Committee on Finance. - Vote 45: External Affairs. – Dáil Éireann (19th Dáil) – Wednesday, 11 Mar 1970

Committee on Finance. - Vote 45: External Affairs.

Minister for External Affairs (Dr. Hillery)

I move:

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £40,400 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st day of March, 1970. for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for External Affairs and of certain services administered by that Office including a Grant-in-Aid.

With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose that the Supplementary Estimate for External Affairs and the Supplementary Estimate for International Co-operation be discussed together.

The Supplementary Estimate for External Affairs is required to meet additional expenditure arising on subhead B—Travelling and Incidental Expenses, on subhead C—Post Office Services and on subhead D—Repatriation and Maintenance of Destitute Irish Persons abroad. On subhead B, the additional requirement was caused mainly by the high level of payments by way of travel expenses and related expenditure arising from transfer of diplomatic staff, some over long distances. Expenditure on such transfers proved greater than originally envisaged. A general increase in the activities of the Department has resulted in increased travelling on official business by officers of the Department and also a greater use of the other services provided in the subhead—postage, telegrams, telephones and miscellaneous items. In addition the services covered by the subhead have of course been affected by rising costs. Deputies will appreciate that it is difficult to forecast travel costs and the extent of the use of the other services included in the subhead.

Subhead C—Post Office Services— relates to expenditure on postage, telegrams, telephones and miscellaneous items incurred at headquarters. Here again, the level of activity in the Department has resulted in higher expenditure than was originally anticipated. In addition, certain increases in postage and telegram rates have had an effect on expenditure under this subhead.

With regard to subhead D, the number of persons repatriated or given financial assistance by our missions abroad has proved greater than originally estimated. Expenditure on repatriations in the normal way may reach £6,000 and provision has been made for an additional sum of £2,000 to provide for possible expenditure by the embassy at Lagos. As the public become more travel conscious we must expect the number of persons applying to our missions for assistance, especially on the Continent, will tend to increase. Expenditure incurred on the repatriation and maintenance of Irish persons abroad is charged to this subhead and moneys subsequently recovered from persons who are repatriated is brought to account by way of Appropriations-in-Aid of the Vote. An additional sum of £1,000 has been included in the Appropriations-in-Aid subhead to meet extra receipts in repatriation cases in the current financial year.

With regard to the Supplementary Estimate for International Co-operation, Deputies will recall that the Dáil on 5th December last voted a sum of £35,500 for the UNICEF programme of assistance in Nigeria and in my statement at that time I explained the type of work which UNICEF had been doing in the war affected areas to help Nigerian mothers and children. On 7th January UNICEF appealed for further contributions so that their Nigerian emergency programme could be continued. This appeal was made all the more urgent by the sudden new needs brought about by the ending of the civil war. The Government decided on 13th January subject to Dáil approval to make an additional sum of £10,000 immediately available to UNICEF for the emergency relief and rehabilitation of women and children in Nigeria. UNICEF have announced that Ireland and Canada were the first two countries whose Governments responded to their appeal.

Since the ending of the hostilities, UNICEF have continued to make a vital contribution in Nigeria in the areas most in need. In close co-operation with the Nigerian Government authorities and the Nigerian Red Cross, UNICEF have been providing food and medical supplies and have made available transportation facilities and specialist medical personnel. I am convinced that by supporting the work of this United Nations agency we have been helping in an effective way to alleviate the suffering of women and children in Nigeria during this very difficult period.

I should like to conclude by saying that I was very pleased to note that the Irish National Committee for UNICEF, from generous contributions received from the Irish public, made available a sum of £18,000 on 20th January in response to the UNICEF appeal for funds for Nigeria. This sum is in addition to a previous amount of £25,000 made available by the national committee for the same purpose. Thus the total Irish contribution to UNICEF— including the contributions of the Government and the national committee—for Nigeria now amounts to over £88,000.

Mr. Cosgrave

The purpose of these Supplementary Estimates is, one mainly in respect of travelling and the other in respect of relief in connection with internation co-operation. I note that the number of moves of departmental staff has involved an increased sum. This is probably an appropriate occasion to say a word on this matter. In so far as diplomatic services generally are concerned, because of their size there is no pattern of movement from one post to another in the sense that in certain other countries the practice is to leave people for more or less defined periods, usually about three years, sometimes a little longer and occasionally, of course, shorter.

Some of our staff, particularly in the case of heads of missions, have had very long periods of service abroad and this causes a great deal of hardship to the individuals concerned and has a number of drawbacks otherwise. In some cases people are left too long abroad and get out of touch with events at home and indeed out of touch with the Department, except for periodic visits either on leave or when they are brought home for a discussion on a particular matter. I appreciate that because of the size of the Department and the relatively small number of personnel available for certain posts, it is not easy to move them as regularly as is the case with the diplomatic corps of other countries.

At the same time, experience has shown that when particular people are left abroad or even moved from one post abroad to another, it involves long periods away from home base and in fact, as in a number of cases, involves considerable hardship. There is, therefore, a case for moving people after a reasonable term in a particular mission so that if it is not always possible to bring them to a home post, they would at least be moved to a post from which access to headquarters is easy. Undoubtedly, travel is much quicker nowadays but in some cases some of the people who have been in North or South America have spent long periods abroad without ever coming home except, maybe, on the occasion of transfer from one post to another.

It is right to express appreciation of the fine work which the staff of our missions abroad do. Very often criticism is expressed of their failure to develop certain aspects of their representation, mainly in respect of trade, and I should like to hear from the Minister which missions have specifically assigned to them trade attachés or persons whose main function is in the sphere of trade.

A number of years ago, when I was associated with the Department, a special circular was issued to all missions abroad urging the over-riding importance of trade. The obligation was placed on each head of mission, and on the staff in each mission, with one or two possible exceptions such as the Vatican, to concentrate on trade matters. Great developments have taken place in the interim. The progress of CTT, and so on, has to some extent lessened the need for specific trade functions except in certain defined missions abroad. People sometimes think, because this or that is not being done, that the staff are not zealous enough or vigorous enough in the promotion of trade. It is not often appreciated that, in most of the missions abroad, the entire staff is very limited. In some cases it consists of one head of mission and one or two supporting staff. That imposes a considerable amount of work on the personnel concerned. I shall be interested to hear the Minister on general policy in that regard although this is hardly the occasion to develop it.

The provision of relief has been the subject of discussion here recently. The return of a number of missionaries has focused attention on the magnificent work our missionaries did in Nigeria and Biafra. No words can adequately pay tribute to their services, their sacrifices and their devotion to the interests of the people among whom they were working—whether they were missionaries in the strict sense of priests and nuns or whether they were doctors, nurses or teachers engaged either in medical or nursing work or teaching in particular places. The fact that so many people contributed to the appeal was itself evidence of its impact on this country. The reaction was evoked by the contribution our missionaries made which typified years of service and years of devoted and dedicated work not only in Nigeria but in other areas as well.

Some concern was felt as to whether the relief voted and the supplies sent were delivered to the areas most in need. The general impression in this country was that the area which, up to recently, was described as Biafra was the place where the relief was required most urgently—if it is possible, in a situation of this sort, to regard any area or any set of conditions as being much better or much worse than others. Undoubtedly, in the aftermath of the conclusion of hostilities, the area that had been under the control of the Federal forces for the whole of the time appeared to have been better supplied and to be in a better position. The fact that so many of our missionaries were in the secessionist area and had particular knowledge and experience of the conditions there justified the response which people gave. I believe it gave rise to the anxiety in many quarters that the supplies and relief would, in the main, be directed to that area. Of course, if there were any other specific cases or places where relief could be of assistance then, needless to say, it should have gone there, too.

The efforts by the Irish committee and the contributions by the public reflected very genuine sympathy. None of us familiar in recent times with any appeal for charitable or relief purposes —or, for that matter, for any purpose at all—can recall such a spontaneous response from great numbers of people very many of whom could not afford as much as they contributed.

The subheads of this Supplementary Estimate limit discussion. There will be another opportunity of discussing other aspects of the Vote on the main Estimate. I note, however, that this covers the Council of Europe and also the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Perhaps the Minister would indicate generally, when replying, on what precise date it is proposed to issue the White Paper on EEC and indicate generally the aspects of our application intended to be covered in it.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

There has been something of a tradition here, in relation to the Estimate for the Department of External Affairs, that the Minister's introductory statement is rather uninformative. I was hoping the new Minister would depart from that—as he has, to some extent. At the same time, we are not getting a very complete picture even as regards the extra amounts required to sustain certain forms of activity abroad, which we ought to be able to debate here.

This Vote, No. 45, is for a net total of £40,400. We have some reason to believe that this is by no means complete as far as expenditure necessary to sustain activities abroad is concerned. Another Supplementary Estimate which we shall come to later, Vote No. 16, contains the item of Miscellaneous Expenses: Northern Ireland: Special Publicity—£70,000. That sum is almost double what is sought in the Supplementary Estimate now before us. I believe also that, under the heading of Government Information Bureau under the Taoiseach's Department, there is supplementary expenditure, too.

All this arises out of one aspect of the country's activity which has been channelled through the Department of External Affairs and which ought to be reflected in the Supplementary Estimate before us, that is to say the publicity, information or propaganda effort—whatever one likes to call it— which was conducted in foreign countries and therefore comes under the aegis of the Department of External Affairs during the period under review.

I know that we shall have an opportunity of discussing Northern Ireland special publicity on Vote 16 but we shall be dealing in that case with the Minister for Finance and we have to take other matters connected with this to the Taoiseach. This is all one thing and it would be much more coherent to deal with it under the umbrella where it belongs, that is, the very neatly rolled umbrella of the Minister for External Affairs.

We ought to have the opportunity of discussing how far the activity of the Department of External Affairs is opportune. I think it was and is inopportune as regards our relations with other countries and as regards the Northern Ireland problem I think it was negative. Its positive effects were measured, as is often the case when propaganda is used, in the terrain of home politics. It is questionable that the taxpayer should be called upon to contribute to the cost of an exercise which essentially served the domestic propaganda of the Government by appearing to answer the question: "What are the Government doing about this problem?".

I notice that the Ceann Comhairle is looking at me in a somewhat sceptical fashion and I do not want to introduce matters which would have been dealt with in the main Estimate had we reached it then and which we shall have an opportunity to talk about with the Minister for Finance on another Supplementary Estimate. I have a slight ground for uneasiness in discussing it on that Supplementary Estimate because whereas the Minister for External Affairs has always dealt informatively and courteously with questions from this side of the House the Minister for Finance has stated in the Dáil that he takes some personal pleasure in giving unsatisfactory answers to the Deputy who is at present addressing the House. That is unsatisfactory. However, it is a small issue compared with the general issue that we ought to be able to consider all the activities of the Department of External Affairs together. We ought to consider how opportune they are and we ought to have an opportunity of asking the Minister for External Affairs what response he got from the special publicity activity. I feel sure the Minister will tell us what benefit was derived from this additional activity. This arises not merely on another Estimate, but on this Supplementary Estimate also.

We are told that a supplementary sum is required under subhead B of Vote 45, for travelling and incidental expenses amounting to £29,500. The original estimate of £130,500 was a considerable underestimate. We should like to know a little more about how this expenditure arose than what we are told in the Minister's speech:

On subhead B, the additional requirement was caused mainly by the high level of payments by way of travel expenses and related expenditure arising from transfer of diplomatic staff, some over long distances. Expenditure on such transfers proved greater than originally envisaged. A general increase in the activities of the Department has resulted in increased travelling on official business by officers of the Department...

I should like to ask a few questions about that. As this additional requirement arose both from transfers and from other travelling expenses would the Minister inform us what proportion was due to unforeseen transfers and what proportion was due to an increase in the activities of the Department which resulted in increased travelling? Would the Minister give us some information as to the increased activities of the Department? Was the Department previously plunged in lethargy and is it just now being awakened by the Minister? If that is so, let us hear that. Does any proportion of this increase arise from the special efforts which were made at the time of the crisis in the North last August? If it does, the House would be interested to hear what the activities were and exactly what benefit the country—as distinct from the governing party—derived from these activities. Does any part of this arise— perhaps it does and if so the Minister will tell us—from the activities of those who were seconded from other services and attached as publicity officers to embassies at a given time? We should like to know a good deal more about these increased activities. It is very good that the activities of the Department of External Affairs have increased provided they have increased in the interests of the country generally and not only in the interests of the governing party. If it is the case that they have resulted in benefit for the country generally surely the Minister will not conceal that from us?

I do not want to say a great deal about Vote 46 but it strikes me that the sum involved is, in fact, very small in relation to the degree of concern which the people of this country have shown about the immense human disaster which occurred in Nigeria and in the area known formerly as Biafra, now part of the eastern region. I thought the Government would have been moved to produce a sum other than what this is, that is to say, about one-third of the additional travelling and incidental expenses—the margin of error reflected in the Supplementary Estimate.

In relation to this matter we would like to know what the Minister feels he can with propriety tell us about conditions in the devastated region and about the possibility of relief efforts reaching that area. I speak with great restraint. I have no intention of seeking any kind of political post-mortem on the issue which I do not think would serve any purpose. There is here widespread concern about what has happened. It is as if a curtain had fallen. I appreciate that the Minister must be careful on this. He must not seem to be intruding on the internal affairs of a sovereign State. He must not do anything that will jeopardise the possibility of more effective aid from this country for the people who have been hit, whoever they may be. Perhaps he could tell us whether Irish officials have been able to visit the devastated regions and have been able to form any opinion as to the amount and kind of rehabilitation that is taking place and what, if anything, the Irish people might be able to do in relation to the situation in the future, apart from voting this rather small Supplementary Estimate.

I would hope that the Minister would also give us his views about his responsibility as Minister for External Affairs for the co-ordination of what are politely called our information activities abroad, which also could be called our propaganda activities, and his view of the utility of such activities, whether they are to continue, whether in the developing situation in Northern Ireland he thinks it will or will not be useful to carry on such activities and, finally, whether he accepts the concept that his Department are the co-ordinators of information activities addressed to other countries. Let us leave the Six County area or Northern Ireland out of it for the moment. Let us not grapple with that constitutional issue. Does the Minister accept the concept that the Department of External Affairs are responsible for the co-ordination of publicity propaganda information addressed to other countries, including Great Britain, and if he does accept that concept, why is it not reflected in the Supplementary Estimate?

Sir Anthony Esmonde

I have a certain amount of sympathy with the Minister. Originally the Minister for External Affairs had, perhaps, one of the easiest jobs in the Government but it so happened that when the present occupant of that high office took over, he inherited a difficult situation. First of all, he had to deal with the situation in Northern Ireland. That is not relevant to this Supplementary Estimate. Subsequently there was the complete blow-out in Nigeria which this Estimate deals with.

Perhaps, I have been one of the Minister's most severe critics in that I posed parliamentary questions to him which may have been a source of embarrassment. One day when he was not here to answer questions the substitute Minister replied that the policy was one of quiet diplomacy. I think the day of quiet diplomacy in foreign affairs has passed. Unless you assert your nationhood and your rights you are not likely to get satisfaction from the parties concerned, whether they be great or small powers.

May I take this opportunity—it is the first one I have had—to pay the highest tribute possible to our ambassador in Nigeria, Mr. Paul Keating, who has been under the greatest difficulty and the greatest strain during trying times in that country? May I include in that tribute those who serve with him in the embassy?

I note that the Minister has found it necessary to vote a greater sum for our embassies abroad. I note with satisfaction that one of the embassies concerned is that in Nigeria. The Minister and I are going a long way together in that I think he recognises that this country had a lot to do in Nigeria in the past and will probably have a lot to do there in the future.

With regard to the money we are voting to UNICEF, I agree with Deputy Cruise-O'Brien that, although under international obligations we must pass everything through the Governments concerned, there is a particular problem of the most acute proportions relating to women and children in Nigeria. The Minister should bear that in mind. This sum is voted to UNICEF and, so far as they can, they channel the money through for the necessary rehabilitation and social work.

It is an inescapable fact that, taking Nigeria as a whole and accepting that Biafra no longer exists, there is greater suffering in the south eastern region, which was the original territory that went under the name of Biafra, than in any other part of the country. It should have been possible for the Minister to give us some idea of the conditions that prevail in that part of Nigeria. I do not know whether he knows what these conditions are, because we have been unable to ascertain by way of parliamentary question what exactly happened when the collapse came, and what happened in relation to the work which was carried out so efficiently by Joint Church Aid and Caritas Internationalis.

If I may inform the Minister of anything I have been able to discover, a certain amount of food is going into that area and we are providing a certain amount of money for the purpose of rehabilitating women and children who suffered so much in that zone. Though the food is going in there, and though things are slowly returning to normal, just as anywhere else in the world, you cannot get food unless you can pay for it. In view of the fact that the Minister is the representative of the Irish nation and the Irish Government in the contribution we are making to Nigeria, he should be in a position to ascertain from the Nigerian Government if they propose to take any action to rectify the monetary situation in the area. I take it that the money we are providing is for the purpose of feeding the women and children but if there is food in that area the people have to have money to buy it.

My information, subject to correction by the Minister who has more opportunities of knowing what is going on than I have, is that the people have no money. They have the original currency that existed before the collapse of the former Biafran State, but they have no money available except Biafran money. Biafran money is not recognised by the Nigerian Government and, therefore, it is absolutely worthless and they are unable to buy anything. The missionaries, the Irishmen who have dedicated their lives to charitable work abroad, found themselves in the position of being unable to help these unfortunate people financially because they have no money other than Biafran money.

I think I am in order in suggesting to the Minister that, in giving this extra £10,000—which, incidentally, for the information of the House is not really £10,000 because the rate of exchange there is 17/- to the £; I found that out to my cost when I was out there; I thought I would get £ for £ but I only got 17/- to the £— he should impress upon the Nigerian Government that what is really required in the south eastern region state, which is now its official name, is money, and that the only way they can get money in the south eastern state is for the Nigerian Government to make some sort of arrangement under which Biafran currency would be worth something. It is worth nothing at the moment and if you produce a Biafran pound you could not buy anything. Therefore, it would be valueless for us as a nation to make a contribution unless we were satisfied that was an overall contribution to the most necessitous parts of the Nigerian territory.

I do not know whether we have any influence there or whether the Minister has any influence, but, perhaps, he would tell the House what exactly the position is. This is a debate in connection with which we are endeavouring to help those who are in need. When I left that country not much more than a month ago just before the collapse, there was certain aid going in there. That food is no longer going in there by the channels through which it went in before. Has the Minister any information, through our ambassador, from the Nigerian Government in regard to the distribution of food? I want to impress upon the House—this is the first opportunity I have had of doing so—that when I left that territory there were thousands and thousands of people on the point of starvation. They were kept alive by the inflow of food that was being sent to them by an organisation run largely by Irish priests and Irish nuns.

Has the Minister an up to date report or is he relying—and this is where I would criticise him if he is—on quiet diplomacy? The words "quiet diplomacy" were not used by the Minister himself but by the Minister who substituted for him here. Quiet diplomacy, with my knowledge of the situation, leads me to believe that what we are doing is glossing over the disastrous situation that exists there, and it exists not only in the south eastern states but also very largely in the original Nigerian territory behind the fighting line. Even if the money sent is a direct donation from the Government it is first raised from the taxpayer. That money is produced by the Irish race as a whole, and we are entitled to have a full statement from the Minister as to how that money is used, and I do not think that is asking too much. It may well be the Minister does not know. If the Minister has adhered entirely to quiet diplomacy he probably will not know.

The Minister for External Affairs is in charge of a Ministry which although it could be described as a mare's nest has at least achieved one thing, the realisation that Ireland can have and must have a separate foreign policy from that of other countries. I would suggest to the Minister that he bears that in mind and bearing it in mind that he uses the full force of his high office to assert the right of Ireland to have the information direct from the countries concerned and not through a foreign power.

Minister for External Affairs (Dr. Hillery)

I agree with Deputy Cosgrave that in a small service it is not possible to make frequent changes or to have people come home as frequently as we would desire: whatever their own feelings about the matter would be, there are mixed opinions about the advantages. Specific trade attachés exist in some of the bigger missions—London, EEC, Paris, Rome, but I would say that the ambassadors have been asked to bend their energies towards improving trade. In connection with the main Estimate which we debated this year, I invited exporters from this country to make use of the expertise and local knowledge which is available to the embassies in various countries, and I hope they will do this. If Deputies could think of any more formal way in which I could encourage this I should be glad to hear it from them. I could not hear it today, I suppose, but some other time.

On the point made by Deputy Esmonde about Nigeria, the Nigerian Government is a sovereign independent government and they are not subject to the will of this House in any form. We have to deal with them on that basis or on no basis at all. As a government, our only approach to relief in Nigeria and to the protection of our own citizens is through the Nigerian Government. I should like to tell the House that the last of the Irish citizens are now out of the former enclave and I expect that by this time they are in Rome on their way home.

The suggestion that £10,000 for Nigerian relief is not enough came from both Deputy Cruise-O'Brien and Deputy Esmonde. I told the House before that we have also offered £80,000 for Nigerian relief and rehabilitation and have been in touch, through our ambassador, with the Nigerian Government about the ways in which they might consider the amount could be best utilised. In addition to that, there is the Government contribution to the Red Cross which comes under the Estimate for Defence. There was a Supplementary Estimate for the Department of Defence recently and the Red Cross contribution was debated under that.

The criticisms about Nigeria in this House should be balanced by a feeling of gratitude that all our citizens are now safely out of the former enclave, having come to the end of the civil war and a most difficult situation. There is reason for people here to express gratitude that this safe passage has been accorded and assured for our citizens. This assurance was given to me when the war ended and I called the chargé d'affaires of the Nigerian Embassy in to see me. There was an Irish nun killed in the war. Her car was attacked by an aeroplane, but since the end of the war with the army and the Nigerian Government in charge our citizens' safety has been guaranteed and, as the House knows now, ensured. Deputies know already that for a while representatives of the embassy were able to be in the war area, but at one stage they were kept out and have been kept out since. It has been possible for us to get information on the situation there through people meeting other people from the area, and through international organisations.

Generally speaking, the relief is developing well and supplies are beginning to flow better and organisation improving. I gather from one group who were there that they came across very few cases of kwashiorker although they found some cases on the mend. Deputy Desmond is right in assuming that I have no direct information because our people from the Embassy are excluded from that area. What information I have is that the situation is improving all the time. My main concern has been the protection of Irish citizens, which is really my business. We were entitled as a Government to seek their protection and we sought it and were guaranteed it. Going into the affairs of another nation can only be done on the basis of wanting to help and offering help and we have done that.

Deputy Sir Anthony Esmonde says the day for quiet diplomacy is past. This is not true. One cannot approach problems with an open mouth all the time or one can cause harm and do damage. I suppose it must be part of the job of a Minister for External Affairs to have people assume he is doing nothing if he is not shouting it from the house tops but, certainly, a great deal of the good—the protection of our citizens in Nigeria since the end of the war—was due to quiet diplomacy and a great deal of our residual goodwill has been maintained because of the understanding of this by our missionaries, by our channels of communication and by most Deputies. I think the Deputy should revise his opinion and he might adopt the motto of an American statesman who had on his desk: "Today is a good day to keep your mouth shut". I should not wish Deputies to stop talking altogether but I should like him to move away a little from the idea that quiet diplomacy is dead and gone.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

It is often easier to do nothing than do something.

Dr. Hillery

Panic will always make you do something whether useful or not. I do not want to score over the Deputy but to educate him. I hope we shall have no need for another period of silent diplomacy but, if the occasion arises, I hope he will remember what I said.

I am grateful to him for mentioning Ambassador Keating and his staff. I have had letters of appreciation from representatives of the missionaries who were loud in their praises of what was done by Ambassador Keating and Mr. Small and their predecessors Mr. Rush and Mr. Ó Tuathail. All the missionaries, I think, have been fully aware of what our staff and Embassy were doing and I am glad the Deputy has put this on the records of the House.

I am not sure what I should say about the enlargement of the Government Information Bureau which took place in the autumn in relation to events in the North of Ireland and our particular interest in them. I think no Deputy will deny that we have a very particular interest in what happens there.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

It might have been a good occasion for quiet diplomacy.

Dr. Hillery

There was a period in dealing with the problem at the UN when I came to the decision that the time had come for quiet diplomacy and I made it known. I cannot say anything to what the Deputy has said: I had already said it myself. At the same time I think that what happened in the north and at the UN, and everything associated with it, did have its own good effect. The expansion of the bureau and the cost of it will be debated here on a Supplementary Estimate to be introduced by the Minister for Finance, I think. It was an ad hoc arrangement and is no longer in existence.

It is intended that the information service of the Department of External Affairs will be expanded. This decision had been taken but events at the time suggested to the Government that more information was needed in other countries. Apart from the expansion of the bureau there was more activity in the missions as we asked our missions to let the Governments to which they were accredited know of the true situation as accurately as possible. I do not think I would be entitled, even though Deputy Dr. O'Brien did deal with the expansion of the bureau, to discuss this. It would scarcely be fair to the person whose Supplementary Estimate it is. I do not think there will be any attempt to be unco-operative. The Deputy should not be too sensitive about that. I cannot make promises, of course. It is not in this Supplementary Estimate. It concerns the Government Information Bureau, not the Department of External Affairs and it would seem inappropriate on my part to attempt to discuss it.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

I do not want to interrupt but might I ask if these additional personnel where not in fact working in close liaison with our missions abroad and to some extent therefore under the guiding hand of the Minister himself?

Dr. Hillery

They were working from the Embassies and I directed that on questions of policy they would take directions from the staff of the Embassy, but they were actually a function of the Government Information Bureau.

Mr. Cosgrave

And therefore under the Taoiseach?

Dr. Hillery

The Taoiseach's Department, yes. The Deputy asked my opinion of the utility of this. That is hard to estimate because the world news at that time seemed to attend the action and the happenings. I could not estimate the utility but I would say that those involved were people at the top of their profession. This was their work and they were contributing to their country's needs at the time. Their intentions were good but I would not assume the role of an expert to assess the effects. None of us can do that in respect of what we do; there is no feedback of that nature. The problem was fully explained to the world at the time.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

We would not be likely to do this again?

Dr. Hillery

I imagine that what we shall do is expand the information service of the Department of External Affairs. This does not exclude the Government Information Bureau, but I think expansion of the type of service we already have and sending out information will be the way things will go. I cannot say what would happen again. The ad hoc arrangement was brought to an end some time ago.

Deputy Cosgrave asked about the White Paper on EEC. The aim was to have it at the end of March, but I think it will be early April, although we are still trying to have it in March. I cannot go into the substance. The Government have not gone over the final draft and it would be premature for me to say what it will cover but it will provide sufficient framework for a full discussion on our application for membership and all its implications.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Wednesday, 11 Mar 1970

Committee on Finance. - Vote 45: External Affairs.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 11 Mar 1970