Vol. 295 No. 6
I move:
That a supplementary sum not exceeding £10 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1976, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and of certain services administered by that Office, including certain grants-in-aid.
The Supplementary Estimate is required to meet additional expenditure arising on two existing subheads in the Vote—for salaries and repatriation of Irish nationals who find themselves in distressed circumstances abroad. The Supplementary Estimate is also necessary to provide for two new subheads to finance the expenses on the cross-border study of communications and also to pay compensation in respect of death, personal injuries and loss of property arising out of the landmine explosion at Sandyford, County Dublin, in July, 1976, which resulted in the deaths of the British ambassador and the personal secretary to the Permanent Under-Secretary of the Northern Ireland office. Because of savings which can be effected under other subheads of the Vote in 1976 and of an increase in the anticipated receipts under appropriations-in-aid the Supplementary Estimate will not involve the allocation of any additional grant to the Vote for Foreign Affairs for 1976 other than a token sum of £10.
The increase required for the salaries and allowances subhead arises because of devaluation of the £. Much of this subhead is required to pay the salaries and allowances of officers serving abroad and the decline in value of the £ during 1976 has resulted in an unavoidable extra cost.
On the basis of expenditure incurred on repatriation of distressed Irish citizens abroad it is anticipated that the total charge to the subhead will reach £29,000 in 1976. Approximately 80 per cent of sums advanced for this purpose is recouped in the same financial year so that a proportionate increase is reflected in appropriations-in-aid. As travel to other countries increases it must be expected that the number of persons applying to our missions abroad for assistance will continue to increase.
The supplementary provision of £10,000 required for the cross-border study of communications is in respect of consultancy fees due this year for the joint study of cross-border communications in the Derry and Donegal area.
The Irish and British Governments made a joint approach to the European Commission in November, 1975, to secure a financial contribution by the Community to this study whose terms of reference are "to examine communications, including transportation —for example, roads, railways, ports, airports, telecommunications—in the Derry and Donegal area in the light of existing projects and plans in order to determine their adequacy and to make recommendations for future development, having regard to financial constraints".
In May, 1976, after consultation between the Governments concerned and the EEC Commission two firms of consultants—one Irish and one British —were commissioned to carry out the study. The consultants, who work under the guidance of a steering group comprising officials of the two Governments and of the EEC Commission, began work in September, 1976. The study will last about six months and will cost about £70,000. Fifty per cent of the cost will be borne by Community funds; the remaining 50 per cent will be shared equally between the two Governments.
The north-west region suffers a twofold disadvantage—its remoteness on the periphery of north-west Europe and a political border which has tended to disrupt certain economic relationships between the city of Derry and its natural hinterland in Donegal. The need for co-operation in overcoming these disadvantages is apparent, particularly in sectors such as communications and transport. The Minister feels that it is appropriate that the European Commission should be associated with this project, which he hopes will make an important contribution to coherent planning for the region as a whole and to the best possible utilisation of the resources of the area.
The amount of £65,000 required for compensation arises from the landmine explosion at Sandyford, County Dublin, in July, 1976, in which, as I have just said, two persons were killed. In addition, three persons were injured or severely shocked in the explosion. The compensation is intended to cover payments to all five families. The British Government must also be compensated for loss of property in accordance with normal international practice.
One of the items in this Supplementary Estimate relates specifically to the tragic event which took place culminating in the death of the British ambassador and his secretary some time ago. This affords us another occasion on which again to express our regret for that very tragic event and, I may also say, to welcome the arrival of the new ambassador and to express the hope that both countries will continue to work positively and effectively towards eradicating the causes of the terrible problems which in some respects at least were associated however unjustifiably with the death of the late ambassador. It is appropriate that compensation should be paid and voted by this House in so far as money can ever compensate for such terrible events. Could the Parliamentary Secretary indicate how the figure of £65,000 was arrived at, how the compensation sums both for those injured and the relatives of those killed were determined and also to what extent this represents the full amount of compensation? I take it compensation will be payable at some appropriate level to the British Government but that is not something that concerns us this afternoon.
I take it I speak the mind of all our people, with the exception of those misdirected and mindless ones, in expressing our sincere regret and in taking note of the fact that money, no matter how much—even if it were ten times the amount we are voting—can never compensate the relatives of the people who were killed in that tragic event. I am sure it further impresses on all of us and on the Government which the late ambassador represented here and on our own Government the need to take and continue to implement positive initiatives so that there will be fully effective harmonious relations between the two countries. This can never be fully realised until such time as the political obligations which rest on both of us can be properly discharged and in that particular connection these obligations obviously point most directly in the first instance to the North of Ireland.
To review generally matters covered by this Supplementary Estimate, I see that a considerable amount of it is in respect of salaries, wages and allowances for our representatives abroad and I presume our representatives at various international organisations— the European Community, the United Nations. Also, it is in part due to the falling value of sterling, as the Parliamentary Secretary indicated. To that extent I should like to mention some aspects of the work being undertaken by those representatives and some of the serious issues with which they have been concerned and will no doubt be concerned with in the future. If there is one issue more than another concerning us in the European Community at present—though it is not by any means the exclusively important issue—it is the whole question of the fishery negotiations and the question of our right within the Community to an exclusive zone. To reiterate what I said in the course of a motion which we had some time ago, far from suggesting that the Minister or his advisers in this area are not properly discharging their responsibilities, I acknowledge the work which his advisers in Foreign Affairs have done in providing briefs, reports and recommendations to the Minister in the course of the rather protracted negotiations that have being going on. At the same time, because of the limitations of the staff in that Department, like many others—I think the personnel of that Department have had to bear the consequences of our expanding involvement in international affairs—it is unreasonable to expect that those who are there would be able to devote sufficient time, research and study to some of the very serious issues that present themselves to us in specialist areas at present.
I should like to mention particularly the legal aspect of the fisheries question. First, I think that the Parliamentary Secretary will be aware that there has been a very definite change in the attitude of the Commission of the Community over the past few weeks, a change which we note with great concern and with some degree of apprehension. The change arises from the fact that now that the Commission have got their mandate from the Council on which our Minister represented us they are ignoring the legal obligations on them, our legal rights, and are presenting a much bolder and much less concerned face to us and I am sure to our Minister than they would have presented some three weeks ago before our Minister on our behalf agreed at the Council of Ministers to give them a negotiating mandate with third countries without a guarantee about the internal regime within the Community.
The spokesman for fisheries from our party and I myself have just returned from discussions with the Commission in Brussels and both of us noted very clearly that even since our last visits the Commission, to say the least of it, are certainly now adopting a much more entrenched attitude than they did before our Minister agreed with the rest of the Council to give that Commission a negotiating mandate with third countries. They have reached the point when they talk to us now not in terms of the legal rights which we argued with them on this occasion as previously, but in terms of the political realities, the reality of the support which we could expect at Council level, the reality of the political considerations which the Commission must take into account, in other words, the reality of the political muscle of the major countries within the European Community.
I do not want to spoil the Christmas spirit by appearing churlish towards the Deputy, whose concern about this matter is well known, but I cannot see that it is in order to introduce the topic of fishery negotiations under the ostensible umbrella of a limited Supplementary Estimate which does not refer to this at all, particularly since this House have very adequately debated this matter this week and last week, apart from any other occasion.
I want to assure the Chair and the Parliamentary Secretary that there will not be a full scale debate on this today because I hope there will be another occasion to do that later. The Parliamentary Secretary will recognise that because of the importance of this matter and the reply from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, who covered a wide range indeed, it is not unreasonable that I should refer to matters which are uppermost in the minds of our people at the moment.
We are determined that the legal issues involved in the whole question will be fully and properly argued before any action is taken by any commission or council. We are not satisfied that the Minister has done that adequately or effectively. We are strongly of the opinion that the Minister has thrown away his trump card in his legal rights and is now relying on the political goodwill of the members of the Community who are naturally looking more to their own political interest than they are to the legal rights and obligations involved.
I wanted to make these points now because it may be some time before our Private Members' Bill will be discussed here. I will go into further detail on the legal issues involved then. It is important that the personnel in the Department of Foreign Affairs will research totally and fully all the legal aspects of this in international law. I am not satisfied the Minister took such a legal approach. Neither am I satisfied that our rights under the Treaty of Accession and the limitations on the actions now being proposed by the Community under that Treaty have been properly understood either by our Minister or by the Community. If the Minister had accepted the advice of his Department he would have made this the base of Ireland's case.
The Deputy will agree that this topic is not under any of the subheads of the Supplementary Estimate.
In so far as we are voting extra money for the salaries, wages and allowances of officers in that Department, am I not allowed to comment on the work they are doing and the advice they are giving to our Minister or anything dealing with their work and responsibilities?
The position is that the subheads in the Vote are being taken at this stage.
There is subhead A which represents salaries, wages and allowances. I would have thought that would entitle me at least to comment on their work.
I will read the ruling on the matter. Inclusion in Supplementary Estimates of provision for salaries of civil servants does not permit the widening of the scope of debate to include policy in general and administration.
Not policy in general, but the obligations which relate to the people in respect of whom we are voting these extra funds. I have made my point, and I want to give notice to the Government that the legal issues involved in this question, even though late in the day, will now have to be fully and adequately researched. Fianna Fáil are undertaking such a detailed research, and I am satisfied we have done more on this than the Government even up to this moment. When our Private Members' Bill is resumed in January we will be approaching this very important question strictly on that basis, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, who has some experience in this area, will be here to take note of these legal arguments and we will have the benefit of his views on the issues.
I hope when he does that there will be a distance between the Deputy and the legal points presented by Deputy Haughey the night before last.
We welcome the vote for £10,000 towards the cost of a study on cross-border communications. If one looks back on the records of this House at the questions to Foreign Affairs, one will see that for the past three years I have been impressing on the Government the need to take effective action to show positive concern to eradicate the basic causes of some of the terrible discontent and violence we have seen in the North. For one or two years we got no urgent response from the Minister. He indicated that there were negotiations under way with the British Government. When those negotiations concluded we found that what had been unsatisfactory two years previously, namely, the limited form of studies proposed by the British Government, had to be accepted as satisfactory by our Government. There were some slight changes: the British Government were proposing studies which were concentrating on the north-east and our Government were concentrating on the north-west. It is the north-western area with which we are most urgently concerned.
It did not cover the range of study which we all felt was necessary to get at this problem in any serious and consistent way. We are dealing only with communications in a limited way and in a limited area. A lot more will be required, and both Governments must recognise this if we are to take effective steps to get to even some of the root causes of the continuing violence there.
The peace women could set both Governments an example by showing their concern for youth and community welfare. Both Governments have sat back from this for a number of years, not because they did not care but because they lacked the conviction and confidence and because they had no consistent programme in this policy area. When these ladies got their prize in Norway they told us that they were going to devote the proceeds of that and other prizes to developing suitable projects for young people in the troubled areas and even for projects for young people throughout Ireland, to help them understand each other better, to become more tolerant of each other's backgrounds and to fulfil the purposes of the voluntary youth activities we all support.
If a voluntary group can take that kind of initiative, surely it is not too much to expect the Government to be seen to support that kind of issue. I go much further than that: I would say that both Governments have a much bigger obligation, and they should have been creating economic conditions and programmes for industrial development and co-operation in many ways—tourist development, energy co-operation, exploration, fisheries and so on, which are there to be exploited to our mutual economic advantage. As a consequence of the mutual economic advantage, goodwill and understanding could be developed between both parts of this island. We are now voting an extra £10,000 towards the studies of the communications in the Derry/ Donegal area. That sum is inadequate to deal with the root causes of this terrible problem. We all know that for some time the European Community took the initiative in this area. They said they would make funds available for cross-Border studies in various areas and they waited for both Governments to undertake the necessary studies. I can recall discussions with the Commissioner for Regional Policy, Commissioner Thomson, three or four years ago in which he indicated that funds were available in the regional affairs commission of the European Community which would finance studies and programmes of this nature, provided both Governments took the necessary action in making the applications and showed that they had programmes available for which such funds could be allocated.
"Both" is the operative word.
The Parliamentary Secretary's Minister stonewalled here on many occasions and gave me the impression that there was no response from the British Government. Six or 12 months later when I was on a deputation to Westminster I found that that was far from being the case and that the British Government had responded and had made proposals which are more on the lines of those we are now acting upon, except that there was a change from the north-west to the north-east. The Minister conveyed to this House the impression that the British Government were not prepared to act.
I remember answering a number of those questions to the Minister and if I remember rightly the difference was that the British conception of a joint project was an extremely limited one. I do not remember any difficulty about the north-west or the north-east. Their projects were very limited and for that reason were of no interest to us, and our very big ones were of no interest to them. This is a kind of compromise.
The Parliamentary Secretary is not saying that what we are now talking about is anything other than limited?
I agree. It is not as big as some of the ones we suggested, but it is a great deal bigger than the original British one for that region, which was a study of the immediate area of the Derry docks.
If that is the case why did our Government not publicly state this? Why did they allow this matter to lie under the carpet for about two years? Why did we not hear them imploring and demanding of the British Government that they should discharge their responsibilities so that we could discharge ours?
That would have achieved the opposite.
What has been achieved so far is very limited. I do not advocate that we should always adopt a high profile, attacking role, but we cannot overlook our responsibilities. County councils, community organisations, peace groups and other groups are showing both Governments concerned just how inadequate, belated and ineffective the steps which the Governments are taking to deal with cross-Border projects are, even by comparison with the limited resources which these bodies have. Our obligations in this area have not been discharged.
In relation to the European Community's responsibility in this area it is significant to note that the purpose of the European Community originally was above all else to create conditions of peace within the states of that community. Whatever their other shortcomings the community has at least been eminently successful, with the terrible exception of our country, in ensuring that wars such as we saw in 1914, 1918, 1939, 1945 and for generations before that will not recur in the community.
Since we joined the European Community they have made funds available to us for studies so as to eradicate the causes of violence in the last area where violence is occurring, the North of Ireland. The Community recognised that this obligation rested upon them and it is consistent with the purpose of the European Community, and consistent with their obligations to both Governments provided both Governments recognised their own obligations and acted upon them. Had we taken the necessary steps to promote proper studies on a wider range, and obliged the British Government to agree to whatever we thought necessary, we would not now be talking in terms of an extra £10,000 for a study in the Donegal/ Derry area; we would probably be talking in terms of voting perhaps an extra £2 million to match what the British Government and the European Community were providing, not just for studies but for projects.
Three or four years later we find ourselves still at that very limited stage, as if we did not even have an awareness of how real this problem was. From now on I hope the Government will show a greater degree of determination in this, and in other areas. If the case is made that the British Government are not responding significantly, our Government have the obligation publicly to state this position, so that the British Government can be seen to be reneging on their obligations.
These are fundamental obligations which both Governments can discharge in harmony. The non-cooperation of the British Government could be seen as a rejection of their obligations. Funds coming from the regional fund allocation of the European Parliament will back the sums which we are now making available for cross-Border projects. There are some suggestions within the European Community to the effect that in the reallocation of commission portfolios, the regional portfolio as we have known it, may be amalgamated with some other portfolio that is conveniently called "some other spending portfolio". That would be of very great concern to this country.
We want to put on the record that up to now the regional policy has not been anything like what we expected it would be. Although it is not in our power to ensure it does not happen, we would oppose any steps that would mean that the regional portfolio would be downgraded by being associated in a lesser way with another portfolio. I realise that what we say is not a guarantee that our wishes will be met, but at least we want to say in advance before the decisions are taken regarding any allocations that we oppose absolutely and without any qualification any move that will mean that the regional policy will be downgraded. We all know it has not been implemented to the extent consistent with the Community's aims or with the promises made at various summit meetings. We want to see further progress, not a diminution of that responsibility.
I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy. I know he has just got back from Brussels and, perhaps, he does not realise that between now and 5 p.m. the House has to pass another Estimate in addition to this one, quite apart from my own hopes of having a few minutes to reply to the Deputy.
The Parliamentary Secretary must not have consulted with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare. If he had, he would realise that far from our preventing the Estimates being passed we may be meeting the wishes of some people from his side of the House. I have no intention of preventing the Parliamentary Secretary from replying, much less preventing the Estimates being passed.
I was thinking of the time.
If the Parliamentary Secretary consults with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare he will find I am not obstructing him or anyone else.
As we are voting here for studies for cross-Border co-operation in the communications area, I presume it is appropriate to refer to co-operation between both Governments in many other areas and I want to make a brief reference to one aspect. If we think the purpose for which this Estimate is intended, namely, communications in cross-Border areas, can be looked at in isolation we are being unrealistic. I was concerned this morning to read in The Irish Times a report regarding the treatment of Irish prisoners in English jails. A solicitor said that there would seem to be “serious cause for concern”. The article was written by a Scottish solicitor in the Law Guardian, the journal of the Law Society in London.
If we want to have harmonious relationships between the Governments, activities of the kind alleged to have taken place must be fully examined to ensure that fundamental rights and justice which all of us want in the North and elsewhere will be guaranteed and implemented. If we want to ensure that we work together towards progress, we must insist that activities of the kind mentioned in the newspapers—if the report is accurate; certainly it is set out in great detail— will be stopped immediately. Our Government should be seen to act immediately to have the fullest possible inquiries directed against the inhuman treatment of Irish prisoners, whether it concerns those who were convicted or who are awaiting trial. It is totally pointless for us to vote for cross-Border co-operation——
The Deputy will agree that this matter——
I am simply saying that we are trying to bring about a reconciliation between both islands and between North and South. That is the purpose of this cross-Border co-operation and the Parliamentary Secretary has acknowledged that. We will be closing our eyes if we do not realise that such a report, if it is well-founded, does great damage to any form of reconciliation. It is important that we be consistent in our approach in this area. I hope that when we return after the Christmas recess the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to report to the House on the responses to the inquiries which I am now requesting the Government to make in connection with what has been reported. I was informed this morning that I could not put down a Special Notice Question in relation to the matter in view of the fact that the matters referred to have taken place, although it appears from the report that they may be continuing.
I want to make a reference in relation to the proceedings in the European Parliament in the last few days where a number of our officers and servants are engaged effectively. It is regrettable in the extreme that representatives of the British Government party should have responded yesterday as they did to ordinary positive criticisms of the attitude of the British Government towards monetary compensatory amounts. It is fair to say that almost every Member present——
The Deputy appreciates that this is beyond the scope of the debate.
It is fair to say that almost every member who was present in the chamber, including members of the Labour Party delegation, were appalled at the manner and the prejudice shown by two speakers from the Labour Party. That is not going to do anything to heal whatever wounds there may have been between our two countries. Certainly, the kind of prejudice expressed yesterday——
The Deputy has made his point. The matter would be beyond the scope of a debate like this at the moment.
As we have an obligation to show concern for matters of immediate importance and relevance, I considered that any contribution I might make today which did not contain a reference to what happened would be rather misplaced.
I hope that when the Minister for Foreign Affairs returns from the Soviet Union we will have a full statement from him regarding the benefits we may expect from his discussions of matters that are of great concern to us. I hope we will have a review of the whole policy of his Department in many other areas which, obviously, I cannot deal with this afternoon. I do not think it appropriate to say more at this point.
As usual, after listening to Deputy O'Kennedy I have to say I agree with a great deal of what he said. He always makes his statements very temperately and with the minimum of excuse for anyone to take offence at his words. I agree specifically with what he last said, which the Chair ruled out of order, in regard to the report in today's papers. I accept unreservedly the implications he drew from such a situation, if true, being allowed to remain undealt with. When the Minister returns in a few days from the Soviet Union, I will make sure that this matter is brought to his attention so that he can consider what appropriate action, if any, he may take about it.
The Deputy expressed his welcome, a courtesy which I am sure will not go unremarked, to the new ambassador from Britain who has replaced Mr. Ewart Biggs who was so tragically murdered. He asked specific questions about this matter. First, he asked how the figure of £65,000 was arrived at. I should like to ask the Deputy's indulgence in this regard. I have actually got the approximate individual heads of the figure but I would rather not disclose them to the House. They are not earth-shaking in any way and there is nothing embarrassing to the Government——
I appreciate that. I do not necessarily want a public reply from the Parliamentary Secretary. I simply want to be assured the figure was arrived at after some decisive calculation.
The five different parties involved in the compensation accepted a compensation informally arrived at. Four of them had originally indicated their intention of asking for their statutory entitlement under our law. The Ewart Biggs family were not involved in that. All five ultimately agreed to accept compensation informally calculated and I can assure the Deputy the very best and most experienced advice was obtained to arrive at the figures. The informal mode of concluding our compensation has the additional advantage that it will not result in any abatement of the claims they may have on the British Government, whereas, on the advice we got, it was possible that compensation arrived at by arbitration might have resulted in such abatement.
In regard to the underlying cause and problem and the initiatives which might be necessary, the Deputy has repeatedly here, on behalf of his party, urged what he calls positive initiatives. I do not want to impute anything except a sincere interest to that suggestion but positive initiatives when one is dealing with a large population many of whom, if not most of whom, would fight rather than meet us have to be a little different from positive initiatives when dealing with people who will fight one rather than do business with one. There is also a strong doubt in my mind as to whether any sort of positive initiatives which would bring a democratic, peaceful solution would result in the sort of solution which would satisfy the type of people who murder people like Mr. Ewart Biggs. I cannot think of any solution in the North of Ireland which will put to rest such savage hearts as those. I am sorry to put it so bluntly. I can well imagine that a peaceful initiative and a peaceful solution will, please God, one day soon mean that the populations now alienated from one another in the North will live in peace but there will remain a section which believes, as far as I can see, in violence for its own sake, a section which exists and gets its delight and satisfaction out of applying violence, a violence which has disclosed in the history of Europe new dimensions of horror. I do not turn my back on initiatives towards peaceful solutions but I cannot see that those people will be switched off overnight. I wish I shared the Deputy's optimism in that regard.
I would not suggest it would happen overnight but, even if it is a long process, it should be started.
The Deputy will recognise that in the history of all countries, including this, when a peaceful solution is arrived at there is always a minority which says it is not enough.
That is a very defeatist approach. If that were true, there would be no peace in Europe.
No, it is not defeatist. I would not have mentioned this were it not that the Deputy attached his argument to the tail end of his very creditable remarks about the late British ambassador. It would be a mistake to suppose that any sort of peaceful solution will rid us immediately of people like that because these people never get to the stage where their characters will change overnight or even over a longer period and the very fact that their neighbours were satisfied would almost guarantee that they would not be satisfied.
The Deputy managed to slip in, under cover of the Chair's benevolence, some remarks on the fishery matter which has been very carefully thrashed out in both Houses in the last couple of weeks.
And there is more to come, I can assure the Parliamentary Secretary.
All I can say is that his remarks represent an ex parte statement as he returns hotfoot from Brussels and all I am willing to do at the moment is to assure him that the Minister is absolutely satisfied about the correctness of his legal advice and it would be counter-productive to make bogus legal arguments of the kind I have heard rattled in my ears over the last few days here and in the Seanad. However, if the Deputy is able when the House resumes to produce his own legal arguments showing ours are not good enough and can be improved on, we will certainly take them up. If the Deputy and his party are able to do better in the national interest than the Minister's advisers, we will not begrudge them credit for that.
The Deputy has very frequently raised here questions of North-South joint projects. It fell to me on two or three occasions to answer questions from the Deputy on this when the Minister was away and the line the Deputy used to take in the past was to ask why we were not seeking to exploit EEC sources which were willing, as the Deputy rightly says, to put money into these joint projects. The answer I have to give him is that the European Community has in mind projects about which there is agreement between the two parties on each side of the Border. There is no country in Europe in quite the same position as Ireland where the Border is concerned and the Deputy knows that quite well. There is no boundary in Europe that is so embittered. It is easy to say rhetorically that any bitterness in the North does not approach the bitterness felt between the French and the Germans or the Germans and the Dutch. That was so in the past but it is not so now and the fact that the Germans and the French have come to live easily with one another cannot be attributed solely to cross-Border projects.
I did not suggest it was.
I think I am on record, for what it is worth, as having urged for years before the trouble started in the North the development of cross-Border projects; that was as far back as 1967 and 1968. I published various articles, while there was still time, on the development of cross-Border projects and the intensification under official approval of town twinning projects and so on, all of which went by the board when the shots started to reverberate. I do not depart one inch from the Deputy in his anxiety that these things should happen, but I do not think he is giving enough attention to the fact that if we press too publicly and stridently for the implementation of cross-Border projects it will be misunderstood and misrepresented by large numbers in the North who are only looking for an opportunity to misrepresent and misunderstand whatever we do.
Honestly, I do not think so.
The Parliamentary Secretary.
I can see the Parliamentary Secretary's concern but I think he is misjudging if he thinks people will misrepresent. Let us try for a change.
The questions I had to answer this year and last year were why we were not looking for European money and the answer was we could not get agreement on projects. The British are willing to do very, very limited ones which will not involve them in any political complications with the people under their charge and one very trivial suggestion made was a study of the economy of Derry Docks. I am speaking now from memory.
I would remind Deputies that there are two other Estimates to be dealt with yet.
I took Deputy O'Kennedy's words to be a veiled indication that this had been agreed to pass without debate.
I understood it had.
In view of that, I will conclude.
