The Minister should appreciate that the House is disturbed at his attempt to confuse the concepts of homeland and state and at his extraordinary dismissal of the PLO convenant as irrelevant when it is the major obstacle to negotiations. Is the Minister aware—it would not appear from the words he used that he is so aware—that my only contacts with the PLO as Minister were informally at two receptions and that I used these contacts to seek formal repudiation of alleged statements by PLO spokesmen in support of the Provisional IRA, for example at the Habitat conference in Vancouver, and the public recognition by them of the existence of this State and public rejection of any aid to terrorists in this island? Before proceeding to what has been loosely described as recognition of the PLO, off which hook he is now trying to get, did the Minister secure such public statements as I was seeking to secure?

In a very detailed discussion with a prominent person in the PLO in 1974, the record of which he himself signed, Deputy FitzGerald committed himself to the Palestinian case, subject to the matters he is now speaking about. There is no evidence of any association whatever between the PLO as at present constituted and the IRA. That is absolutely clear. I agree that Deputy FitzGerald was at pains to seek these assurances in 1974. The assurances have been given since to Deputy O'Keeffe and to officials of my Department and our ambassadors in that region have investigated the matter. We are absolutely satisfied that there is no connection whatever between the PLO as at present constituted and the IRA.

Has the Minister secured a public repudiation by them of the statements made, allegedly on their behalf, in Vancouver and in another place and a public statement that there will be no assistance for any terrorist organisations in this island? That is what I was seeking when I came across these people at conferences, as the Minister will know from the account which I dictated afterwards. Would the Minister not agree that it would be desirable to have got such statements and assurances as the previous Government sought to do?

The Deputy is well aware of the position and during his period as Foreign Minister he was of the same view as myself in this matter. The Deputy is aware of that.

In reply to the Minister, I should like to state that to be of the same view as to the importance of helping the Palestinians to find a solution to their tragic problem is not being of the same view as to what is a necessary prerequisite by way of public statement by them before we act in a form of recognition.

This is argument.