With full sovereign status—which is not what was agreed in the September statement. Would the Minister not have thought it more advisable to have engaged in discussions which might have led to positive assurances in regard to any future PLO-IRA links and also the question of infiltration by the PLO through UNIFIL lines in the Lebanon where our troops are serving? In that connection there was a promise made at the Tunis conference but I gather some infiltration is still continuing.

The Deputy is giving information rather than seeking it.

I have to give a certain amount of information to the Minister so that he can understand the point. Would the Minister not have considered it advisable to have had some further discussion to obtain positive and possibly written assurances and guarantees in regard to PLO-IRA links and the question of Palestinian infiltration through the UNIFIL area in the Lebanon before talking about further steps on the road to recognition? Would that not have been an advantage to us?

I was much encouraged in my consideration of this matter by Deputy O'Keeffe's own remarks as quoted in a Beirut newspaper on Monday, 12 January this year when he was a member of the Irish delegation in the Lebanon. He said in an interview that if his party came to power and he became Foreign Minister Ireland's progress towards more support of the PLO position would be accelerated to a greater degree. I was much encouraged.

I am calling the next question.

I am asking the Minister not to deal with a serious matter in this manner. He was blundering in Bahrain and we want a straight answer from him here.

The Deputy was blundering in Beirut.

The Minister should read the entire article. The question is whether the Minister in the interests of this State——

The Deputy has put that question.

I did not get a reply. I am asking the Minister whether he would have considered it beneficial to this State to have received something more than assurances given to the Opposition spokesman on Foreign Affairs, some more concrete guarantees in regard to PLO-IRA links and also in regard to infiltration of Palestinians through the UNIFIL lines. If the Minister refuses to answer that question, then there are some other questions I wish to ask.

Deputy FitzGerald to ask a question.

When I have heard the answer to the last question.

I have not got a question. The Deputy should phrase a question in a succint fashion.

The Minister is aiding the IRA then.

Would it not have been advisable to get some more detailed assurances and guarantees than a verbal assurance to the Opposition spokesman on Foreign Affairs and to have obtained some assurances in regard to PLO infiltration through the UNIFIL lines where our troops are serving?

This is a question of argument. I am calling Deputy FitzGerald.

Before recognising the PLO or moving towards recognition, would it not have been advisable to take some of these steps?

We did not recognise the PLO. We recognised the role they would inevitably have to play in any progress towards a negotiated peace settlement in the Middle East.

Without regard to the safety of the Irish troops.

I was also much encouraged when Deputy Mitchell asked in this House on 20 November whether the Minister would agree that the provision of a homeland for the Palestinian people should be a major cornerstone in any foreign policy of any EEC country. I was standing in for my predecessor on that day and the Deputy queried me as to what was being done during our Presidency of the EEC to help bring that about.

What about the safety of Irish troops?