Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 27 Nov 1975

Vol. 286 No. 3

Supplementary Estimates, 1975. - Vote 46: Foreign Affairs (Resumed).

The Dáil according to order, resumed consideration of Supplementary Estimates for Public Services for the year ending 31st December, 1975.

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £737,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st December, 1975, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and of certain services administered by that Office, including certain grants-in-aid.

—(Minister for Foreign Affairs).

Mr. Nolan

The Minister stated clearly at the beginning of his speech the reasons for the massive increase of £737,000 when he said that it was due to the continued fall in the value of our pound against non-sterling currency. This is a major problem, because not alone does it affect the Estimate for the Department of Foreign Affairs but it also affects the goods we have to buy to keep our industries going, and our exports.

When we entered the Community in January, 1973, the pound could buy 120 Belgian francs. Today we get only 81 Belgian francs. This means that the pound against the non-sterling European currencies has devalued by about 30 per cent. This is the prime reason why the Minister had to come here today to look for this very large sum to keep his Department going.

Later in his speech he gave other reasons. He said:

One was that the work—and travel —connected with the Irish Presidency of the European Community Council of Ministers was much greater even than had been expected.

My opinion is that all the expenses of the Minister as President of the Council were paid by the Community and not by this Government. I thought the same applied to him as applied to the 10 Members of the European Parliament.

Dr. FitzGerald

The Community paid the travelling expenses of specific people to specific meetings of a Community character, but there were many other expenses beyond that.

Mr. Nolan

Which were not paid for?

Dr. FitzGerald

Yes.

Mr. Nolan

But the Minister's expenses as President of the Council of Ministers were paid for by the Council?

Dr. FitzGerald

My travel expenses, if travelling to a meeting——

Mr. Nolan

Hotel expenses and so on.

Dr. FitzGerald

No.

Mr. Nolan

I wish to restate that this problem not alone affects the Department of Foreign Affairs but it affects our industries, exports and imports and brings about the situation to which the Taoiseach and others referred recently when they said that inflation here is running at two-and-a-half times that in most continental countries, particularly member countries of the EEC. Until this Government comes to grips with this problem, not alone this Department but every other Department will have to come back here with Supplementary Estimates to keep them going.

I am a member of the European Parliament and I was a member of the EEC Joint AA Committee which met for the last time in Dublin some time ago. I would like to record my appreciation to the officials of the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Office of Public Works for the excellent job they did during the summit meetings held here. I know the difficulties they had. Meetings were held in the Castle and at each meeting adjustments had to be made to the electronic equipment. The people from these two Departments had to work over the weekends to make sure that the work was done. This was very much appreciated by parliamentarians from outside and inside Europe. The president of the Joint EEC AA Committee asked me particularly to convey his thanks to you, Sir, and to the various officials for the reception given to the delegates. As a result, our image in Europe and beyond is very good.

I have already mentioned devaluation and the extra money needed by the Department. But are we getting full value from our membership of the European Fund? Before I left Luxembourg this morning I asked for particulars dealing with FEOGA grants for drainage. I was amazed to discover that there was not even one application for a grant for drainage submitted by the Irish Government— a country which spends millions of pounds on drainage. Yet, the island across the water has already been paid almost £1 million in grants for drainage purposes. As a member of the European Parliament this worries me: are we getting value for money? Are we doing too much of the Kissinger act going around the various countries and forgetting what we call the bread and butter issues and reasons why we joined the EEC? I sincerely hope when this House votes the extra money for the Departments of Foreign Affairs that we in this House and the various Departments—Foreign Affairs, Agriculture, Labour, Industry and Commerce—will take a look at ourselves and get the benefits which are to be availed of in Europe. I do not want to delay the House further, but I should like to put on record my disappointment, and that of my colleagues, about the way in which we are availing of the financial aid we could get from Europe.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Dr. FitzGerald)

I want first of all to deal with the financial points made by Deputies in relation to the Estimate proper. A number of Deputies remarked on the magnitude of the increased expenditure under the travel subhead. I accept that this is a matter for concern and that these criticisms can understandably be made because of the scale of these increases. I should like to make clear, however, that travelling expense excess is only one part of the increase, indeed a minority. I was asked by, I think, Deputy O'Kennedy, how much was the air fare section of the bill. The year is not over yet and we have not got this. It will come in gradually, but roughly speaking the portion of the air fare paid to Aer Lingus will be in the order of £12,000, but there are, of course, other air fare payments where the bookings were made through other channels in other countries. I could not give the total for air travel but I can say that the figure is abnormal.

Deputy O'Kennedy raised a point in relation to a matter which I had informed him on before the debate, a sum in the order of £40,000 for air fares. That is very much of an estimate, my own private estimate and not of the Department because it is not possible to estimate to what basic figure the increase would be applied. It looks as if the rate of increase for the year as a whole would be in the order of 15 per cent, but exactly what the 15 per cent will be on in these un-normal circumstances I could not say. It would be in the order of £30,000 to £40,000, I imagine.

As I mentioned at the outset, an important element is the question of devaluation. It poses a very great problem for my Department, much more than for other Departments though it is something other Departments will have to face in a relatively minor way. In our case, the element of travelling abroad presents a real difficulty from this point of view. Deputy O'Kennedy suggested that the devaluation of the pound was well under way when the Estimate was prepared and that we should have been able to foresee the trend, but if one could foresee that kind of trend one could make a lot of money in currency exchange transactions. The fact is, of course, that it is not easy to foresee what the value of any currency will be for any prolonged period ahead and indeed in respect of certain important currencies there was no trend in the period when the Estimate was being prepared which would have justified a forecast of the kind of climate that occurred. The Estimates were finally prepared in September, 1974 on figures furnished in April, 1974. In August, 1974, the dollar was at 2.37 to the £. Ten months later it was at 2.31 and I understand from today's newspapers that it is 2.3. The Canadian dollar was at 2.31 in August, 1974, 2.30 in June, 1975 2.05½ in September, 1975. The yen was 6.93 in August, 1974, 6.62 in June, 1975 and 6.16 in November, 1975.

Mr. Ray Burke

Tell that to the Verolme workers.

Dr. FitzGerald

Therefore, I do not think one can validly foresee the effects of devaluation. One might in a general way have an expectation that the pound might lose some of its value in the year ahead but one cannot put a figure on it. The Government's accountancy system could not attempt to speculate on a thing like that. It is arguable that a way to deal with this would be to buy currency forward, and I have raised the question as to whether that might not be a wise thing. It would give one the advantage of knowing with a degree of certainty what the cost of the international exchange of money would be on the budgeting situation.

Mr. Nolan

Would it not be an admission that the pound would go further down?

Dr. FitzGerald

If the foreign exchange market were to go up you would pay more for the pound in the days ahead, but if you took the precaution of buying ahead you would acquire a measure of certainty now, but it is the kind of operation which on the scale involved here, where we are dealing with several million pounds, would be a new venture for this state to embark on. While it should be examined, it may be that the experts will tell us we would be likely to lose more in the long run than by carrying on as we are now. Certainly, from my point of view, it creates some embarrassment having to come to the House and submit an Estimate on a large scale because of this. I want to emphasise that it is not fully covered under the particular subhead. The majority being spent is not accountable by devaluation.

I should like to make that point clear as I do not want to cover the fact that the Estimates were incorrect. I would be much happier if I did not have to face coming to the House in September with Supplementary Estimates complicated by devaluation, although I would emphasise it is not solely because of this that the increase have occurred. The situation must be unsatisfactory when budgetary control, of necessity, is unsatisfactory. That applies to a wide range of the items listed under the subheads. The fact remains that the Estimates under both votes were much greater than can be accounted for by increases in air fares which could not be foreseen at the time when the Estimates were prepared. There were new developments such as Euratom and other matters which we could not have known about, such as the increase in the frequency of meetings in the context of European political co-operation and the extra work attached to the Irish Presidency of the Council of Ministers and, of course, the increased travel. This was all un-normal expenditure. We had never had experience of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers. Though much of the cost involved was reimbursed, it had its effect on the expenditure. Moreover, there are costs arising from the Presidency that are purely costs for us to incur and which are possibly not reimbursable.

During the Presidency it seemed opportune and wise for us, for example, to undertake bilateral visits to a number of countries where our position in the Presidency at that time would enhance our standing and make the impact of our visits much greater. This was true in the case of our visits to the Middle East and Turkey. The Middle East visit might not have taken place in that period but for the Presidency but it seemed to be the right time to go there as an Irish Foreign Minister when the impact we could make would be greater because of the aura of the Presidency surrounding us. These things could not be planned in advance or in detail. It was only as we got the feel of the job that we began to see what opportunities there would be and how we should make use of them. The fact remains that the underestimation of requirements in the current year is unsatisfactory from a parliamentary point of view and I apologise to the House for the size of the excess.

Mr. Ray Burke

It does not show great forward planning.

Dr. FitzGerald

I have said what I have to say on the subject and I have apologised to the House. I think we should have been able to have estimated more accurately. The Deputy's interjection does not seem very appropriate in the circumstances.

Deputy O'Kennedy raised the question of the executive jet and another Deputy also referred to it. This is becoming a hardy annual. Of course, it is a matter that should be kept under review. The experience we have had in almost three years has been that there certainly have been occasions on which an executive jet would have been useful and when its absence created some problems. It would be astonishing if this were not the case. However, the number of such occasions is relatively few and can be isolated quite easily. There were times when I had to move rapidly from one meeting to another with other Ministers and when I was able to get assistance from other Ministers with regard to transport; I have been able to get a lift with other Ministers on a number of occasions. Perhaps there were four or five such occasions. There was the exceptional occasion when I attended the conference at Lucca recently when I was facilitated by the owner of a private jet at Dublin Airport. The number of such occasions is very few and it could not conceivably be economic for that number of occasions, where there was an emergency problem and a genuine difficulty in using scheduled services, to have an executive jet. Such a plane could cost approximately £500,000 and to run it for a year on a 600-hour basis, which is a low utilisation, would cost £100,000 per year. I do not think I could justify it on that basis.

Of course, if we had an executive jet it could be used not only in emergency cases but on other occasions when it would facilitate movement. It is possible if there were occasions when it could be filled that it would be slightly cheaper on direct operating costs than a scheduled air service although the cumulative over-heads for the entire year would more than outweigh that in the year as a whole. In a seven-seater jet, we would need to fill five seats in order to save enough money on scheduled services to pay for the jet fuel, landing fees and so on. Even if the plane were filled all the time, when taking the overheads into account, the costs per passenger would be higher than the scheduled services. Certainly it would be convenient, but how much one is entitled to charge the taxpayers for the convenience of Ministers is a question which the Deputies opposite will understand we are sensitive to. At the present time, having regard to the small number of emergency occasions and for convenience on other occasions I would find it difficult to justify the purchase of an executive jet. Perhaps we should consider whether we could make arrangements on a certain number of occasions to hire an aircraft when there is a particular problem.

With regard to the occasion which Deputy O'Kennedy dwelt on at some length about going to the meeting in Lucca, the position then was quite abnormal and I do not think any arrangement would have catered for it. There was no aircraft at Dublin Airport serviceable and capable of taking off because of the fog situation other than the single aircraft. All Aer Lingus aircraft except one were at Shannon and other airports. The aircraft at Dublin was unserviceable and had to have an air test before it could be used. It would have to take off and land again and, while it could take off, it could not land again because of the fog. In the conditions prevailing there was no other aircraft that was capable of being flown out of the airport other than the single jet that happened to be going to London because the firm concerned were going there. In those abnormal circumstances, it would have been very curious if I had not sought the assistance of the people concerned with a view to getting to London and making a connection there with an aircraft going to Milan. When I arrived in London I found that, because of problems with the airline concerned, the plane to Milan was diverted to Naples and there was no way of getting to Lucca except to continue my journey by courtesy of the company concerned in their aircraft. It seemed better to go than not to go. It was an unforeseeable circumstance and, even if there had been an executive jet, I certainly would not have been using it on that occasion to travel considering the only people travelling were my wife and myself. My wife was invited to the weekend meeting with the wives of the other Ministers. Even if we had an executive jet, it would not have struck me as appropriate to incur on behalf of the taxpayers the expense of flying my wife and myself to Lucca when I could get there quite comfortably on a scheduled aircraft. Even if we had the jet I would not have been using it for that purpose and I would have been in exactly the same position.

Mr. O'Kennedy

Did the Minister refund the cost of the travel to the company concerned?

Dr. FitzGerald

The question of the arrangement to be made is something that is under discussion at present.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I take it that it is the Minister's wish and intention to refund it?

Dr. FitzGerald

It would certainly be my wish to do so. It is proper that one should do so if this is feasible.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I cannot see how it would not be feasible. Why should it not be feasible?

Mr. Tunney

Surely the Minister is not a hitch-hiker?

Dr. FitzGerald

I agree, and wish that it should be refunded. I do not exclude in principle the executive jet. Certainly it would be very convenient for me and other Ministers if we had it but I do not think it would be justified economically at the present time. It is a matter that should be kept under review, and the possibility of hiring an aircraft occasionally should be considered.

It is not correct to say that all countries have such aircraft. For example, in the Community, neither Denmark nor Luxembourg have such aircraft. Their Ministers travel, as ours do, and do not seem to think there is any loss of dignity in travelling by scheduled aircraft.

Mr. O'Kennedy

Luxembourg is not the best precedent.

Dr. FitzGerald

I regard Luxembourg as a perfectly adequate precedent. It is a sovereign State with a very high reputation in the Community.

Mr. O'Kennedy

For the size of it——

Dr. FitzGerald

Denmark is a larger and much wealthier State than we are. It has a population 50 per cent larger and has a standard of living about 2.4 times ours. Nevertheless, Denmark does not feel it can afford this luxury. I think I have answered most of the points raised on the financial part of the Estimate and I will refer to other points.

Perhaps I should now turn to the apparently controversial subject of Mr. Creegan.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I am not aware if the Minister gave any indication already of the amount that was recouped from the EEC funds. I asked if the Minister would indicate that but I do not know if he was able to do it. He referred to the unforeseen and unexpected costs of the Presidency.

Dr. FitzGerald

It is not possible at this stage of the year to give precise figures of anything. Even the Supplementary Estimate had to be an estimate of what the cost would be. The position with regard to the EEC, as I have explained, in the Deputy's absence I think, is that the travel costs are refunded. The amount involved in 1974 was £4,000. The amount we estimate to recoup this year is £11,000, although this includes some delayed recoupment for 1974. This is in respect of my own Department, I think, but there are, of course, recoupments in respect of officials of other Departments as well. I am referring, naturally, to my own Department here. I am dealing with my own Vote.

Mr. O'Kennedy

If the travel costs are refunded by the EEC, surely it is fallacious for the Minister to include that as being a reason for the increase?

Dr. FitzGerald

I have gone into some detail in explaining the various aspects in the Deputy's absence. I am in trouble about repetition if I go over it again. I am quite happy to explain it again if the Chair would permit me to do so.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I do not wish the Minister to do that.

Dr. FitzGerald

The problem is that the EEC refund relates to travel only going to and from specific meetings which we are entitled to get recoupment for. It does not cover subsistence or any other costs. It does not cover travel arising from Community activities but not attending Community meetings. It does not, for example, cover any of the European Community Co-operation meetings or other international conferences related to the EEC and does not cover bilateral travel arising from our European activities, including the substantial bilateral travel undertaken by me as Irish Foreign Minister during the Presidency on visits which seemed to me beneficial to the country at the time when we held the Presidency of the Community. The cumulative effect of all these would be very many times more than the single small item of £11,000 for travel by my Department to and from Community meetings in Brussels refundable by the Community.

Mr. O'Kennedy

That may be but at least to have on record what is refunded is important.

Dr. FitzGerald

Yes, of course. I want to turn to the detention of Mr. Creegan. A number of points were raised here. I would like to deal with them as fully and also as calmly as I can. First of all, I should like to say as a general statement that cases involving personal problems and difficulties of Irish citizens rank very high, indeed, not merely with the Department but with me as Minister and I believe this has always been the case and, indeed, I think this is the case generally throughout the world, that individual cases where somebody who is your citizen has been unfairly or wrongly or harshly treated or is in difficulties are cases to which a lot of ministerial time is given because of the intrinsic importance of the human person and in any case where there is a difficulty of this kind the Minister himself will usually involve himself to the fullest extent necessary to assist the person concerned. That has been my practice as Minister not just in this case but in others. I want to state that as a general issue at first because an attempt has been made in some of the things said to suggest that I as Minister am too busy doing other things of general concern and not sufficiently concerned with individual cases. In fact, what happens is at times the other way round, that the problems of individual cases, because of their essentially personal character and often the urgency attached to them, do have to take up a disproportionate amount of time even at the expense of other urgent business and that is as it should be in any humane administration.

On the particular case here, I did not fully understand Deputy Tunney's remarks about talking to me about it the first time. He seemed at one point to say he did so in June, another time in May. I am in some doubt about this——

Mr. Tunney

May.

Dr. FitzGerald

Sorry?

Mr. Tunney

If I may interrupt to be of assistance, it was on the Minister's return here. I have not the exact date. It would have been mid-June.

Dr. FitzGerald

That is what I thought but the Deputy just said May a minute ago and in the discussion earlier on he said May.

Mr. Tunney

It was in June, when Creegan was in prison for six weeks, and you did not know.

Dr. FitzGerald

That is what I thought. If the Deputy had spoken to me in May, as he has twice in this House claimed that he did, I would quite possibly, had the date been May, have said to him that I did not know about it. The fact is, of course, that he did not speak to me in May, despite his repeated assertions to the effect that he did. He spoke to me in June. At that time I, of course, knew about it and certainly did not say to him that I did not know about it because——

Mr. Tunney

You did so.

Dr. FitzGerald

——the matter was public knowledge from the papers of 14th June onwards. I had been travelling in the Middle East, Israel and Turkey during the previous ten days. I recall that when I arrived at Luxembourg airport from Istanbul on the 16th questions were put to me by journalists because it had been featured in the papers two days previously. I answered those questions as best I could. The Deputy hardly expects to be believed that having had that experience of these interviews I came into the House, talked to him and said I did not know about it. Of course, I knew about it.

Mr. Tunney

What I am saying is fact. You told me there and I had the question down in May and you said you knew nothing about it, that John Kelly was dealing with it, you knew nothing about it.

Dr. FitzGerald

I am sorry. The Deputy is not quoting me accurately. He knows perfectly well that the contact was in June, not May, as he attempted to mislead this House into believing; that when he spoke to me in June it had been in the papers several days before that; that I had myself been interviewed by the papers about it and that I certainly did not say anything as stupid as that I did not know about it. At that stage I was not familiar with all the details of the case. The details of the case at that point were known to the Parliamentary Secretary because he had been present in Ireland during the ten days when I had been absent. The Deputy should not attempt to mislead the House in this way as to the timing of events or as to their nature. So much for that. He has accused me of not taking a personal interest in the case throughout.

Mr. Tunney

Surely I have an opportunity——

Dr. FitzGerald

I think it is my opportunity to reply to the Deputy.

Mr. Tunney

In the month of June when this question was down to the Minister he had been absent, admittedly, and I spoke to him there at the steps and he told me that John Kelly would be dealing with that and he knew nothing about it.

Dr. FitzGerald

The Deputy knows perfectly well that I did not say I knew nothing about a matter which was in the Press and about which I had replied to queries in the Press.

Mr. Tunney

I am only telling what you said to me.

Dr. FitzGerald

What I said was that I was not familiar with all the details, I had been absent, that John Kelly had the details and I would talk to him about it. The Deputy should not attempt to mislead the House in this way. It is a foolish thing to do when it is perfectly evident that such a thing could not have happened.

Mr. Tunney

Tell us what you said in the House in July.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister must have the right to reply.

Dr. FitzGerald

Am I entitled to reply? I put up with enough misrepresentation from that gentleman opposite to be entitled to reply to him now.

Mr. Tunney

Tell us what you said in July.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister has the right to reply.

Dr. FitzGerald

I will make my own speech and the Deputy will not like it.

The next point made by Deputy Tunney, although I think I am correct in saying that at no point did he seek to document this by reference to any incident or instance, is that my Department was unhelpful to him. That theme ran through his speech. It was repeated a number of times but he gave no example of it. The position is exactly the opposite to that. Not only at the beginning but even after Deputy Tunney's behaviour had prejudiced this case we continued to assist him on my instructions. I thought about the matter quite a long time before I decided whether we could continue to facilitate him in view of the danger of a repetition of what happened already and the possible damage to Mr. Creegan.

Mr. Tunney

Would you explain that?

Dr. FitzGerald

Allow me to make my own speech.

Mr. Tunney

That is a very serious charge you are making.

Dr. FitzGerald

I will explain the matter fully if I am let.

Mr. Tunney

OK.

Dr. FitzGerald

I decided, however, that although there was a danger that my facilitating Deputy Tunney further might adversely affect Mr. Creegan's case, I must take a chance on that because of my prior duty to a Deputy of this House and I instructed my officials therefore to seek interviews for him with the people he sought interviews with, to facilitate him in a further visit to the prison, informing him once again of the conditions in respect of that visit that the Belgians had laid down, and those instructions were to my knowledge carried out.

The Deputy did say here—it is the first time I have heard this allegation— that arrangements were made to meet only one of the two Ministries and not both of them. If that is so, I was unaware of it and it was certainly not in accordance with the instructions I gave. That is the first time I heard it suggested that there was any failure to facilitate him in any respect in this whole affair. The Deputy should not make allegations of that kind about my Department because I was determined that he would have no reason to complain about the assistance given to him even if it might not have been helpful in the particular circumstances.

Let me now come to the question of the conditions laid down by the Judge which is in the following form:

Je me permets d'assister de que cette visite a lieu avec toute de discretion suitable.

That was communicated to the Deputy, its implications of not making statements to the Press that would prejudice the case. It was communicated to him by an official of my Department.

Mr. Tunney

What was communicated to me?

Dr. FitzGerald

What was said here. I will allow myself to translate it rather literally:

I will allow myself to insist that this visit should take place with all possible discretion.

That message was received after Deputy Tunney had left Ireland. I do not know his exact movements. It was necessary to contact him in Amsterdam. He was contacted in Amsterdam and was told of this condition in respect of the visit.

Mr. Tunney

I was not.

Dr. FitzGerald

Excuse me.

Mr. Tunney

I was told that you had told the Press men not to speak to me.

Dr. FitzGerald

Nothing of the kind. That is not true. Not only did I not do that, but the Deputy did not earlier allege that. He alleged that the person who spoke to him said that he had said to the Press in the circumstances that he did not know you were visiting. So, do not change that allegation into that I did something in the matter. That is, in any event not true.

Mr. Tunney

You misled the Press. You said I might not be coming.

Dr. FitzGerald

The position was that we received this message from the Belgian authorities in respect of your visit being treated with all possible discretion. You were communicated with at once at your hotel to be told of this condition of the visit.

Mr. Tunney

That is not true.

Dr. FitzGerald

The Press queries were fended off in order to seek to fulfil the condition which the Belgians had laid down and not to prejudice your visit and not to prejudice the position of Mr. Creegan and they were correctly fended off in those circumstances. It was the absolutely correct thing for the officer to do.

Mr. Tunney

Could I please ask one question?

Dr. FitzGerald

Could I make my speech, please, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle?

Mr. Tunney

On a point of explanation, if what the Minister says is true, that I broke conditions laid down by the Belgian Government, why did they not tell me that on the occasion of my second visit? Why did they allow me to go the second time? Answer that. You are telling untruths, telling lies, trying to make a case for your own inefficiency.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy must withdraw that statement.

Mr. Tunney

Lies are lies, no matter who tells them, whether he is a Minister or not.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy must withdraw the word "lies".

Mr. Tunney

They are not in accordance with the true position. The proof is, if I broke the regulations on one occasion surely I would have been told on the second occasion and the Belgians would not have allowed me to go.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I take it that the Deputy is withdrawing the word "lies"?

Mr. Tunney

The Belgians were most courteous to me and welcomed my coming and their was no question about conditions, no question about talking and in their own statement they tell me and tell the country that they welcome what I did.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy must withdraw the word "lies".

Dr. FitzGerald

I have been a long time trying to make my speech.

Mr. Tunney

You had very little to work on.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I take it the Deputy withdraws the word "lies".

Mr. Tunney

It is not in accordance with the truth. I withdraw the word "lies".

Dr. FitzGerald

Can I be permitted at this stage to make my speech without interruption?

Mr. O'Kennedy

There seems to be a conflict——

Dr. FitzGerald

I am replying to grossly untrue allegations about me.

Mr. O'Kennedy

The Minister will appreciate that in so far as there is a conflict of recollection of facts it is not a normal speech.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair is ruling that the Minister is entitled to reply to the debate without interruption. The Chair is entitled to ask Deputies to listen to the Minister without interruption. He is entitled to reply.

Mr. Tunney

He should tell the truth.

Dr. FitzGerald

Arrangements were made for this visit. Subsequently Deputy Tunney was contacted in Amsterdam and told the position. Subsequent to that the second visit came up. I was concerned on the basis of the reports I had from my Embassy in Brussels as to the consequences for Mr. Creegan of the fact that Deputy Tunney had spoken to the Press after the first visit. Deputy Tunney has said that he did not tell the Press he was going there. My information is that that is correct. The information seems to have come from an officer, as I understand it, of the European political party with which Fianna Fáil is associated who had, I understand, informed the Press of his visit. Just who on behalf of Deputy Tunney informed him of the visit, I do not know. The visit was notified to the Press, as I understand it, in that way. The journalists were accordingly outside at the instance of the European Progressive Democratic Party official and Deputy Tunney, despite being told of the requirement for discretion, spoke to the Press in terms which were not likely to encourage the Belgain authorities to be helpful in regard to the case. The information I received subsequently, was that the impact of this was adverse and it may well have been—I was told by the Embassy in Brussels—a factor leading to the refusal to return his car and to the termination of visits by his fiancée. In those circumstances I instructed that Deputy Tunney be told in regard to the second visit once again of this condition and of the damage that could be done if it were breached. He was so informed.

Mr. Tunney

The Minister was in America; he could not tell me.

Dr. FitzGerald

I was in communication with my Department throughout and I have kept in touch with this case from various corners of the world. I instructed that the Deputy be told, and he was so told as shown in this file.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister, please.

Mr. O'Kennedy

It is unreasonable and unreal——

Dr. FitzGerald

It is unreasonable that I should not be allowed to deny the allegations made against me.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister must be allowed make his statement.

Mr. O'Kennedy

It is unreasonable that the Government could make it a condition of allowing the Deputy to do anything——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister.

Dr. FitzGerald

These are matters for Governments; we have our conditions and they have theirs. My job was to communicate them to the Deputy and he could decide what he did. Even though he broke the condition the first time, I facilitated the second visit. I again warned him of the possible consequences for Creegan.

Mr. O'Kennedy

How can that be a condition of a man's freedom?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Will Deputies please cease interrupting.

Dr. FitzGerald

Can I be allowed speak?

Mr. O'Kennedy

I think it ridiculous that the Minister would make such a suggestion that he cannot stand over.

Dr. FitzGerald

I am not standing over anything.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We cannot have these interruptions.

Dr. FitzGerald

I communicated the condition laid down by the Belgian Juge d'Instruction and Deputy Tunney was warned and knew of the possible consequences for Creegan. But so concerned was he with publicity that Mr. Creegan was not his concern. The possible consequence of that—on the advice I have—may have been the withholding of his car and the cessation of visits by his fiancée.

Mr. O'Kennedy

That is intimidation.

Dr. FitzGerald

On the second visit—throughout this I am concerned with Mr. Creegan and Mr. Creegan only and my job is to protect him.

Mr. O'Kennedy

If the Belgian Government took that view the Minister should stand strongly against them——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy must cease interrupting. Will Deputy O'Kennedy please cease interrupting?

Dr. FitzGerald

I am advising the House of the advice I got, the action I took and I am entitled to be heard in this House despite Deputies opposite. When Deputy Tunney went into the prison the second time— would the Deputy like to listen for a moment—with the officer of my Department, in the discussion that took place—I think the Deputy should hear me on this point; I am making statements about him——

Mr. Tunney

The trouble is that I am listening too carefully and have been watching the Minister too carefully.

Dr. FitzGerald

In the discussion that took place Deputy Tunney, in response to a remark by Mr. Creegan that he would be there for Christmas, said the following: "I guarantee if you are not released by then the Belgain Embassy in Dublin will not look like it does today." The officer of my Department felt constrained to demur at this statement and was requested by Deputy Tunney to leave the cell, which he did at that point.

Mr. Tunney

That is right; he should not have been there at all; it was my interview. I did not ask him there at all.

Dr. FitzGerald

I can quite see that if one is going to say things like that one does not want people around to hear one.

(Interruptions.)

Dr. FitzGerald

Deputy Tunney's interventions throughout were harmful and the publicity of the kind he tried to give was harmful, although certainly the publicity given by the Press to the case was helpful in drawing attention to it.

Mr. Tunney

The Minister is changing his tune now.

Dr. FitzGerald

Things were said by Deputy Tunney and by some newspapers which were not harmful but, by and large in cases like this, publicity on the facts is useful; abusive publicity is not and can be damaging and, in this instance, may well have led to a longer incarceration of Mr. Creegan than was in any way necessary.

Deputy O'Kennedy seems to think I might have communicated with him. I think my recollection on this is clear —I do not want to be in any way incorrect—and my understanding is that I was informed in the United States that Deputy O'Kennedy had made a statement on the subject of Mr. Creegan's incarceration, at a point when I was preparing a statement because of the misrepresentations by Mr. Tunney of what had been done. I instructed that the statement be prepared and issued, that it be communicated to Deputy O'Kennedy —who I knew was in the Soviet Union —and I instructed my Department to telex it to the Soviet Union and to get it to Deputy O'Kennedy before it would be issued. I have heard for the first time now that Deputy O'Kennedy was in Novosibirsk and, in the absence of Irish diplomatic representation at consular level in that city, the message does not seem to have got to him in time. I am very sorry if that was the case because it was my intention that the Deputy, as Shadow Minister—if he made a statement on this—should be communicated with at once on the subject. I did so. I am very sorry we did not get through to him. Certainly it was not any fault of mine, nor I am sure of my Department, that he was not communicated with immediately.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I am not talking in terms of courtesy or discourtesy. I am saying that the Minister's statement at the end here, even if it had reached me in Moscow, could only mean that the Minister had also been in touch on this matter with the Opposition spokesman. The reality was not so. Had the Minister said a copy of this statement is being sent to the Opposition spokesman. The reality Affairs that would represent the reality

Dr. FitzGerald

I do not understand the Deputy.

Mr. O'Kennedy

That was not the position.

Dr. FitzGerald

My recollection— what the Deputy says is inaccurate—is that I instructed a letter would go to him on the subject of the case and that a statement would accompany it.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I had better put the timetable right. This is important. We have to clear this one up.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has made his statement.

Mr. O'Kennedy

We have to clear this up. I left Dublin on Sunday and that statement arrived in Moscow on Tuesday at the earliest, or possibly Wednesday. I arrived back in Dublin on Thursday. The Minister is not suggesting, is he, that this is equivalent to being in touch with me on the matter in the sense his statement conveyed?

Dr. FitzGerald

My intention was to communicate with the Deputy and, at the same time, the statement was being issued. If the arrangement broke down, I am sorry. I take the Deputy's word: the statement as issued could mislead.

Mr. O'Kennedy

It certainly did mislead.

Dr. FitzGerald

That was not my intention and I apologise if the wording of it was misleading. There are difficulties in dealing with these things at a distance of 4,000 miles. I was endeavouring to keep in touch in the assurance that it was being properly handled.

Mr. O'Kennedy

The simple thing was to say a statement was being sent out.

Dr. FitzGerald

I apologise to the Deputy if he is unhappy with the formulation there. I agree that it could have been better expressed and should have been better expressed. The final point is that I visited the Creegans to tell them the news of their son's release. I had seen them on a number of occasions in the Department before then. The position was that we got a preliminary warning about half past four and I waited for confirmation until round about half past five. I instructed that a statement be issued immediately to the papers and, having given that instruction, I realised that Mr. and Mrs. Creegan might possibly hear the news on the wireless. They are not on the telephone. It was too late to contact Mr. Creegan in the Government Department where he works and I thought it better to get the news to him before he would hear it on the wireless. I cancelled a prior engagement and went straight to the Creegan home. I did not communicate that to the Press. I did not instruct anyone to communicate it to the Press. The Press heard about my visit from the Creegans, who were grateful for my visit. I am not aware that anyone in my Department communicated it to the Press. I sought no publicity on that or on any other aspect of the case. I thought it right that I should endeavour, having issued a statement, to make sure the parents heard about it first. In fact, they heard it on a flash on the wireless three minutes before I reached them. I did not seek any publicity and the Deputy knows that perfectly well.

Mr. Tunney

I know the local gardaí were told and the Minister beat them to it.

Dr. FitzGerald

I asked the local gardaí to inform the Creegans.

Mr. Tunney

The Minister did? Tell us more about that.

Dr. FitzGerald

I had already issued a statement to the radio and, immediately after I issued it, it struck me the parents ought to be the first to hear the news and I took both methods; I asked the gardaí to call on them and I called myself.

Mr. Tunney

So it is easier for the Minister to get from St. Stephen's Green to Finglas than for the gardai 200 yards away? Be logical.

Dr. FitzGerald

My recollection is that I got there first. I hope I am not wrong in that. They said they heard it on the wireless. They did not say the gardaí had called though I passed the message to the gardaí as I was leaving the office. I had a remarkably clear run. I was not held up once by a traffic light or a traffic block. At half past five in the evening I got through in less than 15 minutes.

Mr. Tunney

It is a pity the Minister did not get to Mons on one occasion. That would have been much better.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I have a letter here from Deputy Tunney to the Minister for Justice, dated 3rd September. It is nothing but complimentary. It makes no criticism whatsoever.

Mr. Tunney

We will give the Minister a copy of it in French.

Dr. FitzGerald

An exchange of diplomatic courtesies.

Mr. Tunney

A chancer, that is what he is—Garry Glitter.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should not indulge in that kind of abuse.

Dr. FitzGerald

If the Deputy has to descend to abuse he has not got much in the way of argument.

Mr. Tunney

I speak the truth.

Dr. FitzGerald

The Deputy is entitled to expound about his own virtues in making his own speeches but not by way of interruptions.

To return now to the question of the resolution in the United Nations raised by Deputy O'Kennedy, his reference was to Rhodesia in 1974. I misunderstood him there. In respect of this resolution, it is one in respect of which we abstained from voting. It is one which relates to Britain's actions in Rhodesia. The wording of the resolution seemed to us to require more of Britain than it was physically possible for Britain to perform and, therefore, I had doubts about giving it full support. The spirit of it was entirely in accord with our views and I accordingly instructed that we abstain on that occasion. The Deputy will appreciate, I know, how difficult these decisions are. Apart from the personal considerations, perhaps the most difficult problem one has to face as Minister is a succession of resolutions in the United Nations, many of them ones with which one would agree in broad outline but containing, and this is increasingly true as the years go on, clauses which are objectionable in some way or another with which we cannot directly associate ourselves. This does pose great problems as to whether you abstain or vote for or against. If you vote against then it is so objectionable you cannot have any association with it.

The Deputy raised the question of the extent to which all this is done by my direction or otherwise. The communication maintained on this is really very complete though there are obvious difficulties. Sometimes resolutions are formulated at a very late stage indeed and one has to take a decision at a couple of hours' notice. I recall, in fact, in 1974 the decision on PLO being allowed to speak in the General Assembly which was notified to us in Luxembourg. The terms were finally notified to us when the Ministers were meeting and we were told the vote would take place anytime between seven o'clock and nine o'clock, and we had to sit down and make up our minds in the knowledge that by the time we had made up our minds our representatives might have had to vote. This is in no way abnormal. Subject to this, we discuss the kind of resolutions coming up and the general policy line to be followed. As the resolutions emerge or are likely to emerge I am consulted on the general line we will take. We try to anticipate the particular form resolutions will take and give general instructions on the line to follow in the debate and how to seek to amend them to meet our particular views. When the resolution comes forward in final form and a vote is sought, if time permits—normally it does, but very narrowly—I am consulted to give a decision. There will be times when because of travel or something I will be unavailable at that particular moment. At the same time, the preparatory work that goes on before the meeting and even during it is such that the officials, even though they cannot consult me, are able to interpret my views accurately, and I have never found any action taken in those rare circumstances when I have not been available for consultation contrary to what I would have done myself. The time element is such that at times all nine Ambassadors in the United Nations have to decide before there is any possibility of getting their Ministers' views. This involves very close co-ordination in advance to ensure that what is done will be in accord with those views. I am very satisfied with the way the system works in view of all the strains and stresses and I stand over every decision taken—95 per cent of them by direct decision and in a few cases on the basis of what my views are understood to be.

Mr. O'Kennedy

The Minister is known to be totally opposed to racialism. Can he explain how 111 nations voted for this resolution and we did not? Does the Minister accept responsibility for this abstention or does he not? What happened?

Dr. FitzGerald

Of course I accept full responsibility.

Mr. O'Kennedy

And was it on the Minister's instructions we abstained?

Dr. FitzGerald

All the other members of the Nine abstained or voted against. The 111 represented a group which does not include our partners in the Community or other likeminded European countries. There is a consultative element in the Assembly at present and resolutions are put up which get very large numerical support but which seek to bind the other members to views on actions which are ones which we could not accept.

Mr. O'Kennedy

So it was done on the Minister's instructions. That is what I wanted to know.

Dr. FitzGerald

Of course.

Mr. O'Kennedy

It is extraordinary that the Minister could not remember this morning when I referred to that resolution.

Dr. FitzGerald

I am sorry: I understood the Deputy was talking of resolutions this year. I thought he said of the two cases this year. I found there were two Rhodesian resolutions. One was adopted by consent and the other we supported. I could find no resolution on which we abstained this year. I was puzzled. It was a misunderstanding of what the Deputy said.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I would have thought it would immediately occur to the Minister.

Dr. FitzGerald

I am sorry; it did not easily occur to me. There are a very large number of resolutions, and the job of keeping the current year's resolutions in mind is sufficient without remembering what happened last year.

Mr. O'Kennedy

There were only two on Rhodesia.

Dr. FitzGerald

The only resolution we voted against in regard to South Africa—we supported a number of them—was one which contained this year for the first time a phrase referring to the illegitimacy of the racist regime in South Africa and which said that the racist regime in South Africa is illegitimate and has no right to represent the people of South Africa. That represents in our view, and, in the view of our partners and a number of other countries, another attempt to challenge the right of a government to represent the country in the United Nations. We had this over Israel, and our view is that the principle is that the government of a country shall be represented in the United Nations, that there shall be universal representation, regardless of what sort of regime it is and that this principle must be adhered to. We saw the introduction of this phrase for the first time as an attempt to revive this issue, which has gone on for a long time, the attempt to expel South Africa, and because it was seen in that light we and other countries felt obliged to vote against this resolution and made our position and reasons for doing so clear. It was the only resolution we voted against; it was only on this occasion and only for this reason, a reason which I think the Deputy will respect and which on reflection he may share.

Mr. O'Kennedy

The Deputy will not on reflection. Is the Minister suggesting that the South African regime is legitimate?

Dr. FitzGerald

It is legitimately represented in the United Nations.

Mr. O'Kennedy

That is a different matter.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister, to continue.

Dr. FitzGerald

I have read out the wording.... "is illegitimate and has no right to represent the people of South Africa". This is seen by this Government and by other Governments in other parts of the world as an attempt by another route to introduce the expulsion of South Africa and following that, of Israel, from the United Nations. We are not prepared to agree that the universality of the United Nations should be threatened in this way, and cannot therefore accept that any resolution at the UN shall declare that some regime is illegitimate and has no right to represent its people. Whatever we may think of the regime the system only works if the government of the country is there, can be talked to, and be under pressure to change its views. That is what the United Nations is for and that is why we voted against that resolution.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I think the Minister will find if he goes back on the record that he spoke against South Africa on another occasion.

Dr. FitzGerald

I do not recall ever saying that they should not be represented in the United Nations or that the Government has not the right to speak at the United Nations for the people of South Africa. I think the Deputy will have difficulty in finding such statements by me.

Mr. O'Kennedy

Perhaps not that precisely but certainly by implication.

Dr. FitzGerald

The Deputy raised this issue and I wanted to explain to him the reasons for our position. I am very glad he raised it because it is important that there should be no misunderstanding as to where we stand or about the reasons why on certain occasions our vote must be influenced by a particular part of a resolution which prevents us from giving it the support which in other respects we would wish to give it. This is a perennial problem, and it has become a much worse problem in the past couple of years, the reason being that we and other countries whose views are certainly anti-racist have been forced into the position of being unable to support resolutions which in a different form in earlier years we were able to support. This is part of a confrontatory effort by certain countries which is highly undesirable and which is, as we see in the case of the Zionist vote, greatly weakening the force of the fight against racism. Our concern is to diminish this confrontation and through our diplomatic contacts with these countries to persuade them not to adopt tactics which are weakening the cause which we are all trying to serve in the interest not only of world peace but of ending racism in Africa and other parts of the world.

The Deputy raised a point on Angola and expressed his very proper concern about the intervention of outside powers in this area. I share his views on this point. What has happened here has been a very prolonged liberation struggle in this territory in which different groups have formed and are strong in different parts of the country. During this period of the liberation struggle these groups sought and received support from different outside powers so that now when Angola is independent these different groups are struggling to control Angola with the support of outside powers. The history goes back a long way and I am not in a position to say what Government began the process of foreign intervention in the preindependence period by supporting particular liberation movements. Who-ever began it the result is pretty disastrous now with the Angolan people, in a sense, set against each other with the support of the great powers. One can only hope that this situation will be brought to a peaceful and early conclusion so that a Government can be formed representing the whole people of Angola and that peace can be restored there. Any influence we have—in matters of this kind it must be very small—must be directed towards that end.

Deputy O'Kennedy raised the question of the cross-Border study. I listened attentively to what he had to say but I had difficulty at the end of it in detecting the exact burden of his complaint.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I was a lot more precise than that. The Minister can have difficulty in understanding if it suits him.

Dr. FitzGerald

Allow me to explain why I have difficulty in understanding it.

Mr. O'Kennedy

That is one of the Minister's favourite phrases, that he has difficulty in understanding.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy must allow the Minister to make his own speech.

Dr. FitzGerald

I listened carefully to see exactly what I had done wrong to annoy the Deputy and at the end of his speech I was still not clear on what it was. The matter was raised by our Government, by the Taoiseach, with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Health, in September, 1973 at Baldonnel. Agreement in principle was reached on having a regional development study of the north-west, financed partly by the Commission. Subsequently, a suggestion was made on the British side that there might be another study of the north-east and we naturally welcomed this. This was in the days when the Assembly in Northern Ireland was seeking to establish an Executive. When the Executive was established a draft outline of the study was forwarded by the Taoiseach to the Chief Executive in Northern Ireland in January, 1974. It was also transmitted by the embassy in London to the Department of Trade and Industry at the same time. Mr. Faulkner replied to the Taoiseach in February expressing doubts as to the practical value of such a wide and comprehensive study and suggested that the proposal be reassessed in the Council of Ireland context. This effectively prevented further progress pending discussions on the Council of Ireland. The whole situation was changed then by the Ulster workers' strike and the fall of the Executive.

The matter was taken up again by us with the British Government when the Executive had fallen and was discussed with the British Prime Minister on 1st and 21st November, 1974 when a reiteration of the agreement in principle to the study was secured. I replied to a question of the Deputy's on 7th November after the meeting in London with the British Prime Minister and before the meeting here on 21st November.

Mr. O'Kennedy

When was the meeting in London?

Dr. FitzGerald

On 1st November. With that very positive outcome, there was some further discussion——

Mr. O'Kennedy

It was at that meeting they made their proposal?

Dr. FitzGerald

No, it was not. Will the Deputy allow me to explain? I will recite the situation fully if the Deputy will allow me to do so. On 1st November at meeting in London we managed to get a reaffirmation of the agreement in principle and this was reaffirmed on 21st November, 1974. However, some weeks after that, on December 12, 1974, the British Government proposed two subjects for study—a fisheries study and a study of the future development of Derry Port in relation to its hinterland. We regarded the fisheries study as useful in its own right but not representing the kind of study we had in mind and had agreed on originally. The question of Derry Port which had been studied a number of times already by different groups did not seem to us to be a cross-Border study of an economic kind which was the sort we looked for although it would obviously have considered the hinterland of the port. It did not seem to us to be on a scale commensurate with the obligation that was acceptable to the British Government in 1973 and, again, in 1974. Therefore, the matter was reviewed at official level and has been reviewed sedulously since then though without much progress until the second half of the current year when I made further efforts directly to get something moving and to get a certain amount of willingness on the British side to shift and widen the scope of the proposal in order to make of it something closer to what was envisaged originally by the two Governments.

Mr. O'Kennedy

Is the Minister saying again that he was making constant efforts to shift the British on this question?

Dr. FitzGerald

Yes.

Mr. O'Kennedy

Why did the Minister not tell us of the British proposals when they were made?

Dr. FitzGerald

Because I was not asked for that information. All we had from the British at that stage was a proposal which was not consonant with what we had proposed, and we were arguing with them that the proposals should be changed in order to take the form we had sought. We have not accepted their proposal. We were not accepting it as adequate. The Deputy did not ask whether there were counter proposals but asked what was the position about the proposal that had been made. The position was that we were still negotiating it and were negotiating it until two weeks ago.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I asked specifically about the proposal in relation to fisheries. The information was not given to me here but was supplied to me privately in London.

Dr. FitzGerald

Is the Deputy suggesting that he asked about fisheries in the question to me in February?

Mr. O'Kennedy

No. I asked about this matter in July.

Dr. FitzGerald

As the Deputy did not ask in February about British counter proposals I saw no advantage in telling him that there were such counter proposals and in elevating them to a respectable status, which is what I would have done in volunteering information that had not been sought. We pursued the discussion and as a result we succeeded in getting agreement to a study of a much broader category in regard to the whole communications system in the Donegal-Derry area, involving land communications as well as ports and airports—a study the character of which was such that it could not be carried out without a study of the economic potential of the area.

Mr. O'Kennedy

So the Minister has persuaded the British on this matter?

Dr. FitzGerald

Yes.

Mr. O'Kennedy

In other words, he has brought them to the point of accepting?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We cannot have this type of question and answer debate. When the Minister has concluded, the Deputy may put a question if he wishes.

Dr. FitzGerald

If the Deputy wishes to put forward from the Fianna Fáil benches propaganda on behalf of the British Government, he may do so. He prefers to believe his version of what the British say rather than the facts put forward by a Member of the Irish Government. This is a curious position for the Deputy to adopt, but I do not think he means this to be so.

Mr. O'Kennedy

The Minister has kept all the information up his sleeve.

Dr. FitzGerald

Month after month we have continued our efforts to get agreement from the British to a study which would be such as to involve an economic study of the north-west region. We have a communications study which will require an economic back up. I do not regard this as satisfactory or as being the last word, but it will produce data which can be used as a basis for further broader studies afterwards.

The British proposed study of the north-east has not been pursued, but we have succeeded in getting our original proposal in regard to the north-west in a form which is useful and which will provide a basis for future action and further studies. The Deputy should give us the credit for having the will to persist and not to accept the inadequate proposal for a Derry port study which, according to what the Deputy has said, he would have been prepared to accept. Apparently, he was conned by people he met in Britain into accepting this study as being adequate.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I was referring the Minister to his own reply.

Dr. FitzGerald

I am having great difficulty in making my speech.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister must be allowed to reply.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I was quoting what the Minister said in the House.

Dr. FitzGerald

Am I entitled to finish my speech? The Deputy has now had a quarter of my time.

Mr. O'Kennedy

The Minister is not giving the facts.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Will the Deputy please allow the Minister the benefit of the time remaining to him?

Mr. O'Malley

Is this money to be voted this evening?

Dr. FitzGerald

I am endeavouring to complete my speech. I am trying to cover all the points, but if there is a specific question the Deputy wishes to ask I am prepared to give way in the hope that thereafter I can continue without interruption.

Mr. O'Kennedy

The Minister is not disclosing the full facts.

Dr. FitzGerald

I have disclosed all the facts. Is there any question the Deputy wishes to ask in order to expose the inadequacy of my reply?

Mr. O'Kennedy

I refer to the Minister's reply to me when he said that what he wanted was a study of the north-west and the north-east, that he thought this was worth waiting for rather than to accept at that time something more limited. He has waited and we have waited but what was being sought has not been achieved.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister.

Dr. FitzGerald

What I said was that a proposal for a study of the possibilities in relation to fisheries and also for a study of possible development of the port of Derry were regarded by the Government as inappropriate and inadequate substitutes for a general survey of the north-west and that, therefore, the Government had pursued the original proposals. The one we sought was in respect of the north-east.

Mr. O'Kennedy

The reference is to the north-west.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister.

Dr. FitzGerald

What we sought originally was a study of the north-west. We have such a proposal in a form which we regard as adequate and having been worth waiting for, to use the words the Deputy attributed to me earlier. I propose now to finish my speech without further interruption because there were a number of other matters raised and I wish to deal with them.

Deputy O'Kennedy and another Deputy, also, raised the question of Spain. One of the questions I was asked in this regard was when the ambassadors of the other EEC countries returned to Madrid. The information is as follows: on September 27th last the ambassadors left Madrid except for the Italian Ambassador who left on the 28th. The UK and German Ambassadors returned there on 8th October, the Danish and Belgian Ambassadors returned on 10 October, the Dutch Ambassador returned on the 11th and while I am not sure of the date of the return of the Italian Ambassador I can say that it was before October 15th. The position in relation to France is that the French Ambassador was not recalled because he was on vacation in France at the time. However, the French Government expressed strong views on the subject of the tactic employed by some Community members in withdrawing their ambassadors, and they gave the strongest support possible to the Irish position in this matter. So far as Luxembourg is concerned, they have no ambassador in Madrid, and while I cannot be certain on this my opinion is that had the Luxembourg Government had an Ambassador in Spain they would not have withdrawn him. I say this from the information at my disposal.

Mr. O'Kennedy

When did the French Ambassador return from Madrid?

Dr. FitzGerald

He returned from holidays on October 13.

Mr. O'Kennedy

He was on holidays conveniently.

Dr. FitzGerald

He was on holidays when the situation arose which led to the withdrawal of some ambassadors, but the French Government made it clear that they disproved of the withdrawal of ambassadors. The information the Deputy attributed to him was absolutely incorrect. As far as the withdrawal of ambassadors is concerned my view was and remains—and I communicated my advice from the United States to the Taoiseach and the Government—that the suggestion made by several Foreign Ministers in New York informally that they were going to withdraw ambassadors and their request to us as to what we would do was one which should have been replied to by saying that we did not think it was a good thing to withdraw ambassadors, that to do so would be likely to increase the strength of the right wing in Spain because of the ease with which xenophobia can be aroused in that country. Moreover, the early return of the ambassadors, which would have to take place with a view to having them in position there to prepare for the change of regime, would merely make the position worse, would make the Spanish right wing free to think they had secured some kind of victory in forcing the countries concerned to climb down. For these reasons I recommended that we should not withdraw our ambassador. As I say that view was strongly endorsed by the French Government and I think it was also the view of the Luxembourg government. Other governments have privately indicated since then that they made a mistake and we were right.

Mr. O'Kennedy

We better have those governments.

Dr. FitzGerald

No. The Deputy rejects what I am saying. I am entitled to say what I know to be true. If the Deputy does not accept it he need not. So much for the ambassadors. The Deputy raised the question of why we agreed to suspend trade relations with Spain. The answer to that is that we did not. The position about the trade negotiations with Spain is that these negotiations are undertaken by the Commission on a mandate given to them by the Council. The Commission have the right to continue or not to continue these negotiations as they see fit. This is the juridical position.

The Commission decided not to continue the negotiations for a period. They asked that the Council would consider this and endorse their action. The Council considered it. The Irish position was stated by the Parliamentary Secretary, who was attending the meeting on my behalf. He made a plea for rational discussion. He said that to break off trade talks would have the same disadvantages as withdrawing ambassadors because at a later stage we would have to decide when to renew them again. For how long would they be suspended and on what grounds would they be resumed? He raised those questions.

There was a debate in which other countries who had different views took part. Several countries strongly supported our views on this subject. The Parliamentary Secretary, speaking again at the end, said that Ireland is not and cannot be dispassionate about the Franco regime, that we look forward to democracy in Spain. He inquired what was the aim of the Community policy on Spain. The emotional gratification of public opinion now of forty years ago should not be put before a rational policy. Protests have reinforced support for Franco. The Spanish were proud and could be resentful about outside condemnation. Following the Irish intervention and that of other countries, which did not think the suspension of trade negotiation was wise, the council did not agree to endorse the Commission's reaction but simply confined themselves to noting that talks cannot be continued at present in view of the Commission's attitude.

The Deputy is misinformed in thinking that our Government or the Community as such has endorsed this decision. There are other reasons why I think the decision is inappropriate. The fact is under the present situation when there is no agreement with the Community, Spain derives a number of economic advantages. These advantages derive from the fact that a country like ours, Britain and Denmark have not in the past imposed tariffs on certain imports from Spain, for example oranges, a very large import. The trade negotiations will lead to an agreement under which we will have to impose the common Community duty on these goods. Therefore, when the negotiations are concluded, Spain, in respect of oranges and in relation to the overall balance of trade, will be worse off rather than better off as far as we are concerned.

This is a complicated issue and I do not want to develop it at any great length here. The fact is that Britain and Denmark have not so far fulfilled their commitments to increase these tariffs. We did so according to our Community obligations. Last year I notified the Council and these countries that we could not continue to be in a position where we fulfilled our obligations and they did not fulfil them, but are put in a better position as regards the price of oranges and benefit Spain accordingly. I made it clear that we could not accept this. I have recently reiterated this and asked that the commitments entered into last December by these countries should be fulfilled, otherwise I do not think we can continue to fulfil our commitments if they are not willing to honour theirs. I have made that clear, and the matter comes up for discussion on the 9th December. The position under which trade negotiations are suspended by countries which are withdrawing their Ambassadors and which feel it is important to take action against Spain is that they are in fact, by not having an agreement and by not implementing the Community obligations, benefiting Spain. This is a situation which I cannot accept as a member of the Community and it is something which I said will have to be discussed further on the 9th December. On this point the Deputy has been misinformed. The position is quite different from the one he understood to exist.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I do not want to interrupt the Minister because he has only a short time left but I am not happy with what he has said. Will the Minister put on the record of the House the document from which he is quoting extracts?

Dr. FitzGerald

No. The document is from my officials and is of the normal kind stating what happened at the Council meeting. It includes a statement of what other countries said at the meeting. It is not the practice of a Minister to disclose what other Ministers said in this way. Therefore, I could not put it on the record of the House.

Mr. O'Kennedy

There is not much point in quoting extracts which may give a false impression.

Dr. FitzGerald

I am using it to refresh my mind of what the Parliamentary Secretary said. I am entitled to do that. If the Deputy wishes to make a point of it I am quite willing to have the extracts of what the Parliamentary Secretary said included in the record of the House, but I cannot allow the parts I have not quoted from to be on the record of the House.

Mr. O'Kennedy

All of the extracts of the Parliamentary Secretary?

Dr. FitzGerald

Certainly. There are a few other points I want to deal with in the small amount of time remaining. One Deputy raised the question of ownership of embassies. Our policy is to move as far as possible towards ownership because the long term effect on the costs of an official, if one is renting a building, where the rent can be put up and up with inflation, is enormous. We try as rapidly as capital permits to acquire embassies, but obviously this is not always the highest priority in the public capital programme and it has necessarily to be a slow process.

Several Deputies raised the case of the boy who was killed in an accident in Switzerland and said that our Department said they could be of no assistance. The Department said that there was no provision for the payment of the expenses of burial or the return of the remains to this country from public funds. There is no question of the Department being unhelpful. In these cases the officials of the Department go out of their way to be of any assistance and comfort to the people concerned, but we are bound by the legal provisions and we are not entitled to use public funds for this purpose. In those circumstances we try to assist in any way we can. We try to ensure that the cost is minimised, to advise what will be the least costly way of handling the problem, to give assistance to people who go out there and try to deal with it, but we are not in a position to use public funds for this purpose. I regret that this House should suggest that the Department, in carrying out their obligation in respect of public expenditure, are being unhelpful to people who have been affected by tragedy of this kind. Nothing could be further from the case.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair does not wish to intervene but the Minister has further time. If the Minister does not wish to conclude he could have a further ten minutes provided on the next sitting day.

Dr. FitzGerald

I have dealt with most of the points. I was just going to thank Deputy Moore for his kind references to the work of APSO. I do not think there is any other point I want to comment on. I just wanted to put that on the record of the House.

Mr. O'Kennedy

For the record, the Minister will note that no representative on the far side of the House spoke in this debate apart from him. That is some measure of the interest they have in foreign affairs.

Vote put.

Mr. O'Kennedy

We are not opposing this Estimate but we do not accept the imputations made against Deputy Tunney.

Vote agreed to.