Gay Mitchell
Ceist:1 Mr. G. Mitchell asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the matters to be discussed with the President of the United States of America during the upcoming EU-US summit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18937/04]
Priority Questions.
EU-US Summit.
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:2 Mr. Quinn asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if arrangements have been finalised for the visit of the US President George W. Bush to Ireland for the EU-US summit; if an agenda for the visit is complete; if the Government intends to raise the situation in Iraq with President Bush; if he intends to draw the attention of President Bush to the ongoing concern here at the use of facilities at Shannon Airport by the US military for operations in the Middle East, in view of the fact that opposition to war has never fallen below 65% here; if there are other specific items the Government intends to raise with President Bush; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18913/04]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.
Arrangements for the EU-US summit in Dromoland Castle are complete and, on behalf of the European Union, the Taoiseach looks forward to hosting this important meeting. This summit is important in a number of respects, not least as the first EU-US summit of the enlarged European Union of 25 member states.
The summit's wide-ranging agenda reflects the inescapable fact that most of the key international issues require sustained and productive co-operation between the United States and the European Union. The interests of citizens on both sides of the Atlantic, and of the wider international community, are best served when the European Union and the United States co-operate and work together. Counter-terrorism, where clearly co-operation between Europe and the United States is indispensable for the safety and security of our citizens, will be discussed.
Other important issues that will be discussed include Iraq, the Middle East peace process, relations with the wider Mediterranean and Middle East regions, Afghanistan, Sudan and the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The summit will also highlight the continued commitment and leadership of the European Union and the United States in the global fight against HIV-AIDS.
On Iraq, the Taoiseach will set out the European Union's position as agreed at the European Council last week where the European Union affirmed its objective of a secure, stable, unified, prosperous and democratic Iraq that will make a positive contribution to the stability of the region. It agreed that the Union as a whole should work in partnership with the Iraqi Government and people, with the aim of realising these objectives.
The European Council welcomed the recent unanimous adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 1546 on Iraq and, in particular, the continuing mandate that it confers on the UN itself. It also welcomed the commitment under this resolution for all parties to act in accordance with international law, including obligations under international humanitarian law, and called on them to ensure observance of these obligations. There is a shared determination on both sides of the Atlantic to build on the consensual approach reflected in the unanimous adoption of Resolution 1546. Both sides are keen to ensure that the transition process in Iraq is crowned with success, with the UN having a central role.
The transatlantic economic relationship will also be high on the summit agenda. The EU-US trade figures speak for themselves. Every day €1 billion worth of trade is conducted between both sides, reflecting the depth and breadth of our economic links. There is widespread US investment in Europe, including Ireland. Likewise, the importance of European Union investment, including Irish investment, for US jobs is significant.
The summit will recognise the need to further strengthen and widen the transatlantic economic relationship to include the many aspects which affect our investment relationship, as well as trade in goods and services. In order to advance this objective, the summit is likely to consider how to conduct a fundamental reassessment of all aspects of our bilateral economic relationship, to identify any underlying impediments to trade and investment and accelerate their elimination, as well as identify areas for increased integration and growth.
The use of Shannon Airport is not a matter for formal discussion at the EU-US summit. Ireland's position on this issue has been endorsed democratically in this House.
Will the issue of prisoners' welfare at Guantanamo Bay be raised at the summit? Will the plight of illegal Irish citizens in the United States, which has been the concern of a number of US Congressmen, be raised? Will there be attempts to locate a transatlantic foundation to promote better dialogue between Europe, the United States and Canada?
The meeting on the future of Iraq should not take place in Brussels but in Ireland. Holding such a meeting in Brussels is a terrible reflection on Ireland. Will the Minister for Foreign Affairs provide an opportunity for the leaders of the other political parties, with the Taoiseach, to meet President Bush to convey the concerns of the Irish people regarding abuses in Iraq and prisoners' welfare at Guantanamo Bay?
I realise this is an EU-US summit but time should be found for bilateral issues to be raised, involving not just the Taoiseach but the leaders of the other parties. They have serious concerns about these issues but not all want to march on the streets. We recognise people's rights to protest and there is nothing wrong with peaceful demonstrations. However, there are concerns about the authority for the invasion of Iraq and how the situation is being handled. Will the Minister and the Taoiseach invite the other party leaders to meet President Bush so these matters can be raised directly?
Unfortunately, such an idea cannot be incorporated into the summit meeting. The bilateral issue of undocumented Irish citizens in the US who have not had their problems resolved by the green card programme is discussed on an ongoing basis at ambassadorial level. I learnt during my visit to the US Congress that there is no prospect of legislation being introduced on this side of a presidential election. This can only be taken up with sponsors in Congress in 2005. The Deputy has raised the establishment of a transatlantic foundation before. However, it is not on the agreed agenda for this summit.
There are important international issues of concern to both the EU and US. The situation in both Iraq and Afghanistan will the subject of full and frank discussions. While there will continue to be differences of view and even points of disagreement about specific issues between the US and the Union, it is important that these matters are addressed openly and frankly. The European Union has regular dialogue with the United States, as with other partners, which provides ongoing opportunities to discuss issues of concern to each party.
The Government has made known its concern of the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and in Iraq, including directly to US authorities at the highest levels. The Dromoland summit will provide further opportunities to bring our distinguished visitor's attention to the significant concern felt in Ireland on those matters. The Taoiseach will address his responsibilities in that regard.
Full and frank exchange of views is a diplomatic phrase for friends telling other friends the truth and not holding back, for fear of offence, on facts that need to be heard. Do I take it that since the Minister has used that phrase, Ireland, as the holder of the EU Presidency, will tell the United States that the majority of European citizens were opposed to the illegal invasion of Iraq; that they were appalled by how the invasion has proceeded since the end of the formal hostilities; that they want the Americans to learn a lesson from the mistake made by the Americans with the participation of the British; that the Minister and his colleague, the Taoiseach, as the Presidency occupants of the European Union, will use the opportunity in full and frank exchange to attempt to ensure that the United States returns to the path of multilateralism; and that in the context of Iraq in particular, this will mean that the Americans will give as much power as quickly as possible to the United Nations? I read what the Minister said elsewhere but I specifically ask if the Americans will be prepared to put their troops under the control of the United Nations in one way or another as soon as possible. Otherwise, the opportunity of this full and frank exchange will be wasted.
Regarding international multilateral co-operation between the European Union and the United States, the Minister listed a number of items on the agenda. Can the Minister confirm that one of the items he did not list will be referred to, namely, a decision that the European Union will agree to integrate or share its Galileo geo-positioning system which will be launched with that of the American GPS system? If that is the case, is the Minister aware that civilian access to the GPS system, a wonderful benefit for anyone navigating anywhere, is not as accurate as the military access, and that there are potential problems regarding the integration of the two systems? Where has this debate taken place in any European nation state? As European taxpayers we will be spending a vast amount of money to establish the Galileo system which the United States opposed for quite some time before we attempted to get it off the ground. I am concerned because of reports which have not been substantiated, which is why I ask the Minister to confirm or substantiate them, that this item is on the agenda. On whose authority, with what debate and from where did this proposal come?
Regarding multilateralism and the issue of justice and home affairs, is it the Minister's intention to raise the illegal actions of the United States in its treatment of the Guantanamo Bay prisoners? Will he forcefully, in the spirit of a full and frank exchange, tell the Americans that if any other country were treating the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay in that manner, they would be brought before the International Criminal Court? Does the Minister propose to recommend that the United States recognise the International Criminal Court and will he formally ask it to do so?
There is an issue of difference between the European Union and the United States regarding the International Criminal Court. There has been no change of policy on either side in that regard. We seek to promote the International Criminal Court in all international fora. The matter was discussed at the United Nations Security Council meeting which I attended yesterday.
Regarding prisoners, it is a matter of record that the European Union has spoken repeatedly in public on these matters and has raised them in meetings with the United States. In clear language we have strongly and publicly condemned any instances of abuse and degradation of prisoners in Iraq as contrary to international law, including the Geneva Conventions. At the time of my return from the quartet meeting in New York on 4 May, I co-ordinated a European Union position among the 25 member states.
We know that, but will the Minister be forcibly saying that to the US President?
I am making the point that this will not be the first time the European Union is setting out its position on these matters. I want to put it on the record in case I might be represented. I have set out the position consistently. The EU along with our eight Arab partners has expressed its condemnation in the Euro-Mediterranean meeting of Foreign Ministers on 5 and 6 May, the EU Council of Ministers on 17 May and again following a meeting with Gulf Arab states on the same day. As President of the European Council, the Taoiseach condemned the abuse in a statement on 13 May and described it as a clear breach of the Geneva Conventions. This EU Presidency has been unambiguous regarding that matter.
Deputy Quinn asked what the EU Presidency will say at the summit meeting. As an experienced politician the Deputy knows that the Presidency will put forward the Common Position of the EU. Its Common Position on Iraq is as I have outlined in the main body of my remarks. The Deputy is aware that there were divisions within Europe and within the United States regarding that matter. I have therefore explained precisely what we will be saying regarding the Iraqi situation. As regards international humanitarian law, what we say will be consistent with the many statements our EU Presidency has made throughout its term.
Regarding Galileo, an agreement will be signed between the United States and the EU. The Deputy is correct. Galileo was brought forward by the European Union to make sure that civilians can access that global positioning system at all times. I welcome the technical arrangements that will ensure it can come into play in a way that will not disrupt the whole situation. This matter has been under discussion for many years over many European Councils.
Departmental Programmes.
Jerry Cowley
Ceist:3 Dr. Cowley asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if, in view of the fact that the Safe Home organisation has assisted 288 Irish emigrants to return home to secure accommodation and that DION provides funding support to Safe Home towards repatriating UK emigrants and that Safe Home, which has been designated the national repatriation programme for Ireland, has applicants from among older Irish emigrants who qualify for repatriation under the Safe Home criteria who are based in countries other than Britain, some of whom have already been assisted to return here, he will consider providing additional funding in order that non-UK based older Irish eligible emigrants can be repatriated with the assistance of Safe Home; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18267/04]
Funding for Irish emigrant welfare in Britain is provided annually by the Department of Foreign Affairs through the DION fund, which is administered by the DION committee and the Irish Embassy in London. DION has been providing financial assistance to the Safe Home programme for many years and funds totalling €82,530 were provided in 2003 to support part of the salaries of the three full-time staff. This was the maximum amount allowed per project in 2003. I am pleased that the DION committee has this year decided to raise the cap per project to €110,000, and that amount has been recommended for the Safe Home organisation. The DION grant recommendations for this year have been submitted to me for consideration and decisions will be made in the near future.
With the increasing ageing profile of the Irish-born population in Britain, there has been a corresponding increase in the demand for advice and support for repatriation of elderly Irish people. The amount of funding recommended for the Safe Home organisation reflects the excellent, impressive and successful repatriation work which it has achieved. I am aware that the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has grant-aided Safe Home for its general administrative expenses in carrying out a co-ordinating role on the amended terms of the capital assistance scheme. A sum of €100,000 was paid to Safe Home in grant-in-aid in 2002-03. Under the terms of the voluntary housing capital assistance scheme, up to 25% of accommodation in new projects by individual voluntary housing bodies may be allocated to elderly returning emigrants who satisfy eligibility criteria. Elderly emigrants wishing to apply for accommodation may apply and be assessed for housing without the requirement of having first returned to this country. I am also aware that Safe Home carries out a co-ordinating role liaising with relevant individual voluntary housing bodies throughout the country regarding accommodation for eligible elderly emigrants who are included on their waiting list.
I was pleased to announce before Christmas that I had secured an additional €1 million in the Vote for the Department of Foreign Affairs for services to emigrants in 2004. This brings the overall expenditure on emigrant services by my Department this year to just over €4 million, an increase of one third in 2003. I also hope to be able to find additional funds through savings in my Department's Vote later in the year which will enable me to increase the amount for emigrant services even further. In this context, I would be very happy to consider any further proposals from the Safe Home programme to assist older Irish emigrants in countries other than the UK.
I thank the Minister for his reply and for his good news. This means a lot to the people being helped because they are at the bottom of the league in terms of doing well with regard to car and home ownership. They are way down the scale. The Irish are the only ethnic group to do worse than the host country, the UK. It is only right that we do this for our emigrants because of the billions they sent home to us. Safe Home has assisted 288 older Irish emigrants. We try to bring people to somewhere as near as possible to where they came from and have received 1,098 inquiries so far.
I thank the Minister for his news because Safe Home could not exist without the DION fund. We also get help from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Department of Social and Family Affairs. All this only pays the salaries. We still have to pay ongoing office costs, entitlements and mileage. Much of the work of the staff involves attempting to get these additional funds to run the repatriation effort, which takes away from the main work.
Much of our work now focuses in areas outside the UK. While the main need was in the UK, we have now had inquiries from the five continents. A number of emigrants have been repatriated from the US. Will the Minister consider providing extra funding for those immigrants from places other than Britain who live in poor circumstances and who would dearly wish to come home? Will he inform the House of plans for the €18 million promised in the report of the task force for British-based organisations?
We will, as I said in my reply, do whatever we can to improve the situation for those outside Britain who also want to return home. The figure of €18 million was recommended by an independent task force and was not promised by me. It was recommended as the optimum figure required to give effect to its recommendations on the basis that they were implemented immediately against a background of total provision for services of €2 million. To anyone who knows how these things operate, the idea that an increase from €2 million to €18 million in one financial year——
Unless it is for ponies in Kildare.
The Deputy can make that remark if he wants but there is much more being invested emigrant services now than was previously the case and I am committed to improving them. I have further ideas that will ensure better delivery of services and more resources. I was not prepared to set up agencies that would take up 50% of the allocation as a way to resolve the immediate issues faced by emigrants, I believe that as much of the money as possible should go to frontline services. That is what I will continue to do.
Having initiated the task force on the basis of a commitment given in social partnership, I will work with it on its recommendations. We must not only deal with this on the basis of these services, which are important, but also examine the role our emigrants can play in the future as a resource for the country. It is a much wider remit than simply dealing with those who have fallen on hard times and how we can bring them home. I compliment the Deputy on his work on a practical basis in that area.
Northern Ireland Issues.
Gay Mitchell
Ceist:4 Mr. G. Mitchell asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the discussions he has held recently with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland; the matters to be discussed at the upcoming meetings with Northern parties; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18938/04]
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Mr. Paul Murphy, and I, together with other colleagues, will accompany the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, at meetings in London tomorrow with the parties represented in the Northern Ireland Assembly where we will have the opportunity to collectively consider and review the current political situation in advance of the summer recess.
In my unavoidable absence on EU Presidency business, the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism, Deputy O'Donoghue, deputised on my behalf at the recent meetings of the review which took place in Belfast and which focused on strands two and three of the Agreement. The British Government was represented by the Secretary of State, Mr. Murphy, at those meetings.
The Secretary of State and I will co-chair the next meeting of the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference which is scheduled to take place on 7 July. Items for discussion at that meeting will include a review of political developments, security and criminal justice matters, including paramilitary groups and parades, and electoral and human rights issues. The conference will also include a detailed stock-take of the implementation of the Governments' commitments under the Joint Declaration.
At the last meeting of the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference, which took place in London on 21 April 2004 and which the Secretary of State and I also co-chaired, we stressed the importance of engagement between all the political parties, including through the review of the operation of the Agreement. Both Governments re-affirmed their commitment to the full operation of all the political institutions of the Agreement, including the early restoration of devolved government on an inclusive basis in Northern Ireland, and the full implementation of the Agreement.
Other issues discussed included progress on the implementation of the non-conditional commitments made in the Joint Declaration, the Cory reports, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the establishment of a forum on the bill of rights for Northern Ireland. The conference also welcomed the peaceful beginning to the marching season.
Is the Minister aware that the Northern Ireland Life and Times Survey has found that only 19% of people in Northern Ireland feel that they have fared badly under direct rule? Does that indicate that people in Northern Ireland do not want to rush back to power sharing at any price and it is time now that we secured a power sharing Executive in Northern Ireland without people who have an army? Does the Minister agree that there is a feeling among the public on this side of the Border that it is not necessarily a great objective for the sake of Northern Ireland, the Republic or these islands to rush to bring the two extremes, the Paisley-led DUP and the Adams-led Provisional Sinn Féin, together in government? Will the Minister use these round table talks to make it clear to Provisional Sinn Féin that if it wants people to bring about this marriage of extremes, it will only come about when the guns are surrendered for once and for all and P. O'Neill is decommissioned?
The Assembly elections threw up a result of which the Governments must take cognisance. Everyone must rise to the responsibilities that result from that election. The people have spoken and we must now provide a context in which everyone can move forward together consistent with the Agreement on the basis of acts of completion that are necessary to redress the deficit of trust and confidence that exists.
Does the Minister agree that it is ironic that the leadership of Sinn Féin is carrying out an investigation into the alleged activities of one of its members when many of its members are involved in activities that are much more horrendous and involve theft, hijacking and corrupt activity, including money laundering for political purposes? Does the Minister share my concerns about this? What steps is he taking to haul Provisional Sinn Féin into the democratic way of life and to make it clear that business will not be done with it unless it takes that step?
In respect of any unlawful activity taking place anywhere at any time, I have full confidence in the efforts of the Garda to bring the people involved to justice. I am trying to bring about an inclusive settlement consistent with the Good Friday Agreement to ensure its potential is realised. If there is sufficient will and determination on all sides, it is possible to achieve that.
Diplomatic Protocol.
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:5 Mr. Quinn asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he authorised the circulation of election material for the Fianna Fáil party to Irish diplomats serving abroad through the diplomatic bag, prior to the recent local and European elections; if not, if he will indicate the level at which the decision was made; when the review of this practice will be complete; the terms and remit of this review; the steps he intends to take to ensure that any such facility is made available to all political parties at any future election; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18914/04]
It might be helpful to the Deputy if I first set out some background information on the subject of postal voting by departmental officials and spouses serving abroad. Under the terms of the Electoral Acts, and subject to registration in the appropriate manner, civil servants serving at Irish diplomatic and consular missions outside the State, and their spouses resident with them, qualify to cast their ballots by post.
The Department of Foreign Affairs makes arrangements annually to update the official registers of electors of foreign service voters and its own internal postal vote register. The Department's present postal vote register comprises the names and addresses in Ireland of 501 registered postal voters.
On the occasion of each constitutional referendum or election, ballot papers in sealed, individually addressed envelopes are delivered to the Department for each registered postal voter. These are separated on a mission by mission basis by officers of the Department's human resources unit and then forwarded by diplomatic bag to each head of mission for onward transmission to the individual postal voters. Following the completion locally of balloting procedures, the postal votes are returned to the human resources unit by diplomatic bag, again in sealed envelopes, and forwarded to the relevant returning officers.
It is the Department's practice to allow officers serving abroad and members of their families residing with them use of the diplomatic bag facility to send and receive private correspondence. At election time, it has also been the practice to forward automatically to officers serving abroad and their spouses any personally addressed election literature received in the Department.
On 24 May last, an official of the Fianna Fáil party headquarters contacted an executive officer in the Department's human resources unit indicating that the party wished to send election literature to registered postal voters serving at diplomatic and consular posts abroad and their spouses. The human resources official declined a request to provide the party with a copy of the Department's own list of postal voters and instead provided it with the publicly available directory of the names, official addresses and official contact details of officers abroad. That list does not, however, include the names of spouses nor does it give any indication of the constituencies or local electoral areas in which the postal voters concerned are registered. The Fianna Fáil party official asked if the Department would forward to each registered postal voter election literature in the form of a single, generically addressed letter from the party leader. The human resources unit official acceded to that request.
Some days later, a quantity of Fianna Fáil election literature was delivered to the Department's registry and the officer from the human resources unit subsequently prepared diplomatic bags there for dispatch, each containing the relevant postal vote ballot papers and a quantity of the election literature concerned. Later, in the absence of the human resources unit officer concerned who was on duties in connection with the Irish EU Presidency, another officer of the human resources unit prepared further diplomatic bags containing postal vote ballot papers. In those cases, the election material in question was not included.
In the light of expressions of concern about the issue, I announced on 6 June that a review of procedures would be conducted. I also indicated that the outcome of the review would be conveyed to the political parties and made publicly known so that all candidates for election and other interested parties would be fully aware of it. The review is now under way and I expect to be able to inform interested parties of new procedures at a reasonably early date. Neither I nor anyone in my office was aware of the request regarding circulation of election material nor had any involvement in acceding to it.
The Department has always sought to be helpful to Deputies and political parties and it was in line with this that the official agreed to the request in question. The official would have equally agreed to a similar approach from other parties. However, it is accepted that the arrangements now need to be put on a more structured basis. In this regard, the Deputy can be assured that the new arrangements will ensure that the process is fully transparent and known to all interested parties at election time.
I thank the Minister for his reply. I asked at what level within the Department the decision was taken to authorise this facilitation, which I think is without precedent. In his reply, the Minister stated that neither he nor anyone from his office was aware of this matter, and I accept this. Was the Secretary General of the Department aware of it? Will the Minister establish whether the official took the decision on his or her own or whether it was referred upwards, as I would expect from my experience of such matters? If the Minister cannot provide this information now, he can do so later, but we will pursue the matter. Did the Secretary General or assistant secretary of the Department receive a request for guidance on this matter and make a decision? If so, why did the Secretary General or an official acting on his behalf not notify the other political parties of the availability of this facility, which was not previously known?
I have stated the full details of the matter in my reply. It was dealt with at executive officer level in the human resources unit and the decision was taken on the officer's own initiative in an effort to be helpful. The officer did not consider the request unusual as, having served in registry, he or she was familiar with requests to circulate information to our missions abroad, be they addressed directly to officers or for general distribution. The decision was taken on foot of direct contact with the human resources unit and not at any higher level.
I do not wish to make the officer's grade relevant in this regard. The officer did nothing wrong. As politicians, we need to be fair. Over the years, Members on all sides have found that the Department of Foreign Affairs has gone out of its way to be helpful, and it was in this spirit that the official acted. Any party might have made the request. However, structures and procedures have now been put in place.
Is the Minister stating that an executive officer of the Department, on receipt of political material to be circulated, took the unilateral decision, against the culture and tradition of a non-partisan Civil Service, to provide this facility without checking with anyone more senior? Is that what the Minister is trying to tell us?
I am not trying to tell the Deputy anything. That is the situation.
Departments have been politicised. There is total politicisation.
I have come to the House to outline the full facts on this issue. That is the situation.
They do not have to be told anymore.
If that is the situation, does the Minister consider that a more senior officer should have been consulted? The Minister has significant experience. He well knows that the normal practice regarding an unprecedented request of this nature would be for an executive officer to request guidance or direction. If an officer did not request guidance, it suggests a management problem and that should be addressed.
I have explained the situation. The officer involved, having worked previously in registry, often circulated information to missions abroad, be it addressed directly to officers or for general distribution. The officer was simply trying to be helpful. Obviously if the matter had gone higher up the line, the issues which the Deputy raises would probably have been taken into consideration to ensure there was no misunderstanding. That did not happen. The officer tried to be helpful and thought the matter was in order, as I have explained.
The full details are available and I do not like the insinuation that I have drawn up this information for the purposes of getting through this questioning. This is exactly what happened. Rather than dumping on the official concerned, we should accept the official was trying to be helpful. As the Deputy knows, many things can happen in a Department without ministerial knowledge. When an issue arises with such sensitivities, proper procedures are put in place to ensure it does not happen again in that way. That is the best we can do and the official should not be dumped on.
Will the Minister state his opinion that it should not have happened in the way it did?
In my reply, I made clear the situation regarding the Electoral Acts.
However, the perception is that it should not have——
Perception is always a difficulty. I want to ensure that procedures are in place which are fully transparent for all concerned——
They never informed us.
——and that a mountain is not made of a molehill. The official concerned made the decision in good faith in an effort to be helpful. I am introducing procedures to ensure it does not happen again. We should leave it at that.
Does the Minister not agree that it was inappropriate for the Taoiseach to write personally to diplomats and their spouses and families abroad requesting their political support for a particular party? Does he not agree this verged on intimidatory in that they represent the country and frequently represented the Minister and other Taoisigh, and that it was an abuse of the system by Fianna Fáil and should not have happened?
I make the point that, at election time, it has been the practice to forward automatically to officers serving abroad and their spouses any personally addressed election literature received in the Department. That is the situation. A specific issue arose and it was dealt with in a particular way. If it was left open to a perception as the Deputy suggests, I believe it is an exaggerated perception. People will make up their own minds in their own way on these matters. I reiterate that the action was taken in good faith in an attempt to be helpful. I will make sure that arrangements are put in place so that the unfair perception which attached to the actions of the official will not be repeated.