Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 27 Nov 1975

Vol. 286 No. 3

Vote 46: Foreign Affairs.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Dr. FitzGerald)

I move:

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 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 a Grant-in-Aid.

With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take the Supplementary Estimates on the Votes for Foreign Affairs and International Co-operation together.

The Supplementary Estimate on the Foreign Affairs Vote is required mainly to meet additional expenditure arising on subhead A, Salaries, and on subhead B, Travel and Incidental Expenses. There is a further small sum required to cater for the repatriation and maintenance of Irish citizens abroad but this is offset to a large extent by a corresponding increase in receipts under Appropriations-in-Aid due to the repayment of repatriation and maintenance advances.

In the Vote for International Co-operation the original provision under subhead A for the 1975 mandatory contributions to international organisations proved inadequate, based as it was at the time of preparation of these Estimates on best available information rather than upon the actual assessments levied by these organisations. It is also necessary to provide a small additional sum under subhead B as a contribution to one of the United Nations voluntary agencies to meet a pledge made in dollars for which the sterling provision is now inadequate. Provision is made also in the Supplementary Estimate for some additional funds for the Agency for Personal Service Overseas, Subhead C, and for the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, subhead F.

These, then, are the subheads of the two Votes for which additional funds are required.

There is one recurring element which has had a serious effect upon both Votes in the current year and for which no advance provision was possible. This is the continued fall in the value of our pound against non-sterling currencies. A considerable portion of the expenditure of my Department—perhaps two-thirds—is spent abroad in a wide range of currencies which have appreciated in value against sterling during the course of the year. It is necessary, therefore, to provide additional funds now simply to maintain activities at the level already budgeted for by the Dáil. While devaluation has been a major factor, there have been others of a general kind such as increased costs of services abroad and an increase in activities which were unforeseen at the time the original estimates were made.

The additional sum required for salaries under subhead A of the Vote for Foreign Affairs, £310,000, includes the amount of £140,000 to cater for Civil Service pay increases awarded under the national wage agreement and not provided for in the original Estimate. The remaining £170,000 is, for the most part, required to compensate for the effects of devaluation and for pay increases to local staff abroad.

The additional sum required under subhead B, £440,000, to meet travel, communications and other expenses involved in running missions abroad was partially occasioned by devaluation and increases in transport and communication costs. There was, however, a further element involved which increased substantially the level of expenditure required under this subhead. The level of activity demanded of my Department during the current year has been considerably heavier than was anticipated. A number of developments have contributed significantly to this. 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. Moreover, there has been an increase in the frequency of meetings in the context of European Political Co-operation deriving from the decisions of the Paris Summit in December, 1974, one example of which is that meetings at Heads of Government level now take place three times a year—the next one being held in Rome next week. This more than compensated for reduced travel costs during the six months when EPC activity was concentrated in Ireland.

The oil crisis has also produced much international activity and has given rise to many meetings in the wider field of energy and raw materials. These events affect deeply the European Community in general and have required us, for example, to participate actively in meetings concerned with the preparations for the Producer-Consumer Conference on Energy and Raw Materials. The extent of meetings for this purpose and also meetings connected with the developing Euro-Arab dialogue was not foreseen or provided for in the initial travel and related expenses provisions of the Estimate. Another development during the year was the need to maintain a delegation to the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe which continued to meet in Geneva until July, some five months longer than anticipated. It will be recalled that because of the Irish Presidency of the European Community during the first half of the year the responsibility of chairing co-ordination meetings in the context of such conferences as the CSCE meant that my Department were obliged to maintain a level of presence at such meetings adequate to perform this task. In other circumstances it might have been possible to envisage a reduction in the level of our attendance but this could not be done this year without abdicating responsibilities as a full participant in the co-ordinating processes of European political co-operation.

In the Vote for International Co-operation the following are the details of the increased provisions needed.

In the case of subhead A where provision is made for contributions towards the running expenses of international organisations of which Ireland is a member, we have little option but to pay the amounts levied as these contributions are mandatory. The assessments on us are made in the currencies of the area in which the headquarters of the international organisations concerned are located. Devaluation has, therefore, had a major effect upon the subhead.

There has been also a significant development in regard to our contribution to the United Nations the extent of which was unforeseen at the time the Estimates were prepared. We must now provide in our contribution to the United Nations in 1975 for Ireland's share of the expenses of maintaining the United Nations Emergency Force in the Middle East. The amount of this assessment is approximately £75,000 for the period ended 31st October, 1975 and has only recently been communicated to us. I need not stress the essential nature of contributing to the United Nations effort to ensure that the tenuous peace established in this area is maintained and extended in the interests not only of the countries of that region but of all countries and particularly the countries of the European Community.

I should, perhaps, also mention that the increase in our contribution to the Council of Europe has been affected by the requirement that we provide an additional £10,000 approximately in the current year for a new headquarters building in Strasbourg. When it is opened next year this new building will provide facilities for the meetings of the Council of Europe and of the European Parliament when it sits in Strasbourg. These new facilities together with the office accommodation to be provided in the new building should contribute to the efficient running of both the Council of Europe and of the European Parliament.

In subhead C of this Vote an additional sum of £15,000 is being provided for the Agency for Personal Service Overseas. APSO has demonstrated since its formation less than two years ago that it has the ability and capacity to contribute in a most important way to assisting the countries of the Third World. This has been due in no small measure to the generous and wholehearted support which it has received from the voluntary agencies associated with it and from the contribution of personal service made by many private citizens with skills and professions which are essential to the development of many developing regions. The additional provision requested will enable APSO to maintain the planned level of its activity during 1975 which otherwise because of increased costs and the effects of devaluation would have to be curtailed.

I have already mentioned the extended meetings of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe which occasioned increases in the travel and communication subhead of the Vote for Foreign Affairs. There is in this connection a consequential increased provision to be met in subhead F of the Vote for International Co-operation of £15,000 which together with the initial provision of £5,000 represents Ireland's contribution towards the expenses of the extended conference.

In seeking approval for the foregoing additional expenditures under the two Votes, I have explored every possibility of reducing expenditure without reducing the effectiveness of our representation abroad which is, by any standard, a modest one. A number of steps have been taken in my Department during this year which have the effect of keeping Departmental expenditure tightly controlled. Nevertheless, it has not been possible to reduce expenditure without also reducing the effectiveness of our representation abroad. I am convinced that we will need to maintain this effective representation and, indeed, to develop it in the period ahead.

On the International Co-operation Vote there have been some savings which have partially—but only partially—offset the additional expenditure incurred for the reasons stated above. These savings arise from the fact that the sum provided for disaster relief was not fully required during the year in question, and also because the bilateral aid project has developed slightly more slowly than had been originally foreseen.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I gather that this Supplementary Estimate has to be passed urgently and, therefore, I am very glad to agree to have it passed as quickly as possible. However, I should make some comments on the background to this urgency and also on the reason for introducing a Supplementary Estimate of this nature at this time. The Minister outlined the continuing expansion of our activities in Foreign Affairs and seems to attribute the need for this Supplementary Estimate to a very considerable extent to the increasing costs arising from our Presidency of the European Community, to the extension of a conference on security in Helsinki and also the meetings of the Council of Ministers of the Community.

It is also fair to say that a very considerable amount in relation to salaries and expenses within his own Department should have been anticipated by the Minister and his Department. I would like to refer to some aspects of this which I believe are an indictment of the book-keeping which the Minister has implemented in his Department. If this were to extend itself throughout all the Departments of State, it is not surprising that the Government find themselves in such a critical position at the moment. I will refer to some clear examples of this which should have been anticipated because it is not today nor yesterday that devaluation became a problem for sterling and for us as a consequence. Neither is it today nor yesterday that air travel and increasing air fares have become the pattern in international communications.

I would like to refer to one instance of what I feel can only be an appalling miscalculation of the Estimates for the expenses of this Department. Under the subhead which relates to travelling and incidental expenses the original Estimate for this year was £660,000. Today we will pass a Supplementary Estimate for £440,000, that is an increase of two thirds on the original Estimate passed by this House. This is miscalculation on the part of the Minister in originally presenting the Estimates to the Department of Finance on which the business of his Department was to operate. It is not enough to say in relation to that that the activities of the Minister and his Department due to the Presidency of the Council of the European Community to a very considerable extent explains this problem because we knew well in advance that we would assume this responsibility. Calculations should have been made in the original Estimate to take account of the responsibilities which accrued to us as President of the European Community and also take account of the various conferences to which the Minister referred and which were then under way. I refer particularly to the Energy Conference, the Helsinki Conference and any others the Minister referred to.

Account should have been taken of those conferences when the Estimates were being prepared. The Minister said in relation to the increased expenditure for travelling and incidental expenses that £150,000 is due to devaluation. The devaluation was already well under way when the original Estimate was introduced. The Minister's responsibility and that of his Department, and consequently the responsibility of the Government, is to make their calculations on the basis of the knowledge they have of current international monetary trends and also to present their bills and Estimates in the light of the extent to which those trends will continue. The trends that were there when this Estimate was introduced have continued at the same pace. They may have increased somewhat against the pound but not to the point that explains this additional demand we have today.

There must be a very bad lack of communication between the Minister's office and that of his colleague, the Minister for Transport and Power. I am indebted to the Minister for the information, which he has not referred to in his opening address, that up to £40,000 of the amount in the subhead for travelling and incidental expenses is due to increased air fares. I should like to know what the total cost of air fares will be in relation to his Department's activities. The negotiations in respect of applications for increased air fares were well under way when this Estimate was originally introduced. Had the Minister had consultations with the Minister for Transport and Power and been informed of the IATA negotiations in this area he would have known, and could have taken into account, that he could expect air fares to increase to the extent that we are now being asked to sanction.

It is possible that the Government may be having a rethink. In the great flourish before the last election the then Opposition, Fine Gael, looked at what they considered to be a vulnerable Fianna Fáil position and presented to the public the purchase of a jet on behalf of the Government as a flashy gesture. The jet was to be purchased for travel to and from the European Community. Unfortunately, the public responded to that bait; they thought the politicians intended making life comfortable for themselves at their expense. It is understandable that the public responded in that way but the then Opposition committed themselves to repealing that decision on taking office. I do not think they did much book-keeping before coming to the decision not to purchase the jet.

We had the inevitable public response to what seemed to be a responsible and disciplined decision on the part of the Coalition Government but I wonder now that they have done their book-keeping and that we are being asked to sanction this Supplementary Estimate for this Department —we should remember that the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, the Minister for Transport and Power and the Minister for Finance are also involved in extensive travel throughout Europe—if the Government would indicate if the decision not to purchase the jet was justified. Would the Government care to compare the cost of running such a jet against the increased cost we are being asked to sanction in this Supplementary Estimate as we will be asked in every other area of the Government?

It is another indication of the price the nation pays for hastily conceived commitments which were not based on any calculation but on an impression of what public reaction would be to that commitment. In the meantime we have paid the price. We have not just paid the price in terms of money but the Minister is the personification of the fact that we paid the price in terms of energy and in terms of dignity. It must be said that the Minister for Foreign Affairs has been projecting a great impression of Ireland's concern—and I accept that as a genuine projection—in the course of his Presidency of the European Community. His activity, energy and zeal have done a lot to win respect for us internationally and have won respect for the European Community. In terms of zeal, activity and concern the Minister has been effective and has brought a certain amount of pride and status to us.

At the same time, one also must look for the positive results of all this activity, zeal and public concern. I am afraid the practical results in any of a number of cases do not measure up to the public impression of the activity that has been created. In relation to travel and travelling expenses, I believe it should not happen that a Minister of this Government, attending a conference or a Council of the European Community, should have to rely on transport of a commercial organisation by way of facility. Is that the way we conduct our business internationally? If we have to show ourselves to the European Community as a nation that cannot guarantee and ensure that through our own arrangements, by plane or otherwise, we can attend, as they attend, at these conferences it is a poor reflection on us, particularly when, as the Minister will recall on his visit to Italy, we had to accept the offer of a private individual engaged in private enterprise here. I am not always too hung up on status but this nation cannot tolerate a position of that nature; the nation cannot tolerate a position whereby we, in a casual way, accept such an offer. It may be suggested that it was a measure of humility or practical approach but we are the only nation who hitch a lift to any of these meetings in the private aircraft of commercial entrepreneurs.

This must not be done because the Government, above all else, must appear to be at all times totally independent in the discharge of their duties and obligations of any direct commercial favour much less direct commercial influence. I am not suggesting the Government would be influenced but the Minister should tell the House if this should be allowed to happen. I know this arose as a matter of urgency but the Minister should tell us if he intends to ensure that this will not happen in future.

In the course of his speech the Minister said:

... A number of developments have contributed significantly to this. 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. Moreover, there has been an increase in the frequency of meetings in the context of European Political Co-operation deriving from the decisions of the Paris Summit in December, 1974...

If the amount of work and travel was greater than expected, the Minister should tell us what was expected. To what extent was the work and travel greater because of our control of the Presidency of the European Community? The Minister was President for this period and to what extent could he have ensured that the work and travel would not have been that much greater than expected? We were told that it was the Minister who was arranging the meetings additional to those normally held and if he is to suggest that the activities of the European Community and the Council during our Presidency were more intense than previously he can hardly complain that it cost more than we anticipated. We were presenting ourselves as the agents and the driving force behind that increased activity. Either we were the driving force or we were not. If we were then, at least as the driver, we should know how much the petrol would cost.

The Minister, and his Department, as the ones in control, should and must be held responsible for this huge increase of 66 per cent in travelling and incidental expenses. How much of those expenses arising out of our obligations during the Presidency of the Community will be recouped? I believe a considerable proportion of these expenses will be recouped to us and on that basis it is not enough for the Minister to make a bland statement to the effect that the activities connected with the Council were greater than expected. The Minister should tell us the full story; he should tell us how much of the expense in that capacity will be recouped. We can then consider to what extent the Minister's request this morning is justified. Otherwise we are doing it with blinkers and I am blinkered to that extent this morning. The Minister's brief and passing reference to this does not tell the full story. Far from it.

I would like to hear the rest of the story in detail from the Minister in his reply. Of course this Estimate is urgent. It must be passed today so that the hardworking officials of the Department will be paid their salaries. I have the greatest respect for these officials and their diligence and contributions during the time of our EEC Presidency were very much appreciated at home and abroad. They should be guaranteed their salaries. Like any business, the Department's book-keeping should be worked out reasonably accurately in advance and salaries are an important part of a company's expenses.

Our private industries compete with low cost countries and experience great difficulties so far as the importation of raw materials is concerned. The Minister is not in competition with any other country and is using devaluation as his excuse. This Government have been asking private industries to pull in their belts, to make their estimates and keep to them. They have also asked workers to ensure that there will not be extra money needed. If the smallest business in Ireland were to run its affairs as this Department have done, they would be bankrupt long ago and Fóir Teoranta would have written them off as being beyond redemption.

This Minister has a reputation as an international diplomat and an economic consultant and expert. I have respect for experts but they should ensure that their advice will result in practical effects. If the expert cannot advise himself, it is a poor day for the rest of the country. If the managing director of a company, with a turn-over of the order of this Department, were to go to his board during the year and say that because of international conditions and increased costs of energy and so forth, he now wants an additional sum of £700,000, and an increase of two thirds for travelling expenses, the board would very soon tell him: "Sorry, you may have created a great impression of activity and you may have done a lot of work, but, unfortunately, our resources cannot cover your activities. Either we have to change our programme or you will have to go to a new job". I am not suggesting that the Minister go to a new job but it is not enough to tell us that because of the extra activity this additional money is needed. We must have regard to our responsibilities to our public. On the one hand, we cannot seek praise for our work internationally and, on the other hand say that this is the cause of our economic problems. I hope the Government and the Minister will take this problem seriously.

The Taoiseach and the Tánaiste have been asking industries and workers to pull in their belts and help us get over these economic problems. Yet this Department are asking for an increase of 66 per cent. One should practise what one preaches. The public are beginning to realise that this is a characteristic of this Government. The projection is, and was, very colourful, and if I may say, very effective, but the performance and book-keeping is of sub-primary school standard. The public are keeping a very close watch on Government expenditure at all times.

Has there been any change of policy in the Department on racialism and particularly apartheid? I have a good reason for asking this. The Minister has been known to be an opponent of the oppressed and of racialism in all its forms. His public image is that he is very concerned in all these areas. But when the official decisions of our Government are in conflict with the Minister's personal image, we must ask what degree of control is there in the Department over decisions taken and votes registered at the United Nations. We must also ask if this represents a change of view on the part of the Minister. If it does not, was he aware of what was being done in his name, and if so, have the matter clarified.

I refer particularly to the two resolutions which came before the last session of the United Nations. One of these resolutions was on Rhodesia and was strongly critical of the United Kingdom Government for failing to measure up to their responsibilities in that area. It also called on that Government to take firm initiatives to ensure that the racialist regime of Rhodesia would be subject to sanctions, so that the policies of the Smith regime would be changed to bring it into line with what we profess to want.

The year before last Ireland abstained on this resolution which is presented almost every year to the UN General Assembly, but at the last session for some reason Ireland voted against the resolution which simply called on the British Government to fulfil their responsibilities in relation to Rhodesia and censured them for failing to take the initiative they had said they would do. We, being conditioned in this by our desire "not to exacerbate the relationship with the British Government"—the quotes are from the Minister—voted against the resolution.

If our stance on international interest in human dignity and freedom is to be conditioned by our concern not to offend Britain—I hope we can at all times ensure, through co-operation and harmony, mutual benefits for both countries—if we are to be conditioned by the fact that any vote of censure on Britain would upset these delicate relationships, our foreign policy will be completely compromised, especially considering the fact that the emerging nations of Africa have always looked to us with respect. How can we use that respect to good advantage both in terms of our own contribution to world peace and of the example we can give to these countries and the confidence they can place in us if we turn our face against the very oppression we so very often preach against? If we fail to do this, no soft words at home can get us away from the fact that we cannot give one image at home of being liberal and freedom-loving and take the very opposite stance where it counts most, in the UN General Assembly.

But that is not the end of it. There are two other areas and the next is probably the worst. It relates to the omnibus resolution that comes up every year in the General Assembly on apartheid. From time to time when Fianna Fáil were in Government we voted almost consistently for this resolution of censure and to recognise the legitimacy of the struggle of black South Africans to try to ensure their emergence to freedom and human dignity. One might say the worst that might have happened was that while we were in Government we on occasions voted for reservations and once or twice we may have abstained because of the nature of the reservations.

However, at the 29th Session of the General Assembly, the Irish representative, on behalf of our Government, our Minister for Foreign Affairs, who I believe personally supported it, voted differently. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, I might point out, was a sponsor of the Irish Anti-Apartheid body but when he became Minister he properly withdrew from that position. On his instructions, our representative at the United Nations voted against a resolution asking for sanctions against South Africa, recognising the legitimacy of the struggle against apartheid. Oil was a particular issue in this: there are the oil resources of South Africa. The oppressed black people of Africa would have felt that we would have been on their side in their case for freedom and human dignity. The attitude of the Irish Government on this occasion indicated either a terrible change of policy inconsistent with the stance taken at home by the Minister or that there is lack of control and direction within the Department of Foreign Affairs and that the Minister is not aware of what is being done in his name or has not been consulted about what is being done in his name.

That is not good enough. No votes can be cast on our behalf in the UN without the man who represents us being aware of them. If it happens that he was not aware of the action taken on this occasion it is an indication, as we have found in the Department of Finance, that there is a lack of control, of direction and of overall supervision, and the consequences for the African people could be very serious indeed.

I should like to repeat what I have stated before, that I believe Ireland has a particular role in the area of foreign affairs, not just because of action by any one man, though that is very important, but because of the respect we command among these nations probably deriving from our experience in common in emerging from colonial oppression. That places a special obligation on us and gives us a special opportunity to ensure that newly emerging African nations can come into the full family of nations in dignity and in peace and without mistrust for the policies and the actions of the great powers with whom we associate. Surely we must at all times be jealous of that position and ensure that no action of ours will undermine our potential in this field.

On the last occasion, I referred to some practical ways in which we can work to ensure that the African nations can play a full role in the community of nations. I do not intend to do that on a Supplementary Estimate, but might I say before I leave this subject that I hope the Minister will indicate the instructions, if any, that are given to our representatives in the various UN committees? What instructions do they seek from him or the Department before casting votes in these committees, because the results of the deliberations of such committees may be seen in the General Assembly resolutions?

I might say I fully support the stance taken by the Minister and the Government on the resolution on Zionism. It is an unfortunate development in the UN that some powers who may feel aggrieved because of the Israeli position are trying to associate Zionism with a different and more invidious animal, racism. Whatever be the justification for the stance of either side, I support the Minister's stance. Whatever about the justification for the stance of either side on the Middle East, it is regrettable that the Arab states and those who supported them on this can say they should not use the United Nations as an agency of associating what is obviously a problem with what are much more invidious problems, apartheid and racism. Unfortunately the consequences of this have been that the United States in particular has almost threatened withdrawal from the United Nations.

I agree that the resolution was not worthy of support and should be fiercely opposed but, in the final analysis, the very existence of the United Nations is the only guarantee we have that world order and peace can be maintained. It is no stronger than the sum of the contributions the individual members are prepared to make. Obviously the United Nations as a body cannot impose anything other than the consensus of its members will allow. To that extent it is restrained, checked and limited in what it can do. However, it has some significant achievements to its name and for a major power such as the United States to threaten that it will withdraw from the only international forum of nations because some members present resolutions that others find totally out of spirit is a very wrong stance. The only guarantee we have that the world powers who are in competition with each other can communicate and consult is through the existence of the United Nations.

There has recently been the case of Angola and this will not be the last former colony that will come to independence. I suggest to the Minister that some procedural machinery should emerge in advance at the United Nations and there should be some consultation with the world powers to guarantee that former colonies emerging into independence will not be made the flashpoints of international tension, particularly between the great powers.

It is not enough for the Americans to say that the USSR is infiltrating into Angola—that may be—nor for the USSR to say the US is infiltrating into Angola—and that may be. Quite frankly, what the world generally would like to see is that neither of them should involve themselves in the problems of a newly emerging country. This has happened so often in all the flashpoints of the world and we, as a small nation, should say to the US and the USSR that we are tired of their propaganda against each other. We should tell them we are tired of being told it is all white on one side and all black on the other side and that we are tired particularly that both of them use the problems of small nations, especially where they emerge into freedom, to ensure their security around the world.

I know this may be rather simplistic. I realise there may be groups in a newly emerging nation who will turn to one or other of the major powers to guarantee and secure their supremacy in that nation. However, there must be some agreement—and I think the United Nations can take a firm initiative here—and some sanctions to guarantee that there will be no response from the major powers to any such request. We have had enough of Korea, Vietnam, the Congo and now Angola. Those major powers who present themselves as the guardians of the peace to those who look to them as such guardians are, to a considerable extent, the agents of violence, terror and death. The less we see of their involvement in the merging countries the better we would like it and the world would be a better place. Ireland could propose at the United Nations that a watch be kept on the potential flashpoints of the world and to guarantee by sanctions that these powers would not be able to meddle to the point of causing almost inevitable death and destruction in the country concerned and dreadful problems and tensions in the world generally

The Minister referred to the conference on energy. Many of us have noted what might be called the Minister's idealistic stance in relation to our responsibilities particularly in the EEC and I should like to support this to the extent that one can practically support it. However, on occasions one has to look at the practical consequences of high-minded stances. With regard to the United Kingdom seeking a separate seat at the energy conference, the Minister's stance, which was widely promoted and projected, may not have been quite as much in our interest from the practical point of view as would otherwise appear. It is fine to proclaim oneself as a convinced European—all of us are—but the evidence is that the major European nations have not shown the political will nor have they introduced the political agency through which all of us may be better Europeans. Until such time as that will emerges we are being a little naïve to play the role now that we would wish to play then.

Britain has looked to its interests when it seemed right for it to do so and France has done the same. There have been many clear examples of this. Germany has done so even to the extent of doing something which I deplore, namely, the export of arms to South Africa which I take it is inconsistent with the stance of the EEC. Whenever it has suited them the major powers in the Community have taken action to suit their national interest. The British Government have a fair tradition of looking after the national interest and, on this occasion, they have sought a separate seat at the conference. Like the good European he is known to be, our Minister publicly criticised them for this request and suggested that it was undermining the solidarity of the Community. That may be but I hazard a guess that Britain will have a separate seat. Sometimes we should wonder whether the outcome will measure up to our hopes and, to the extent that it does not measure up, we make ourselves seem ineffective when our criticism is totally ignored and people continue to do what they wish.

The reason Britain is seeking a separate seat at the conference is that she has major oil fields off her coast. We have criticised Britain very strongly and have said it is not consistent with Community membership. I do not know if the Minister consulted with the Government before reacting as he did. In this morning's papers we read that further licences are being granted for exploration work, up to £300 million worth, in connection with energy off our coast. Has it occurred to the Minister to consider what our position might be if our expectations in relation to oil, energy and gas are realised? In criticising Britain so openly, do we not to a considerable extent compromise a position we may wish to take ourselves later, or are we so committed to the European idea that we, who are an undeveloped economy in terms of the Community, are prepared to forego our national advantage for the sake of notional European solidarity? I do not want anything I have said to be taken as being against European solidarity but there is no point in our being boy scouts before the troop has been formed.

We have been acting the boy scout a bit in Europe and have been proclaiming our European commitment but others, while proclaiming their European commitment in one sense, are well able to look after the national interest as well.

I wonder if the Minister would like to indicate whether or not he is satisfied that his criticism of Britain's request for separate representation would not compromise us in any event if the occasion arises for us and whether or not his criticism was the outcome of Government consultations, more particularly with the Minister for Industry and Commerce who would be the man concerned in this area, because I do not think it is enough to have ad hoc reactions from the Minister—I am not suggesting that this was such but somehow it smacks a little of it—ad hoc reactions on a matter that may be of such vital consequence for us.

I referred to statements of our position publicly and to the discrepancy between our public projection and the subsequent performance. It is fine to create an impression of activity; it is fine to create an impression of influence; it is fine to convey an impression that we can dictate at the Councils of the European Community to the French, Germans or otherwise and when we do that have it spread across the pages of our newspapers here and elsewhere. That is fine for the moment but when the Germans, the French and all that afterwards totally ignore what we say then, of course, one wonders what the purpose is and what the final outcome may be in relation to the stances we take initially.

There are many examples and the energy conference may just be one. The Minister, I think, actually said in the House that he was glad to be able to play a very effective role at the Washington Conference in reconciling the differences between the parties there.

Dr. FitzGerald

An ineffective role. He sought to reconcile but totally failed, is what I said.

Mr. O'Kennedy

My recollection may be wrong there. The Minister may take issue with me on this. The public projection from us that we as a country take upon ourselves and presume to have the capacity to reconcile nations that are pretty well advised and pretty well secure in their own positions is not necessarily the best thing.

Dr. FitzGerald

An inferiority complex?

Mr. O'Kennedy

No, it is not an inferiority complex. Far from it. It is the very opposite. It is a little bit of knowing the effective way of conducting international relations. If we project ourselves as being something more than we are, the outcome is often a lot less than we would wish for. I will be asking what in fact the outcome in various areas has been. I say briefly—it has to be brief—we all recall so often the stance of the Minister.

One example is the regional fund when it was being established in the European Community and the way we were castigating the British publicly and persuading the French, Italians, Germans publicly and the way we told the Press—and it is on the record of the newspapers of this country—how often we were bringing them around to our position. We were doing all of this. If this is an inferiority complex the Minister can let me know. At the end of it all what happened? We did all of the public persuasion. We projected ourselves as having done this, that and the other thing, and what do we get? We get a lot less than we would have got, possibly, if we had done none of this public projection of our activities. We got a miserable pittance which was not in accordance with our right or entitlement and not in accordance with the expectations of the Minister.

Who, then, won the diplomatic battle? Our Minister who spoke publicly and loudly of how he was bringing everyone around to his position or those countries who just kept their thoughts and their ideas to themselves and in the final analysis showed that in the field of hard negotiation sometimes actions are a lot more effective than words? By speaking so loudly and prominently and publicly—even The Kerryman could give an example of the Minister—if you proclaim your position too freely, you undermine the possibilities of doing something effective. That is one area where we now have to our credit £6 million in this year from a fund which, by any standards one cares to apply, just does not measure up. If you go back over the papers two years ago you would swear that it was £60 million that we would have because of our Minister in the Council of the European Community. Between promise and performance there is a huge gap which to a considerable extent tells the story of this Administration's activities in Foreign Affairs.

We come to the recent conference of the Six in Rambouillet. The Minister was heard in advance to criticise this as being against European solidarity. So, Ireland's voice was heard. We would not accept and we rejected the motion that this conference of the six major powers should take place on world economy. It was suggested that we should be there and the Community as such should be represented there. What happened? We said our piece and perhaps satisfied ourselves that we had spoken to the world and to the major powers and to that extent, perhaps, satisfied our ego. The Minister may suggest that I have an inferiority complex—I would hope not. I am not going to suggest that the Minister has an inflated ego. Maybe somewhere between the two of us there is a balance. The reality is that as in the vexed question of the regional fund the Rambouillet Conference went ahead exactly as planned despite all our proclamations. I am simply saying that we might as well recognise that there comes a point when public proclamations of that nature are not the most effective.

It might have been better—it must have been better, because the outcome this way has not been very much to our advantage—if the Minister clearly, personally and effectively had consulted with the various Ministers of the Community such as the United Kingdom, French or German Ministers and said: "This is not the best thing in our common interest. I am not going to make a public noise about it but let us see if there is some way whereby we can ensure that we will be there in an observer capacity or something". I would warn that at least the prospects of our interest in the final outcome being protected in those circumstances would be at least as good as what has happened in the event, where we made all the noise but got nothing in the final analysis.

I may turn to another aspect. I have questions down in regard to certain areas arising out of the announcement of cross-Border projects. In September, 1973, at Baldonnel, between the British Prime Minister and our Taoiseach agreement was reached on the development of cross-Border projects in principle. On numerous occasions in the House—I will quote the dates—I asked the Minister for progress reports in these various areas—on 7th November, 1974, 5th February, 1975, 9th July, 1975. I think I can fairly summarise it —I will quote from the record if necessary—that I was requesting immediate action from the Minister. I asked the Minister at column 1319 of the Official Report of 7th November, 1974, by way of a supplementary question:

Can the Minister indicate what has been the basis of the reluctance of the British Government to undertake this joint obligation? Is there any good reason for it?

because the Minister told me there was a reluctance on the part of the British, and the reply I got to that was:

Dr. FitzGerald: I do not think I am in a position to answer that authoritatively. If the Deputy can persuade a colleague in the British Parliament to put down a question there he is more likely to get an answer on that.

The Minister was, in other words, telling me he did not know why the British Government were refusing to join in cross-Border applications of the nature we were proposing. That is there on the record. I said: "I can see no reason whatever for it and I would like more information on it" and the Minister replied "I am not necessarily disagreeing with the Deputy on that". That indicates that it was because of a reluctance on the part of the British Government—they would not join us in an application and particularly because of disagreement as to the nature of it—no progress was being made. The matter rested there until 5th February, 1975. The Ceann Comhairle is aware that one cannot repeat a question until a certain period of time has elapsed. On 5th February I asked the Minister the date on which our Government formally requested the British Government to make a joint application—I was anxious to tie it down to precise dates—and what proposals, if any, were made in each request and the response in each case. The Minister's reply was to refer me to his reply of 7th November, 1974:

As I told him then, agreement in principle was reached on a joint approach to the Commission on the financing of cross-Border studies during the meeting of the Taoiseach with the British Prime Minister Mr. Health at Baldonnel in September, 1973. The agreement was reiterated at subsequent meetings with Mr. Health on 18th November, 1973 and with Mr. Wilson on 21st November, 1974. The matter remains under discussion at official level with a view to reaching agreement on the terms of reference proposed by us for a joint approach to the commission.

Time is needed to reconcile certain differences in approach between the British Government and ourselves. I can say at this stage, however, that we are and have been for more than a year ready and willing to go ahead on an approach to the Commission.

This was a year and a half after the agreement in principle was reached.

Dr. FitzGerald

18th November, 1973.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I am quoting from the Official Report of 5th February last, column 1717, Volume 277. Note, the Minister said: "time is needed to reconcile certain differences in approach between the British Government and ourselves." The Minister went on to say:

I can say at this stage, however, that we are and have been for more than a year ready and willing to go ahead on an approach to the Commission.

Again, the implication is that the British Government were not willing. The Minister nods his head. At column 1718 the Minister said in relation to the differences between the two Governments:

It is our concern that the proposals to be submitted to the Commission should be broadly based which would review the situation with regard to the economic development of the border areas, both the north-west and the north-east, the latter having been suggested at one point by the British Government. Our concern is to secure agreement on that and I would prefer to keep discussing with a view to securing such agreement than to have a more narrowly based circle which would be less useful and less satisfactory.

There the Minister is telling us that our concern was with both the north-west and the north-east and he would prefer to wait and get that instead of the "more narrowly based circle which would be less useful and less satisfactory".

Subsequently I attended a parliamentary conference at Westminster at which members of the Government parties were present. I asked some representatives of the British Foreign Office, the equivalent of our Department of Foreign Affairs, why they were reluctant and what their objection was and how could they justify their opposition and I was told by the Foreign Office officials that that was not in fact the position. I was told that the difference between our Government and the British Government was merely as to the extent of the proposals and they specifically said they had made proposals in relation to fisheries and in relation to certain other projects. On 9th July, 1975, at column 1117 of Volume 283 of the Official Report I asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs "if he will now urge the British Government to submit joint applications to the European Community for the promotion of cross-Border projects" and the Minister's reply was:

There are difficulties in the way of an agreement between the Irish and British Governments on the precise terms for such an application. I have adverted to these in response to previous questions. The Government attaches considerable importance to the question and will continue to pursue it as appropriate. I have recently been in contact with the NI Secretary of State and further discussions will take place shortly in an effort to overcome the difficulties to which I have referred.

Some further discussion ensued and I had better, I think, quote in full:

Mr. O'Kennedy: I take it the Minister will accept that, in reply to the previous question to which he referred, he indicated to me the fact that the British Government refused to join in joint applications with our Government. The Minister will accept that. Does he accept it?

Dr. FitzGerald: Let us be clear.

Mr. O'Kennedy: The Minister will recall, when I asked about this, telling me I should have a question put down in Westminster to ascertain why.

Dr. FitzGerald: I do not recall saying that.

Mr. O'Kennedy: It is on the record.

Dr. FitzGerald: If the Deputy says I did say that then I am sure it must be true. In spite of the diffculties relating to the carrying out of a general survey of the area, the Government regard this as a necessary preliminary to a more detailed approach in relation to the projects.

Mr. O'Kennedy: On a recent parliamentary delegation to West-minister I, among others, was informed by representatives of the Foreign Office that they had, in fact, suggested to our Government specific cross-Border projects and that our Government, for one reason or another, found these were not appropriate. Can the Minister explain to me why he informed me previously that the British Government had refused to join in applications for cross-Border assistance?

Dr. FitzGerald: Because what I said on that occasion was true. What was originally proposed in 1973 was a survey of the north-western regions with a view to establishing forms of joint action desirable to improve the economy of the area which has, objectively speaking, been disrupted by the existence of the Border. Subsequently, on the British side, there was a suggestion that a similar survey should be carried out in the north-eastern part of the area, which we thought was a good idea. However, those proposals did not make progress. There have been proposals from the British side for specific detailed projects as a replacement for the general surveys which were agreed to at Baldonnel and confirmed subsequently and which we regarded as an essential preliminary. It was these general surveys for the north-western projects, and subsequently the British Government agreed for the north-east, which held up agreement.

Mr. O'Kennedy: In fact, there have been proposals from the British Government for specific projects.

Dr. FitzGerald: Yes.

Mr. O'Kennedy: May I ask the Minister why it was on previous occasions he did not so indicate to me?

Dr. FitzGerald: They are not projects. They are specific surveys. They do not involve doing something to develop the region. They are studies of particular problems which we would regard as an inadequate and inappropriate replacement for a general survey.

Mr. O'Kennedy: Would the Minister be precise?

Here the Chair intervened and later I said:

Mr. O'Kennedy: The record is there. Was there not, for instance, a specific proposal for the development of fisheries in the Donegal and Derry areas?

An Ceann Comhairle: The matter may not be debated now.

Dr. FitzGerald: A proposal for a study of the possibilities of doing that and also a study of possible development of the port of Derry the Government regarded as inappropriate and inadequate substitutes for a general survey of the north-west, and the Government have therefore pursued the original proposal, which had been agreed to by the British Government in 1973 and again in 1975.

Dr. FitzGerald

These proposals were not made until five weeks after the Deputy's question on 7th November. Perhaps it is a confusion of dates on the Deputy's part.

Mr. O'Kennedy

It is not. I am quoting from the Official Report. The proposals from the British Government were not made——

Dr. FitzGerald

Until five weeks after the Deputy's question on 7th November.

Mr. O'Kennedy

7th November, 1974. I accept that. We are talking now about 1975.

Dr. FitzGerald

I do not quite understand the point the Deputy is making.

Mr. O'Kennedy

The point is that in February, 1975, the Minister told me we have not reached agreement on the proposals we had put forward.

Dr. FitzGerald

That is right. I do not understand what the Deputy's point is. Is he suggesting that I misled him at some point? I would be glad to be clear on the net point he is making. I have not yet discovered it.

Mr. O'Kennedy

The Minister tells me now the British Government made their proposals two weeks after——

Dr. FitzGerald

Five weeks.

Mr. O'Kennedy

The Minister might have told me that in 1975 and he did not.

Dr. FitzGerald

If the Deputy had asked.

Mr. O'Kennedy

The Minister gave no indication of the position and it was not until I went on a deputation to Westminster that I became aware that proposals had been made. This news was contrary to any impression given by the Minister. If, a few weeks after my question in November, 1974 the British Government made proposals, why did the Minister not tell me that in February, 1975? He knew that this was one of the issues concerned particularly when in November, 1974 he had suggested to me that I put a query to the British Parliament in order to ascertain what was their objection. The least I would have expected from the Minister then was the full story.

Last week the proposals were announced. We read in the papers that after lengthy discussions at official level over the past few months and almost two years after the idea was first discussed by the Taoiseach and the then British Prime Minister at Baldonnel, the Governments of Ireland and Britain had agreed to make a joint application to the European Community for financial support to undertake cross-Border studies in communications and fisheries. We were told that what has now been agreed is a study in transport communications in Counties Donegal and Derry and a survey of the sea fishing potential along the east coast stretching from Rosslare in the south to Glenarm in the north.

The Minister may tell us precisely what has been agreed but in this House in July last the Minister told us that he wanted detailed studies for the north-west, the south and the north-east and that this was the reason for the delay. What was involved was a broad comprehensive study but now we are told that the British Government made proposals in November, 1974. The Minister must recognise that the proposals are not anything like what he said and does not justify the delay. There is nothing in the proposals that have been announced to justify their long being called a comprehensive study of the whole cross-Border region.

We must note the difference between the final outcome and the promised performance. In regard to matters of this kind it would be better if we had less of the imputation that the British Government are dragging their feet publicly. By no standard can the outcome be regarded as being in accordance with our wishes and requests.

I wish to turn now to another area which has caused some confusion recently in our foreign policy position. I refer to our attitude in relation to the execution of the Basques during the last days of the Franco regime. There were two areas in which the EEC through their Council of Ministers seemed to act with some degree of solidarity on this question. One was the termination of trade talks with Spain and the other was the recalling of ambassadors from that country. I have questions down on this matter but, unfortunately, the Minister has not been present on the days they were due to be taken and, rather than receive the replies from any other Minister, I decided to postpone them. However, I take the opportunity of raising them now in the hope that the Minister will let me have the answer when he is replying to the debate.

Apparently, we agreed to cut off trade talks with Spain. At least, if we did not so agree there was no public statement to indicate our disagreement. On the other hand, we did not act in conjunction with the other member states in relation to recalling ambassadors. It is clear that in each case we did the wrong thing and attempted afterwards to justify publicly our compounded mistake.

At the time this situation arose it was realised that Franco's life was limited. I am not saying that in any spirit of personal vindictiveness. He was a man who was a major figure not only in the history of his own country but in European history.

I want to ask the Minister and, through him, the Community whether it is the case that the Community negotiate in trade only with those countries whose regimes they accept totally as being in accordance with the best standards of human dignity and freedom? Is trade the criteria by which the Community impose their views and standards on the countries with which they associate through trade? Obviously it is not. The Minister will agree that the Community both as a group and as individual nations have trade associations with many countries, with South Africa, Rhodesia, the USSR and many others in respect of which much criticisms have been made by individual countries within the Community as to the limitations on personal freedoms and even in regard to the deprivation of life. In this context we might mention the US in so far as its involvement with Chile is concerned. The Community were prepared to continue their trade negotiations with all these countries and even to extend them but in the case of Spain, they became so holy that, as a gesture of their abhorrence, they cut off trade talks. The Spanish people were the ones to suffer as a result of that action. Are we then to regard trade associations as being a guarantee of our total respect of the country with which we have these associations? I have never known trade to be such a criteria.

I am anxious to hear from the Minister as to whether, when the proposal in relation to Spain was raised at the Council of Ministers, he suggested that this was not the proper course to take. Did he remind them that they should not terminate trade talks since they had trading arrangements with other regimes with whom by comparison Spain might be called a haven of peace and liberty? Did the Minister disagree with that proposal? If not why not? Why did he not express our view as being contrary to that particular position in relation to the trade talks? All we know is that the European Community, and our Minister among them, decided to cut off the trade talks. I think they did the wrong thing for the wrong reasons. Particularly because of the associations they have with many other repressive regimes why single out Spain? When we took our own initiative in relation to that event, as distinct from other members of the European Community, we took the most extraordinary initiative. Not only did we attempt to justify it but we attempted to criticise the stance of the United States Government and others in an attempt to conceal the blunder we made.

We, of all the countries of the European Community, did not withdraw our Ambassador. How many of the Ambassadors recalled went back to Spain before the death of Franco and how many more will go back in a matter of weeks? If a formal protest was what was called for, which would not penalise the people of Spain as cutting off the trade talks did, we did the other thing. When the others were making the formal protest we set ourselves apart and we did not recall our Ambassador. If we wanted to express our independence and integrity and be consistent we could have done it in relation to the trade talks and let our voice be heard. We wanted to be clearly seen not to be influenced by the overall view but we picked the wrong issue. What was even more disquieting and more confusing was to hear the Minister not only attempting to justify the mistake we made but to confuse the issues even more by introducing criticism of the United States policy towards Spain.

I want to give some indication of the total universal reaction to the executions and projected executions as outlined in the Paris edition of the International Herald Tribune, Tuesday, September 30th, 1975. The calls came from all over the world for diplomatic isolation of Spain at that time. Mexico withdrew her representative. The Herald Tribune of that date stated:

Twelve European countries have recalled their ambassadors "for consultations", a manoeuvre falling short of diplomatic rupture but intended to show displeasure. They were Belgium, the Netherlands, Britain, Denmark, West Germany, East Germany, Italy, Sweden, Portugal, Switzerland, Norway and France. The papal nuncio to Spain returned to the Vatican and met with Pope Paul VI but the Vatican refrained from saying that he had been recalled. Spain brought home its ambassador to the Vatican after the Pope declared publicly that his pleas for clemency had been spurned. Austrian Chancellor Bruno Kreisky told a meeting of labour unions today he would ask his Government tomorrow to approve the recall of the Austrian ambassador to Spain.

The Portuguese, needless to say, took no action. We all know the Paris reaction.

Dr. FitzGerald

Will the Deputy tell us about that reaction?

Mr. O'Kennedy

In Paris violence broke out. The Herald Tribune stated:

In Paris tonight, violence broke out when 20,000 members of the Communist and Socialist parties and of labour unions marched from the Place de la République to the Place de la Bastille to protest Spanish policy.

The French Government did recall their representative.

Dr. FitzGerald

No.

Mr. O'Kennedy

The Minister can say with what reservations they did not because they are included. The Paris edition of the International Herald Tribune seems to have been misinformed. This is published in Paris and they say:

Twelve European countries have recalled their ambassadors "for consultation", a manoeuvre falling short of diplomatic rupture but intended to show displeasure.

Among the countries they gave they quoted France.

Dr. FitzGerald

They were wrong.

Mr. O'Kennedy

We will hear the accurate story from the Minister and when we do it will be news to the world. As far as the world was concerned Ireland was the only country of the European Community that did not withdraw her ambassador.

Dr. FitzGerald

The position of France was referred to frequently in the papers at the time.

Mr. O'Kennedy

We did the wrong thing for the wrong reason. I do not want to deal with the European Community in general because the fifth report is likely to come up for debate in the foreseeable future.

Dr. FitzGerald

I hope so.

Mr. O'Kennedy

Recently we had a discussion on the problems of the Third World and the Government's responsibilities in that area. While it is included in the Supplementary Estimate today it would not be appropriate to go back over that ground again. The last point I want to refer to is what one might call the Creegan affair, about which I expect Deputy Tunney will be able to go into greater detail. While I was on a visit to the USSR the Minister issued a statement to the newspapers, the effect of which was that he was in consultation with me in relation to the Creegan affair. The only understanding any member of the public reading that statement could get was that the Minister was in consultation with me in relation to this over a period. Deputy Tunney is concerned with broader aspects of this matter. I want to deal with one particular aspect. The Minister made his statement on the 1st October, 1975. The statement said:

The attention of the Minister for Foreign Affairs has been drawn to recent media comment on the case of Mr. James Creegan, who is imprisoned in Mons, Belgium, on suspicion of security offences at a NATO base in Belgium. The Minister for Foreign Affairs wishes to emphasise the following points.

He spoke about the continued personal interest he had taken in it. The end of his statement said:

On the Minister's instructions every effort has been made to facilitate visits by relatives, friends and a Member of Dáil Éireann representing the constituency in which Mr. Creegan's parents reside.

Later on it stated:

The Minister has also been in touch on this matter with the Opposition spokesman on Foreign Affairs, Mr. Michael O'Kennedy.

That is capable of conveying one impression to the public who read it, which is that Mr. O'Kennedy was kept informed on this matter by the Minister.

The date on which I became aware of this statement, and this was the only communication I had from the Minister apart from the unsatisfactory ones in this House, was the day after the statement was published. When I explain the reasons why, the Minister will understand. I was on a visit to the Soviet Union at the time. After a stay in Moscow I went to a city 2,000 miles away in Siberia, Novosibirsk. On my return from that city I was informed that there was an urgent message for me from the Minister at the Irish Embassy. A representative from the Embassy gave me the message which included this statement and a note for my information. I asked the representative what my reaction was expected to be and he informed me that I was given the material for information.

When I looked over the statement that evening I noticed the portion at the end which stated that the Minister had been in touch about this matter with the Opposition spokesman on Foreign Affairs. I came to the conclusion that it was capable of a different interpretation and I inquired from the Embassy when the statement would be published. It was my intention to suggest that that note be amended to say that a copy of the statement was being sent to the Opposition spokesman but I was told that the statement had already been published. The Minister knew I was in the Soviet Union although the Minister wrote to me at my home address in connection with this matter. The Minister was not in communication with me and the impression created in the statement that I was kept informed was wrong. Deputy Tunney kept me informed at all times of the discussions he was having and everything he did I supported 100 per cent. We agreed that it was appropriate that he, being the Deputy from the area, should pursue the matter. When we jointly pursued it in the House we got an unsatisfactory response.

Dr. FitzGerald

Could I clarify one point? Did the Deputy refer to us voting against a resolution on Rhodesia?

Mr. O'Kennedy

Yes.

Dr. FitzGerald

Could the Deputy identify this resolution? I have two resolutions on Rhodesia, one we voted for and one was adopted by consensus. If the Deputy identified the resolution he is concerned about, I would be happy to reply but I cannot identify it offhand.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I was informed that it was at the 29th Session of the United Nations but if I find the text I will give it to the Minister.

Mr. Moore

The practice of bringing in so many Supplementary Estimates is making a farce of our budgetary system. The budget to be presented in January will be unreal because it will bear little relevance to the real financial situation. I know the staff of the Department of Foreign Affairs cannot be blamed because many outside elements influence this but the Minister should take a tight grip on things and try to give us a reasonable estimate. No one begrudges the money to the Department but one must insist that the book-keeping is examined so that we are presented with more realistic estimates of what is required during a financial year.

On the increase in the cost of travel, I recall a suggestion made by the Fianna Fáil Government that a jet should be purchased for taking the Minister, and his staff, to European destinations. This was laughed at and described by the Opposition spokesman as an example of squandermania. That spokesman accused us of having our heads in the clouds and not having our feet on the ground financially as regards Estimates. However, it transpires that it might have been a good investment in the interests of economy and efficiency. The Minister should give us his views on this and indicate if there are any reasons why we should not purchase the jet in the hope of cutting back on some of the costs.

I have no doubt the Minister can justify every penny spent in his Department and if that money is spent on peace-keeping exercises or on the promotion of our trade with other countries we will not begrudge him it. However, the fact that some Estimates are so far out causes concern about the whole approach of the financial section of the Government. This may be reflected in the attitude of business concerns and local authorities; they may not take their budgets seriously and follow the example of the Government. I am not accusing the officials of the Minister's Department of incompetence because many of the things are outside their control but there could be a tidyingup in the preparation of estimates.

This Supplementary Estimate provides for the expenditure of money on the maintenance of the UN Force in the Middle East. This is essential and anything that contributes to world peace will be supported by us. Did the Minister ever reconsider the possibility of asking the UN to take more cognisance of the tragedy in our country? After six years of turmoil, violence and slaughter in the north-east of our country it would be fresh thinking if we went to the UN to see if they could do anything to bring an end to those terrible tragedies. It has boiled over in recent years and people here have lost their lives. While we are aware of our commitment to world peace, and while some of our efforts in regard to the Third World are commendable, because our eyes have seen on far horizons we are not always as conscious of our duty to our own people.

When I say "our own people" in referring to the North, I mean them all, of every creed or none, in every class and every section of that very class-conscious society. These people have suffered and we grieve with them when we read in the newspapers or hear on the radio of people killed and maimed.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Perhaps the Deputy would keep in mind that we are discussing a Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Moore

We are voting money for the Middle East and I feel that the north-east of our country should get some mention, but I will not pursue the matter if the Chair does not think it in order.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

On a Supplementary Estimate, the debate is confined to the headings of the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Moore

The Minister at the United Nations or in contact with them might well direct attention to the fact that people who do worry about the North feel that perhaps we will be able to do something for them through this organisation and while I am on that point, to show our goodwill in voting moneys to the help of the Third World, he might also consider whether we could, even on the basis of a token Estimate, put it forward that we are prepared to join in an international fund, or even a national fund, as a token of our sincerity with the sufferings of our people in the North, that we would be willing to see some fund started to ensure some contribution for people crippled and maimed.

Today in the papers one sees an announcement regarding the issue of licences for exploration in our coastal waters. Would the Minister tell us what he has done about Rockall? Has this dispute with the United Kingdom been settled? I cannot recall the exact outcome, if any, on the last occasion on which it was raised but it takes on added importance now against the background of the possible development of our resources.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are moving away from the headings of the Supplementary Estimate. This would be more appropriate to the Estimate itself rather than a Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Moore

It has been mentioned but I will not pursue it. The Minister might find time to give us an idea of what the present position is regarding Rockall.

Somebody wrote to me recently and pointed out that in many parts of the world where Irish ships may trade we have no consular or diplomatic representation. This is understandable because we cannot have an Embassy in every country but perhaps the Minister would give us some idea of what the crew of an Irish vessel in any kind of trouble in a foreign country do for diplomatic or consular help. Have we any arrangements with European or world powers to help in this situation, if and when help is needed? We have not got a very large mercantile fleet but it is growing, and this matter may well come to be of much more importance than it is now. We cannot, as I say, have an embassy in every country but the Minister might tell us what arrangement he has for the representation of our people when abroad, where we have no consular representation.

Deputy O'Kennedy mentioned what was a very sore point some time ago when all EEC countries except Ireland withdrew their ambassadors from Spain. Personally I think that was a pretty worthless exercise for these countries but would the Minister tell us how many of them have sent their ambassadors back to Spain? One could argue for a long time as to the appropriate steps to take in these circumstances and we were not kept very well informed by the Department at the time—there was a certain haziness about what we were doing and not doing. Perhaps it is not of much consequence now—I hope the souls of the men who were executed in Spain are at rest and I deplore the killing of anybody, in Spain or here—but the Minister to satisfy my curiosity might tell us how many EEC countries have kept their ambassadors out of Spain since then.

The Minister's efforts regarding help to the Third World are commendable. The amount is very small indeed but it does show our willingness to contribute to that type of development and that we are concerned for the future of the peoples of the Third World and prepared to accept our financial obligations.

We now have to pay—evidently there is a new provision—in our contribution to the United Nations for Ireland's share of the expenses of maintaining the UN Emergency Forces in the Middle East. I do not cavil at that, but may I ask are the world powers such as the USSR paying their contributions? For a long time they jibbed at this. It is only a small point perhaps but one does become somewhat sickened by the agony which the people of the former Portuguese colonies are going through and to see this interference of the USSR in these colonies, not as a way to help them, I am sure, merely to show how powerful they are.

Some years ago a member of this House, now a Minister of the Government, told us, because he did not like the régime in Portugal at that time, that he would close our embassy there and open one in Cuba. I wonder what are the Government's feelings on Portugal now which is still suffering to some extent because of the interference of foreign powers. Would the Minister, like his colleague, consider not closing our embassy in Lisbon, but withdrawing our ambassador from the USSR as a protest against their meddling in the Portuguese colonies? We should ask the Russians to keep out and then try to help these people solve their difficulties.

I concede that the Minister has done great work on behalf of the Third World and in Europe since we joined the EEC. We joined the Community thanks to the previous Administration. In my view it is the Minister's first duty to bring home to the Community the suffering and the plight of the people in the north-east of this country and to ask the Community to do everything possible to bring an end to the suffering there. In the north we could well have the seeds of further European conflict. Apart from that, the most pressing point is that many people in the North are suffering and this should be brought to an end. The Minister should drop some of his activities and concentrate more on that.

Mr. Tunney

I must admit to a certain happiness and satisfaction because I was given the opportunity today to oppose as strenuously as I can the granting of any moneys for salaries and expenses to the Department of Foreign Affairs. Initial statements of that kind are unusual, especially in respect of Supplementary Estimates, but I ask the House to listen for some minutes while I tell of the dealings I had with that Department. Then they can judge whether I should be happy about pouring additional funds into a Department which has been so neglectful and disrespectful to a public representative and which has completely and utterly disregarded their duties to Irish citizens.

I refer specifically to the case mentioned by our spokesman on Foreign Affairs, Deputy O'Kennedy. He said that I, as one of the representatives of the constituency where James Creegan resides, took an interest in his case. James Creegan was apprehended in Belgium on 16th May. He was brought before four successive courts between then and the end of May. Before one court it was indicated that there was not evidence to validate his being held. Having regard to the peculiarities and idiosyncracies of the Belgian penal code, it was possible for them to hold him for a longer period.

In June I spoke privately—but there was nothing confidential about it—to our Minister for Foreign Affairs. I told him that I had tabled a question expressing my concern on behalf of James Creegan, an Irish citizen held as a convicted prisoner in a prison in Mons, and I hoped he would give his full attention to this matter. He dismissed me by telling me that I should talk to John Kelly because he knew nothing about it. I repeat, there was an Irish citizen in prison in Mons for a period, at that stage of nearly five weeks, and our much travelled Minister for Foreign Affairs did not know anything about it. I admit that with his much publicised presidency of the European Council that, perhaps, he did not have much time for such mundane matters, but I thought that because the Irish citizen had been before the Belgian courts so frequently he might have made some inquiries or, perhaps that some of his officials might have told him about the case. As Eamon Kelly would say: "Things rested so for a while."

I was informed in a written reply to my question in June of the peculiarities of the Belgian penal code and given a rather delicate assurance by the Department of Foreign Affairs that they were quite happy about the manner in which the prisoner was being held. I was told that he was not in solitary confinement. In other words, the Department were happy that an Irish citizen in a prison in Mons should be happy because he was not in solitary confinement, even though no case had been proved against him.

Now I am being asked to give extra finance to this Department who look after the interests of Irish citizens in this fashion. Am I to take it that in any future case where an Irish citizen has information in his possession to which he is entitled the Belgian or any other authorities can take him into custody and try to establish a case of espionage against him or try to prove that he is a threat to security? If it appears that the Department of Foreign Affairs are quite happy about that, notwithstanding his innocence or guilt—admittedly if he had been proved guilty, all right —provided he is not in solitary confinement——

Mr. Crowley

They should be ashamed of themselves.

Mr. Tunney

One does not need the imagination of the Minister to realise that any Irish citizen in a prison in Mons or any other Continental city, having regard to his companions and linguistic difficulties, will in all probability be in solitary confinement anyway. The fact is that he was being treated as a convicted prisoner and the Department and the Minister were happy to exchange diplomatic notes about him.

I might add that public opinion and the Press were beginning to indicate an interest in this case, but for some unknown reason, or some reason best known to the Minister, it was being indicated to the Press that, perhaps, they should not be embarrassing him or his Department by publicising the case, and that impression was confirmed here in the House when on 10th July I put a specific question to the Minister arising from Press reports. I asked him the result of the representations made on 2nd July, 1975 by the embassy in Brussels in the case of an Irish citizen. The Minister replied at column 1361, volume 283, of the Official Report:

It is not the practice to make public the result of representations made to another Government...

I am a public representative. I am throwing my mind back to an earlier exchange between the Minister and our spokesman on Foreign Affairs, Deputy O'Kennedy, when the Minister accused Deputy O'Kennedy of having an inferiority complex and Deputy O'Kennedy credited the Minister with having an exalted ego. I have neither, but I am very mindful of the honour I have to represent the people in my consituency and I do not see why any Minister should withhold from me information in respect of the rights and freedoms of any citizen of this country. I am asking the Minister to elaborate on that attitude when he is replying. It is not one to which we are accustomed; it is not one that conforms to Parliamentary democracy.

I will refer further to the Minister's reply, the report of which will indicate there was no effort on my part to be contentious or embarrassing or incisive on the matter. The Minister mentioned "the accused". Having regard to the fact that he had been imprisoned for nearly two months and that no evidence had been presented, I found it necessary during my supplementaries to refer to the "alleged accused". That had the effect of tickling the appreciation of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs for spoken English and, I suppose, his knowledge of the judicial system. He had a laugh. Note was taken by a Minister who happened to be present and I reprimanded—that is a schoolteacher term I should not use—I indicated that I was not impressed by the light and frivolous manner with which the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs had treated the matter before the House. The whole purpose of my supplementary was to get from the Minister whether he himself would indicate to his counterpart in Belgium the feeling of annoyance of the Irish people. Later on, I may indicate certain lines which that feeling was about to take. The Minister was quite emphatic and said he had not, and he finished his supplementary by saying that the Minister did not make personal representations to his counterpart. He said:

I did not. One wants to get results rather than newspaper headlines.

Dr. FitzGerald

Indeed.

Mr. Tunney

There was the headline when the Minister went out and sipped tea with those whom he had run out of his Department and where the Minister had not the courtesy of advising me of the position. I had to read in the newspapers about what had happened. The newspapers were not good enough for the Minister when they were endeavouring with other media to publicise the matter and to force the Minister to do something on behalf of freedom. In the end, when through the efforts of the media and public representatives, something had been done, the Minister very quickly went out to sip tea with the people whom he had banished from his office. Will the Minister answer that when he is replying? He was very quick to go out to the people, and here I want him to deny or verify another charge which I make against him. I am referring to the expenditure of public moneys on salaries of staff in the Department and how negligent they have been in looking after the interests of Irish citizens, and I am referring to a statement by the Minister that my attempt to do something on behalf of such freedom was doing him harm.

When Mr. and Mrs. Creegan visited the Minister, he referred to a trip which I had made to see Mr. Creegan in Mons. He referred to the conditions which had been imposed on me in connection with that trip.

Dr. FitzGerald

Yes.

Mr. Crowley

The Minister has said "yes" in case the record did not hear.

Dr. FitzGerald

My reply will be full at the end of the debate.

Mr. Tunney

I hope it will.

Mr. Crowley

They all ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Mr. Tunney

I would not have gone to see any prisoner in a foreign prison if conditions had been imposed on me. What was the point of my going——

Dr. FitzGerald

And no publicity? Certainly not. The Deputy would not dream of that.

Mr. Crowley

Listen to the professor of publicity himself.

Mr. Tunney

I indicated to the Department it was my intention to go to do the work the Minister had failed to do on behalf of Mr. Creegan. I indicated my intention to go to visit Mr. Creegan and the Belgian Ministers for Justice and Foreign Affairs to indicate to them how injurious I thought their action in holding Mr. Creegan without trial would be to the state of good relations that existed between the two countries and to indicate to their Minister for Justice that what they were doing did not conform to the Irishman's sense of justice. I felt I was in order in indicating to the Department of Foreign Affairs that they might formally advise the governor of the prison that I would see Creegan. They did that. I did not advise any paper of my going; I repeat, I did not advise any paper of my going.

I wanted to put on record the communication I got from the Department in respect of my visit. I might add I was travelling from Amsterdam to Brussels and then to Mons. The Department's communication stated:

Deputy Tunney should stay on the train leaving Amsterdam at 7.50.

Mr. Ray Burke

Perhaps I may interrupt the Deputy? I do not think he is getting the attention he deserves from the Minister. I am sure his civil servant——

Mr. Tunney

There was a gentleman mentioned in Irish folklore or mythology called O'Leary. Apparently when Mr. O'Leary did not want to hear certain things he feigned deafness. Arising from that, there is an expression in Irish, Bodhra Uí Laoghaire. What we are getting from the Minister is an example of that. I do not mind because what I am saying will be on the record of this House and that is what counts. I am referring now to the Minister's conditions of my going——

Dr. FitzGerald

There were no conditions whatever on my part.

Mr. Crowley

Is the Minister not responsible for his Department?

Mr. Tunney

The Minister told Mr. and Mrs. Creegan that there were conditions and he nodded assent a moment ago.

Dr. FitzGerald

There were no conditions imposed by me. I would not dream of attempting to limit the Deputy——

Mr. Tunney

The Minister nodded assent a moment ago.

Dr. FitzGerald

Yes, but not to conditions being imposed by me.

Mr. Tunney

By the Minister's Department.

Dr. FitzGerald

No, not by my Department.

Mr. Tunney

The communication from the Department continued as follows:

This is the Paris train which stops at Mons at 11.38. I will get on train at Brussels Midi and meet Deputy Tunney outside front entrance at Mons station. I will be wearing a red tie. I can then show him to prison. We have requested in writing visit of one hour from 11.45 to 12.45.

The communication further stated:

We are acting on assumption that prison visiting arrangements are O.K.

It continued on but there were no conditions whatever. In my hotel in Amsterdam on the eve of my visit I had a phone call from the embassy saying that a Press correspondent from Luxembourg had been on to them indicating he understood I was going to Mons. I told my caller that if the Press correspondent had so indicated he had got the information elsewhere than from me. That was the only comment I made. Here again we get an example of the attempt of the Iron Curtain hold on the Press, the media and public representatives. I asked my caller what he had told the Press correspondent who approached him and he told me that he said they were not too sure I was coming at all, that it had not yet been confirmed. Was that part of the condition that was imposed on me? Notwithstanding the fact that I had confirmed my visit to Mons, was it in order for the Department to say they did not know if I was coming? I am not going to continue until the Minister listens to what I am saying——

Dr. FitzGerald

I want to assure the Deputy that I was getting together the necessary material for my reply. I have heard what he has been saying——

An Ceann Comhairle

I am bound to say that it is not unusual for Ministers to consult with their officials in this House.

Mr. Tunney

It is not unusual for them to listen also. If there were conditions in respect of that visit which the Minister considers I had broken, and which he told the parents of James Creegan I had broken to the detriment of their son, why did he not inform me of those conditions before he arranged and facilitated my second visit to the prison? That is a fair question and, in the absence of the Minister being able to answer, he should indicate to me that what he told the parents of Creegan was not in accordance with the facts. As far as I am concerned, he must indicate to them that he did me an injustice by saying I had dishonoured any condition which had been placed on me in respect of the visit.

I hope the Minister will regard this matter as seriously as I do. If I do not get satisfaction or a withdrawal from the Minister here I shall pursue the point. He himself appreciates that in such a delicate situation where, quite understandably, parents would be vitally concerned about the well-being of their child, it was most improper of him to indicate that I had in any way done anything prejudicial to their son's safety and well-being. To say the least, it was inspired by motives other than the truth; to say the least it was inspired by motives other than a regard for the honour of Members of this House. The Minister is one person who is always very apt to talk about the good name of politicians and the impression we create. Yet here he was feeding into the minds of two of my constituents a message that could not do anything but detract from the good name of politicians.

The Minister refused to come down from the European and other clouds. He indicated no interest whatever; in fact, he indicated to me he was not happy that our ambassador had made any form of protest at all. I do not know the reasons for his attitude at that stage. I do not know why he was so reluctant to intervene on behalf of an Irish citizen, a son of an Irish soldier who saw service in the Congo, decent respectable Irish people. I do not know why the Minister did not find time or would not condescend to make an inquiry on their behalf. However, I know that resulting from pressure and public opinion on other members of the Government—in all fairness they were more sensitive to public appeal than the Minister—the Department on 1st October, 1975, issued a statement that presumed to defend the Minister's position. I would ask the House to bear with me while I quote from the Press release. In this connection I would mention that on 26th June we were told it was not a matter for the papers; we were told they were only doing harm and that I had done harm by talking to Press, radio and television representatives. I would ask the House to look at the feeble effort of our Minister for Foreign Affairs to justify himself with regard to his continuing negligence on behalf of James Creegan:

The Minister for Foreign Affairs has taken a continual personal interest in the case of James Creegan.

In July, the Belgian authorities were told. You will note the skip from May to July. You will also bear in mind the fact that the Minister told me himself that he did not know this chap was in prison.

In July the Belgian authorities were told of the Minister's and the Government's concern. Since then there has been frequent contact with the Belgian authorities at several levels.

We were not told what they were. This statement is to confirm the Minister's personal interest in an Irishman who is in prison in Belgium and mark the details which he gave to substantiate his personal interest. Five months later he has seen the parents of Mr. Creegan—I will not elaborate on the fashion in which he saw them beyond saying that I know that on one occasion he told them lies about me— he has seen them on three occasions. The son is in prison in Mons and the Minister has been in Brussels, which is only 30/40 miles from Mons, on several occasions, at the expense of the Irish taxpayers, at the expense of the Creegans, the Tunneys and the whole lot. He did not think it worth his while to mention one word. He did not think it worth his while to go out to see him. No, he was happy in the thought that he saw his parents here in Ireland. That is one indication of his interest. He saw Mr. Creegan's parents.

On the Minister's instructions every effort has been made to facilitate visits by relatives, friends and a member of Dáil Éireann representing the constituency.

That is a great contribution. That was his personal interest. He arranged for other people to see him and finally, as has been denied by Deputy Michael O'Kennedy:

The Minister has also been in touch on the matter with the Opposition spokesman on Foreign Affairs, Deputy Michael O'Kennedy.

We know now from an earlier explanation by Deputy Michael O'Kennedy that that negotiation was that a copy of that Press release had been sent to Deputy Michael O'Kennedy and the Department of Foreign Affairs knew that at the time Deputy Michael O'Kennedy was in Russia. They knew I was in Ireland because I was then negotiating my second visit. They did not send a copy of it to me and I am asked to agree to vote additional moneys to that Department and that Garry Glitter of a Minister. I certainly will not.

The impression was being given that this was an area where public opinion should be dampened down, where anything the public or the media said was harming James Creegan. You will note the attempt at defending the Minister when he was away—if he were at home it might have been better—was on 1st October. At that stage I happen to know that the Belgian authorities in response to appeals were about to issue a statement indicating their feelings on the matter. They issued a statement which is in total disagreement with the attitude which the Minister has taken, his attitude of: "Leave it to our civil servants. Keep all public opinion away." This, apparently is the new democracy, for which I am asked to vote moneys, in the Department of Foreign Affairs because the statement issued by the Belgian Ambassador—I do not propose to quote it at length— says in paragraph 2:

The concern that may be caused by the detention under remand is perfectly legitimate.

The Minister having denied earlier that he imposed any conditions on me did infer that the only other people who would have imposed conditions were the Belgian authorities. Here we have the Belgian Ambassador stating that he accepts that the concern is perfectly legitimate. I might say also that when I visited the two Ministries in Brussels, the Ministry for Justice and the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, they made me most welcome. They treated me with absolute courtesy. They thanked me very much for the concern which I was showing, concern for an Irish citizen first of all but also for the relationship which exists between the two countries. They told me that they would let me have a report on James Creegan, which they did and when I went back a second time it was confirmed to me on 10th October that a decision would be made on James Creegan inside the following fortnight, and it was.

I am not going to embarrass anybody in the embassy in Belgium but I can say that when I gave that information to James Creegan in prison I got the impression that the Embassy was not too happy about it or at least they were not aware of it.

I said at the outset that I hoped to convince the House of how difficult it would be for me, having regard to the attitude of the Department of Foreign Affairs but more especially of the Minister for Foreign Affairs towards me. I know that the Minister is in control of his Department to that extent. I know that when he speaks the whole Department speaks. I know that we have not in that Department the open government that we heard so much talk about. Nevertheless, I would be prepared to listen to the Minister very attentively and I would ask him to reject anything which I have said in respect of his mishandling of this case. I repeat, in short, the charges which I make against the Minister: there was a young Irishman in prison in Mons for at least five weeks at the stage when I mentioned it to the Minister and the Minister did not know anything about it. That is true. I beg pardon. I mentioned it to you there. You told me to get on to John Kelly, that you did not know anything about it and I hope you are not going to say otherwise.

Dr. FitzGerald

I will, indeed, say otherwise.

Mr. Tunney

That is what you told me and your subsequent attitude in June confirms that you still did not want to know anything about it and you yourself personally did not make any representations whatever.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy will address his remarks through the Chair.

Mr. Tunney

And you yourself indicated to your staff that this was a matter where the intervention of Deputy Tunney or any public representative or, indeed, any element of the media would be prejudicial to Mr. Creegan's case. Here we have a statement from the Belgian Ambassador on 6th October that they accept as being perfectly legitimate the concern which was being expressed.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy has already said that.

Mr. Tunney

The concern was not coming from that source. Therefore, it must have been coming from the home source. I am asking the Minister here to explain—on a personal level it is my real concern—why he told the parents of James Creegan that I had broken conditions on which I had been allowed to go to see him and I do not want any attempt at a defence similar to the one we got in the statement the Department issued on 1st October. I want the Minister to indicate why it was he refused to accommodate the gentlemen of the Press who sought information on this particular matter, why it was his embassy rang me in Amsterdam on the eve of my going to Mons to tell me they had told the Press there was some doubt about my going on the following morning, and why the embassy did not arrange, as I had requested in Brussels, formally to notify the Minister for Justice and the Minister for Foreign Affairs that I intended calling on them when I was in Brussels. I want the Minister to tell me why, on the occasion of my second visit, they informed me here in Dublin that they had notified the two Ministers of my going and, when I arrived, I discovered they had notified only one. Why did that happen? If the Minister gives me satisfactory explanations in all these matters I shall be very happy to reconsider my attitude in regard to the continued expenditure of money on his Department.

I welcomed the news that our representatives in Europe had succeeded very effectively in bringing their concern to the notice of the Belgian authorities. Later Deputy Crowley will tell us of the efforts he made and I am sure he will confirm what I have said. Contrary to the impression given by the Minister, the Belgian authorities were most receptive to representations made. Having regard to the fact that James Creegan was held in prison as an unconvicted prisoner for five-and-a-half months, since his release has the Minister discussed the matter with his counterparts in Belgium?

Earlier Deputy O'Kennedy accused the Minister of performance but no action. I accuse him of no action but plenty of performance when other people had done his work for him. It was then we got the performance. The Press was not the enemy of the people when the Minister was going out to visit Mr. and Mrs. Creegan in Finglas.

We have had now the attitude of the Department towards an Irish citizen imprisoned abroad. We have had a sadder experience since. We have had the Department's attitude to an Irish citizen who lay last week in a morgue in Switzerland, the son of a poor Irish family. They were informed it would cost in excess of £1,000 to bring the body home and £600 if the burial took place on the Continent. When the Department were approached and asked if they could assist the answer was "No". Efforts were made locally and are still being made to collect the money necessary and it is possible now, I understand, that the public having led the Department may follow. Apparently that is the attitude of the Department in everything.

Mr. O'Kennedy

Might I intervene for the purpose of clarification of something that arose earlier, something the Minister asked me to clarify? I referred to a resolution on Rhodesia passed by the United Nations on 13th December, No. 3297, deploring the attitude of the British Government. I was not entirely correct in what I said earlier. I said our Government voted against. In fact, they abstained. The resoluion was passed by 11 votes and the resolution is as follows:

Strongly deploring the failure of the Government of the United Kingdom to discharge its primary responsibility as the administering power and in conformity with the relevant decisions of the United Nations to put an end to the situation in Rhodesia which, as repeatedly affirmed by the Security Council, constitutes a threat to international peace.

Dr. FitzGerald

The Deputy referred to changes of policy this year.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I said the 29th Session of the General Assembly. It is on the record. It is within the last 12 months.

Dr. FitzGerald

I understood him to refer to this year.

Mr. O'Kennedy

No. I just want to say I am indebted for this information to, above all, the people of the Information Centre of the United Nations in London. If we had such a centre here it might be easier to check these things.

Mr. Crowley

I congratulae Deputy Tunney on the humane work he did on behalf of James Creegan. But for his intervention and his persistence I am sure Mr. Creegan would still be locked up in a cell in Brussels. I attended the Council of Europe in Strasbourg on 3rd October. It was a committee meeting on population and refugees and under the heading "Changing of the legal status of aliens" I raised the plight of Mr. Creegan. I am quoting from the minutes of the meeting:

Mr. Crowley drew the attention of the Committee to the case of an Irishman who had been detained for a considerable period in a Belgian jail on the grounds of alleged unlawful observation of aerial traffic. He urged the Belgian members of the Committee should be invited to take up the matter and press for the man in question to be either charged or released. He emphasised that the man in question was not eligible for release on bail. The chairman stated that the Committee was not in a position to take up individual cases but urged Mr. Crowley to discuss the matter privately with the Belgian Minister.

At that meeting the Belgian delegate expressed his readiness to investigate the matter on receipt of the necessary information. I telephoned Deputy Tunney's house but as he was not there I spoke with his wife and informed her of the type of information the Belgian members were seeking. That evening, during the open session of the Council of Europe, I consulted the Minister for Aero Transport, Mr. Geens, and he, although a member of the Belgian Cabinet, was totally unaware of the plight of Mr. Creegan. This would indicate to me that our Minister for Foreign Affairs had not been doing his work in regard to Mr. Creegan's plight. I might add that of the four civil servants present with the Minister at the Plenary Session, three were unaware that there was an Irishman in jail but the fourth was aware than an Irishman, Mr. Tunney, had been in contact with the Department in connection with the Creegan case, Confirmation of what Deputy Tunney has said cannot be highlighted more dramatically than by recalling the ignorance of the Belgian representatives in relation to Mr. Creegan. There was no awareness of what was happening.

The Minister is a man for whom I have the greatest respect. He is doing his job very efficiently but, yet, he has fallen down dramatically in displaying even elementary humanity towards a fellow-Irishman and it is in this respect that his first duty should lie. He may have been a great success as President of the Council of Ministers and as Minister for Foreign Affairs but if he does not succeed as a public representative in catering for the needs of Irish people, his other activities cannot be considered successful. All I can do in regard to the Creegan case is to add my voice to the trojan efforts of Deputy Tunney——

Mr. O'Kennedy

Hear, hear.

Mr. Crowley

——who despite the number of obstructions placed in his way and despite the insidious insinuation that he was doing harm at a time when the prisoner and his family were at their emotional lowest, continued his efforts in the case. It is significant, too, that in the early days of October the Minister issued a Press release in relation to the affair. This was at about the time I had indicated that I intended to raise the plight of Mr. Creegan at the Council of Europe. I am not saying there was a connection but the coincidence is a bit much to ignore. This House and the Irish people as a whole should be forever grateful for having a representative of the calibre of Deputy Tunney.

I am concerned, also, about another matter. This is the manner in which Irish people are being treated in their journeys to and from England. In this regard I speak from personal experience. I would have thought that when one was on an Irish plane one could be regarded as being virtually on Irish soil. However, I had the experience of seeing three Special Branch men standing at the door of an Irish plane and searching people as they went on board although these passengers had been searched at an earlier stage. I saw a British policeman standing in the centre of the corridor of that plane. I protest vehemently that this should be the situation and I would ask the Minister to pursue it with the British Government and to draw their attention to the attitude being adopted towards Irish people by some British policemen.

In discussing an Estimate of this nature it can usually be taken for granted that the voting of the moneys required will be a formality but, like Deputy Tunney, I have serious reservations on this occasion because of the attitude adopted by the Department when they were subjected to public scrutiny.

Mr. Ray Burke

My maiden speech in this House two-and-a-half years ago was on the subject of foreign affairs and I rise today to record my disappointment with the performance of the Minister in the task he was given by the Taoiseach after the last general election.

Let us examine what is before us today—a Supplementary Estimate for a further £737,000. We have a situation where the Minister for Foreign Affairs is one of 15 members of a Cabinet who were charged by the people with administering their affairs in a proper manner. Through the media the Minister had gained the reputation of being a brilliant economist who, given the opportunity, would look after the affairs of this nation in an excellent manner.

I invite any reasonable person to examine the performance of this man who, in the original Estimate for travelling and incidental expenses alone sought a figure of £660,000 but who, a few months later, is back seeking an additional £440,000—an increase of 66 per cent. If a Minister is incapable of projecting the amount of money he needs for his Department for a period of 12 months how can he possibly make reasonable and rational decisions at Government level for the whole Government expenditure for a 12-month period? In opposition Deputy FitgGerald loved to talk of future economic planning.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This is not in order on a Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Ray Burke

I am speaking of the amounts of money required.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Debate on a Supplementary Estimate is confined to the subheads.

Mr. Ray Burke

I am referring to a sum of £660,000 for travel and incidental expenses. That was the original Estimate but the Minister, not being able to do his sums properly, is now looking for £1,100,000 or an increase of £440,000. If a Minister is incapable of calculating air fares for himself and his entourage travelling around the world on the affairs of the people of the country and makes a mistake of 66 per cent how could he possibly administer the affairs of the country and of the economy generally as part of the collective Cabinet responsibility?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Rule 124 of the amended Standing Orders is quite specific. No discussion may be raised on the original Estimate save in so far as it may be necessary to explain a particular item under discussion.

Mr. Ray Burke

I just did that.

Mr. Browne

On a point of order, I am 20 years in this House and this Supplementary Estimate covers the complete Department of Foreign Affairs. It covers the salaries and wages of every single member of that staff. Any Deputy speaking here is entitled to deal fully with the performance of every member of that staff on this Supplementary Estimate. The Supplementary Estimate is so wide that is covers the entire original Estimate.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Standing Order is very specific in that respect.

Mr. Ray Burke

I was being specific. I do not like arguing with the Chair but we are being asked, on a basic item of travelling and incidental expenses, for an increase of 66 per cent. The Minister has a reputation of being an economist but he was incapable of calculating the amount needed for travelling and incidental expenses in his Department over a 12-month period. I can understand being out 10 per cent, 12 per cent or maybe 25 per cent but to be out two-thirds in relation to the Estimate for travelling expenses alone seems incredible. What was the end result of this expenditure by the Minister's Department? I believe the Minister and his Department have not delivered one single item which is to the benefit of the national interest. We have a lot of froth, a lot of publicity and a lot of speeches made, on behalf of the problems of every country in the world except our own, by the Minister and his Department. What is the result of the vast travelling and talk of the Minister for Foreign Affairs? I have tremendous respect for him and I would not like it to be considered that what I say in any way reflects on the personality of the individual. The Minister has a task to perform and in my view he has failed in this.

The Minister could be a brilliant foreign correspondent for any of the journals in this country and perhaps abroad. I have no doubt that at the drop of a hat he could give a view on any major, minor or trivial problem anywhere in the world but he is responsible to this House for what goes on in his Department. Deputy Tunney and Deputy Crowley spoke about one real incident which affected an Irish citizen abroad in the last 12 months. The Department of Foreign Affairs could have helped but did not in the case of James Creegan. It is only right that I record the thanks of the people for the efforts made by Deputy Tunney on behalf of one of his constituents. He was elected to look after the problems of his constituents and being conscious of his responsibility he worked diligently on behalf of the Creegan family. The man who could have done most to help James Creegan was the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If the Deputy does not keep to the specific heads, which the Chair has already referred to, the Chair will not permit him to continue. He must keep to the specific heads of this Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Ray Burke

It is not my intention to argue with the Chair.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will not be permitted to argue with the Chair.

Mr. Ray Burke

I realise that but the period in jail of James Creegan has been discussed by every Deputy who stood up to speak, including the Minister.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair is not preventing the Deputy from doing that but the Chair is saying that the matter of the Department of Foreign Affairs is for the main Estimate. We are confined in Supplementary Estimates to the subheads on the paper before the Deputy.

Mr. Ray Burke

There is one subhead called "Repatriation and Maintenance of Destitute Irish Persons Abroad". Such a person is James Creegan, who was in jail in Mons and being treated with absolute contempt by the Department of Foreign Affairs. He would still be there if it were not for the efforts of Deputy James Tunney and his colleague, Deputy Flor Crowley, a member of the European Parliament. There is no thanks due to the Minister for his release. It was his responsibility to look after the affairs of James Creegan.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

On which paper is that?

Mr. Ray Burke

It is Vote 46, Foreign Affairs.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are not dealing with Foreign Affairs. We are dealing with two Supplementary Estimates.

Mr. Ray Burke

The Minister said this morning:

There is a further small sum required to cater for the repatriation and maintenance of Irish citizens abroad but this is offset to a large extent by a corresponding increase in receipts under Appropriations-in-Aid due to the repayment of repatriation and maintenance advances.

The affair of James Creegan is not to the credit of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and his Department. If it were not for the efforts of Deputy Tunney, Dublin North-West, the constituency from which James Creegan comes, that man would still be in Mons jail. It is not a way of handling the Department of Foreign Affairs to have cups of tea with the relatives after failing to look after James Creegan's interest when the pressure was on.

I would like to speak about the co-operation between our various embassies abroad and the semi-State and other bodies operating in foreign countries. The Minister should use his staff to a far greater extent in promoting Irish industry, Irish products, Irish life and culture by establishing premises similar to Ireland House in London. The Minister should have an Ireland House in countries where we have an Irish embassy. Irish embassies abroad to a great extent operate in an enclosed convent mentality with the high walls around them. Officials in them attend cocktail parties in other embassies but have no relationship with the people of the country in which they are based. Our embassies should play a more active role in bringing industries here, selling Irish products and working in closer co-operation with our tourist interests.

We cannot afford the luxury of having five or six offices for semi-State bodies in a European city. Our embassies should be the hub of Irish activity within a country and should reflect all things important to the Irish nation. We should not have duplication, triplication, or further efforts to have secretaries for our semi-State bodies. We should have one unit operating on political, economic and tourist matters within each country in which we are based. In this way we could build up our image abroad as being efficient and well organised. This is what the embassy should be and not the cocktail circuit that some of them are at this stage.

In regard to embassy buildings it is important that in choosing such buildings we use imagination with regard to their siting and consider whether the buildings are under lease or ownership of the State. As far as possible the Minister should rationalise the question of ownership as distinct from lease in many of the Irish premises abroad.

For a country of our size we have played a major role in the affairs of the United Nations. At this stage of the development of that organisation a major worry has come on the horizon and it concerns the institution and the complex of the UN. We have a major responsibility to see that the UN, the great bulwark of democracy as far as small nations are concerned, is protected and developed. The Minister should play an important role in this regard on behalf of our people.

One of the great threats to foreign affairs is the question of the expansion of the detente. We all want to see detente, to see the people of the world coming together, but detente at present is a one way street with the West giving to the East and no reciprocation from the other side. All our western standards are being given away on the basis that if more is given the Russians might be kept happy, but we are receiving nothing in return. We saw evidence of this in the disgraceful incident of the Nobel prizewinner being refused an exit visa from Russia like many of his colleagues. This refusal was in spite of the great Helsinki Conference and the signing of pieces of paper by the Russians and other Eastern countries.

People may ask what this has got to do with this small country but I believe it concerns anybody who speaks on behalf of democracy and the protection of democracy. Too many people are prepared to close their eyes to the problems of the Communist attacks on the standards of the Western world. If we need an example of how the Communist countries can influence the affairs of nations we need only look at the tragic occurrences in Portugal where we have the wolf in sheep's clothing; the Communist threat playing an active role to the detriment of the people of that country.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

How does the Deputy relate that to the Supplementary Estimate?

Dr. FitzGerald

The Communists are not being financed from our Vote.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should relate his remarks to the headings in the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Ray Burke

For the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe there was an estimated increase of £15,000 and at that conference in Helsinki we had the spectacle of so many countries from the West and East signing an agreement but while the spirit was being kept by the West the letter was not being kept by the East.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The fact that there may be a reference to other countries does not mean they can be referred to in the debate.

Mr. Ray Burke

Under salaries, wages and allowances, the Department deals with embassies assigned to Ireland. Any foreign representatives I met were a credit to their country and they are doing an excellent job on behalf of their nation but I feel obliged to mention the "Berlin wall" it is proposed to built around the Russian Embassy in Dublin. We do not need that type of thing in Dublin and the other embassies have not engaged in such work. We have heard a lot about our natural resources and the proper use of them. As an island we have one of the greatest natural resources of all, our fishing rights, but we are not making full use of our fishing. We have the cod war between Great Britain and Iceland in progress at present but I should like to see the Minister taking some action at the international conferences to have our fishing limits extended.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy may not range over the main Estimate.

Mr. Ray Burke

The Government were involved in the Conference on the Law of the Sea which considered the extension of fishing limits. Our Minister should advocate the extension of those limits.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We cannot deal with that matter now.

Mr. Ray Burke

The treatment of Irish citizens in Britain was mentioned by Deputy Crowley. Deputy Wilson has a question down to the Minister today asking him if he will set up consulates in some of the major cities in England and I feel that in view of the vast number of Irish people of first and second generation living in England at the moment, the Minister should act on this suggestion. I know that we have consulates in some, but for a clarification of the Irish position in England and for the protection of our citizens and their children, with the anti-Irish feeling engendered there which can be seen in the type of cheap British humour, anti-Irish humour going on, the Minister has a responsibility to do something to counter this particularly insidious type of propaganda against the Irish people. This is to be seen, as Deputy Crowley mentioned, in the type of searches going on at British airports of Irish people and foreigners travelling into Ireland.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is going very wide of what is before the House.

Mr. Ray Burke

I seem to be coming in conflict with the Chair again and it is not my desire to do so, but under the heading of Salaries, Wages and Allowances, surely I am entitled to mention the extension of our embassies and consulates abroad, which would include extra staff.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That could be argued on the main Estimate.

Mr. Ray Burke

Yes, but there is an additional item of £310,000 which even by any standard is a lot of money. The sum is being voted for Salaries, Wages and Allowances and I am suggesting that some of that money be devoted towards the setting up of consulates in British cities to protect our people and to counter the type of anti-Irish propaganda which is going on there at the moment.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is making a suggestion and the Chair has already quoted Rule 124.

Mr. Ray Burke

I am pressing on the Minister that he should protect our Irish territory and part of our Irish territory and part of our our air fleet, Aer Lingus. There is a responsibility on the Minister to protect our Irish territory. What have we seen in relation to Irish territory when our planes land in England? We have the example given by Deputy Crowley of a British policeman on board our planes searching our Irish citizens. I know that the motive is good, the protection of citizens on the planes, but surely the Minister has other ways of doing this.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair must rule that out.

Mr. Ray Burke

The Chair is being terribly hard on me because everybody had the opportunity to speak about these matters but myself.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The only reason is that the Chair is trying to keep to the rules as they are. The Chair did not make the rules.

Mr. Ray Burke

Far be it from me to argue with the Chair, but echoing what I said at the beginning, in my view for the money being spent on this Department, we have in the person of the present incumbent in office a Minister who is an expert on everybody else's problems and who could without doubt write a brilliant newspaper article for any journal in the world on the problems of any part of the world, but a Minister who has done little or nothing for the Irish nation in the time he has been Minister. We have had a lot of talk and a lot of travel to the extent of an increase this year of £440,000 on an original Estimate of £660,000. We have had a lot of talk and a lot of travel, but on the one occasion when the Minister and his Department could have helped an Irish citizen, it was left to a Fianna Fáil Deputy, Deputy Tunney, to defend and rescue James Creegan from the clutches of the Belgian authorities.

Mr. Callanan

One thing that has worried me since I came into this House is the number of Supplementary Estimates coming up daily. This is a Supplementary Estimate for an increase of 56 per cent and I cannot understand it. The excuse was given that we held the Presidency this year of the EEC in which office the Minister acquitted himself with distinction, but before the year began everybody knew we were to have it. Everybody knew there were to be increases and there was no attempt in the original Estimate to budget for increases and for inflation and this is what I think is very bad. It brings us back to the point we made about the present Government, that they got into office promising to make reductions, knowing they could not do it. Every Supplementary Estimate that has come before the House is for a huge amount over and above the original Estimate.

I believe, and they are very intelligent men over there, that it is deceitful to bring in an Estimate for a particular amount of money, knowing that you will have to come in with a Supplementary Estimate, and we have that here in the form of this huge Supplementary Estimate, and to seek to get away with the excuse that we held the Presidency of the EEC and travelling expenses had gone up is not good enough. This is very bad. I am not against a small Supplementary Estimate but it is not just good enough to bring in a huge Supplementary Estimate such as this, and this is only one. We have other very important Departments, maybe not as important as the Minister's, that may be coming in with Supplementary Estimates as well. The position is that the Government when budgeting have not the slightest idea where they are going and this is the biggest fault of the Government.

Various things were mentioned in relation to this very important Department but, again, we had the matter of which Deputy O'Kennedy spoke, our voting at the UN, and the Minister presented an image which I thought the vote did not present. We were more or less back at that image. Working within the framework of the EEC, whereas we are all the time telling everybody that they must keep the rules and we are keeping them all the time, we did not seem to have sufficient impact to keep the other members of the Community to the rules and regulations and the general principles of the Treaty of Rome.

The Minister has the very important task of seeing that our fellow-Irishmen across the Border and on the Border are protected from the encroachment of British troops. I do think that Deputy Burke was fairly relevant in this regard because I know a little about this. It is the Department's job to look after our people in England and protect their interests. With regard to the situation in which Deputy Tunney was involved, I followed that matter through the medium of the newspapers and to be quite honest, I was astonished that Deputy Tunney did not seem to get the co-operation from the Department that he should get, because to my mind in the case of any Irish citizen in any part of the world, it is the duty of the Department to see that everything possible is done to ensure that no injustice is done to anybody and nobody is imprisoned without trial. That is the job of the Department of Foreign Affairs.

The Department of Foreign Affairs is very important. I cannot understand, and nobody will convince me, that the present Minister did not know when he brought in his Estimate that it would have to be increased by a huge amount. This is what I call deceit. He was not giving the House the exact facts, as any man with intelligence—such as the present Minister —should know. We are regularly getting Supplementary Estimates from every Department with the result that we are having budgets every two or three weeks.

This Government will have to take a good look at themselves and tell the people that they will always try to be honest—and the Department of Foreign Affairs are not being honest. I give them credit for intelligence. You know that when an intelligent man deceives you it is done deliberately. This Government deceived the electorate about what they could do within the context of the EEC and how they could reduce the cost of living.

The Department of Foreign Affairs brought in what they knew to be a completely unrealistic Estimate with the result that they had to come here again with this Supplementary Estimate. Their travelling expenses have increased by two-thirds. Anybody with even schoolboy's intelligence would have known that the original Estimate would not cover all the travelling that was to be done.

Would the Minister give consideration to the Fianna Fáil suggestion to buy a jet? In the long run would it not have been more economical for the Government to own a jet than to have to pay such enormous sums in travelling expenses? Is the nation getting a good return from all these trips abroad? When I asked in this House for information about trips abroad, it was very hard to get it. I am very worried about this. Are we getting a just return for the cost of keeping our Ministers and Members at the Council in Brussels? It is about time the country realised that this Government are not presenting realistic Estimates to this House. This, to my mind, is not the way to govern a country.

Mr. Dowling

I would like to say a few words about this bankruptcy Estimate. I understand that if it is not passed today there will be no money to pay the salaries of the officials of that Department. Is that correct? If the Estimate is not sanctioned today, will we have to call in a receiver?

Having had a serious look at this very grave situation, I have no intention of delaying the passing of this Estimate through the House. As one reads through the Estimate one sees travel, travel, travel mentioned. It appears to be a travel Estimate or a report from a travel agency. This Government have excelled themselves in travelling. Each Minister, without exception, made numerous trips abroad. We are told of their wonderful success and, on one occasion, one young lad got lost in Bangkok.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy must speak on the Estimate for the Department of Foreign Affairs.

Mr. Dowling

What action did the Department take when they were notified that the Minister was missing? It appears that when people are lost or in difficulties abroad the Minister or his Department do not take any action. What was done when the Department was told that a young Minister was missing in a foreign country?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are dealing with Foreign Affairs.

Dr. FitzGerald

The Deputy is labouring a bit.

Mr. Dowling

This is a question of a Minister being lost in a foreign country——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair is telling the Deputy that this debate is confined to Foreign Affairs.

Mr. Dowling

I am asking the Minister and his Department what action they took to have this young man located when they were notified?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Whatever allegation the Deputy may be making, there is nothing before the Chair which refers to this matter.

Mr. Dowling

I want to discuss the fact that an Irish citizen was lost or was in difficulties abroad, as happened recently. We know what action the Minister took after a certain person was released. He went knocking on the door of that young man's home. But what happens when a person is in difficulties or is reported missing abroad?

I reported a person missing to the Department and asked them to try to locate him. I was wondering what action the Department took when a Minister was reported missing to locate him so that he could continue his trip. Members of this Government are doing a considerable amount of travelling abroad. I feel for these men who, we are told, are under constant threat when they travel abroad. The Department have the added responsibility of keeping a close check on these Ministers, particularly the younger men who seem to be less responsible than the older men.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy may not proceed along that line. If he does not proceed on the relevant headings in front of him the Chair will have to intervene again.

Mr. Dowling

Surely it is relevant to ask what action the Department take to locate people who are lost. I want the Minister to tell me—forgetting for a moment that Ministers get lost——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy keeps referring to this matter but he must keep to the subheads in the Estimate.

Mr. Dowling

I am referring to Irish citizens being lost, in difficulties or going astray, abroad. When a report comes into the Department, what immediate action is taken? Are the reports dealt with immediately? How are they dealt with? Can information be supplied to Members of this House who seek it? This is a very important matter. When a person is reported missing or in difficulties abroad and representations are made to the Department, surely when the Minister is questioned in this House he has a responsibility to Members to make the position absolutely clear about what action his Department will take.

I want to refer to Volume 283 of the Official Report of 10th July last when the Minister said in reply to a question by Deputy Tunney:

It is not the practice to make public the result of representations made to another Government. The embassy in Brussels is, of course, continuing to do everything appropriate to be of whatever assistance possible to the accused and will, needless to say, keep in close contact with the Belgian authorities in the matter.

What about the Irish authorities? What about Members of this House seeking information? They are told, as the Minister told Deputy Tunney, that it is not the practice to make known the results of representations to other Governments. A Member of this House seeking information about a constituent is told this. Surely he is entitled to such information. So is the House as a whole. Either there were no representations or they were so limited that they would appear to be a disgrace to the people claiming to have made them. Even at this late stage the Minister will have to indicate what the representations were. In my opinion no representations were made until a Member of this House moved and then that Member was denied a diplomatic passport to enable him with convenience to visit an Irish citizen abroad. That was not the action of a responsible Minister—to deny a diplomatic passport and then to refuse information about the representations made. Was it a question of the Minister not wanting the Deputy to move in that case or that the Department thought if he did not get the passport he would not pursue the matter further?

We might ask similar questions in relation to other Irish citizens abroad. A young man was killed in Switzerland and a local tenants' organisation had to provide for the funeral. What action did the Minister and the Department take? The Minister seems to be more concerned with matters far removed from the real problems confronting Irishmen at home and abroad. Apparently he has no concern for individuals. There is the case of the young man who went astray in Bangkok. Many young Irish people of tender years need a guiding hand abroad but will they get it from this bankrupt Government and Department? Is it that the money was a factor in these cases?

The matter was raised here yesterday. Irish workers who have spent three, four or five years working abroad and who come back to be told they cannot get unemployment assistance unless they have at least one stamp on their cards here. Is this part of the free movement of workers within the EEC or does this apply only to Irish workers who come home? The Minister must know it is impossible for such people to get jobs here that would enable them to provide this one stamp.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

How does the Deputy relate this to the Supplementary Estimate?

Mr. Dowling

The Minister has spent quite a lot of time on EEC work.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is dealing with social welfare, a matter applicable to another Department.

Mr. Dowling

Surely one can discuss on Foreign Affairs matters in relation to the EEC and the free movement of workers?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is aware of the Standing Order. He has been told three times. It states:

In the discussion of a Supplementary Estimate the debate shall be confined to the Items constituting the same, and no discussion may be raised on the original Estimate save in so far as it may be necessary to explain or illustrate the particular Items under discussion.

The Deputy may not ramble off into other Estimates.

Mr. Dowling

I am endeavouring to deal with this problem. We were unable to get a clear decision yesterday in relation to responsibility. As the Minister is dealing with EEC affairs and as much of the expenditure the Minister has outlined here was spent on travel expenses, as a result of his movements to and from the Continent surely we could be informed——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair is ruling that the matter the Deputy is raising is applicable to social welfare. We cannot discuss other Estimates on the Supplementary Estimate for Foreign Affairs.

Mr. Dowling

This is an EEC problem and the Minister is the person who is dealing with the EEC. The Minister in his statement said:

A considerable portion of the expenditure of my Department— perhaps two-thirds—is spent abroad in a wide range of currencies which have appreciated in value against sterling during the course of the year. It is necessary, therefore, to provide additional funds now simply to maintain activities at the level already budgeted for by the Dáil.

This includes money for travel and EEC business. The question I am raising relates to the free movement of workers within the EEC. It is not a matter for the Department of Social Welfare. The problem of Irish workers abroad who come home and are unable to get benefits from the Department of Social Welfare is a matter for that Department. I want to ask the Minister if the system applied here is the same as that in the other EEC countries with regard to the free movement of workers.

Dr. FitzGerald

The system applied here is a matter for the Department of Social Welfare, not for me.

Mr. Dowling

It is an EEC problem. Is the Minister saying our system is not the same as that of other EEC countries?

Dr. FitzGerald

I have told the Deputy it is not within my area of competence.

Mr. Dowling

Will the Minister indicate if the system should be the same here as in other EEC countries——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has been told by the Chair that this is a matter for the Department of Social Welfare. I hope he is going to abide by the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Dowling

I cannot understand how the free movement of workers is a matter for the Department of Social Welfare. I have asked the Minister if the situation is the same here as in other EEC countries or if there is a difference. If there is a difference, will he tell the House if it overspills into other areas? Surely it is reasonable to seek clarification on this important matter?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair is telling the Deputy that the movement of workers, and of benefits and social welfare payments to them, are matters for the Department of Social Welfare.

Mr. Dowling

One of the Departments concerned is the Department of Labour. I am trying to get information. Yesterday a Deputy, not from my party, was endeavouring to ensure that there would be adequate protection within the EEC for Irish workers.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair is trying to deal with the Supplementary Estimate before the House. We are dealing with the subheads.

Mr. Dowling

In his statement the Minister said:

Provision is also made in the Supplementary Estimate for some additional funds for the Agency for Personal Service Overseas——

Would the matter come under that heading?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair has already told the Deputy that matters in regard to benefits and the travel of workers are matters for the Department of Social Welfare.

Mr. Dowling

Perhaps the Minister will give us some information with regard to subhead D which refers to the repatriation and maintenance of destitute Irish persons abroad. Perhaps he would elaborate on this so that we might know what is covered by the subhead. The Minister has failed miserably with regard to the cases I have mentioned—the affair in Switzerland and the case of the young man Deputy Tunney was endeavouring to have liberated. There was also the case of the refusal of the Department to provide some form of assistance by way of a passport to this Deputy. The Minister also failed to supply this House with information demanded by the Deputy in Question No. 3 on 10th July last. All these matters should be clarified. He should reply to the points raised by Deputies in the course of this discussion, limited though it might be within the confines indicated by the Leas-Cheann Comhairle. I think the Leas-Cheann Comhairle was rather unfair in that these were matters I raised in relation to the EEC——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy may not reflect on the Chair.

Mr. Dowling

I have no intention of doing so but the Chair can make mistakes as well as Deputies.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy may not continue on that line.

Mr. Dowling

Nobody is immune from making mistakes in this House. When a person considers he has been wronged and when he is trying to extract information in relation to the most depressed section, unemployed Irish workers returning from abroad, surely he should be entitled to mention those facts in this House? It is apparent now that in relation to a variety of matters we can get only certain information, whether by way of a question in the House, in a debate or on the Adjournment. I have been frustrated in all matters in the last few days with regard to raising matters on the Adjournment, having questions disallowed and now being told that there are certain aspects of the Minister's Department that cannot be questioned. The Minister is not immune from questioning here. He will have to answer in a full and detailed way all the questions that have been put to him.

Debate adjourned.