newspapers about the type of people who go in for that sort of thing and Irish girls have been mentioned. It is up to the Minister to see that there is a welfare association in every city to look after our girls.

The Minister should also ensure that girls under 18 years are not permitted to leave the country, unless they have their parents' permission or the permission of the local parish priest. I met a man from Gardiner Street who was in a panic. His daughter of 16 years had left home about six months before and could not be found. After she was located, the police said that unless they had evidence that she had committed a crime, there was nothing they could do, and they could not send her back. No girl of 15 or 16 years can be sent back unless she commits a crime, but some girls are doing things on the sly and out of necessity.

One or two points occurred to me when I read of the kidnapping of Eichmann from the Argentine and the arrest of Tshombe in Africa. While not having the slightest sympathy with those people, the Minister should have protested against the bad faith of those who invite people to consultations and then arrest them. He should also have protested against the kidnapping of people from other sovereign countries. It is the same as if the British in civvies had kidnapped some of our people in the States when they were badly wanted here for alleged crimes. In 1920, two of our men who were arrested in connection with Bloody Sunday escaped to America. According to the British, they were savages, too, but how would we feel if the British could kidnap them and bring them back from the States? It is a rotten practice and one that could lead ultimately to war and strife. I am not concerned about the issue as to whether Eichmann is a savage or Tshombe a renegade. It is the principle I am talking about. We should stand by principle all the time because it will pay in the end.

Mr. P. Byrne

This question raised by Deputy Coogan and Deputy Sherwin regarding the welfare of our emigrants in Britain has come up for discussion before in this House. The matter was raised in the debate last year, and in relation to demands on the lines of those made by Deputy Sherwin and Deputy Coogan, the Minister replied that the welfare of our emigrants in Britain was a matter primarily for the people of Britain, particularly for those Irish there who are well established, who are in affluent circumstances and who should be able to look after their own lame ducks.

It is wrong and futile for the Minister and the Department to pretend that this problem does not exist. It is evasive to suggest that Irish residents in Britain who are established there and earning their living there should be called upon to provide welfare facilities for those who are only newly arrived in that country whom they do not at all regard as their responsibility. The problem is not one of their making and the majority of our people who have settled in Britain have quite enough calls on their charity as matters stand without our foisting upon them those of our newly arrived emigrants who in many cases land themselves in trouble.

There are several organisations doing splendid work in Britain looking after those people. They are very crippled indeed for funds and over the years numerous requests have been made to the Department that the Minister should recognise in principle that we have an obligation to our people in Britain. Nothing has been done about it.

A most authoritative journal published in Maynooth, Christus Rex, referred to the matter in its January, 1960 issue. At page 59 of the journal under the editorial notes, there was an article to the following effect:

... 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.

That is a very strong condemnation from a most authoritative source. It is criticism which cannot be taken lightly by the Minister. It is degrading and undignified for those who are catering for our people in Britain to be depending on petty fund-raising activities, penny pools and threepenny raffles. They need money—not an awful lot, but primarily their need is for capital. At present they are hard put to meet their expenditure in connection with the day-to-day maintenance and operation of their domestic activities in the various centres which are catering for only a very small minority of those for whom it is necessary to cater. The problem is not being coped with adequately.

I know the Civil Service mind recoils from making State funds available to voluntary organisations but I believe that the organisations dealing with this problem on a voluntary basis, composed of high-minded persons, dedicated persons, persons inspired by tremendous charity and zeal, can be safely entrusted by the Irish State with whatever reasonable amount of capital they need in order to become established on a proper footing in Britain.

I would remind the Minister that the Commission on Emigration which reported in 1954 recommended that a welfare bureau to cater for the requirements of our emigrants should be set up in Britain, and further recommended that, if necessary, State funds should be made available for that purpose. I am aware also that only in the past few months Muintir na Tíre, an organisation which has the pulse of public opinion in these matters, made representations to similar effect to the Taoiseach. I should be pleased if the Minister in replying would tell us whether these representations have been considered and what is to be done about this problem because it is obvious that there is a grave problem there. Deputy Sherwin spoke eloquently of a case which came to his personal knowledge and it is unfortunately true that the case he mentioned is not at all an isolated one.

On this question of immigration into Britain, I wonder has the Minister considered present developments in Britain which may lead to the introduction of legislation to control immigration. There is a considerable demand being made on the British Government to restrict the migration of foreigners into that country. The problem which most seriously concerns people there is the migration to Britain of large numbers of coloured labourers from Jamaica, Pakistan and India, three countries which are in the British Commonwealth. If Britain controls the entry of these British citizens, she would, I believe, lean over backwards in making it clear to the Jamaican Government that she is not discriminating against Jamaicans because they are coloured and she would place herself in the position in which she could say to the Jamaican Government: We are also restricting our cousins, the Irish, and they are white. It is not because you are black that we are refusing to admit you. We are restricting the Irish as well."

I believe considerable moral pressure will be put on the British Government in regard to immigration. Happily for us, since the establishment of the Republic here, we have been treated as British citizens for citizenship purposes in Britain. We have been accorded the rights and privileges of British citizens. Thank God for that. We have, however, no constitutional right to that privilege. It has been accorded to us as an act of grace; it can be withdrawn at any time. We all know there is a crying need for Irish workers, particularly labourers, unskilled workers, and hospital workers, in Britain. It is extremely unlikely that Britain will restrict the entry of such persons, persons who in many cases are prepared to carry out work which British nationals are loth to carry out. If restrictions are applied, my fear is that such restrictions may be done on a selective basis.

In recent months, there have been one or two letters in the British Medical Journal from young British graduates who are incensed because they have to complete with Irish graduates for positions in their native country. Up to recently, there was a great scarcity of doctors in Britain. It looks now as if that scarcity has been overcome. I am apprehensive of the possibility of Britain controlling the immigration of Irish nationals on a selective basis, admitting our labourers because she needs hewers of wood and drawers of water, but, at the same time, refusing to admit our doctors or engineers if, and when, she feels she can do without them.

That is a situation we should try to avoid. It is a fact that Britain places many restrictions on the entry of persons from other European countries. Tens of thousands of Italians are clamouring to enter Britain, but they will not be admitted. Commonwealth citizens have the right of unrestricted entry. As one of those who always regretted the secession of this country from the British Commonwealth, I am tempted now to point out that membership of the Commonwealth would be, in part, one solution of this problem.

In relation to the Common Market proposals, it now seems more than likely that Britain will not jeopardise her Commonwealth trade links for the sake of entry into the Common Market and that she will insist on certain rights and privileges being accorded to her to enable her to continue to trade with Commonwealth countries on an equal basis with the European countries in the Common Market. Commonsense, if nothing else, demands some form of recognition of our common interests with Great Britain, our common way of life and our common outlook. There are practical advantages to be derived from membership of the British Commonwealth. Apart from that, there are strong moral reasons which are even more compelling.

It is a fact that in the past year there have been several manifestations of improved Anglo-Irish relations. There was the rather extraordinary debate in the House of Lords before Christmas when that body unanimously expressed sentiments of esteem for and friendship towards this country. More recently, we had the invitation to the Lord Mayor of Dublin. Councillor Dockrell, as Lord Mayor of Dublin—unhappily, he is no longer Lord Mayor—was invited shortly before he vacated office to pay a formal visit to London, the first formal visit paid by a Lord Mayor of Dublin for 60 years. He was treated with great cordiality and hospitality. When the Republic of Ireland Act was passed in 1948, it resolved what was then a dishonourable situation in which we did not know whether or not we were in the Commonwealth or whether or not we were a Republic.

We are now a Republic. There are many Republics in the British Commonwealth. In 1948 it was impossible to be a fully fledged unshackled Republic and remain in the Commonwealth. That is no longer so. Indeed it is unfortunate that we, who contributed so very much to the constitutional development of the British Commonwealth that brought about a situation whereby India as a Republic is able to retain her membership of that body and the other newly liberated African countries are most anxious to retain their membership, are unable to derive any advantage from that position.

There would be no curtailment of our sovereignty involved in membership of the existing British Commonwealth of Nations, no problem at all of allegiance to the Crown, no loss of dignity or status. There is a world-wide movement towards greater international co-operation and, as we know, the trend at present is towards European Government with certain abridgement of national sovereignty for the common good.

I am convinced that the common people of these islands, Britain and Ireland, both having come to the control of their own destinies, and both having come into their heritage of freedom, should unite wherever possible to advance our mutual interests, to advance the cause of civilisation and Christianity. We cannot afford in these evil times to perpetuate dissension amongst those of us who have a common Christian way of life and who strive for the same cause.

I said a few moments ago that the strongest arguments are moral ones. We in this country have a particular flair for leadership. We have seen several manifestations of that in the past year. I would compliment the Minister on the extent to which some of the newly liberated countries look to us for a certain amount of leadership. Most of the newly liberated African countries, for instance, Ghana and Tanganyika, have retained their membership of the British Commonwealth and at the last Commonwealth Conference a few months ago brought about the position whereby Dr. Vervoerd's South African Government was, in effect, expelled. As a member of the Commonwealth we would have unrivalled opportunities of giving effect to our traditional sense of international mission and would bring ourselves even closer to those African countries who look to us in some cases for leadership.

Three years ago I had a conversation with an old school friend of mine who for several years has been in charge of a Catholic secondary school in Tanganyika. He told me at that time he was extremely apprehensive and, indeed, the Catholic Church in Tanganyika was extremely apprehensive, about the pending grant of self-government to that country because he knew from the political set up amongst the Africans there that they were likely to restrict European education of their children and to restrict the Catholic mission schools. It happens that Tanganyika has now obtained her freedom and the possibility of such restrictions being imposed has become a reality. Christian influences, apparently, are not as dominant in the new government of that country as they are in other places. Would it not be a wonderful thing if we were in a position as a member of the British Commonwealth, co-equal with Tanganyika, to consult and confer with her about the position of our missionaries in that country? We are not in such a position.

There is no doubt whatever that we can give effect most strongly to our flair for leadership in these newly liberated countries by developing the closest possible ties with them and, it seems to me, speaking purely as an individual, that membership of the British Commonwealth would be the best means of giving effect to that aim.

Mr. McGilligan

When the Taoiseach had finished his speech on Wednesday last on the motion to approve of the Convention on Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development there was a certain amount of perfunctory applause from the benches behind him. I was anxious to find out what the applause was for. It was not, surely, because anybody felt any stimulation from the speech the Taoiseach had earlier made on the White Paper, nor could it be any enthusiasm aroused by the White Paper itself, which is not even a very good effort to give the chief extracts, the relevant and important extracts, from the Rome Treaty. It is, indeed, little better than the page which the London Times gave yesterday week to a collection of excerpts from the same Treaty.

I could not believe that it was enthusiasm aroused amongst the Fianna Fáil Party because the Taoiseach had at last been brought to recognise that the policy on which he tried to run this country for so many years, a policy of economic narrow nationalism and the policy of the exclusion of foreign capital, should be abandoned and that he had abandoned it as it has been abandoned in the main parts of the world because it has been found to be, first of all, a bad philosophy and, secondly, leading to weakening of the economic structures of those who gave in to that particular philosophy.

I could not believe that Fianna Fáil were getting wildly excited because the British Prime Minister had agreed to meet three members of the present Government, not with a view to negotiations, but merely to have an exchange of views. What the exchange of view was to be about and what value can come from it, I do not know. The British have indicated their hesitations with regard to joining the Common Market. They had made the new association—the Seven association—as a sort of counterpoise to it and they have apparently realised the movement in world affairs does not any longer permit them to be vacillating as they have been for so long with regard to the Common Market.

Deputy Dr. Browne afterwards, of course, made the sort of comment which must have jarred on Fianna Fáil ears because it is the sort of comment they would have made themselves about 30 years ago, that merely going to exchange views with the Leader of the British Government shows abject dependence on the British and that we are hiding behind the battlements of the Parliamentary institutions of Great Britain. That, of course, was a complete misrepresentation of the present situation and I want to be dissociated from it but I am very glad to see that nobody in Fianna Fáil dared this year to repeat what would have been their common argument if any other Government had decided to engage either in negotiations or in talks with a British Government with regard to the future economics of this country.

The Taoiseach said that it was easy enough to come to a certain decision; the difficulty was about announcing it. Why there should be any difficulty I do not know. It was not explained. I do not know when the decision, such as it is, was taken—the decision which the Taoiseach said was easy and which he expressed in these words: "If Britain enters the Common Market, we will enter also" and that there is no future or value for this country in our joining the Common Market if Britain did not join. I do not know when that decision was taken. The date is not of any great importance but it would be interesting to know, because it appears to me that when that date is revealed it will show that only very recently were the Government aroused to acceptance of the fact that some decision was required from them in this very important matter. The one thing the country was not allowed to hear, and we have not heard it yet, was that even a hypothetical decision that we would do certain things in certain events surely had to be made. I do not see in that statement, apart from its being stimulating, anything encouraging or anything that held out great hope in respect of the very bleak future facing this country in connection with the movement going on, without our initiative and without our help.

Deputy Sherwin said we should lobby with those who want to keep Britain out of the Common Market. It would be a poor effort. All we could do in that respect would be of no great value. In any event, it is quite clear Britain is about to take the step of joining up, despite all the political and social involvements that step might bring with it. Deputy Sherwin said the situation which obtained up to about a year ago was probably as good as we could have. It was quite good. It was not fully availed of, but it was not a bad situation. That situation has now passed. We are no longer in the position that we are going to have access to the British Market, while other people are in the main prevented or harried in their access to it.

Britain has joined the association known as "The Seven" and from that there is no extraction of herself or her future from what that may involve. An article in a recent issue of The Irish Banking Review, the issue of June this year, puts the position that would occur if Britain were laggardly about joining the Common Market—if she decided definitely to remain aloof from it or else to keep up her present laggardly position. It says:

In those circumstances, our preferred trading position on the British Market would gradually disappear as Britain lowered industrial tariff barriers vis-á-vis her partners in the Seven.

Another comment is:

We would be giving up a lot more than we could hope to gain in return by increased exports to those countries.

So, the old, good situation, although it was not properly availed of, has gone and there is no good crying for its return.

Good and all as it was, Deputy Sherwin referred to our position with regard to livestock and with regard to emigration. Again, it is a satisfactory thing to find that the Fianna Fáil Party are enthusiastic about maintaining our position on the British Market. It is even better still to have it expressed several times by the present Taoiseach that livestock and dairy products are our mainstay in that market. But it must also be remembered that that particular type of development has not improved this country's situation as far as population is concerned. For many years we have been in this position, that our products had virtually free access to Britain while the products of our competitors were handicapped, and some of them very seriously handicapped. We enjoyed agreements with Britain whereby we were enabled, in protection of our own industries, to put on tariffs against the British goods coming in here, notwithstanding that we were treated extremely favourably with regard to our products, mainly agricultural products, going into Britain.

That being the situation, the last four years have seen that our biggest export is hardly live animals; it it live people. There are 50,000 fewer employed in this country than there were in 1956, and most of these have gone as emigrants to England—fifty thousand unemployed, 50,000 emigrants, people who would be unemployed if they remained here, but went to get employment in England. It is a big total. I wonder if anybody thought of it along the lines of the purchasing power that has been extracted from our people for spending here to create a demand which might also get further production of goods here? At £10 a week, a fairly average wage, 50,000 people would earn and would spend the greater part of £250,000. Twenty six million pounds in the year is what those 50,000 might have earned and spend here, creating a market for further production. Those 50,000 are now abroad.

If we do get some benefit from the remittances sent back, it is an inflationary type of aid, because there is no production at home to match whatever is that purchasing power sent back by way of remittances from our people in England. We lost 50,000 people in four years although we had the advantage of access on very fine terms to the British market. We are now faced with a different situation. Two possible matters arise. One is that Britain would join the Common Market and we would not. That prospect is so ghastly that it need not be considered seriously.

In the debate which took place here in July, 1957, Deputy J.A. Costello referred to that paragraph in the Rome Treaty which deals with agricultural imports. At Column 666 of the report of the debate of 3rd July, 1957, Deputy Costello pointed out:

For the signatories have agreed what the common tariff is to be in respect of certain items in list F, which includes some of Ireland's possible exports to the Continent. It is provided, for example, that the common tariff on cattle will be 16 per cent.; on fresh, chilled, or frozen meat 20 per cent.; on dead poultry, 18 per cent.; on live horses 11 per cent. and on butter 24 per cent.

I understand beet is rated at 50 per cent. Although that was not quoted by Deputy Costello, it is in List F. We could not contemplate a future in which levies of that type would be made against the goods we ordinarily produce and which are those which we export in order to get the materials we want for other things.

The other alternative is that Britain joins the Common Market. We have, according to the Taoiseach, taken steps to inform the six Governments in the E.E.C. and the Commission of the Community in Brussels:

that in the event of the United Kingdom applying for membership of the E.E.C., we will so apply, while at the same time informing them of our difficulty in accepting, in the present stage of our development, the full obligations of membership and of our desire to explore the modifications of these obligations that might be negotiated having regard to our circumstances.

The Minister for External Affairs might supply the date for that. When did we inform the members of the six Governments of the E.E.C. and the Commission itself of our intention to do what is here stated?

In any event, that is the situation which now faces us. We are accepting that. That means that inside a relatively short period of time—it may be 1970 or it may be as early as 1966 —we shall have to dismantle the whole protective machinery save in so far as we can get exceptional treatment for exceptional circumstances.

When the debate took place in July 1957, Deputy Norton, who had been Minister for Industry and Commerce up to a few months before that, gave certain figures that are of interest. He said a calculation had been made in the Department of Industry and Commerce before he left it that about 160,000 people depended for employment on industries that were protected by tariffs or quotas. The calculation was made that if tariffs had to be lowered and quotas abolished, a minimum of 60 per cent. of those would be thrown out of employment and 60 per cent. of that figure is as near as makes no difference to the figure of 100,000. Is it possible to contemplate this country losing another 100,000 people in addition to the 50,000 who have already been dislodged from their occupational fields since 1956? That is the situation which looms ahead.

The Taoiseach's speech was to a great extent an effort to keep his head buried in the sand. Now and again he peeped up to give a few details of the programme as he saw it. Again, in the Irish Banking Review, where there is an article on current topics, it is pointed out that at present the Common Market countries had reached a 30 per cent. level of tariff abolition among themselves and if the present time table is implemented intra-Common Market tariffs will be completely abolished in nine years time, that is, by 1970. That 30 per cent. was not the aim that was previously set by the Common Market countries. They increased the percentage of the level of tariff reductions.

It is now known that they are engaged in conversations with regard to cutting it down during a transitional period from nine to six years. This article, which is a well informed article, goes on to say:

It is on the whole likely that there will be an acceleration of the timetable.

It continues:

The seriousness of the impact on Irish industry of having to measure up to the full rigours of free competition by 1966 needs no stressing.

What has been done in this country to prepare? The situation is extremely serious. We have for many years run along with this programme of economic nationalism, with the feather-bedding of industries and with the maintenance of many industries which had no possible chance of success if tariffs and quotas were dropped. Nevertheless, the people, willingly enough, accepted the maintenance of these tariffs.

We have all paid for it in our cost of living over the years. We have maintained certain people in employment where probably they would not have been employed otherwise. It would be monstrous to think that any of the industries which give any employment in our present circumstances should be abandoned. Under the situation as it is going to develop in the Common Market, all these artificial aids will have to go. In fact, it looks to me, on the reading of the Rome Treaty, as if the aids given by the Finance (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1956, for the promotion of industrial exports may have to go also, aids by way of the provision of the purchase price of a site or of the factory itself and the giving of other aids for the paying and installation of plant and machinery.

These are the type of aids which do not count as free competition and free competition is the principle upon which the Common Market is to be built. If we have to dislodge those aids to the industries that have come in to try to help us in our precarious employment situation and if, in addition, we have to face competition from the exportable surpluses that will undoubtedly appear when the great Common Market comes into being, our position is extremely serious.

There are other helps. All helps are not ruled out by the Rome Treaty. Artificial aids, tariffs and such things are under the control of the Commission. The basis of the Common Market is that these are to disappear. I believe that these other aids will follow. There are other aids. It is possible to engage in a transitional period in the provision of machinery for industrial development. It is possible to have workers specially trained. It is possible, by a lowering of the general level of taxation, to increase the powers of industrialists as well as to give some comfort to the community. Has any survey been made yet of all the aids that may be possible for four or five years in this transitional period up to 1966 or of the way in which our workers or management could be put in such a position as to meet the competition which is coming on them in full blast at the latest by 1970 or possibly at the early date of 1966?

The Minister for Industry and Commerce spoke on the last day of June on his own Vote in this House. He said that:

If Ireland joined the Common Market he did not think that it could be denied that some of the weaker industries would find it hard to survive because of the competition they would encounter, not only on the export market, but on the home market.

A more inadequate statement in respect of a grave situation has hardly ever been spoken. He did not think it would be denied that some of the weaker industries would find it hard to survive because of the competition they would encounter.

That very day, one of the industrialists of the country, Mr. Stanley, Chairman of Unidare said:

He did not think that anyone had a clue as to what would happen to secondary industry if we went into the Common Market.

The report of the general meeting of Unidare was published in the same issue of the paper from which I read— 30th June, 1961. It goes on:

Replying to a shareholder's question as to whether Irish industry would or would not be adversely affected by Ireland joining the Common Market, Mr. Stanley said that he thought that if one knew the answer to that question one might make a lot of money and might avoid a lot of poverty.

Then, he added:

He did not think that anyone had a clue as to what would happen to secondary industry if we went into the Common Market. It depended on whether we "go it alone" or with Britain

He continued:

It seemed to him that over the years we were drifting closer to the British situation.

Finally, he said:

They had been told that during a transitional period of membership of the Common Market they would get protection. It was important to the shareholders that he, as their Chairman, should continue to press Mr. Lynch, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, for a statement on this protection. They must persist with the Government and say that the time has now come when the Government should tell them what this protection was going to be. At the present time they were only hearing talk about that protection but they had not a clue as to what form it would take.

That is as late as 30th June, 1961.

When I look at the paper issued as a complement to the White Paper I see that the Taoiseach thinks it is essential that all those active in economic life should realise what developments may entail. This is the offer made:

The Government and the Departments of State are ready to assist in this matter, by the provision of information, the discussion of problems and in any other way which might be helpful.

The statement went on to say:

The Government have, indeed, already taken certain steps to ensure an efficient liaison with those engaged in the more important sectors of the economy which may be directly affected by these developments.

I said earlier that nobody could get much encouragement from that. It certainly is not stimulating. It does not indicate any advanced state of preparation for what is ahead.

The next paragraph gets deeper into the mire:

Having regard to the terms of the Rome Treaty, it is particularly important that a critical appraisal be made urgently of the measures that may require to be taken to adapt Irish industry to conditions of more intensive competition in home and export markets.

It is not the Government that is going to do it. They are telling industrialists that that is what is expected from them.

The paragraph continues:

The Federation of Irish Industries has already taken steps in this direction. The Government have accepted the responsibility of helping industry in accelerating this operation, and, jointly with the Federation of Irish Industries, have made arrangements for a comprehensive survey of the industrial sector, directed towards an examination of the difficulties that may be created for particular industries and the formulation of positive measures of adjustment and adaptation.

So, we are getting ready, or asking industrialists to get ready, and telling them that if they get ready the Government have taken the responsibility to help in accelerating the operation of getting ready. That is where we are, as far as this important matter is concerned.

There are other industrialists who have written letters to the papers sometimes over their own names and sometimes over assumed names. I have spoken to many of them. I know that some of them have already tried to collect information and are looking to what the difficulties are that will loom ahead and are trying to discover their own, whether they can look for help and what help will be reasonable and in accordance with their own freedom. I have yet to meet one who can tell me of any advice or help he received from any Department of Government except these lectures that are given to industrialists at all the trade dinners, and so on, where Ministers go and lecture them on production. But, as to aids, as to recognition of difficulty, as to the Government proposals to help, those are all so far unheard of.

In the future, this country will be in competition and whether it will be in competition with the Community of 190,000,000 or with 260,000,000 people will depend on whether the Common Market keeps away from the E.F.T.A. situation. But into one or other of those groups we must go and we must go without feather-bedding, certainly after a transitional period. The fundamental idea at the back of the whole Common Market movement is that goods are to be produced in those areas where they can most cheaply and most efficiently be produced. Those goods that are to be produced and which we are all to enjoy afterwards will find, so to speak, their best productive area. Leaving out the type of industry which may be founded on agricultural raw materials, and, of course, such industry has not been befriended in this country, it is mainly the secondary industries, the raw materials for which have to be brought in, which have been the object of Government attention over 29 years. The change now that is to take place is a revolutionary one.

We shall have to import raw materials for industries from countries where those raw materials are found. We shall have to fashion those raw materials and send out the processed goods in competition possibly with manufactureres in areas where the raw materials are found and in any event in competition with manufacturers who will, like ourselves, import these raw materials but who have far better, far more elaborate, far more efficient productive machinery than we have been able to get in 30 or 35 years of this type of feather-bedded protection.

If we do not succeed in some way during the transitional period in getting these industries brought up to a better state of perfection then not only have we lost 50,000 people since 1956 but they will be joined by 100,000 more. In these circumstances our country is entitled to look for some indication of Government activity, even of Government thought on the matter.

Neither the paper that was circulated as an explanation of the White Paper nor the Taoiseach's speech on the Convention have helped us in any way. The Taoiseach indeed warned us that things we might hope to do might not get as good a reception as we think. In answer to an intervention made by Deputy Dillon, he said that if this country had approached the association of the Six two years ago, as Deputy Dillon thought might have been the case, the British would have regarded that as a hostile act. I wonder were the Government, so to speak, tipped off about that? Were there diplomatic approaches or is this just apprehension or is it, as I expect, more likely an excuse to explain an omission which is otherwise left without explanation? Are we in such a position as that? If so, Deputy Dr. Browne's phrases about "abject dependence" might become more real.

Are we in the position that in moving by ourselves towards the Six it could possibly be regarded by the British as a hostile act? The Taoiseach said if we had done that a couple of years ago the terms of the 1960 Trade Agreement would not have been as good as they are. They could hardly have been much worse than what the 1960 Agreement contains. However, were we told that this would be regarded as an unfriendly act? If so, then I think a position of political dependence has been reached that nobody ever thought of.

In the Taoiseach's speech it was very interesting to point to the situation brought about with regard to emigration. He comforted himself, and he tried to comfort the House, by the thought that our so-to-speak preferential position in respect of emigration to Britain is being observed. He said we had a position that was recognised but that, in addition, the Common Market countries would, so to speak, give a preference to emigrants from those countries which are members of the Community, their own Community, the Economic Community, as opposed to people from outside.

Is that what we are brought to at the end of all our struggle for industry and all our promotion of industrial and agricultural effort and everything else, that we can count it an asset in this situation that we may have to share our present preferential position in regard to emigration? That I thought was the lowest point that any member of our Irish Government has ever reached, that his hopes are bounded in that way. It seems to indicate an acceptance of the present situation as regards emigration. In fact the only apprehension expressed in the guarded phrases of the Taoiseach was that we might lose our opportunities for emigration, that is, emigration to England.

The other matter the Taoiseach tried to gloss over was with regard to the institutions. He said that in the Common Market and the Rome Treaty provision was made for setting up certain institutions. Apparently being anxious that that might be argued as meaning we would lose control of certain important matters with regard to economic development, he referred to the spokesman of France and the supra-national institutions and went on to say that there was uncertainty with regard to these supra-national or independent institutions and held out the hope that that uncertainty would not last.

That, of course, is a complete mistake and it would be quite wrong for this country to engage in deciding on these matters without accepting that certain political institutions will be set up and that acceptance does involve some surrender of national sovereignty. The London Times of today opens a series of six articles on “The Future Shape of the Common Market.” The title of this article is “How Much Less Soverign?” and it examines this position of sovereignty. The others will deal with external obligations, agriculture, industry, social repercussions and trade. The first of the articles, while it tries to dispel apprehensions with regard to the complete surrender of many points of economic control, does face reality at certain points.

I do not suppose I need labour the fact that the Common Market depends on the abolition of certain restrictions on free trade and nobody would pretend that a Common Market would be adhered to by any country unless, when the Common Market arrangements are made, they are likely to be durable. The article says:—

Signatories to the Treaty of Rome relinquish the power of individual independent decision on a range of important economic policies. The range over which sovereignty is given up will grow wider in the course of time. Britain and other countries who are deciding whether to enter into a negotiation to enter the European Economic Community must examine therefore how far this is likely to go in economic politics, and whether by implication it will extend beyond economic matters.

There follows a good explanation of the whole idea of the Common Market:

Unless member countries were prepared to sacrifice a large measure of sovereignty an effective common market could not be formed. The benefits of a large free market will only be reached if there are profound adaptations in industrial structure and organisation, the scale, location and specialisation of factory operations being radically adapted to the market change. Radical reactions cannot be expected to take place unless the larger market is relatively permanent. The Treaty of Rome is signed for an "unlimited period", and its basic provisions can only be changed by unanimous agreement of members.

It stands to reason that not only must the removal of barriers to trade within the common market be durable, but also the provisions which are complimentary to it, which try to ensure, for example, that competition shall be fair and provide emollient treatments for industries or places hurt by a wide market.

It goes on to speak of the Commission and the three ways in which sovereignty is relinquished. The third of the three ways is:

It provides institutions which will decide on the formulation, development and implementation of policies.

Let nobody be under any misapprehension. If we accept the Rome Treaty, we will accept control to a considerable extent of economic affairs, but if we go inside we will have a voice, a small voice, in deciding what these policies are going to be. It may be well to look ahead to see what our importance is likely to be measured at. In regard to certain matters under the Rome Treaty there has to be what is called a "qualified majority". The Commission which consists of nine members who are appointed, "on the unanimous agreement of all member countries acts only ‘in the interests of the Community'."

The Article goes on to say:

The Council of Ministers is composed of a representative of the Government of each member State. The "qualified majority", for which representatives of France, Germany and Italy have four votes each, those of Belgium and Holland two, and the Luxembourg Minister one...

Luxembourg's population is somewhere between 250,000 and 300,000 people. If we go into the "Six" or the "Thirteen", other than Luxembourg we will be the smallest group of the whole lot. Luxembourg has one vote out of sixteen.

The situation is so arranged that if any of the big countries wants to overcome one of the other big countries they must get the support of at least Belgium and Holland.

They need not get the support of Luxembourg. What position are we going to be in when the new Commission is formed? We may have a say in the formation of policies, and it may be that arguments will prevail more than voting power.

When Deputy Dillon asked about our association with the "Six", a couple of years ago, he was told that it might be regarded as a hostile act by Great Britain and so there were no attempts at negotiations. Denmark was not so completely apprehensive as our Government appears to have been. Denmark was worried about a tariff on her imports of bacon into Britain and she approached England, being, of course, a partner with her in E.F.T.A. She approached England with a view to getting that tariff reduced or done away with. I think it was halved originally and the other half is to come off this month. From that time on Danish bacon, in respect of which we had a preferred position, will have a position of equality with ours. It appears from statements made in the Press quite recently that they drove or secured a good bargain.

Denmark secured this pledge from the British Government: that the British would not in respect of any competitive foodstuffs make any arrangement which would be prejudicial to Denmark, without Denmark's consent. They even carried that to the point of saying she should not make any arrangements even with her own farmers. In recent months, when a price review took place in England, so far as agricultural matters are concerned, Denmark objected to two points Britain was making to her own farmers and their objections are being considered.

We made no effort to get in touch with Britain along the line pursued by Denmark. We were afraid it would be regarded as a hostile act by Britain if we made any approach to the Six. If we had taken this decision to join the Common Market a couple of years ago, or even said it was a likely possibility that we would join, consequent upon taking that decision, even on a hypothetical basis, an obligation would have been imposed on the Government to go to the industrialists and have a survey made two years ago of what is now being rushed through in crash conditions to find out what artificial aids might have taken those businesses through the transition period and fitted them for active competition when the transition period was over. We neglected to do that and we now find ourselves in rushed conditions in which we have to extemporise against the possibility of the transition period shortening to bring it from 1970 to 1966.

It would be wrong to suggest that this debate should end without its being stressed once more that there is in what we are doing a relaxation of the control that sovereign communities always have. We are now doing in respect of the United States of Europe what was done 160 or 170 years ago by the 13 American colonies which combined in a federation and in the preamble to their Constitution stated that they came together to form a more perfect union.

That is what is happening at the moment, but the background of it all is recognition that the enmity between two of the great Powers which has bedevilled the world since 1870 must be controlled. The best way to get that control is to get them into an effective economic partnership through the Rome Treaty, but it must be durable and to be durable, there must be a surrendering of control. Into that we are going with a full recognition of our present weakness and also with the recognition that we need not necessarily have been as weak as we are if a little more forethought had been given to the whole problem and if preparation had been made earlier to meet, to whatever extent they could be met, the difficulties arising in the near future.

There could have been a switch over to agriculture. There could have been a switch over to the industries which depend on agriculture for raw materials. There could have been an expenditure of money, of capital, for such projects instead of the feather-bedding of industries which now are at the point of dissolution, some of which cannot be saved but none of which should be abandoned because for over 20 or 30 years, this country has paid, in the cost of living, a very heavy price for the maintenance of employment in some of these industries and every effort should be made to save them. At the same time, unless some of these industrialists change over from what they are producing to other goods, they have no hope of remaining in business at all. All that should have been said to industrialists months ago—years ago. If we do go in now in crash conditions, the Government must be blamed for it.

Mr. Desmond

I was most disappointed with the Minister's statement with regard to the failure to secure an extension of the three mile fishing limit. We had hoped 12 months ago that the Minister would succeed, through the various channels open to him, in having the limit extended. It is strange that other countries were able to succeed and yet we failed. I wonder is it because the Minister was so anxious to appear polite on behalf of our Government that he now comes back to the House admitting that the past 12 months have not brought us any benefit, while the Icelandic Government and people and others are in a better position?

It is deplorable that we must adhere to the same old principle of the past. It is not fair to the country and it is not fair to the people who depend on such an item as fisheries for their living to see fishermen—as we see them just off Cork harbour—taking advantage which is not theirs to take, off the coast of our country. We hear a lot about the achievements of the Minister, his successful conclusion of treaties and his trips to other parts of the world, but this is one of his outstanding failures. It is a sad reflection that it is the same old story, and that the position now affecting our people —and affecting them perhaps to a greater degree as the years go by— is the same as it was some years back.

I should like briefly to draw attention to the position in relation to our embassies abroad—the number, the cost, the upkeep and the return. Some people seem to glory in being able to say that we are well represented by embassies and consular offices in different countries, showing the importance of this little country. We must consider the cost. On behalf of the people we represent, we should question the results accruing from that cost. I wonder what use are we making of these various embassies? We hear a lot about industrial projects and the advantages of getting markets abroad. Are our personnel in the various countries expected to adopt a system of work on the familiar pattern of the past—the pattern set by Great Britain?

Is it beneath the members of our embassies abroad to concentrate on trying to secure, in return for the cost of keeping them in those countries, some improvement in trade returns between this country and the countries in which they are established? It is amazing to look through the Book of Estimates, to see where we have the different representatives and to compute the amount of trade to our benefit which we do with those countries. The situation may be consoling even for some people in this country who may be gaining from imports but it is a sad reflection on the Department of External Affairs that they have not given the lead they should have given, from the point of view of exports to these countries where we have representatives. It would be far more beneficial and appropriate if we made more use of our embassies abroad for the purposes of trade than in trying to give the impression to our own people at home and, to some extent, I suppose, to people abroad, that we are an up and coming nation in the diplomatic sphere.

That seems to be the theme song of the Minister for External Affairs, particularly over the past few years: the wonderful part we are taking in U.N.O. and the various other international organisations. In the last analysis, however, there will be no use in our acting like broken-down gentry or broken-down grandees in all these international organisations. It will be poor consolation to our people to know that we are among the first of the nations to pay our entry fees to these exclusive clubs of international goodwill, if I may call them such, if they find that what we should be doing through the Department of External Affairs is not being done, that is, putting our economy on a sound basis through the export of our industrial products.

Again, the question has been raised which is so often discussed here: what are we doing for our unfortunate people who have to emigrate? The problem is not merely the concern of this Parliament, but has persisted all the years back. At one time, it was a case of emigration to America, but for some years back, it has been emigration to England. Some people may say that is all right, that England is near and that the emigrant can come back by air or by boat within a few hours. While we are concentrating, apparently on keeping a good name for ourselves in other countries, what are we doing to keep in contact with our emigrants who, unfortunately, have to leave this country every year?

No later than to-day, I met a young man and woman from the south of Ireland who are emigrating to Manchester. I wonder will these two young people, never having been in Dublin before, not to mention England, have to depend on the goodwill of foreigners to guide them around Manchester and to advise them as regards the possibility of securing proper lodging and the other facilities that go to make up life in such places? They have been uprooted from their own land and now face different conditions in another country. Surely, it is within the compass of the Department of External Affairs, presided over by the Minister, to form some kind of social or other association enabling us to keep in contact with our emigrants and with the various Irish organisations in the countries to which they must go.

What attempt is being made by the Minister for External Affairs to assure those people who have left their own country owing to economic conditions that though they have left, we have not forgotten them. They should not be left to the mercies of the waves. Some attempt should be made, even through the voluntary organisations and religious organisations in different countries, particularly in England, to rehabilitate them in their new surroundings and to keep them in contact with their own country. We all know that many young people who have gone to England, having lost their home ties, are becoming more English than the English themselves. Much of the blame and the responsibility for that is ours but we are not prepared to accept that responsibility. I urge the Minister to co-operate with the various voluntary organisations with a view to remedying that situation.

In regard to the Common Market, the other night I dealt with a few points under that heading. I had intended drawing attention to what was mentioned on page 3 of the White Paper, that is, our endeavour to secure membership or association. We are still bewildered by the fact that on the same day as this White Paper was issued the Taoiseach made it perfectly clear in this House that our ambition now is membership, not association. Therefore, the statement in the White Paper and that made by the Taoiseach are conflicting. We are still in the dark as to whether it is the Taoiseach's intention, when he goes abroad within the next week or so to discuss this matter with the Prime Minister of another country, to seek membership of or association with the Common Market.

Many speakers last week and again this week have drawn attention to the position of Britain vis-à-vis the Twenty-Six Counties. We all know— we cannot run away from the fact— that the advantages are with us in relation to trading agreements with Britain. We all know we could not afford to say in the morning that we will enter the Common Market, if that organisation will accept us, whether or not Britain likes it. We all know the dog in the manger attitude, on the other hand; if Britain enters the Common Market, we will not. That attitude, of course, will get us just nowhere.

In examining and assessing the situation, we should not forget that, in our trading arrangements with Britain, the arrangements are as much to our benefit as to Britain's benefit. I would not for a moment wish it to go out from here that we are the favoured few, as it were, where trading arrangements with Britain are concerned. I mentioned last week that when conditions were favourable, Britain negotiated a trade treaty, favourable to herself, but to our disadvantage, with Denmark. Remembering the history of this country, we cannot pretend that Britain was ever prepared to fall over us for love of our country. I believe the past is the guide to the future. When discussing the pros and cons, the advantages and disadvantages, in relation to the Common Market proposition, we should not run away with the idea that Britain will do nothing unless it suits us. Britain will do what suits herself.

At the moment Britain is on the horns of a dilemma. Australia and New Zealand are making it quite clear where they stand. In the friendly talks that are scheduled to take place next week between the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister, I hope there will be no pretence that our attitude will be simply one of trusting Britain to see that we are properly looked after. It is quite correct, as Deputy Dillon said, that we let the Danes in ahead of us in the not too distant past. It could easily happen that by hanging on to the coat-tails of Britain in this particular issue, we might once more find ourselves missing the bus, to the discomfort not alone of the Government but of the country as a whole in the years to come.

When we come to consider application for membership to the Common Market, we are faced with another problem, with a real headache. How will entry affect us industrially if we are accepted? Over the years, complaint has been made, and rightly so, of some of our Irish industrialists. Many of them took an unfair advantage of very high tariffs. Many of them made hay while the sun shone at the expense of the Irish people. If we take this step to its logical conclusion, there may be a danger of cutting off our noses to spite our faces. There may be a danger that some of our industrialists will fall by the wayside. Some may say that would be good enough for them. With the removal of tariffs, our industrialists will have to wake up and face very severe competition, the kind of competition they cannot possibly meet. If that happens, it is not the industrialists who will suffer; they have made their pile. In the last analysis, it will be the Irish worker who will suffer.

Not so long ago, the Taoiseach hinted that the only hope for some of our Irish industrialists lay in small groups combining together. If they do not do that, they will fade away. We do not know at this stage what will really happen but we do know, accepting the figures submitted by O.E.E.C. and other organisations, that entry into the Common Market in certain circumstances could mean the unemployment of anything from 60,000 to 100,000 Irish workers in a fairly short time. I do not say this for the purpose of trying to frighten our workers. Neither do I say it from any wish to embarrass the Government. The fact is that entry into the Common Market will have very serious consequences and we must examine all angles in order to achieve the results for which we all hope, namely, benefits for the Twenty-Six Counties. Irish industrialists will have to face continental competition, competition founded on tremendous capital resources. The Irish industrialist will also have to meet the competition of his British equivalent.

We should not be too preoccupied with the Rome Treaty. It sounds well, but, God knows, there have been many treaties in the past and, when it suited the parties to those treaties, they were broken and thrown on the scrapheap. We have had that experience ourselves. I am sure the Minister for External Affairs has garnered much experience on his trips abroad of treaties that looked wonderful on paper but ended up scarcely worth the paper on which they were written.

Because of the failure of the Taoiseach and the Minister for External Affairs to explore over the past few years the possibilities of membership of the Common Market and the possibility of certain advantages accruing to us, as against any disadvantages that might be imposed upon us, we are not now in a position to know whether we are going or coming in relation to this proposition. There are old-established firms that will hold their own with any group of industries in the world, but they are few and far between. We do not want to see imports coming in here from the Common Market countries while our workers are out of employment. But that may be the evolution of events. We must be prepared to safeguard our workers at all costs. That is why I complain that the Taoiseach and the Ministers have made no attempt to discuss the situation with the statesmen of these European countries and have made no attempt to find out how the evolution in Europe will affect us here. Apparently the Taoiseach and the Minister are prepared to wait and see what Britain will do, and we will then do likewise.

There are people outside this House, organised and unorganised, who have been drawing attention to the wonderful advantages that may be offered to us from the point of view of agriculture. It is true that there will be vast markets opened up to us for the consumption of meat and milk. But that may have the result of leaving us with a lopsided agricultural economy. Italy is one of the subscribers to the Common Market. We know how cheaply sugar is produced in Italy. Will we be satisfied to improve one sector of our agricultural economy and to let another down? I am afraid that we may unwittingly encourage a reversion to the old system of ranching. Even with an improved agricultural economy on that basis, I would still be opposed to such a reversion.

What would be the result on employment in the agricultural industry? Some may say that the result would be to help the farmer. It probably would. We all want to help the farmer, but I want to help the farm worker, too. Over the years, whether under a Fianna Fáil Government or an inter-Party Government, the trend has been towards a reduction in the number of men employed in agriculture, apart from family units. I should like more information as to the effect on agriculture of our joining the Common Market.

It may be contended that there is free employment of workers within the Common Market countries and that the roving Irish can go into any of these continental countries and get employment there, should we be members of the Community. Yet, the figures submitted show quite clearly that the movement of labour between the various countries of the Six has been very small. There has been a fair amount of labour transferred from Italy to France and Germany; there has been a small movement between some of the other countries, but the overall picture is not promising. I have no doubt that young Irishmen wishing to move to the Continent would find language and other difficulties and that the picture is not as rosy as some people would wish them to believe.

The view is being expressed by many people that the members of the Common Market are, as it were, a closed society and that the danger is if you are out you will be left out and that these countries will not trade with you. The strange thing is that not-withstanding the reductions in tariffs between the Six and the fact that they are building a wall around themselves, trade with these countries individually with outside countries has increased considerably. It is wrong to create panic amongst the general public by suggesting that if we are not in the Common Market the member countries cannot trade with us, that we will be boycotted.

I do not say that we should not enter the Common Market but I do say that it is essential to get a clear view as to what membership may mean. I am not dealing with the political aspect of the matter, as a Deputy did here the other evening. It is for all of us to guess. I shall not be sarcastic in my remarks about what the political views of the Government or any other Party may be, but I do say quite openly that while I never have been and, please God, never will be, an admirer or lover of capitalism, the picture before us at the present time clearly indicates the danger that the wedge is being driven in by a certain country in the East. We cannot help it. We may not love capitalism but none of us loves Communism and we must be careful.

It may be that some connected with the Common Market may not be all that we would wish for but we have not too many choices in this case. We cannot pick and choose. We will have to be careful. I many be wrong but it seems to me that the only alternative is to keep aloof. In that case we would be isolating ourselves and perhaps not being of benefit to mankind at a period in history when co-operation is urgently required from all who believe in Christianity.

While awaiting the outcome of negotiations between Britain and the Common Market, it might help us if we endeavoured to increase our exports to other countries. The countries that come to mind are some of the African independent States, to which reference has been made in Departmental bulletins on the subject of trade. I am not advocating an increase in trade with these countries solely for the benefit of these freedom-loving nations. They are free nations now. If we can create a sense of co-operation between ourselves and these countries, it may increase our bargaining power when we ask for entry to the Common Market and make the case that we require special consideration. If we could show our list of customers, as it were, our anxiety to improve our economy, and that our economy is improving because of our trade with these countries, we might then be in a better position, in an independent position, in seeking entry to the Common Market. We would not be depending on the goodwill of Britain and the other countries concerned.

It may take 12 months—years if Australia and New Zealand have their way—before the British make up their mind. It is a mistake for us to await that result before we move. I am not saying that we should immediately apply for entry. On the other hand I am not saying that we should not enter. We should put out feelers to find out, as the Greeks did, what concessions and advantages would be offered to us. At the same time we should try to improve our trade relations with other countries and that might perhaps help us when the ultimate decision must be made in this House.

We all know how much this matter means to the country as a whole. I sincerely hope that this will not be made a Party issue. This question may be serious for ourselves but, above all, it may be serious for the country. It may be more serious for the next few generations than any of us here realise. We could say to some people that they could gain immensely if the Government entered the Common Market and we could say to others that they would be out of employment if the Government enter the Common Market. To do that would be unfair and dishonest politically. It would affect the welfare of our people. If that sort of thing is to be avoided and if all Parties are to keep a straight course in regard to this issue, the Taoiseach and the Minister for External Affairs must be prepared, not only as a matter of courtesy but as a matter of necessity, to bring in for full discussion, on a private basis, the leaders of all Parties, who are all equally anxious that there should be a successful outcome to this question as to whether or not we should enter the Common Market.

Mr. Dillon

We are in the rather unsatisfactory position that we are discussing three things at present: the Department of External Affairs Vote, the future of O.E.C.D. and the problem presented to us by the emergence in urgent form of our membership of the Common Market. I want to refer particularly to the general question of the Vote for External Affairs before I touch on certain other matters. First, I should like to say that we gladly join in the tribute to our forces which are at present deployed in the Congo in the United Nations' operation proceeding there. It was a source of satisfaction to all of us, naturally, that our troops fulfilled our confident anticipation that they would reflect credit upon us all in the work they are doing and in the manner of their doing it, not least among their distinctions being the reputation of the private soldier and N.C.O. who, after all, have perhaps the most difficult part of the task to discharge, coming as they do in regular and constant contact with a sensitive people, but who, from all reports, have managed to meet that novel problem with a striking measure of success.

Nor would anyone of us wish to forget the distinction that has fallen upon the ex-Chief of Staff, General Seán McKeown, who is now the United Nations' Commander-in-Chief in the Congo, and who has fulfilled all the anticipations we all had that he would demonstrate how admirably a soldier trained in the Irish tradition would bear the heavy responsibility, both military and diplomatic, he has been called upon to undertake. But, while we gladly pay that tribute, I am somewhat surprised that the Minister did not avail of the occasion to give us some indication of what the ultimate scope of our responsibility in the Congo is going to be.

I remember, when we first decided to undertake the assignment of joining in the Congo operation at the request of the Secretary-General, I asked the Minister to inform us as soon as possible what the scope of our assignment was and what its probable duration would be. On that occasion he said it was a bit premature to expect him to be in a position to furnish that information. I think, before this debate concludes, he should be prepared to give us some forecast of what his and the Government's judgement is of the probable duration of our responsibility in the Congo and the shape of things to come there.

Apart from that matter, the question also causing me concern is how far our embassies abroad are adequately equipped to assist in the promotion of trade. I do not think any embassy is properly equipped in any centre of significance if it has not attached to it a trade attaché, who is in a position to give counsel and advice to Irish businessmen, who are in the capital or in the country to which our embassy is accredited, on business conditions in that area. I am not entirely satisfied that we are so equipped at present. I know there are other agencies, such as Coras Trachtála, charged with responsibility in this matter. But there can be no substitute, I think, for a trade attaché who would be in a position to give any businessman coming from this country on-the-spot advice as to the conditions of trade and the special circumstances attendant on trade in the particular countries where Irishmen seek to do business. One of the greatest difficulties on entering foreign markets is to familiarise one-self with the business procedures of foreign countries which often differ, perhaps in detail or perhaps in large measure, from the ordinary business procedure with which we are familiar in our own country.

Another matter in which, I think, the Department of External Affairs does not play its full part is this. If delegates are going from Ireland to trade or vocational conferences abroad, which are not of a strictly official character, there do not seem to be any facilities for delegates representing Ireland to get from the Department of External Affairs any briefing or advice on the attitude it would be appropriate for them to adopt at the conference in question. I am fully conscious of the fact that the Department would not wish to control or direct delegates going to vocational or business conferences abroad, where the Department itself or the Government were not directly responsible for the attitude to be taken by the delegates in question. But there ought to be facilities available to such delegates, where they deem it in the public interest, to inform themselves of Government policy on the matters likely to be discussed at these conferences with a view to reconciling, insofar as they think proper, the attitude adopted by them with the general policy of the Government for the time being. I think such discussions could be made available without imposing obligations on either party to them. But the present position, as I understand it, is that delegates frequently are anxious to get that information, but find that that service is not available from the Department of External Affairs. That is a matter to which, I think, the Minister might, with advantage, look.

I appreciate the difficulty of providing quasi-social services for our emigrants abroad, but the plain fact is that the time is past when we can stick our heads in the sand and pretend we do not know what is going on. Circumstances in this country have been such during the last four years that 200,000 of our people have emigrated. Among that vast flood of emigration there have been a great many young people. For country boys to find themselves suddenly translated into the atmosphere of large British industrial cities, the ordeal must be very great, but after all, once a young man has reached his majority and sallies forth into the world, it is extremely difficult to suggest that it is the responsibility of the Government to watch over him with the fatherly solicitude and care with which they might be charged so long as he was resident at home. The fact is that amongst our emigrants there are now a very large number of young girls emigrating to Great Britain at astonishingly early ages. There are girls leaving this country of 15, 16, 17 and 18 years of age, plunging into the vortex of life in cities like London, Birmingham and Glasgow. It is quite manifest in regard to a number of them that they have not the supervision, the direction or the care which girls of that tender age should have, with disastrous consequences.

I am saying to the Minister for External Affairs that I believe the time has come when we should face that problem and ask ourselves if we have not a very solemn duty to provide some machinery whereby contact can be kept with these girls and whereby some centre will be created for such girls to which they could return in times of stress or to which the parents of such girls could turn, if at any time that contact between themselves and their child had been disrupted—a contact which it should be possible to restore through ordinary channels.

I wish I could say that I thought the problem was one of very limited scope. I am not at all sure it is. I believe it is beginning to assume such proportions that we should really consider requiring certain preliminary precautions to be taken for the safety of the girls before they are allowed to leave this country below a certain age by way of ensuring that some regular employment will be available for them and that some machinery will exist which will guarantee them against a feeling of isolation and abandonment in a strange city in time of need.

It would be wrong to exaggerate a problem of this kind; it would be equally wrong to minimise it. I am now satisfied that it is of dimensions which require urgent attention and I should be glad to hear from the Minister what, if anything, he suggests might be done to provide protection, guidance and, above all, friendly solicitude for any of our young girls who find themselves in need of it in the tragically unfamiliar atmosphere in which they find themselves in a British industrial city, having spent their youth in rural Ireland.

When I hear a discussion in this House on the problems confronting this country consequent upon the urgency of the Common Market problem being thrust upon us, I cannot but regret again and again that the Government were not more far-seeing and sympathetic when we suggested, four years ago, that a study group representative of Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann should be established through which we might have familiarised ourselves through the years with the events that were at hand and the problems that will arise from them.

We now find ourselves in the extraordinary situation in which on 26th April, 1960, the Taoiseach was telling us that the best situation possible for us would be association with the Common Market if Britain were also a member of it, on a basis which was to take account of the economic circumstances. That, said the Taoiseach, is still the Government's appreciation of the position. That was still the Government's appreciation of the position when the Taoiseach spoke on 16th May, 1961, less than two months ago.

Last Wednesday, we were informed that the Government had taken a decision that if Great Britain entered the Common Market, Ireland should enter it, too. Mr. Menzies in Australia has expressed astonishment at the decision of the British Government to enter the Common Market. Mr. Holyoake of New Zealand expressed his consternation on this decision being communicated to him. I do not think it is surprising that in Dáil Éireann, where we were told two short months ago that association with the Common Market was the best thing for Ireland, we should express surprise that two or three days ago, the Government decided to make a radical alteration in their appreciation of the situation and have now decided that full membership is what this country should go for.

Personally, I doubt if this country has really much to fear from the operation of free trade bearing in mind that some of the greatest industries in this country were established under the free blast of free trade. Messrs. Guinness grew to be the greatest brewery in the world without protection; Jacobs came to be the greatest biscuit factory in the world without protection. In fact, it was the operation of protection that drove part of Messrs. Guinness' and Messrs. Jacobs' business—the export business —to Great Britain. People often forget that the greatest shipyards in the world, including Messrs. Harland and Wolfe, grew to be the greatest shipyards in the world under free trade.

Agricultural output in this country, I am convinced, could be vastly expanded and in that situation I believe it could hold its own, given access to the British market and other markets on fair terms, but in that context it is important to be realistic and it is only misleading people to hold out the prospect that the prices ruling for certain agricultural production in certain European countries at the present time will be universally accessible to farmers in the Common Market, if we join it. The prices at present being paid in many continental countries—in practically all continental countries—to farmers for their output belong in a background of a carefully-managed industrial-agricultural economy. They do not represent the prices paid by those countries for imported foodstuffs. The farmer in Switzerland may be getting 4/10d. a dozen for hen eggs but they are Swiss eggs. The farmer in Denmark who is an exporter of eggs is getting 2/4d. The farmer in Norway may be getting 3/5d. a gallon for milk but it is Norwegian milk. The farmer in Denmark who is exporting dairy produce is getting from 1/11d. to 2/1d. a gallon subject to a charge of 7d. a gallon for skimmed milk.

The prices ruling under any foreseeable agricultural set-up under the Common Market will I believe be prices with which we can trade profitably and well but they will not be prices set out in Appendix II of the White Paper. I think it is very important that those who are considering what the Common Market will look like when a common agricultural policy is evolved for it — no such policy has yet been determined — should remember, when that policy is evolved, that prices will be something possibly between the highest and the lowest mentioned in Appendix II of the White Paper, but they will not approximate to the highest prices there described.

While our record in the past entitles us to believe with a very substantial measure of confidence that we can meet whatever obligations the Common Market involves us in on the agricultural front and on a wide sector of the industrial front, it would be folly at this stage to close our eyes to the fact that since 1932 we embarked upon a high tariff quota policy on the industrial side which brought into existence a number of industrial units in this country which have never professed to be in a position to manufacture for a world market. The expediency of doing that has been canvassed in this House down through these years and there is no use arguing that problem any more.

We are faced with the fact that there are hundreds of men and women in this country dependent for their living on the employment they have in some of these industrial units. What our prime concern at this time should be is to ensure that there shall be no ruthless policy of breaking eggs in order to make economic omelettes. I have seen too many eggs broken in this country to make economic omelettes. I have seen the farmers of West Cork driven to destitution during the economic war because, I was told, you cannot have omelettes without breaking eggs.

That hateful tragedy was persisted in and to my personal knowledge there are hundreds of farmers in this country who were rendered destitute in those detestable days who have never recovered and who have been poor ever since. Many of them gave up the fight and left the land and are now lost in the vortex of British industrial cities or further afield. I shall most strongly object to any similar treatment being meted out to those who have spent 15 or 20 years of their lives, their best years, in industrial employment into which they were encouraged to go by our own Government. Those industries which may suffer as a result of the impact of the Common Market problem are entitled to expect not only for those who invested their lives in them that they will not be thrown on the scrapheap in their middle age and be told: "You cannot have omelettes without breaking eggs" and that, unfortunately, in this case, it is their turn to be the eggs.

It is a thousand pities we did not avail of the years that are now gone to prepare for this situation. It is fortunate, without any informed forecast of what is likely to happen, that we may still have time in hand in which to help these people. We may still be able to deploy our resources to the limit of our ability in order to protect them from the ruthless assault that was made on their unfortunate agricultural brethren 30 years ago.

I want to ask not only the Minister but this House a question. It is a question I do not think anybody has so far asked himself in public who is associated with this whole project of the Common Market. If we are to be realists let us be realists. If the Common Market has in it the dynamism and the hope we believe it has, it can do for Europe what has already been done for West Berlin. But do not let us forget that Europe lives in the shadow of a constant threat of conquest. At the present moment there is proceeding in the world a tornado of propaganda that West Berlin is an anachronism that Russia and the Cominform can no longer tolerate.

If West Berlin is to-day such an offence in the eyes of the Cominform— I do not blame them for finding it an offence because it is a constant demonstration to their slaves in Eastern Germany and the satellite States of what freedom means as opposed to serfdom —as Western Europe grows in affluence, in freedom and economic strength in the Common Market, does experience not tell us that if West Berlin is an offence to them to-day Western Europe will be an offence to them to-morrow? How long would West Berlin survive in the absence of the United States' troops?

Suppose there was no American involvement in West Berlin? How long would the resources of Western Europe hold up the Cominform? Does any Deputy seriously suggest that if tomorrow the United States declared herself disinterested in the future of West Berlin, a combination of France, Western Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Belgium and Holland would stay the hand of the Cominform in West Berlin? Does any Deputy reading the morning paper ask himself what are the reactions in Rome or Paris on the future of West Berlin, or does he turn to the Letter from America to see what Washington thinks? Do we not all know that the survival of West Berlin depends on how far the United States of America is prepared to defend it? If that is true of West Berlin, how much more true is it of Western Europe? If it is true, as I believe it is true, that Western Europe depends for its survival on its alliance with the United States of America, why do not we awake to the fact that this world in which we are living is a world at war and will go on being a world at war for the lifetime of the youngest amongst us?

It is not a shooting war but it is a cold war, and it is being fought very largely with the weapons of the cold war, but it is no less real a war for that. If that proposition is true, how can any rational person believe that the United States of Europe, without a corresponding link with America and the rest of the free world, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, can long survive? How can the free world protect itself by strangling one half of itself? How could the free world protect itself by cutting itself off from the United States, from Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the like?

Are there to be perennial raids on the currency of this country and that country? Are we to have recurrent economic crises because the balance of trade is unsatisfactory, or will we ultimately reach a stage at which the resources of the free world will combine for its defence, so that we can say to the prosecutors of the cold war: "Accumulate sterling, dollars or any currency of the free world you choose. We are not worried. We do not intend to redeem it in gold. We do not intend to get fussed or bothered that you hold these multitudinous claims against us. Dispose of them how you will. If we have goods to sell for them, we will sell them; if we have not, convert them into roubles if you want, or put them into your stocking, but one thing is certain: you will precipitate no crisis here and our joint defences are disposed in our own defence and there is no recourse you can call on strong enough or large enough to challenge our safety, short of recourse to war, shooting war, and that means mutual destruction. If we are to go to that length, then according to your belief we can blow you out like a candle flame. The worst you can do to us is abbreviate our pilgrimage on earth."

How long is the free world to stand on the defensive? How long is the free world to be driven from point to point, getting itself into enclaves always to resist Communist threats of extermination? When is it to step out and take the initiative in the name of freedom? When is it to step out and announce to the tyrant of the world that we do not seek war, that we do not want war but we are resolved to be free, and that to that end we are going to defend our resources and challenge all comers that if he strikes one of us, he strikes all; that if his weapons be economic, then our resources are great enough and united enough to resist the heaviest blow he can aim against us, and that though we may dispose of power, sufficient to destroy him, we have no such aggressive intent. We are content to wait for his conversion to the truth because we believe the truth is great and will ultimately prevail but it is also true that if in the assertion of our right to be free, we are challenged in arms that is a challenge we will also meet.

The day the free world can make that resolution we will cease to be in the perennial panic-stricken retreat in which unhappily the free world finds itself today. I often wonder are fine words to be measured in the free world with fine deeds, because as surely as tomorrow's day dawns, the finest words that statesmen can issue will be put to that proof. Unless we are prepared to combine our resources in the free world, Nemesis inevitably awaits us and in the cruel game of world politics today, the man who bluffs is lost. We have the means to challenge any rival, to call his hand in the certainty that if our resources are combined, they are more than enough to hold their own, but unless and until we are prepared to face that fact and turn our minds courageously to the future, assuming a vigorous initiative in defence of freedom, we will be forced into mutual strangulation, to the delight of our enemies and the despair of our friends.

That is why the Minister for Industry and Commerce and myself find ourselves in the embarrassing situation of being in agreement about the desirability ultimately of associating with the United States of America and the Commonwealth, including Canada, New Zealand and Australia and the other freedom-loving countries of the world, in a wider and greater organisation than the European free market at present represents.

I warn the House of the danger that the greater the measure of success that attends the concept of the economic union of Europe, the greater the measure of danger that arises and unless we look beyond to something so mighty that it can afford to stand alone, more than a match for any combination that tyranny can form, we and our associates in the Common Market may be walking into mortal peril. Provided we have our eye upon a greater objective, then I think we should take the risk of showing the way, but in the certain knowledge that we are venturing forth on a great adventure to restore the initiative to freedom in the world and to assert mankind's inalienable right, under the provenance of God, to be masters of their destiny and not the slaves of their dictators.

I see in the Common Market a challenge, and one of which I am not in the least afraid, always provided we look towards it and beyond it, and work beyond it to greater things. Then indeed it is a crusade for freedom. If we do less than that, it may well be that we are delivering ourselves into the hands of the common enemy.

I want to say a word about a topic that has been completely lost sight of, although nominally we are supposed to be discussing a motion directly related to it, that is, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the O.E.C.D., which is taking the place of the O.E.E.C. I think I said on one occasion that if the O.E.E.C. were to live up to its lofty title, it was time it woke up to the fact that one of its most important assignments was to ensure that the result of its existence would not be to make the rich richer while the poor were getting poorer and that there was great danger of that dynamic becoming part of its structure.

I want to say now that with the emergence of the O.E.C.D. that challenge still confronts it. I remember once saying when we were discussing the future of the O.E.E.C., that I was prepared to apply this simple test to its agricultural branch which had recently been established: if the Secretary General of the agricultural section of the O.E.E.C. could find in the whole world a market for one cran of Irish herring I would regard it as having justified itself, but that I was tired of passing resolutions and perusing masses of what are known at these gatherings as documentation, the vast bulk of which no one read, and at least one half of which no one understood, but which poured forth upon us in a white snowstorm every time we met. We used to stagger away from each meeting burdened down by masses of this material but the discovery of an additional market for anyone's produce, it seemed to me, was a mundane topic beneath the attention of the exalted international bureaucracy that presided over this organisation.

The O.E.C.D. is now on the threshold of its existence. Mind you, one of the new factors in the O.E.C.D. is the admission to full membership of the United States of America and Canada. They were observers only at the O.E.E.C. I beg Deputies to bear that fact in mind in connection with what I have just been saying in regard to the European Economic Community.

If it is desirable to bring the United States of America and Canada into the O.E.C.D., how obvious it is that it is infinitely more urgent that they should participate in what seems to me to be the much more enduring project of the United States of Europe which should become an Atlantic United States wide enough to cover the free world. As O.E.C.D. emerges, whatever its future functions may be in the new world created by the emergence of this Common Market—and I think its future usefulness is open to doubt—if it has any future usefulness, I want to utter this warning first of all. Its primary duty should be to ensure that amongst the many nations that subscribe to it, we will not have a situation developing in the hereafter in which the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. One of its functions should be to prevent that happening.

If they want to know how to prevent it happening, I think we in Ireland should say: "What we want— and we are an undeveloped country and a poor country—in Ireland is trade, not aid. We are not asking anyone for hand-outs. We do not want them. We do want an opportunity to earn our bread by the sweat of our brow. If we produce good products, we want an opportunity of selling them at prices which will enable us to live."

That is a modest aspiration. That is the assignment we give these people. If they ask in reply: "How is that to be done?" I think there is a ready answer. It may not be the right answer but it will do until someone has a better one. The method by which it could be done tomorrow is for the members of the O.E.C.D. to accept liability to accept from each of its fellow members at least one per cent. of its total imports. That in itself would be an immense step forward in a programme to ensure that in that organisation, the rich would not get richer while the poor got poorer.

If each wealthy member of that association had on it an obligation either to buy for cash a minimum of one per cent. of its total imports from each individual member or, in default, deposit the price of one per cent. of its imports until such time as it can be used for the purchase of goods in that country, that would be one fundamental step on the road to providing trade rather than aid to the less wealthy members of this association of nations, whose professed aim is mutual aid with a higher standard of living for all.

I sometimes feel a sense of frustration and fatuity among the nations of the free world. I sometimes feel that the initiative has passed irrevocably from us, and yet we have everything that matters. We have all the things for which the enslaved people would cheerfully give their very lives to enjoy. We have all that the people of Hungary made the streets run red to win; yet we are on the defensive and the slave owners are riding high wide and handsome in the world. That is largely a pyschological problem and the reason the slave owners are riding high, wide and handsome up to this is that the first hypothesis on which they function is: "Our resources are combined and anyone who touches one of us touches all." True there may be cracks emerging in the monolithic Sino-Russian combination now. How far the free world is capable of widening those cracks it is hard to say but an essential preliminary effectively to take from them the initiative that they now have, and to press on them the challenge that they now seek to press on us, depends on our readiness in the free world effectively to combine our resources and to proclaim our common loyalty to one another in good time.

Time runs against us because as we wait the margins of freedom are being nibbled away. While we wait those who, by their geographical circumstances have great strain put upon them from the side of freedom and the side of servitude, are forced to slither into the chains of servitude.

It may be odd that in Dáil Éireann such concepts should be formulated. We have little power, we have less wealth, but we are still free to think, to dream dreams and to see visions. I think these are dreams that should commend themselves to the free world. These are visions that could lead to a really enduring, worthwhile future for us all. If the Common Market is the first step on such a pilgrimage it is one we should take; if it is not, I have serious apprehensions that instead of being the first step on a pilgrimage to enduring freedom and enduring greatness for the free world, it might be the preparation of Europe for its final engulfment by the tyranny of communism.

I should like to hear the Irish Minister for External Affairs express his views on that. I would see him in a much more inspiring rôle if he were exhorting the world to travel that road than I do when I see him burning the midnight oil in order to ensure the question of the admission of Red China to the United Nations should be put upon the Agenda of the United Nations while he still has not made up his mind how he will vote if he is ever asked to do so as a result of his original request being granted.

Mr. Cosgrave

We now have the debate widened to include not only the Estimate for the Department but also the question of the Common Market and the ratification of the new O.E.C.D. Convention. I should, however, at this stage like to say a few words on the Estimate itself and to dwell for a moment on the general rôle of this country in international affairs.

Since Ireland was elected a member of the United Nations we have taken up an independent and detached position, one which has enabled us to play a rôle which I believe this country is well fitted to discharge and which has enabled us to secure recognition as a country which itself in the past endured all the worst forms of tyranny and oppression. Since we achieved freedom to run our own affairs, while recognising the many disabilities which countries suffering from oppression are obliged to endure, nevertheless, we have as a result probably of our historical experiences a unique opportunity to stand as an example to many new States which have recently secured independence and self-Government. In fulfilling that function and discharging that responsibility we recognised initially that there are many disadvantages in adopting an independent and detached approach to the questions and problems which beset not alone this country but other countries in the present international situation.

It would have been easy for this country to have associated itself with one or other bloc in the United Nations and, from many points of view, membership of a group, or bloc, has advantages. When we adopted an independent attitude, however, we did so in the knowledge that we could better reflect in our independence not alone our own viewpoint but also our traditions and could show that our aim was, in serving as a member of the United Nations, to endeavour to give something to that organisation rather than seek something from it for ourselves. As a result of our attitude in that organisation, we have, I think, secured international recognition as a country devoted to the ideals of peace, because we recognise that a true peace must be based on both justice and equity.

In recent years, we have heard the word "peace" debased on many occasions by Communist and quasi-Communist propaganda. We can well imagine such a peace, a peace imposed by tyranny or force. The peace which we seek, on the other hand, is very different. It is a peace founded on justice and equity in which no nation attempts to impose its will on another, in which all live in harmony, in which all respect the rights of others. Numerous conferences directed to securing peace have been held. Various negotiations and discussions have taken place, either for the purpose of dealing with specific tasks or with the wider aim of securing international agreement. Some, indeed many, of these conferences have been exploited for propaganda purposes by those who attend them. That is evident when we consider the Communist propaganda and tactics by which Communists seek to create the impression that they desire peace. In fact, their object is to create dissension by sowing the seeds of discontent and discord wherever they consider the ground is fertile.

It is dangerous to imagine Communism purely as an historical phenomenon. Communism is an evil creed opposed to Christianity and pledged to pursue its aim by different means according to the particular circumstances existing and utilising every opportunity to spread and disseminate that doctrine. Unfortunately, the message of Communism has had strong attractions. Fortunately, successive exposures of Communist hollowness and deceit have opened the eyes of many. It is in that latter rôle that this country can play a useful part outside the Communist bloc, darkened as it is by one of the most cruel and ruthless tyrannies in history.

There is some room for hope. One of the most encouraging signs and one of the most encouraging developments in the post-war era has been the emergence of many former colonial countries into full self-government. These new nations have a very important part to play, conscious as they are especially of the importance of the freedom which they have so lately acquired for themselves. It is equally important that these countries should be on their guard against threats to freedom elsewhere. The lessons to be learned from recent events in eastern Europe show how serious the threat can be. These former colonial territories which have secured the liberty to which all peoples are entitled must shoulder the responsibilities which go with that liberty and freedom. They are no less important than the right of each nation to decide its own destiny.

These nations must act in a reasonable manner with due regard for the wider interest of world peace. Whatever some states or nations may have done in the past, and many have grievous stains on their records, we will not solve future problems by an obsession with past offences. It should be the aim to expose wrongs and endeavour to have them corrected. Many former colonial powers have in recent times set a good example in this regard. This country, recognising the responsibilities and duties which devolve upon a country that has secured the right to govern itself, has a vital part to play in that policy and in leading these emergent countries along the paths we believe can strengthen the defence of the free world.

We have a duty in the free world to show that freedom and justice based on moral principles are the only foundations on which a lasting peace can be built. It would be folly—it would be a fatal error, indeed—to repeat what happened in somewhat similar circumstances prior to the last war when threatened nations, and not only the smallest of them, sought their own safety at the expense of others. In the end, all were overwhelmed in the holocaust. Each nation has a duty to see that the fundamental principles which preserve the liberty and the rights of the individual, of the family and of the national entities are respected.

The great advances in science and technology pose increasingly difficult problems. The grim shadow of nuclear warfare hangs over the world. The way to match Soviet tactics is for the free world to maintain a position of strength — moral, economic, and military. The Communists appreciate strength and, when confronted with it, recognise their own potential danger. I welcome the announcement of the United States Government that they propose to increase the strength of their armed forces. To that end, increased expenditure is to be undertaken on defence. This seems to be the right policy, however costly it may be. The surest guarantee of peace is to maintain the defences of the free world at maximum strength and efficiency. The necessity for unity in the West and the importance of maintaining the solidarity of the free world are manifest. The examples I mentioned which occurred prior to the last war show how easy it is for a position to deteriorate. The examples became a habit in which one error led to another and each successive error became more grievous.

Recent discussions at the United Nations show that moral force can affect, and to some extent has affected, the Communist leaders. As a small country devoted to the ideal of peaceful settlement of disputes and the use of negotiations and discussions for the settlement of problems, we must endeavour to use our influence to that end. We recognise that the main defence of the free world depends on the strength of Western Europe, the United States of America and Canada. This country has throughout the world an influence far beyond any material strength or wealth. We have Irish missionaries in the emergent states of Africa; we have them in the United States of America, Canada and the Commonwealth countries. During the Patrician celebrations, striking tributes were paid to the work of Irish missionaries, priests, nuns and lay people in all parts of the world. The rôle which this country has played, the functions which we have endeavoured to fulfil in the various international organisations of which we are a member, the high regard and prestige which our people enjoy wherever they work and in whatever sphere of activity they serve, have all secured for this country recognition as a small country with a Christian heritage and tradition devoted to the ideals of peace based on justice.

Ireland is not and never has been neutral in the ideological struggle between Communism and the free world. Our future is indissolubly bound up with the West and it is our inescapable duty to use whatever moral force our influence carries so that the position of the West may be strengthened. In this way we can exert a considerable influence on the uncommitted countries and, while maintaining a position of independence, can use our influence so that we may lead some of the uncommitted countries in the right direction.

Firmness and a determination not to yield are the surest guarantees that the threat of Communism can be resisted. In that regard the actions of the free world should be guided by past experience and whether the issue is the freedom of Berlin or whatever other question appears uppermost at the moment, there must be determination not to yield before threats or propaganda or before efforts to divert attention at international conferences or gatherings, because the Communists suit their propaganda to the needs of the moment. The determination which has been evidenced recently in the United States of America to resist these attacks and to resist the efforts to force the free countries out of Berlin shows that all realise the dangers inherent in that line of policy.

It is true that as a small country without the great economic or military power other countries possess, we have not the same influence or the same physical strength, but if we adhere tenaciously to our principles and to the Christian philosophy which we have inherited, we can, in common with other countries with similar traditions, influence others in the right direction.

This country has shown that not only are we prepared to advocate this policy for application in other spheres but, since the establishment of the State, has demonstrated its recognition of the rights of all sections and of all classes. One of the problems, probably the last political problem, with which this country is faced, is the ending of Partition. The majority of Irish people and, indeed, a number of the minority, desire a united Ireland because they recognise that Partition is a temporary expedient and, while it continues, will mar the friendly relations which should exist between two neighbouring countries. On no democratic principle is it possible to justify the Partition of this country.

One of the causes of unrest in the world today is the treatment accorded to minorities in particular areas and the disruption which has resulted from the conditions in which minorities are obliged to live. In many cases elsewhere, different British Governments have shown an enlightened approach and have recognised that majorities as well as minorities find it possible to work together and to co-operate in the interests of all, if they are permitted to do so.

While the solution of the problem of Partition is mainly one for Irish people, north and south, it is nevertheless a triangular problem, dependent on co-operation in London, Dublin and Belfast. I welcome the change which has taken place in recent years in the national attitude to the solution of Partition. There has been a more sensible approach and a realistic appraisal of conditions. It may well be asked what advantages would accrue if there were a united Ireland. Many people consider that because there are more pressing problems elsewhere, this one can await solution at a further stage.

As I have said already, it is true we are a small country without any great material strength or wealth but we have a strength which goes beyond the mere physical size of the country. That strength depends on the influence which Irish people have in various parts of the world. It is from that strength as a Christian people that we can make a contribution to world peace. A united Ireland would inevitably be on closer and more friendly terms with Britain. It would end many of the old fears and hates and enable the people of this country to make a contribution to many of the problems which confront the free world.

Our aim is the solution of Partition on a basis that will enable all sections and all classes of people to live in Ireland in friendship and understanding. The people of this country who have gone to other lands and their descendants have shown, by their Christian tradition and background, which is a potential weapon in the defence of the free world, that the Irish people have a genius for working democratic institutions. We do not desire, therefore, a united Ireland which would allow any section to feel a grievance or to feel they have not got complete liberty of conscience and expression. While we appreciate that religious bigotry has been fostered and exploited for political purposes, we are conscious of the fact that we can truly assert that in no part of the world has there been greater care taken to ensure equality for minorities than in Ireland since 1922.

That is an incontestable fact. We are prepared to undergo any examination by an impartial tribunal to test the validity of that claim. We are satisfied that the verdict would reflect credit on the Irish people because of the impartial administration in respect of religious and political questions. We therefore hope that the improved relations which must flow from contacts between all sections of our people in both parts of the country will continue to grow and that the various manifestations of improvements in the relations between the people in both parts of the country will develop to such an extent that, when a solution of the problem is achieved, the harmony and co-operation which has existed between all sections in this part of the country will then be extended to a united Ireland.

I should like, in speaking on this Estimate, to express the pleasure and satisfaction which all derived from the election of the permanent representative of Ireland to the position of President of the General Assembly of the United Nations. The manner in which Ambassador Boland has discharged his duties as President is a tribute to himself and justifies the confidence with which he was chosen as our permanent representative when we were first elected to the United Nations Organisation.

The part which this country has been enabled to play and the work which our troops have done in the Congo, as well as the many functions of our official representatives in the United Nations, are in themselves a testimony to the capacity of the distinguished officials who have represented this country to work in the interests of that organisation and in the interests of peace. Our troops have reflected credit not only on themselves but on the country. They have shown that, when we have been afforded an opportunity, our Army as well as our permanent officials from the various Government Departments have reflected the highest credit on themselves and on the country.

Mr. G. Boland

I listened to Deputy Sherwin and, although I have a little sympathy for him, I should like to remind him that 40 years have passed since the Civil War. He need not have any qualms of conscience about the part he took at that time. He took the right side, although it happened to be the losing one for the moment. Deputy McGilligan and Deputy Dillon are very fond of reminding the Minister of what he said 30 years ago. Apparently, they forget we are now living in the atomic age and that there have been bigger changes in the world since the last war than there were, I suppose, for a thousand years before. They should forget about that and live in the present.

Deputy Sherwin thinks we should align ourselves with the people trying to stop the British joining the Common Market. I agree that whatever we can do to stop that would be very little and we would be ill-advised to try. The best thing for us to do is to let events take their course. Of course, there will be no alternative whatever if the British join the Common Market, as I personally believe they will because their ultimate interest is for them to join up with the rest of Europe. Has it occurred to anyone that if we do join the Common Market, one effect would be the disappearance of the customs posts on the Border? In that way, it would help to some extent to ease the position. If we are all joined economically in a Common Market, it will be a step towards eventual political re-union.

I would not have intervened at all, were it not for a speech made last week or the week before by the Speaker of the German Parliament, Herr Gerstenmaier. He said that the North Atlantic community ought to be extended to embrace the neutral countries. He mentioned six of them, including ourselves. If that happens—I think it should and it eventually must—then the whole question of Partition will become a very small matter indeed. I do not suppose it is possible for us to undo what has been done in the past— I know it is not—but I see in that suggestion an opening for the ultimate re-union of this country.

Another thing we all ought to remember is that, whatever about the English in the past, the no. 1 enemy to-day does not happen to be Britain. There is a new imperialism which is far more dangerous than ever the British imperialism was. It is up to us all, as far as we can, to unite to meet the menace which is threatening from the East. I hope our Government, if the opportunity offers will consider doing what Herr Gerstenmaier has suggested. In my opinion, that will be, if not the end of Partition, the beginning of the end.

Mr. Lindsay

In dealing with this Department, we must consider the advantages to be derived from the proper working of such a Department both at home and abroad, with, at the same time, a full appreciation of the difficulties which are and must inevitably be encountered during its operations in either sphere. I do not think that enough stress is being laid on the commercial side of the activities of our embassies. I think the time is well reached, if not passed, when trade attachés, commercial attachés, call them what you will, should play a very prominent part in each and every one of our embassies abroad. If such had been the case, we would not at this particular juncture of European history be in the position of setting up committees to make inquiries at home—and obviously inquiries will be made abroad also— to find out what the true position is when we are actually on the threshold of a forced decision but that is a matter which can wait for some moments while I deal with a few points in relation to the Department of External Affairs itself coupled, of course, with its activities abroad.

I join with the leader of the Opposition in urging the immediate setting up of emigrant guidance centres. So far, the Department of External Affairs, acting under Government policy, have taken no step whatsoever to assist the people engaged in this work voluntarily. Tribute must, and should be, paid to the various religious and lay organisations that devote so much of their time, zeal, ardour and money towards the provision of amenities and advice for people in need thereof. It is noteworthy that our embassies are extremely inactive, if not completely inactive, in this regard but that is not surprising because I find, both from information at my disposal and from personal experience, that when one is visiting a capital outside this country in which an embassy is situated you might as well be in the moon as far as the particular ambassadors are concerned.

Let me be no more specific than this. I refer to ambassadors at present serving. In passing, I might say that the present permanent head of the Department of External Affairs was one whose conduct his successors in various embassies could very well have emulated. Down through history a nation's influence and a nation's commercial enterprise abroad were very often fostered to the extent that they were fostered and developed by great ambassadors whose status was not that of an individual but was that of one properly dedicated to his nation's work, to the individual citizens of his nation, the trade of his nation and who, consistent with that nation's aspirations, had an eye to posterity. It is to be hoped that that particular aspect of our embassies' work will be examined. Ambassadors might remember that when resident abroad as ambassadors, they represent the Irish nation as a whole and all its citizens subject, of course, to the particular aspects of Government policy from time to time but they do not exclusively represent the Government of the day.

In the United Nations it is true that great progress has been made by way of establishing ourselves as a people of influence and a people whose example and philosophy might well be followed by world states, but let us not under any circumstances delude ourselves into believing that we are at this juncture, with particular reference to the subject matter included in this debate, an uncommitted nation. Having regard to the not so distant happenings in the political field within this country there has never been a greater myth developed than the myth of the uncommitted nation. In a world such as we live in now, torn between conflicting ideologies, there cannot be an uncommitted nation. The more we try to prove that we are an uncommitted nation, the more likely we are to be regarded as a people floundering in our already established philosophic beliefs, who have ceased to have any faith in them and who fail to assert them in a really uncommitted fashion.

It is rather regrettable that in this Estimate statement or subsequent statements, there is not included— I do not say this by way of being capricious in any manner— a statement of the activities of our various embassies in relation to trade development within the sphere of their operations. It would be of interest to us at this stage to have information of that vital nature through our embassies and through Córas Tráchtála so as to be assisted now in the decision that has to be made, if a decision has really to be made at all because I have a feeling that we are like the passenger in the side-car of a motor bicycle which must carry on until some sort of accident occurs unless you are tightly in position. The sidecar passenger must travel with the person directing the cycle itself. In this matter of the Common Market the Government, under the Taoiseach, seem to accept without any equivocation, which is a very pleasant thing to notice, that Great Britain is directing the cycle and that we are in the side-car.

Mr. McQuillan

I do not think we are. I think we are in the luggage compartment.

Mr. Lindsay

I think then there might be some sympathy for us because we would not know where we were going but in the side-car you know where you are going but you can do nothing about it.

Mr. McQuillan

Excess baggage.

Mr. Lindsay

At Column 205 of Volume 191 of the Official Report for Wednesday 5th July, 1961, the Taoiseach is reported as saying:

The White Paper sets out once again by reference to the facts of our trading position, the Government's conviction that the national interest would not be served by our seeking to join the European Economic Community unless and until Britain decided to do so.

Further on, in the same debate, at Colume 206, the Taoiseach states:

The Government have taken steps to inform each of those six Governments of the European Economic Community and the Commission of the Community in Brussels that, in the event of the United Kingdom applying for membership of the E.E.C., we also will so apply while at the same time informing them of our difficulty in accepting, in the present stage of our development, the full obligations of membership and of our desire to explore the modifications of these obligations that might be negotiated having regard to our circumstances.

Stripped of the latter portion of this verbiage it means the same thing. It means that the Six have been informed by the Head of the Irish Government that as soon as Britain applies we will apply, too, and then we will make some sort of béal bocht that, while we are trying to come in as members, really, we have not the full subscription and we would be glad if some sort of modifications could be made in our regard.

We are either going in or we are not. People should have had the full examination of this problem well over in the past few years in order to be able to reach a decision. If Great Britain joins the Common Market it is already the decision of the Government that we, too, apply for membership. Have we ruled ourselves out of the situation wherein, if Great Britain does not apply for membership of the Common Market, we could have not membership but association with the Common Market? That point appears to have been missed in this enthusiasm either to follow the British in or to stay out if the British stay out. The decision is made and we have no worthwhile knowledge.

Committees are being set up to examine this, that and the other but, if Great Britain goes in, according to the conviction of the Government, we must go in, irrespective of what the committees find out or irrespective of what the committees have to say by way of recommendation. Therefore, there is really nothing very much to do by way of decision. The British will decide it for us. If they go in we go in; if they stay out we stay out.

If the situation were not so serious a matter for our people as a whole, it is a time when one could start to inquire into what Deputy Boland almost prohibits us to do—to inquire into the past—and wonder about the wars, the rows and everything that happened resulting in either failure or victory. I think we are in the position now of the little boy in the poem who inquired from his grandfather as to what the battle was all about. He did not know and all he could say was that "it was a famous victory." So much for the victory, so much for the uncommitted nations and so much for this remarkable somersault of the Taoiseach, which is a welcome one even at this late stage of a nation's quasi-wasted efforts.

Deputy Desmond, speaking here today, appealed for an understanding as between the Government and the leaders of Parties on the basis that this is a national problem and should not be made a Party issue. It is already a Party issue. An effort is being made, and was made no later than last Sunday at a convention in Longford-Westmeath presided over by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Justice, where candidates were being selected and they were saying goodbye to the Minister for Transport and Power.

Mr. McQuillan

For good.

Mr. Lindsay

Mind you, for a decision that rests ultimately on a British decision, the Common Market is called by the Parliamentary Secretary, in characteristically optimistic language, a challenge to courage. Lest anybody else should lay claim to even a modi-cum of courage he had it all gathered into the fold of the Fianna Fáil Party when he was speaking to them in Longford last Sunday. This is what he says, as reported in the Irish Times of 11th July, 1961:

"There is still a great deal to be done, and the future holds its perils as well as its opportunities," he said. "Among them there is the great Common Market challenge—a situation which will call for very great skill, courage, leadership and determination on the part of our Government. In its approach to this problem, and in its magnificent record of achievement to date, Fianna Fáil has clearly demonstrated that the argument in favour of its return to office is unanswerable."

There is gathered into the Fianna Fáil basket all of the qualities of great skill, courage, leadership and determination. Nowhere else are any of these virtues possessed by anybody.

Mr. McQuillan

Neck.

Mr. Lindsay

Sheer neck. That is what the whole paragraph amounts to. The Taoiseach comes in here and makes a statement on the Common Market in which he says we will have to await the decision of Great Britain; we will have to set up Committees; we will have to make inquiries; we will have to find out things. In short, we know very little of the implications of this or what is going on until we find out. But the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Justice was not so hesitant when he spoke to the people of Longford—but of course it must be admitted he was speaking to the converted, at a Party convention —and said:—"In their approach to this problem and in their magnificent record of achievement to date, Fianna Fáil have clearly demonstrated that the argument in favour of their return to office unanswerable." Their approach certainly is marred by the 200,000 people who have left. It is difficult to know what the future is going to hold for those who have left, or indeed for those who stay.

It is of the utmost importance that an effort be made by our embassies, particularly as Córas Tráchtála is mainly on the industrial side, to ascertain what the future holds for agriculture and agricultural products generally. It is necessary that there should be a full statement on that by way of informing our people and our farmers, be they great or small, and not to leave it in its present position as an unknown quantity. But it will not be an unknown quantity when it comes to be dealt with on political platforms in the near future, when our Government supporters and Government candidates, Ministers and Deputies, will go to the people and say: "not alone have we held the position for you on the British market but now in the Common Market we are going to have greater opportunities still in France, Italy and elsewhere." The likelihood of that situation is extremely great and one about which I would sincerely warn the agricultural community. It may well be that advantages will derive but these advantages cannot be promised unless they are established by fact-finding committees or commissions beyond all reasonable doubt.

On the industrial side, there is no doubt that the situation will be much more keenly felt and that industrialists will find themselves in considerable difficulty. There might indeed be trouble with those industrialists who have been protected by tariffs and there might be further trouble with even newer industries that have been started of late. Nobody knows the immense changes that may follow from the institution and full implementation of the Common Market idea. I often thought on this matter of the industrial front—and in fact I am surprised that it was not brought into operation long ago—that when people were protected by tariffs or got public moneys towards the erection of factories or the installation of machinery, it should be made a condition of their getting that money that after a certain number of years, they would at least put portion of that on the public money market so as to give the firm a root within the country and not make it liable to fold up overnight without any possibility of an inquiry being made by a shareholder within the State. It is a point which is worthy of consideration.

Whatever the outcome of the British decision, whatever it may be, and whether we follow their lead, whatever we do by way of entering common markets or signing treaties or anything else, let us be convinced they are treaties into which we should enter and by which we should bind ourselves. Let them in all things in the words of Collins, "be real and solid."

In conclusion, may I pay tribute to the units of our Irish Army which have served and are serving in the Congo? It is true that they did not go there as a fighting force but it must be a matter of pride and joy not alone to their officers but to the country in general that these men, by their example and by what on many occasions must have been a most wonderful demonstration of discipline, have shown to the world that the Irish Army is a force to be reckoned with; even though it is small. Our sympathies must go to the relatives of those who lost their lives and for them it must be a matter of joy, even in the midst of their grief, to know they died in an extremely great cause. It is the first time since the foundation of this State that Irish soldiers have been abroad but they are following the great traditions provided through the centuries when Irish brigades were prominent on almost every field of battle. They have left a record of bravery, chivalry and discipline and a full understanding of the courage and sacrifice demanded of them.

Mr. McQuillan

I understand that a decision was arrived at to merge the discussion on the Department of External Affairs with that on the Common Market which took place last week. On the face of it, that was a reasonable decision, were it not for the fact that I know of no Department more removed from matters of external events, when it comes to the matter of trade and particularly of exports of our agricultural products, than the Department of External Affairs. Over the years, I have — I suppose, somewhat like a gramophone record— pointed to the tragic waste of money in this Department in so far as our foreign representation is concerned. In view of the new situation that has been created, as a result of the likelihood that we may have to come in on Britain's tail into the Common Market, it appears that at last reality has begun to creep into the Department in regard to matters of trade. If this Department had been actually engaged over the past three or four years in the type of work which many of us in this House and outside envisaged, namely, the seeking of alternative markets for our products, I do not think we would be as badly off as we are at present in view of the new situation which has arisen.

It is not so long since in our enthusiasm for dealing with problems abroad, we spent £250,000 on an embassy in London and, not content with that expenditure, we spent another £250,000 on an embassy in Paris. In the course of Questions in the House, I extracted the information from the then Minister for External Affairs that between the two embassies, only one individual was engaged full-time in exploring markets for our agricultural produce. That individual was attached to the embassy in London. In Paris, we had a part-time official of External Affairs dealing with the question of the sale of Irish agricultural produce in France, in spite of all the lip-service paid in this House and outside it to agriculture, as being our key and major industry. The fruits of that shortsighted policy have become apparent now.

Of course we were engaged in settling the affairs of the world. We were threatening the Russians one day and the Chinese the next. We were settling the dispute in the Congo. In fact, it now appears that we have some of the most brilliant men in the world to-day in this country, and without their assistance, it would be impossible to settle several major world problems. The terrible tragedy is that it would appear that their assistance is of such tremendous importance abroad, while at home we do not seem to have the ability, the courage or the initiative to settle the problems in our own backyard. We can look after everyone's business except our own. When the conditions that obtain in this country are exposed, the answer is: "Look at the glorious work we are doing abroad."

It is not of much benefit to the people who live in poor circumstances in Ireland, whose children have to emigrate at the rate at which they are going, to be told that our representatives abroad in various fields are wonderful chaps.

I listened last week to the Taoiseach when he made a statement to the House on the Common Market. Listening to him very carefully, before the end of his speech I had, in my own mind at any rate, become convinced that it was not a statement on a national basis to outline the future of the Common Market, but an election address on the part of the Taoiseach which will be delivered all over the country within the next two months by his henchmen and colleagues.

Deputy Lindsay referred to the fact that last Sunday the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Justice speaking in the Longford-Westmeath constituency repeated what his leader had said in the House last week. There is no question that the Common Market is to be the key issue in the general election, which would be held within the next month, if it were physically possible for the Taoiseach to have it held. He cannot hold it next month, and quite possibly he cannot hold it until early in October. He is stymied in that regard, but just like his predecessor in office, who was gifted when it came to picking an issue, the Taoiseach is following in the same line.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Surely that is not relevant to the Estimate before the House.

Mr. McQuillan

It is the question of the Common Market and the way in which the Taoiseach——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy seems to be discussing the date of the next general election, which does not arise on this Estimate.

Mr. McQuillan

It arises on the question of the Common Market because the speech of the Taoiseach in this House was an election speech, and did not deal with the problems of the Common Market. It was a speech directed at the Irish people saying: "Support Fianna Fáil as the only Party who can bring us through the major problems of re-orientation and re-organisation that must be dealt with before the Common Market comes into operation." His predecessor in office used the war as a scare and got away with it. An attempt is being made by the Taoiseach to frighten the Irish people into supporting Fianna Fáil, because the Common Market presents such tremendous problems that no one but the Taoiseach and the other old, tired and weary men around him are capable of leading us successfully through the hardships involved.

Let us be clear on this matter. The question of the Common Market was sprung like a bombshell on this House within the past fortnight by the Taoiseach. Let us go back to the Treaty of Rome which was prepared prior to 1958 and came into effect on 1st January, 1958. I wonder how many Deputies realise that no copy of the Rome Treaty appeared in the Oireachtas Library until one month ago? I examined it and I found that it consists of 378 pages of close print. It would take a Deputy at least three months solid going to get through it; yet it appeared in the Dáil Library only one month ago. The Rome Treaty came into operation on 1st January, 1958. Where was the interest there? Was there any sign of the Government preparing members of the House or the public for the implications that would very likely arise if we were to go into the Common Market? Of course not. No attempt whatever was made by the Government to prepare Government policy or the public for the situation likely to arise.

I shall not delay the House on a matter which other Deputies dealt with far more skilfully than I could. The Government were engaged in an attempt to stifle democracy by the elimination of P.R., thereby establishing themselves in a position from which they could not be shifted.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is getting away from the Estimate. The question of P.R. or its elimination does not arise.

Mr. McQuillan

I shall restrain myself because I want to speak further. The question of P.R., in my opinion, has a bearing on the Common Market because if the Government of the day got away with their plan, there would be no possibility of shifting them after a general election held on an issue like the Common Market.

As I say, no attempt was made since 1958 to prepare the public for this matter. It is like old times. The Taoiseach went to a good school and he could not have a better adviser on the question of tactics and choosing his time. As he said in the House the other day, it was up to him to pick a time to announce a decision on the Common Market, which meant, in other words, to announce a decision on going to the country.

Many Deputies have sought to extract by question and answer what the position would be so far as Ireland was concerned, and the possibility of a link with the Common Market or full membership. Each question was fobbed off by the Taoiseach: there was no hurry; it was not a matter that could be discussed yet. Suddenly we had the visit of the German Foreign Minister. Ostensibly the Foreign Minister came for a holiday, to enjoy Killarney, the sights of Wicklow and elsewhere. He was actually photographed with a picnic basket having his lunch on the Wicklow mountains. Nobody in this House for a moment thinks the German Foreign Minister came over to have a picnic on the Wicklow mountains for the good of his health. We do know that no sooner was he gone from this country than the Taoiseach's attitude on the Common Market changed overnight. In his replies to questions here, instead of being the cranky man he was up to that period, he was prepared to be cooperative and to help Deputies seeking information. Therefore we know a change of attitude took place as a result of the discussions with the German Foreign Minister.

Last week the Taoiseach announced to the House that he was going to have consultations with the British Government on the 18th of this month. At the present time members of the British Cabinet are visiting the Commonwealth countries, Canada, New Zealand and Australia, to discuss with them whether or not Britain should join the Common Market and what the position of those countries would be on such a decision being taken. Those members of the British Cabinet will be back on the 17th of this month, according to the latest reports, at any rate, and on the 18th our small boys in this Government have been invited to have a discussion with Mr. Macmillan and the British Government. A discussion on what?

Is it not quite apparent that this is an attempt on the part of the Government to save their faces, that the question of consulting with the British Government on the Common Market means nothing so far as Britain is concerned? We have no say whatever on the decision as to whether we should or should not join the Common Market. That decision will be made in the British House of Commons. That decision will be made in the British House of Commons for the Six Counties, to which Deputy Boland referred, and for the Twenty-Six Counties over which the pseudo-Republican Party of Fianna Fáil have claimed they have control for the past 40 years. The first thing I want the Minister for External Affairs and the Taoiseach to do when they leave this House for the hustings is to take out the bracketed words from the Fianna Fáil posters: "Fianna Fáil (Republican Party)." It took them 40 years to reach the stage that we have now less control over the destiny of this country than we had in 1922. What was it all in favour of? What was all the tub thumping and the intimidation of the people for over the years? What was all the bluff for? "We are a free nation. We can twist John Bull's tail. We will seek markets on the Continent, in America, and elsewhere. We are completely free of Britain's influence." Where do we stand now?

Deputy Lindsay put a query to the Minister a few minutes ago. He asked what would be the position if Britain decided not to join the Common Market? Would we, in those circumstances, make application for association with, membership of, the Common Market? Is Deputy Lindsay so innocent as to think we would even have the power to seek association if Britain stays out of the Common Market? The Taoiseach in his opening statement here said that, if we had made any move in 1958, 1959 or 1960 to seek association with, or membership of, the Common Market, Britain would have treated it as a hostile act.

Greece sought association with the Common Market after the Treaty of Rome was signed. Greece has become an associate member. I think the articles of agreement were signed in the last few days. Greece is a small country, a poor country. In spite of that, she was independent enough to be able to join on terms agreed between the full members of the Common Market and herself; but Ireland, the pseudoRepublic, could not even make application like Greece for associate membership because Britain would treat it as a hostile act.

The public will have to know the facts and know the betrayal that has taken place over the years. I cannot see any way out of the impasse this country is in now. I say that because no real efforts were made over the years to expand our agricultural production and to seek alternative markets for diversified agricultural produce. We have failed over the years to make any move in that regard. We have concentrated instead, almost completely on the setting-up of small industries here of the assembly type, the majority of them employing less than 50 people. These hothouse plants are now in trouble.

I am reminded of what happened a few years ago when some of our socalled manufacturers here had a row with the Government over the manufacture of buckets. The difficulty was solved by bringing in buckets without handles. The buckets were then "assembled" here and we had a bucket industry in Ireland. That was the type of industrial concern that received the blessing of the Government. Another such industry in this country was the manufacture of locks. Protection was given to the type of lock that was used in almost every house in the country. The price of the imported article was driven up to three times what it was to give protection to an assembly industry for locks costing the people three times what it should cost and giving only limited employment. That is what time and money have been wasted on while our key industry, agriculture, has been allowed to go into the doldrums.

We have put practically all our faith into the store cattle trade. Of course there are Deputies on both sides of this House who think it is sacrilegious to say that the store cattle trade is one of the worst possible industries for keeping our population. Of course it is. We are now in the position that the only real export we have if we enter the Common Market is cattle and instead of being able to diversify agriculture, the new structural arrangements in regard to agriculture in the Common Market will force us to abide by the existing lines in operation at the time of entry to the Common Market. If we try to spread out so as to have, say, whiskey sold abroad in Europe and elsewhere, to get the processing of fruit and vegetables under way, we will find that unless there is a drastic overhaul of the present articles of the Treaty of Rome, we will not be in a position to sell these commodities in the Common Market.

The position with regard to Greece is that, as an associate member, certain goods produced in Greece are given freedom of entry into the Common Market countries. The particular agricultural products affected constitute the major agricultural industry, as far as Greece is concerned. In general, they consist of tobacco, raisins, olives, turpentine, etc. Full freedom of action with regard to the export of these items is permitted to Greece. It is significant that, with the exception of Italy, perhaps, none of these agricultural products is native to the Common Market countries. They do not affect Germany; they do not affect France. There is nothing, therefore, illogical in giving Greece full opportunity for exporting these commodities.

When it is a question of our basic agricultural production—butter, bacon, eggs, beef—where will we stand? With the possible exception of beef; and, perhaps, lamb, all the agricultural items I have mentioned are produced in the Common Market countries, produced far more efficiently than we produce them here and at far less cost. We will certainly get no entry for our exports of agricultural products into these Common Market countries. I cannot for the life of me understand why alleged economic experts say that our entry into the Common Market will be a godsend to the Irish farmer. It is disgraceful to treat the Irish farmer in that way. It is disgraceful to try to hoodwink him into believing the Common Market will be the solution to all his problems.

Consider the people who have set up the Common Market. Their countries are the most highly industrialised in Europe. The people engaged in the administrative process and in the setting up of the Common Market are the big businessmen in Germany and France and in the north of Italy. Whether we like it or not, the intention is to set up cartels in the industrial field. The smaller industries will go to the wall. The big will be the only ones to survive. The intention is that the evolution will be the same in relation to agriculture. The idea is big business in industry and big industry in agriculture. Unless there is a great change in the Rome Treaty, entry into the Common Market will spell the death-knell of our small farmers, unless the terms of the Treaty undergo a drastic change.

Provision is made in the Rome Treaty for compensation with regard to uneconomic holders. In Britain at the moment, the National Farmers' Union have put up a scheme suggesting to the Government that the small farmers there be bought out and compensated in the event of Britain joining the Common Market. The small farmer referred to is the farmer with 100 to 200 acres. Here the same farmer would be looked upon as a rancher. Where, then, will the small farmer in Ireland stand?

Both the Government and the major Opposition Party believe that too many people are leaving the land, though there are times when the Government tell us that this trend is inevitable, that it is worldwide. This trend will increase if Britain decides to enter the Common Market and we have to fall in behind. What steps will our Government take? Have they anything in mind with regard to holding the position, stabilising the position, so that we can keep our rural population here? I have not heard the Taoiseach, the Minister for Transport and Power, or other members of the Government Party, refer to these issues. I said the Taoiseach's speech was an election address. It is up to every Deputy who has studied the implications of the Rome Treaty to point out clearly to the Irish people what the implications are for us in our present circumstances.

Outside of the economic implications, there are political implications. Only a casual reference has been made to them. In the Preamble to the Treaty, it is quite clear that the ultimate aim is a political one. The aim is to set up a United States of Europe, possibly as a third force in between the U.S.S.R. and the United States of America. I shall not deal with that in any great detail, except to say that I believe the objective to be incapable of realisation. It will be impossible to get agreement on political matters because people will keep their national outlook and I doubt if any people will surrender themselves to the control ultimately of the overriding authority controlling the Common Market and, therefore, controlling politically those countries within the Common Market. I should not like in any circumstances decisions with regard to this country in international affairs to be decided by De Gaulle or Adenauer. I doubt if other members of this House would, either. But that is what the aim is and by accepting the economic principles underlying the Treaty of Rome, we will, by degrees, put ourselves in the position in which we will have to accept the political implications also.

It must be admitted that the Taoiseach in his statement here last week quite bluntly said that we belong to Europe and we have no desire to remain aloof from Europe. That is a new one, as far as members of this House are concerned. We could not have been further away from Europe over the past 40 years. We did not even have an Irish boat plying direct between here and Europe for years. The only contact we had was through Aer Lingus and an indirect contact through Britain. A number of our Deputies here contributed in a big way to discussions on the Council of Europe, and so on. That is beside the point. I am dealing with the practical issues involved in our connection, or lack of it, with Europe. We had none. We had, perhaps, a certain amount of spiritual contact with the Vatican, but that is about all.

The position that is likely to arise is that we will hand over to this United States of Europe powers which should be exercised by this Parliament. Let us be clear on this. The Deputies who have spoken so often on Ireland's contribution to the United Nations will have to do a good deal of hard thinking to reconcile that with the new situation that will arise if and when the Common Market becomes a real issue. I have heard Deputies suggest in this House that we are not in the category of a non-committed nation. In that case I accept it that we must be committed and, if we are committed, we are committed completely on one side or the other. If we are, let us have no more talk about our neutrality and about the uncommitted stand we take in the United Nations. We are not going to have it both ways. If we are able to bluff the Irish people that we are going to do wonderful things in U.N.O. and at the same time blather of our support of the European set-up and will allow Germany and France to control us, we will not cod the Europeans, the Russians or the Americans.

If we do accept our part in this Western set-up, we must admit that we are no longer prepared to take a neutral stand. The situation is an extraordinary one where the two giants in the world today, the United States of America and Russia, are flexing their war muscles, testing each other out and the issue on which they are now trying to find out where each other stands is the serious issue of Berlin. When all this danger and difficulty is looming up between these two powers, this country is prepared to say we are going to commit ourselves on one side. I do not think there is anything illogical in Ireland adopting a completely neutral attitude. I do not think there is anything wrong in saying, as Mr. de Valera said years ago: "Let us stay out of this row." Those Deputies who say we should not stay out should be honest enough to say: "Let us go the whole way." Let us be frank and honest about it. Let us allow the Americans to put in their missile bases here. Let us have polaris here. Let us submit to the control exercised by NATO. Let us seek to have it both ways, pretending we are neutral and at the same time whispering behind the others: "It is all right. We are with you. We will push you from behind."

I wish to refer again to the problems that would face this country as far as agriculture is concerned, if Britain makes its decision to join the Common Market. At the moment it is a fifty-fifty chance. I do not think the British have made up their mind yet as to what final step to take. Personally, I believe Britain missed the boat in 1958 when she did not go in and take a controlling part in the initial stages in forming the Common Market. She is sorry today that she allowed years to slip by with the result that she is in grave difficulty economically, is beaten in world markets by the combination of the Common Market countries and is now not in a position to dictate terms to Germany or France.

Britain is in a seriously difficult position and we are in the tragic position that whatever she does we must do. We cannot control our destiny in the slightest degree because of the fact that this Government have sat down on the job for so long. When I say "this Government" I mean that all Governments, not this present one alone; all Governments down through the years have failed to make our economy a healthy one, one that would allow us to be in a position to bargain either with Britain or the European countries.

Let it not be said that we have any bargaining power. We have none whatever, unless one could suggest that the boys and girls we export are so valuable to Britain, to her industries, her hospitals and elsewhere that they can be used as bargaining power. Otherwise we have none.

I have here a paper written by a well-known agricultural expert, Dr. O'Connor, one of the men attached to the Statistics Branch. He spoke in Roscommon recently on the problem of small farmers. He read a prepared paper in which he said:

Though farms in North Roscommon are generally small, store cattle raising is the main enterprise on most holdings. In pre-war years the economy of this area was more diversified than it is today but during and since the last war pigs, poultry and tillage crops have declined seriously while cattle and sheep numbers have increased.

He goes on to say:

Side by side with the decrease in tillage and farmyard livestock there has been a severe decline in population.

In other words, as the diversification in agriculture altered and we concentrated on store cattle, from that time the population of the country dropped significantly and is still dropping. The Common Market, as we know it, and the Treaty of Rome will to a great extent keep our agricultural pattern as it is now—store cattle. What alteration can we expect with regard to our type of economy, the farming end of it, if we join under existing circumstances? It means that the small farmers in the West will go by the board.

Those Deputies who have expressed themselves as being pleased at the idea of our entry into the Common Market should have another look at the terms of the Treaty of Rome and they will see the significance in so far as present members of the Common Market are concerned. They are going to protect their own existing agricultural patterns and we will not be able to break into the lines we should like. We will undoubtedly get in on cattle but that is a very poor gain for our membership of the Common Market. In the industrial field I cannot think of any particular line where we would be successful. There are probably a few industries which will make the grade but the majority will not be in a position to do so.

It is hoped that there will be a period of perhaps six to 12 years to prepare for the big shock. I wonder whether that period will be allowed from the time we join or will the date of the easement into the Common Market be from the date the Treaty of Rome came into operation? I should like to hear some comments on that aspect from the Minister for External Affairs if he is replying to this debate tonight.

This Government should be charged with negligence for their behaviour towards the Irish people for the last four years. This Government have spent their time messing about with the Constitution, messing about with constituencies, trying to alter the system of election. All this was going on at a time when other countries were getting down to brass tacks and preparing for a situation wherein Ireland is left without power to bargain, without power to make a decision one way or the other and is tied completely to the tail of what Fianna Fáil described over the years as "John Bull."

Now, after listening to them for 40 years sickening the people with their hypocritical utterances about the wonderful Republic they were going to establish, we have the Taoiseach crawling into the House and telling us that if in 1959 or 1960 we made the slightest move in regard to associate membership of the Common Market, Britain would treat it as a hostile act. From that phrase we have discovered how little freedom this country has had for 40 years. It is time that the hypocrisy of the Fianna Fáil Government on this issue of Britain were exposed to the public, and that they were let decide. It must come as a dreadful shock to the older members of the Party. It must be a heartbreaking thing for them to realise that, after all these years, all they were doing was playing at politics, that as far as they were concerned this House was a debating society with less power in many respects than Stormont, with less power in influencing decisions than Stormont.

Deputy Boland welcomes the re-union of a miserable, dying 26 with a frustrated six back under the thumb of John Bull. If that is the Republic Deputy Boland, Deputy Lemass, Deputy Ó Briain and all the others fought for over the years, then it is one which the remainder of the people are not prepared to accept to-day.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I have listened with great attention to the two previous speakers. The last speaker has no faith in this country, good, bad or indifferent. His whole speech was one of destructive criticism and contained nothing constructive whatever. He gave us his advice as an expert on what the Common Market would mean for us. He told us that Fianna Fáil had done nothing for the last four years, that the people were leaving the land and that agricultural output was never worse. Good debaters when they criticise usually have some alter native suggestion to offer. No matter how critical of the Government a member of the Opposition is, provided he can offer constructive criticism one must admit he is worth listening to. But during this whole debate we have heard from the Opposition, from the Leader down, nothing constructive whatever. All they asked was why the Government had not done this or that earlier.

The present Minister for External Affairs has shed lustre on this country by the way he has conducted himself abroad. Both he and the Irish delegates at the United Nations have brought credit to our country. No man was more maligned or misrepresented for the independent stand he took at the United Nations than the present Minister. We are all very proud that, because of his honesty, courtesy and diplomacy, he earned the respect even of those who opposed him. Is there anyone in Ireland to-day who can say this Government have not succeeded in the international sphere as well as at home during the last four years? The country has been lifted out of the mire of economic distress in which we found it when we took over in 1957. Notwithstanding that, Opposition speakers continue to ask: "What have the Government done for the people?"

The Taoiseach, when Minister for Industry and Commerce, appealed to industries here to improve their efficiency to compete with outside firms. The Fianna Fáil Government introduced legislation to encourage industries to go into the export market. Tax reliefs were given, special insurance policies were provided—in fact, everything was done to gear our industries to meet outside competition. Yet, the leaders of the Opposition will say that the Taoiseach never gave any warning whatever to the people to prepare themselves for outside competition.

I am happy to say there are new industries in my constituency which have been competing internationally for a long time, and making a very good job of it, too. In fact, one of the factories, which employs 1,300 workers, is now short of manpower. It has gone ahead by leaps and bounds because it has been encouraged by the Government. I hope other industries will follow the good example of those industries that have succeeded in the export market. We had to give protection to the new industries started here, but they are successfully coming through the transitional period.

Agriculture is in a sound position to-day and, through improved methods, research, land reclamation and subsidisation by the Government, its position is becoming better.

Mr. Palmer

I thought we were discussing External Affairs.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I am dealing with what other speakers said—that this country was not in a position to go into the Common Market. If we were to take what they said literally, we might as well put up the white flag and finish with the country altogether. We have faith in our country. We have faith in the well-being of the country and we have faith in the future generations of this country. We in Fianna Fáil have led the country honourably and well, both in the external field and in the home field. Goodwill has existed and does exist between ourselves, our neighbours and other friendly countries. Our representatives have visited them. We have succeeded in doing a wonderful job in the past three or four years. It is work that has been done very well and work that will pay this country and posterity. I will not delay the House beyond extending congratulations to the Minister for the job he is doing as Minister for External Affairs. We are all very proud of him.

Mr. T. Lynch

The last speaker said that we were all very proud of the Minister for External Affairs and the Fianna Fáil Party. I do not agree with that. It is always good to speak after Deputy Burke because we get such a feast of Fianna Fáil claptrap that it is very easy to answer him. His last phrase was in reference to the wonderful job that Fianna Fáil did in the past four years. Since we are dealing with economic co-operation, the Common Market and the Estimate for the Department of External Affairs, we might as well say something about what was done in the past four years.

Some Fianna Fáil speakers said that the members of the Opposition were saying that the Government did nothing, that they were just complaining and that the Opposition made no suggestion. I should like to point out that in July, 1957, Deputy J.A. Costello and Deputy Dillon moved a motion in this House that a Select Joint Committee, consisting of 18 Deputies and seven Senators, of which the quorum should be eight, with power to send for persons, papers and records, should be set up for the purpose of inquiring into and reporting to the Dáil and Seanad on the following matter, namely:—

the economic consequences for Ireland likely to follow the participation or the non-participation by this country in (a) the proposed Free Trade Area, and (b) the European Economic Community.

That was in July, 1957.

The Taoiseach said that the motion was wholly unnecessary and he did not propose to consent to it, that there was no reason for it at all. He brushed it aside. They knew all. They could see all but they could not tell all. The four years were passing by and we were tinkering with the Constitution. We were trying to dig Fianna Fáil in. Even in this session of the Dáil, we seemed to be crowded with Parliamentary business. We discussed whether we would call judges "My Lord" or "A Bhreithiúna." We now find ourselves in a rush with Parliamentary business.

We are now faced with one of the greatest problems that has ever faced an Irish Government or the Irish people since native government was set up here 40 years ago. I am tired of all this adulation of Fianna Fáil and the claims about the wonderful Party they are and their policy. I am tired of all this adulation of the Fianna Fáil export policy and our going into the export trade. The members of Fianna Fáil will remember their basic policy of self-sufficiency, which they vomited because it was a ridiculous and stupid policy. The members of Fianna Fáil will remember that they used every effort to destroy our trade with Great Britain. The members of Fianna Fáil will remember my being physically assaulted by a Fianna Fáil supporter because I said we should preserve the British market. The members of Fianna Fáil will remember their leader going through the country preaching this heresy. The members of Fianna Fáil will remember that for the past four years the Taoiseach and the Government have done nothing to examine the position of Ireland in relation to entering the Common Market.

I am in no position to say in this House, and neither are many other people in this country in a position to say, what the implications are of our entering the Common Market or what we would lose by staying out because there was no proper investigation made by the Government. We read the headlines tonight that the Taoiseach is consulting with the unions. This matter would take four years. It would have taken a Parliamentary Committee four years of hard work to interview the Irish industrialists and the Irish farmers and examine the markets in the various countries and see what the implications would be. Nothing was done. The Government blundered as they have always blundered.

We found ourselves with this wonderful policy of self-sufficiency in a world war and we had not a ship. That was the policy of Fianna Fáil. The Minister for External Affairs was rushed off to American to do the best he could, to buy all the cast-off ships sailing under flags of convenience, Panamanian flags and other flags. We were glad to get them. It was another Fianna Fáil policy of stupidity and another Fianna Fáil policy of doing nothing.

Fianna Fáil have constantly rattled the bones of patriots. They have employed the sayings of patriots and paraded them round the hustings for the purpose of catching votes. There was a certain patriot who, in his last words, expressed the hope that his country would take her place among the nations of the earth. We did not try under Fianna Fáil policy to take our place among the nations of the earth. All the time we looked away from the nations and followed a policy of looking into the bog and burying ourselves there. That is the only kind of policy of which Fianna Fáil could think.

Fianna Fáil had not sufficient vision to look abroad but now they are attempting to look abroad. As I said, I do not know what the implications are if we enter the Common Market or what would happen us if we stayed out. I am more concerned with Irish agriculture, first and foremost. I can see the Irish farmer and the small farmer being abandoned. As Deputy McQuillan said, it was even suggested that the small farmer of 100 or 200 acres in England would be done away with and compensated.

We had experience of that in Mayo and Galway in the Clanrickarde evictions. It was thought to be a good thing to do away with all these smallholders and have no agricultural slums but what they call big economic units. They drove our people on to the roads in thousands and thousands of them died.

An Ceann Comhairle

The relevancy is not very clear.

Mr. T. Lynch

The relevancy is clear. We are looking like going into the Common Market now. The most intensive and the best small farmer in the whole world—Jacques, the French small farmer—is out on the roads with his tractors in open rebellion against his Government. He must not be very happy about being in this Common Market: we do not know.

The Government did nothing for four years. All I could hear for four years were the Taoiseach, the Minister for Transport and Power and especially the Minister for Industry and Commerce making speeches at chambers of commerce meetings and you could read them through, column after column, and you would not know what they were about when you came to the end of them. If we enter the Common Market, whither wheat growing? I am informed that the French Government are selling wheat under world price on the Common Market today.

It is said by the Taoiseach that if the British enter the Common Market, we must enter the Common Market. What is our position and the position of Irish agriculture as compared with British agriculture? The British can protect their agriculture because the British do not export anything in the way of agricultural produce. They can consume all their agricultural produce and they are buyers of agricultural produce. We have to export our agricultural produce.

We have had a protected market in Britain for as long as anybody here can remember. It was sneered at and spat upon by Fianna Fáil. If Britain goes into this Common Market we shall no longer have that protected market or, to use the proper description for it which the Fianna Fáil henchmen would not mention at the chapel gates, we shall no longer enjoy the Imperial preference in the British market we have been enjoying. I do not know how this will work out for the simple reason that the Government of Ireland have neglected the opportunity they got from the Opposition here when the Opposition asked that this Parliamentary Committee be set up four years ago.

I have lived long enough to see every difficulty of my country turned into Fianna Fáil policy or turned to suit Fianna Fáil speeches when going to the country before a general election. They were lucky enough when the war broke out to make the war an issue. Now they are coming along and they are getting ready to make the Common Market an issue. But they are there, just like blindfolded people. They do not know where they are going and they do not know what they are doing.

We are told that if Great Britain goes into the Common Market, we must go into the Common Market. That was a frightful confession of failure. Where now are all the much vaunted industries and will they be able to stand up? Where are these much-vaunted industries of Deputy Burke, the industries that bring parts from Japan and put them together here, stamp "Made in Ireland" on them and send them into the British Market, because of our Imperial preference? What will happen them?

According to Deputy Lindsay in Deputy Haughey's view nobody has any courage except the members of the Fianna Fáil Party. They are the only people who would have courage and who would know what steps to take. They are the people who would have the courage to declare an Economic War which did not cost them anything although the people with the courage had to put up with the Economic War. The people with the courage, if they are walked into it the wrong way, are the small farmers of Ireland who will have to carry this.

I mentioned the matter of the Common Market first on the Estimate for the Department of External Affairs. I now come to something I should have mentioned earlier. I have had the honour of being selected by my Party to go abroad on three Parliamentary delegations. I saw the representatives of Ireland arrive at the airports in these foreign countries. They had to go through the customs, with some difficulty in some places. I saw the representatives of other nations, nations not as old as ours, nations that had only two or three years of their own Parliamentary rule, arrive from their embassies to meet the delegations. When representatives of this Parliament go outside this country to places where we have ambassadors or ministers or consuls, or where we have representatives who are paid by the Irish people, it should be the business of the Department of External Affairs to notify the ambassadors or these other people so that our representatives will be met just as those of other countries are met.

I do not agree with the Minister's policy of pretending we are standing out from all the countries in the world, that we do not care what other countries do, that we are going to take an independent line. I did not agree with the Minister when, representing Ireland at the United Nations, he voted that the question of the admister sion of Communist China to that Organisation should be put on the agenda for discussion. I do not think we are sacrificing any of our independence by voting with the free nations of the earth against Communist Russia or Communist China or any of the Communist bloc.

I heard Deputy Costello say here today that there was to be a meeting of these independent people in Yugoslavia. I hope the Minister will answer his query as to whether an approach was made by the President of Indonesia. Questions have been put down in this House from time to time asking what certain Governments were doing and question were asked about Spain. I have heard questions asked about the Congo and non-committal answers were given by Ministers. Recently I heard questions about Angola and the Portuguese. I should like to give my opinion about these places. I can sympathise with the Portuguese Government, or with any Government which sends its soldiers to defend its people. Surely we would not like the Portuguese Government to withdraw its troops and have what happened in the Congo happen there.

It seems to be fashionable in Ireland to think that if any of what were called the colonial Powers, in Africa especially, send their troops to defend their citizens they are wrong. It is all right for a mob, sometimes raised up by rabble rousers, to come down with machetes and hatchets and chop many of the unfortunate people to pieces. We have been very unfortunate in the past in the people we supported down through the years as against the British Empire. I remember in my young days, the years after the Boer War, references to the plucky little Boers, "the wonderful Boers". I hope we are not backing them up now. These are the people who stand for apartheid. I would like to remind the Minister that a Catholic missioner would not be allowed into Africa by the "plucky little Boers" until the British Raj got in there.

A Deputy from Galway is cackling over there. I wish he would get up and make a speech here some time. He has been here for about four years——

Mr. Millar

The Deputy should be in the House of Commons.

Mr. T. Lynch

That is what the Fianna Fáil people always say to me. They think I am pro-British because I mention these matters.

Mr. Corish

The Deputy is proprotection.

Mr. T. Lynch

I am pro-white people. I know Irish people who went out there and——

Mr. Corish

I am pro-people.

Mr. T. Lynch

Yes, and I will be pro-people, too, but the white people are entitled to protection. As far as being in the British House of Commons is concerned——

An Ceann Comhairle

It does not arise.

Mr. T. Lynch

The Deputy and his county got more out of the British House of Commons than they ever got out of this place and I am proud to say that the people following the Leader of my Party had a great deal to do with that.

An Ceann Comhairle

I suggest the Deputy should come to the Vote.

Mr. T. Lynch

Very well, Sir. The Irish people should not take any notice of the Taoiseach's speech. They need not bother reading it because it will give them no information about the Common Market. The only thing left for the Taoiseach to endeavour to rehabilitate himself in the eyes of his Party, and the eyes of the people, is to try to assess the position of this country and, as the endeavour is being made, to come to the House and tell the House the position we are in and what the Government are doing. One of the things I fear with the Fianna Fáil Government is that we will find ourselves with a fait accompli and we can do nothing about it.

I make no apologies for keeping the House so long on an important matter like this. As I said during the course of my speech I have seen the time in this session of the Dáil frittered away on stupid Bills, such as the Courts of Justice Bill, that could wait for years.

Mr. Corish

I do not want to do anything which would hinder the Minister in any way and I trust I will not prolong the debate but there is one matter to which I want to refer briefly. I should like to draw the Minister's attention to a news item in the Irish Press of the 10th of July which purports to give a report of an interview with General Norstad with the Foreign Affairs Committee in the Congress of the United States. I asked some questions recently of the Minister for External Affairs which were all designed to ensure that as far as Irish foreign policy was concerned, the people in the rest of the world would know as far as we could give it to them, what our policy was. I think it would be better if I read this report, which states:

General Norstad, Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe, said at a "closed" door U.S. Congressional hearing that he did not know of any country which might be preventing Ireland from becoming a member of NATO. "Ireland has no interest in joining, as far as I know," said the general.

General Norstad was asked about Irish membership during hearings on the proposed new 4.8 billiondollar Foreign Aid Bill. A heavily censored version of his testimony has been made public by the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Representative C.J. Zablocki (Democratic, Wisconsin) said he felt the "fighting Irish" would make a terrific contribution to NATO. "One wonders why Ireland is not contributing to the defence of Europe," he added. "I cannot answer that question," General Norstad replied.

After a security deletion Mr. Zablocki asked whether the U.S. was "permitting some of our Allies in NATO—specifically England and France—to press for the exclusion of Spain and Ireland and in effect, prevent Ireland and Spain from being full partners in the defence of Europe?"

Representative E. Kelly (Democratic, New York) said Ireland wanted to join NATO but would not, except as a united country.

Comment could be made on that for a period of 20 minutes but I merely want to demonstrate that Norstad, Zablocki and E. Kelly certainly would not give a proper impression of how Ireland regarded NATO or what our policy on neutrality really was. Because of reading that type of thing, I asked the Minister recently would he consider appointing some sort of press agent or liaison officer to ensure that, so far as our foreign policy is concerned, the world will be made aware of our position.

Apart from some small things, I personally believe the Minister has done a pretty good job in the U.N. I should like to say, in conclusion, keeping my eye on the Lobby, that I still think the Government and the Minister should consider setting up an all-Party committee on foreign affairs. It is wrong that this country should appear to be divided on any issue in foreign affairs. I think the best way we could demonstrate our solidarity on major issues would be by way of an all-Party committee. We could then show not only a united front but a solid front, so far as foreign affairs are concerned.

Minister for External Affairs (Mr. Aiken)

The debate which has taken place was rather discursive, ranging over a number of points to which it would be impossible for me to reply in any reasonable time. A few major items of policy were touched on by a number of Deputies.

We started this debate last week with a proposal that the House should agree that Ireland should become a member of the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation and Development. The Leader of the Opposition asked how many of the Common Market countries had adopted that Convention and said it was very suspicious that none of them had signed it until last week. The fact is that since last week Germany, which is one of the members of the European Community, has ratified it. In France, it has been approved by the Senate but the instrument has not yet been deposited. In Belgium, a draft law is being put before the Chamber. Luxembourg is in the same case. In Italy, a Bill for the approval of the ratification has been submitted to Parliament and is likely to be debated shortly. In the Netherlands, taking into consideration Parliamentary procedure, it is likely that ratification will be postponed until September or October.

So I hope Deputy Dillon may be relieved and that he will not repeat his gloomy remarks of last week that:

The ... significant fact is that of the nations which have deposited ratification instruments, no single country belonging to the Common Market has done so to date.

He can take a little pleasure out of the fact that these Common Market countries are all in the process of puting the ratification through their Parliaments.

Deputy Russell questioned the need for the O.E.C.D., the new organisation, and was sorry that the O.E.E.C. was disappearing. We shall have a very prolonged debate for several months, if not for years, about European trade. Certainly if all the countries in Western Europe were in the one community, there would be plenty to discuss regarding relations between Europe and North America. In this new organisation, the O.E.C.D., both the U.S.A. and Canada are full members, unlike the O.E.E.C. where they were merely observers.

I am very happy indeed to propose that the Dáil should approve of our joining this new organisation and the ratification of the Convention, because it gives Ireland a voice in the organisation which will discuss the economic associations of Europe, the U.S.A. and Canada. It should be a very important forum. It would be very important indeed if that were its only function, but as I pointed out, it has many other functions which are bound to be of importance in the future.

An effort was made here to give the impression that the Government have only woken up the other day to the fact that there have been negotiations about trade matters and about the erection of a European Community. The fact is that since 1948, since the Council of Europe was established, there have been very prolonged negotiations, consultations and commissions dealing with questions affecting European co-operation and particularly the question of trade. When the O.E.E.C. was set up, that organisation set itself the task, first of all, to get rid of quotas between members and to liberalise their trade, and it endeavoured to get a reduction of tariffs. Indeed, it made great progress in that work. When someone like Deputy Costello, junior, says we were not interested in Europe, I should like to remind him that in the O.E.E.C. we were among the countries with the largest percentage of liberalisation in trade all over the years that O.E.E.C. lasted.

In the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, the Irish delegations were among the delegations that were most active in promoting ideas that would help to unite Europe and facilitate co-operation in the matters of trade, culture and in many other fields. As a delegate to the Council of Europe away back in 1949, I think it was, whenever the organisation for steel and coal was first formed by the members of the countries that now constitute the European Community, or most of them, I remember welcoming that agreement. I pointed out that the main reason I welcomed it was that it would help to cement good relations between Germany and France. I said I did not think it would be good for the countries that were not in the Coal and Steel Community but that we would be glad to see that organisation establishing and creating good relations between France and Germany even if it cost us something extra a ton for steel.

That has been the attitude not only of the Fianna Fáil representatives who went to Strasbourg but I think of most of the Irish Deputies. In one way it is healthy to see, now that we are considering taking advantage of any opportunity that may present itself to us in the immediate future to support European unity, that the Government are being criticised for not going far enough and fast enough. It emphasises that if the Irish Government are negotiating terms of membership of the European Community, Ireland, if we accept the final terms offered to us, will be a loyal member and the policy in regard to joining will be not only the policy of the Government in power but the policy of the vast majority of the members of this House. It is interesting to note that, in the two days that the European Community has been discussed here, only one or two objected to our joining. That gives the Government confidence in facing the very difficult task it has to face within the next two months or whatever length of time there may be negotiations about this matter.

The Taoiseach has already explained the attitude of the Government to the situation in which Britain has announced that she is considering whether or not to apply for membership of the European Community. That is a very big change. When the resolution about which Deputy Dillon and Deputy Declan Costello spoke was introduced here in 1957 to set up a Committee of the House to study what Ireland would have to gain by joining or not joining EFTA and the Common Market, the situation was that Britain had rejected any idea of applying for membership of the Common Market. It was completely out of court; it was unthinkable.

Most Deputies indicated that they realised full well why it was that the Irish Government could not contemplate applying for membership of the Common Market if Britain did not apply. The fact is that our major trading area is outside the Common Market. We buy 50 per cent. of our imports from and sell 70 per cent. or more in exports to Britain. In the past number of years we have made a very big change in the type of exports and imports. We are not importing 95 per cent. of our boots and clothes or 95 per cent. of our wheat; all our cement is home manufactured. We are providing most of these things for ourselves and within the past few years we have seen our exports increasing, our industrial production going up and our employment in industry going up.

We are in a very different position from that of 1957 in many ways. We have the confidence that if Britain joins the Common Market and we join the Common Market also, we will be able to prosper in the prosperity of the other members, that if we join and are accepted we will act in it, as we have acted in every other international organisation we ever joined, as a good, loyal, constructive member, a member that is out for the good of the organisation, to make it progressive and to co-operate in every way in making our combined effort fruitful for all the members.

It is almost too silly to deal with the argument that we are considering applying to join the Common Market because Von Brentano came over here and spoke to the Taoiseach and myself, or because we just want to ape the British. You might as well say we are aping the Russians because the earth goes round the sun after the Russian satellite or before it, whatever way it is. There are natural forces operating. There are forces operating in Europe and in the world which are beyond our sole control, beyond direction by our single will. We have to fit ourselves into the world as it is. In Europe today there is a trend towards uniting economically and politically. That trend has been there ever since the last war. Indeed, before the last war there were many efforts by Frenchmen and Germans —men who were not in Government— to find if an arrangement could be made for co-operation between European countries, an arrangement which would avoid war between such countries and secure mutual co-operation for the benefit of all.

This European Community Convention is very different from anything that has gone before. From 1948 on, when we discussed the liberalisation of trade between member countries in Europe, we meant the liberalisation of trade, full stop. When we discuss the gradual freeing of trade in the European community under the Rome Treaty, it is not just free trade, full stop. It is the gradual freeing of trade under conditions in which all members are pledged to co-operate to make that operation as fruitful as possible, taking care that those who may be hit will be helped by the other member countries. One of the difficulties inherent in this discussion is the fact that we are debating the Treaty for the European Economic Community in a Second Reading type of debate; what we would really need is a Committee type debate to bring out the full meaning of all the different sections.

Mr. Dillon

Hear, hear.

Mr. Aiken

The broad effect of the Treaty is to create an organisation, to create co-operation between various European countries so that the exchange of industrial products will be gradually freed and there will be instituted a regime between the various countries designed to make Europe as self-sufficient as possible from the point of view of agricultural produce, the farmers to get a reasonable price for their labour and their produce. That is something new. Up to now, when we discussed liberalisation of trade, if a small country were hit by the agreement entered into, that was just too bad. Under the Rome Treaty, countries which may be embarrassed by the freeing of trade will have a right to appeal to the Authorities of the European Community and ask that their case should be considered and help given them, if help is required. I do not fear that Irish industry will be very gravely affected if trade is freed under the conditions laid down in the Rome Treaty. With a gradual process of freeing trade, we would hope to get more extended years than those countries which have been highly industrialised for a great number of years. If we have to dismantle our tariffs over a number of years and if, at the same time, we are guaranteed by the terms of the Rome Treaty that there will be certain compensations, I do not see why we should have any fear for the future. If an industry is hurt and the Irish Government cannot deal with the situation, they can call upon the Community for help.

It is true that under the Rome Treaty certain decisions that were taken heretofore by this Dáil will be taken elsewhere. They will be taken by some of the authorities set up under the Rome Treaty. We will, however, have a voice in these decisions. Not alone will we have a voice in decisions that will affect us but we will have a voice in decisions that will affect other countries. My experience has been—I have worked now in European organisations of various kinds for the last 13 years— that if the representative of a country, big or small, has a case to make he is listened to sympathetically by all, including the representatives of the biggest countries. The whole idea of the Rome Treaty is not to knock out any country and not to knock out any industry in any particular country but to co-operate to make the total of Europe for all its citizens a better place in which to live.

It would have been impossible for us to join such an organisation if our main customer remained outside it. Over the years we have decreased our dependence on the outside world for various essentials but, if we want to improve the standard of living of our people quickly, we will have to import certain commodities that we cannot make for ourselves without incurring far too great expense. All we want is a fair opportunity of competing with European countries and non-European countries alike, so that we can get a fair price for whatever we can efficiently produce on the land or manufacture in our factories. I have every confidence that, with rules governing fair competition and fair play, together with the promise contained in the Rome Treaty of co-operation from all and an interest in our prosperity, we shall be able to hold our own should we apply for membership of the European Community, and given terms acceptable to us.

Deputies will realise that we are in a very much better position to compete with outside countries under reasonable conditions than we were, say, four years ago. We were in a better position in 1960 than we were in 1959. Between 1959 and 1960 our exports went up 17 per cent. and in the first three months of this year they went up 20 per cent. on the corresponding quarter in 1960. It gives us ground for confidence that that trend will continue if European and world trade continues to expand.

Mr. Dillon

Our imports are relevant to that calculation.

Mr. Aiken

They are, I know, but the imports, of course, help us to create the exports and they also give us what our people want to buy. Otherwise, we would not import them. Our imports help us to increase our standard of living and our exports help us to buy things that go to make up that standard that we are not producing for ourselves.

In connection with exports and trade generally, I want to refer to some criticism offered to the work of our embassies abroad and which, indeed, is not well-founded. One of the principal duties of our representatives abroad is to promote Irish trade and they have helped over the years to increase it. They co-operate with the Irish Exports Board, Bord Tráchtála, in the countries in which Bord Tráchtála have representatives. In the very many countries in which we are represented by officials of the Department of External Affairs and in which there are no representatives of Bord Tráchtála, the full responsibility for promoting trade falls upon the ambassador or minister and his officials.

It is true to say that only in a couple of countries have we special trade officers whose one job is to promote trade. I am hoping with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance to improve that situation, so that we shall have additional posts abroad where one officer at least will be altogether on trade promotional work. But, even though we shall not have in the other countries officers whose special job is trade promotion I regard it and, indeed, it is regarded by the officials themselves, as one of the first duties of an ambassador or a minister or counsellor, whoever he may be, in an Irish office abroad, to help to promote trade. One other work they have been carrying out, indeed very, very successfully in certain instances, is to co-operate with the Industrial Development Authority in bringing the opportunities for the promotion of industry here to the attention of the business people in the countries in which they are and some of the very big projects that have been established here within these last few years were the result of the activities of the officers of the Department of External Affairs who are engaged in diplomatic work abroad.

Mr. Dillon

Could the Minister say, will the trade officers he hopes to appoint be required to speak the language of the country of their assignment as one qualification?

Mr. Aiken

That is always our aim, even in diplomatic work. Most of them have several languages. If an officer has to be changed to a country and does not know the language, he is expected to make it up very quickly. Most of them are so accustomed to picking up languages that they do not take very long to acquire one. It would be very desirable, of course, that a trade representative should speak the language of the country. However, there are certain countries in Europe and elsewhere where one can get by and do business very well with French or English, and Spanish, of course, is a very useful language in either diplomacy or trade.

Mr. Dillon

I met an Italian silk merchant recently who said he made it a matter of principle to transact no business other than in Italian.

Mr. Aiken

I would hope our industrialists who are trying to promote trade abroad will do their utmost to conduct their correspondence in the language of the person to whom they wish to sell their goods.

Mr. Dillon

I agree.

Mr. Aiken

A great deal of attention was paid to the question of our emigrants in England. That matter came up in last year's debate and, naturally enough, it came up again today. As far as we can calculate, emigration has fallen very greatly in these last few years.

Mr. O'Sullivan

Ah, come off it.

Mr. Aiken

However, it is still very high. It will remain high until we can expand our industry sufficiently quickly to absorb the people leaving school every year and wanting jobs. We have made some inroads on that in the last couple of years. However, the problem of emigration to Britain remains and is bound to remain for some time.

The task of looking after all the people who left Ireland to get work in Britain, to protect, to advise, to house them and to do all the things suggested during this debate would simply be an impossible one. The Leaders of the Opposition Parties when they were in Government and had the responsibility at a time when emigration was even higher than at present——

Mr. O'Sullivan

That is not true.

Mr. Aiken

——know the difficulty of controlling and directing emigration to a point where you can say who is to go and who is not to go, where they are to go and what accommodation they are going to get. It cannot be done. But there is one system of helping the young people who are going, and that is to try to promote organisations in the various cities and districts in England which will help them if they are in trouble or if they want to get a job or get new "digs."

I am very glad to be able to pay tribute to the organisations of that kind existing in Britain and the help they give to a newcomer in giving him or her assistance in finding suitable employment and accommodation. But there is no way whereby we can ensure that all the young people who go to Britain will behave as we would like them to behave any more than we can ensure that the young people who remain will behave always as we want them to behave. I fully realise the great danger that attends a young country boy or girl dropping into a big city, whether in Ireland, England or the United States, with no friends and nobody to appeal to. Fortunately or unfortunately, that is not the case of 99.999 per cent of the young boys who leave here to go to England. The vast majority of them go to Manchester, Glasgow, Sheffield or wherever they want to go because they know friends in that district and they have consulted them about the conditions there for getting work and accommodation.

One of the difficulties is that we cannot prevent the very young people from going. If there was any effective legal way of doing it, I would propose that the Government should do it. But there is no effective legal way of preventing even very young people leaving Ireland to go to work unless you ask the British to impose a passport system and to insist that any young person entering Britain should produce the passport and prove they were over 18 or 21 or whatever age we decided. We could during the war enforce similar provisions when the British had an interest in making certain that only the people who had passes from here were admitted to that country. But if there were no passports or system of visas between the two countries, particularly in view of the ease with which people can slip over the border to Belfast, there is no physical way of ensuring that young people do not go.

All I can do is to repeat here what I have often said to Irish parents and friends of intending emigrants— to advise them to stay at home if at all possible and not to proceed to England until they have assured themselves that there is a reasonable chance of getting appropriate work and fair accommodation. We have got to realise that with the industrial boom in England, the destruction of houses during the war and the very great growth of population in certain industrial cities, there is a very severe housing problem and that there are very grave slum conditions in portions of certain British cities. If Irish people, young or old, or people from any other country, go to those cities and have to find accommodation in those quarters, it is not going to be good for their health and it is not a very attractive, pleasant or satisfactory place for young Irish people to live.

I believe that many of those leaving Ireland would be much better off at home and much happier. We all know a number of them who have no great necessity to leave, who leave jobs which give them a reasonable standard, as good a standard as they would get in England, a better standard of housing and a better standard of pastime with people they know than they would find across the water. Many of them try it for a couple of years and find that life over there is not all it was cracked up to be.

As a Government we have no legal way of stopping them going if they decide to go. When they arrive in England we hope that the Irish people, living in the various districts to which the Irish mostly go, will help them to find jobs and suitable accommodation. I believe the most effective way of helping young Irish people over there is through these voluntary organisations. Recently, I have got the permission of the Minister for Finance to appoint an officer whose work will be to promote Irish associations in the various towns one of whose objects will be the organisation of the healthy pastimes, amusements and care of young Irish people in England.

Mr. Dillon

I take it from what the Minister says that "various towns" will include the various boroughs of a city as large as London?

Mr. Aiken

Of course, it will. In a place like London or any of these big cities, there are completely distinct districts. In places like London, Manchester and so on, where you have the county associations, you have all sorts of sports clubs. Indeed, it would be very unusual if a young person going to London or any of these cities could not make contact with friends and acquaintances from his own district. If they do not get in contact with them, it is not because they cannot do it.

Mr. Coogan

Is the Minister not prepared to help the welfare associations in London?

Mr. Aiken

We can help them.

Mr. Coogan

Financially?

Mr. Aiken

It would be impossible to do it financially. There would be no end to it. We cannot take that responsibility. We cannot do it as a voluntary organisation could do it. When a Government make provision for any type of case, when they treat one individual or 10 individuals that come within a certain category, they cannot stop until everybody else who is in the same class is treated. There might be endless claims if we undertook to provide welfare funds for our people abroad.

Mr. Coogan

It would be much cheaper to keep them at home.

Mr. Aiken

It would be much cheaper and we are prepared to keep them at home. A very big number of the people who leave here—not the majority—as every Deputy knows, leave reasonable jobs. Even a great number of the people who have no work and live on unemployment assistance would be better off at home than in England. It is not just the size of the pay packet that counts for happiness in the long run.

I do not think it is necessary for me to go over the whole foreign policy of the Government. There has been no change in recent years. Certain actions or certain votes we cast in the United Nations came up for discussion from time to time. I think that every year the question of voting in relation to the Chinese representation is becoming more urgent. We have indicated our attitude on that. I revealed it at the United Nations and here several times and I do not intend to repeat it.

Mr. D. Costello

Would the Minister not say if he intends to vote for the inclusion of Red China?

Mr. Aiken

I have replied to that question on several occasions and I do not intend to repeat it. The Deputy himself read the answer to a question which was given a couple of months ago which referred to a previous question. I can refer him to other questions and other replies and to speeches I made at the United Nations which quite clearly indicated our attitude to Communism and every other sort of "ism."

Mr. Dillon

Surely the Minister would agree that if he answered that question at the United Nations and everywhere else, it would be a good thing to answer it in Dáil Éireann?

Mr. Aiken

I will read out what we said at the United Nations on that question, if Deputies are not satisfied.

Mr. Dillon

After all, Dáil Éireann is the place——

Mr. Aiken

Here it is: "The Government have taken no decision on the representation of China ..."

Mr. D. Costello

Is the position the same now? Have the Government taken no decision on the representation of China?

Mr. Aiken

I do not intend to undergo cross-examination or continued interruption by the Deputy. I am speaking in the Dáil; I am not the Deputy's prisoner.

Mr. D. Costello

The people would like to know.

Mr. Aiken

I am stating the Government's position. There are certain Deputies who are more concerned with misrepresenting the matter than having it understood. I believe in the ordinary normal good sense of the Irish people on questions of this kind. From my earliest youth, I have often heard around the kitchen fire a more informed and balanced discussion on external affairs than we often hear from some of the Deputies in this House.

Here is one of the things I said. I have always sent the Deputies the volumes of my speeches. Every speech I made at the United Nations I have put in the Dáil Library so that Deputies could not say they did not know.

Perhaps Deputies might refer to the Volume for 1959 where at page 6 I said:

The Irish Government has taken no decision on the question of the representation of China—which is not before us—but it holds strongly that it is the duty of the United Nations to do what it can, through discussion and negotiation, to win acceptance for the principles of the Charter in China and to secure self-determination for the people of Korea. If a proposal were before the Assembly at this moment to accept the Peiping Government as representing China, my delegation would advocate that, before any substantive decision were taken, a United Nations effort should be made through negotiations to secure from the Peiping Government an undertaking to refrain from using force against any of their neighbours, to give religious freedom to the Chinese people and to allow the people of all Korea to decide their destiny in an internationally supervised election.

Let me only add that we may have a discussion on it in the United Nations in the coming session but I do not know. I would hope that a great number of nations would take up that attitude. While a lot of people think the United Nations is merely a talking shop which can only pass pious resolutions, the resolutions, the talk and the speeches in the United Nations have had a very healthy effect on activities in various parts of the world. I should hope that, as time goes on, the resolutions of the United Nations will become more and more constructive and be better understood throughout the world and better operated by the people to whom they are directed. That is our hope and so long as we are in the United Nations, I hope the Irish delegation will work along those lines.

Deputy Costello raised a question in relation to the conference called by Marshal Tito and President Nasser. He asked me a question as to whether we were invited and I answered that we were not invited. Another Deputy followed that up by asking whether we were going to take the initiative to seek an invitation and I said that we were not. That still remains the situation. Deputy Costello put me a question as to what happened between President Sukarno and the Taoiseach and myself. I shall not go any further than the statement I gave in the Dáil on that issue, namely, that matters of mutual interest were discussed. I do not think I would have the right to say anything further. It is not wise to go further in cases of diplomatic contact of that kind. Although it might be easier for me to go further in particular instances, I do not think it is wise in the long run and I am not going to do it in the short run.

We will take this question, however, of the conference of uncommitted nations. I do not ever remember alluding to ourselves as an uncommitted nation. I think, for the most time, if people read up, I have always alluded to ourselves as an independent nation that believes in the principles of the Charter, that believes in human freedom, in human dignity, in self-determination and self-Government for peoples. We have not been in any bloc. I would myself be very hesitant to join any particular bloc.

Owing to an accident of history, we have evolved as a neutral nation. We have not put it into our Constitution as it is in the Swiss Constitution but the Leaders of the Opposition will remember that when, at the end of the war, an invitation came to Ireland to join NATO it was rejected. When people talk about all the good we could do if we joined NATO, it at amazes me. I myself believe that what we would do if a war broke out is of very little importance. The world has plenty of destructive power without the little mite we could add but what we do before a war breaks out to try to prevent a war is of importance.

We have, owing to the accident of history or whatever way you like to put it, been independent, united, neutral, in the accepted sense of the term, in the military sense of the term. It was our duty as a delegation in the United Nations to take full advantage of that position, in order to try to promote the peace, to try to make propositions which countries tied to blocs could not make without committing their bloc.

One of the reasons I am prejudiced against joining a bloc, even if it were open to us, is that once you go into a bloc you must first of all clear every word with the other members before you can even make a speech in the United Nations.

Mr. McQuillan

Does the Minister accept the political implications of joining the Common Market?

Mr. Aiken

I dealt with that before the Deputy came in. I am not going back again. He can read it. I dealt fully with that matter. There are three blocs in the United Nations at the present time (1) the Warsaw Pact bloc (2) the Western powers group and (3) the neutral Afro-Asian bloc. To see these groups in action would put anybody off joining a bloc. The Afro-Asian group comprises about 45 or 50 countries. Instead of using their influence on the two major groups, the two opposing power blocs, and using all their energy on them to convert them or to convert their people to peaceful purposes, they spend all day long and the half of the night trying to co-ordinate their votes and their words and to agree upon the text of a resolution. They go on working it out, night after night.

I want to give one instance of the importance of flexibility and of independence. I believe very strongly that it will be impossible to get world disarmament in our time or indeed for many generations to come. It is foolish to think that a great power with nuclear weapons will be satisfied for a long number of years, until it can see a real system of world law in operation in which it can trust, to surrender or destroy its nuclear weapons. It will hold on to them. What is important is that we should not add to the risks of nuclear war, which are inherent in having four powers at the present time possessing them.

One effective piece of work I think we could do and one that is in the interests of all countries, nuclear and non-nuclear, is to stop these weapons from spreading because the further they spread the greater the danger there is of their being used at some time. No one knows. We have seen the leaders of great countries in our day going mad and taking warlike action. Four such countries, with the possibilities of leaders coming up in them, would have it in their power to declare war and make nuclear warfare. Four is enough. It is four too many and we do not want any more. There is a great danger that as the years go by more and more countries will be able to make them. Take Sweden, for example, or Israel. No one has any doubt that these two countries have all the skill necessary to produce the bomb. One of them has already the type of electric power plant with which Britain produced the plutonium that made her bombs. The danger exists that an additional power would get it.

I believe it is in the interests of world peace and in the interests of humanity that the nuclear powers should make agreement at once not to give these weapons to countries that have not got them and that the rest of us should agree not to make them and to submit to international inspection to ensure that none of them is making them. In Ireland we would not require a lot of inspection. We have no nuclear power plants. One or two people could carry out inspections in certain other countries which have such apparatus.

Mr. D. Costello

Is it not the Russians who are blocking that, who are refusing to agree to a system of inspection?

Mr. MacEntee

That is beside the point.

Mr. Aiken

I am talking about inspection of the non-nuclear States. I was always afraid the Russians would not agree to any system of inspection because so far at any rate, they have succeeded in keeping a closed shop in Russia and around their group. The proposition that we made in connection with the prevention of the spread of nuclear weapons takes account of the probability that the nuclear powers would not agree to inspection which would throw open all their secrets to people whom they had not under their thumb. To come back to where we started, in regard to the uncommitted Afro-Asian bloc, I got one lesson in the United Nations on the advantage there is in being independent, with a free leg.

Mr. Dillon

It is not only in the United Nations that that has its advantages.

Mr. Aiken

It has advantages in other places if there are people as sensible as myself to use them.

Mr. Dillon

Courtesy forbids an interjection.

Mr. Aiken

Well, then, people like myself and the Leader of the Opposition. Three years ago when we decided to introduce a motion drawing attention to the problem of the dissemination of nuclear weapons, I tried to get a number of countries to co-sponsor it and luckily none of them would agree. One country did agree the night before the meeting of the First Committee, and I said that I would much prefer, if they did not mind, not to have any co-sponsors. In the First Committee when I called for a clause-by-clause vote, I got one clause through, recognising the danger and the existence of that problem. When I got that through by something like 38 affirmative votes and about 46 abstentions, I thought that was the best I could do on that vote and withdrew the whole resolution. Having got that clause through I withdrew the remainder which called for certain committees to be set up to examine the matter. If I had been tied to a number of people, if I had had 15 or 20 people co-sponsoring that resolution, we could not have withdrawn it without asking them and the opportunity would have been gone. As the vote went round we saw the number of people who were going to vote and who were going to abstain and I decided that was the best I could do that year and withdrew the resolution.

Apart from that, there are many occasions on which an independent country that has no interest to serve except the good of the United Nations, the support of the Charter and the gradual evolution of a world of law, has great advantages in being free to express its own opinion without committing anybody, and to make suggestions when there are opposition groups at loggerheads. That is a freedom it would not have if it were in a bloc. That is the answer to Deputy Costello's question as to whether we would join them or go to this group of uncommitted countries. I recognised the very good faith of a number of people who have joined in that preliminary conference. We have worked with a number of their representatives and have admired them and have recognised their good faith but I must say at the present time I would feel very doubtful about joining any bloc of any kind. I feel that by joining we would throw away a number of advantages which, through the fortunes of history, we have at present and which I think we can use to promote the rule of law and goodwill in the world.

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

Vote put and agreed to.