asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether he is considering any expansion in the number of diplomatic representatives in countries with which we have diplomatic relations.

The staffing level of our embassies is kept under continuous review in the light of our political, economic and other interests and having regard to the availability of the necessary resources of finance and personnel.

Taking those constraints into consideration, would the Minister not agree that there is a need to increase our residential diplomatic representation in the East-European countries? Our only resident ambassador in that respect is in the Soviet Union. Is it not necessary to consider the possibility of diplomatic relations with countries such as Poland or Yugoslavia or even one of the smaller East European countries? Would the Minister not agree also that the other area which calls for increased representation on the ground is that of the Latin American countries where our only representation is in Argentina. Why not have ambassadors in Brazil and Mexico, for instance?

We are contemplating doing something on those lines so far as Venezuela is concerned. That is a very obvious area. It is a democratic country. I would not have thought that Brazil would appeal to a Social Democrat.

Since the Minister has now disclosed his intention to establish diplomatic relations with Venezuela — something which he said a few moments ago was in breach of international ethics regarding intentions to set up diplomatic relations why does the Minister not now come clean in relation to the establishment of diplomatic relations on a residential basis with Israel?

Let us not go on with this on a global basis. If we start that we should have diplomatic relations with every country.

The Minister quoted the global rule. He said it was never the practice——

Ceist 16. If I do not get the co-operation of the Minister we shall not get a reasonable number of questions answered at Question Time. Would the Minister please reply to Ceist 16?