asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the representations he has made or plans to make to the Government of the United States concerning their decision to appoint the US Ambassador to Ireland to spearhead President Reagan's campaign against the peace movement in Western Europe, in view of the possible repercussions for Irish neutrality of this politically sensitive appointment.

It is accepted diplomatic practice for an ambassador to a given country to be temporarily assigned additional special tasks by his Government, which is what I understand to have been done in this case. I would not accept that this matter has any repercussions for Irish foreign policy of the kind implied by the Deputy.

I find the Minister's reply extraordinary in view of the fact that the United States' Ambassador to Ireland has been appointed as a personal representative to spearhead a propaganda campaign by the American Government to make nuclear weapons more acceptable in Europe. In view of the fact that Ireland is a neutral State will the Minister accept that it is a compromise of our neutrality to allow that ambassador carry out the function I mentioned?

I do not accept that there is any implication of the kind adverted to by the Deputy. It is not unusual for diplomatic representatives to be given other tasks by their countries.

Surely the Minister accepts that, whatever his impression of the matter and how it can be seen, we will be perceived in Europe as at least shilly-shallying on our neutrality when we accept as ambassador to this country a man who is promoting nuclear weapons in Europe? Can the Minister understand the perception of our country and our neutrality which European states will have when they see the US Ambassador to Ireland as President Reagan's and NATOs personal representative in Europe?

The Deputy is putting to the House his perception of the task given by the US Government to the ambassador here and then assuming that other people will see it in that light. It does not follow.

Is the Minister aware of the statement from the American Embassy here that the purpose of the Ambassador's visit to Europe was to try to establish better ways of communications between America and our European partners?

I understand that that is the ambassador's role, a communications role.

Included in that is an effort to propagate American nuclear policy, with particular reference to the stationing of Cruise missiles in Europe?

I do not know the precise details of the message the ambassador will be given but if his task is a communications one on behalf of his Government obviously he will be endeavouring to explain that to the people he visits.