Mr. Denis Staunton:

Deputy Smith suggested the possibility of representation for the diaspora. It is a good idea and there is no question but that in the networked world in which we operate now, having more than 2 million people, or thereabouts, who hold Irish passports and who live abroad is advantageous. Having such a vast reservoir of potential contacts and networks is remarkably valuable. However, we cannot keep taking from these people and yet not offer them some kind of say or representation. We cannot keep telling them that they are altogether important to us and yet make no concrete gesture to show that this is the case.

Deputy Smith spoke of the value of representation in the EU institutions. It is true that we have people picking up expertise and bringing it back but it is also useful for a country to have its nationals represented in those institutions because they are points of contact. They can help to pursue our interests, while not in any sense compromising their primary loyalty to the institutions they serve.

Deputy Smith is correct to ask whether any shift in EU enlargement tends to shift the centre of gravity to some extent. However, it appears to me that Turkish accession is some distance away. Therefore, I do not believe the period this policy review is dealing with, that is, the medium term, is one we will have to think about too carefully in that regard.

Reference was made to outreach to the diplomatic corps based in Dublin. There is no lack of enthusiasm on the part of Irish diplomats. It is simply a lack of resources; there are not enough staff to do the job. Let us suppose we are dealing with a small country where, perhaps, we have a one-person embassy. Then we have two major points of contact. One is our embassy there and the other is that country's embassy here. If we are not exploiting fully the opportunities offered by that country having representation here and engaging with the people concerned, then we are missing an opportunity.

The Chairman referred to our network in the USA. He is correct to suggest that Texas would be a good place to start in terms of expansion and there are other places we could go as well. However, the most important and acute need is in Washington.

Not only is the Administration there with all its departments, there are also more than 600 members of Congress. Many of these issues are very complicated and time-consuming. If, for example, Ireland were to be designated a tax haven by the US Congress, which has not happened partly due to successful Irish lobbying in Washington, for the sake of paying for an extra couple of diplomats or officials over there, would that be a prudent saving? I do not think it would be.

Finally, the Chairman asked, in respect of expanding in Asia, whether it was better to have a large number of embassies or to have a certain scale. I think it is possible for an embassy to be too small. Some of the very small embassies we have in Europe are probably too small to function as full service embassies. Any Irish representation will have a duty and an obligation to take care of any Irish citizen in trouble, and there is an important reporting and representational function where EU matters are concerned, so that does not leave much capacity to do much more if an embassy consists of one person and one member of local staff. In fact, it does not provide much capacity to do even that. If we are planning any expansion of embassies, then the experiences of other small states, most of which have got better funded and better resourced foreign services than we have, are that embassies can be too small.