Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Friday, 9 Apr 1937

Vol. 66 No. 5

Committee on Finance. - Vote 67—External Affairs.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Lemass) for the Minister for External Affairs (the President)

I move:

Go ndeontar suim Bhreise ná raghaidh thar £8,000 chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thíocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1938, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí Oifig an Aire Gnóthaí Coigríche agus Seirbhísí áirithe atá fé riaradh na hOifige sin (Uimh. 16 de 1924).

That a Supplementary sum not exceeding £8,000 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for External Affairs, and of certain Services administered by that Office (No. 16 of 1924).

The purpose for which this sum is required is, I think, indicated clearly upon the face of the Estimate. It is needed to pay the contribution of Saorstát Eireann towards the expenses of the International Non-Intervention Committee in connection with the scheme of observation of the Spanish frontiers by land and sea, which was agreed upon by the Governments represented on the International Committee for Non-Intervention on the 8th March last. The scheme of supervision will cost a total sum somewhere between £834,000 and £1,000,000 a year. This sum will be provided by contributions from the various States parties to the agreement. As explained in the note added to the Estimate, the five principal European Powers concerned will each contribute 20 per cent. of the cost, making 80 per cent. in all, and the remaining 20 per cent. will be paid by the other States on the basis of their contribution to the expenses of the League of Nations. Under this arrangement the contribution of Saorstát Eireann will be 0.8 per cent. of the total expenditure, namely, a maximum of £8,000 per annum. The international fund created by these Government contributions will be administered on behalf of the participating Governments by a board known as the International Board for Non-Intervention in Spain. This board consists of the representatives of the Governments of the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, U.S.S.R., Norway, Greece and Poland. The supervision scheme has not yet come into operation, but the International Committee are making every effort to bring it into operation in the near future. The delay has been caused, mainly, by the difficulty of recruiting the international staff for the purpose of operating the observation scheme. It is hoped that some nine or ten nationals of Saorstát Eireann will receive appointments as officials of the International Board.

Professor O'Sullivan

Before entering into a discussion of the Estimate, Sir, perhaps I might be permitted to ask a question about the Minister's figures, which puzzle me somewhat. I understand that five Powers are contributing 20 per cent. each, and the rest is being contributed by the 22 other States. That seems to me to be a remarkable piece of arithmetic. Five times 20 per cent. does not leave too much over to be contributed by the other States. I hope that the business of the committee is being managed more effectively than this.

Mr. Lemass

Oh, yes. I misread what is printed upon the note to the Estimate. The Deputy can read it for himself.

Professor O'Sullivan

Oh, certainly. However, I am afraid the reason I called the attention of the House to that was not to call attention to the Minister's slip, but because I wonder whether it is not indicative of the value of the plan as a whole. Now, Sir, I think that in the case of an Estimate like this, the House is entitled to have a much fuller explanation as to what the scheme is. We get no explanation, and I should like to point out to the House, as I consider the explanation given to be totally insufficient in this respect, that we are in Committee Stage, and therefore it is open to the House, when the Minister does give proper information, to discuss that. At present the House and the country is completely in the dark, so far as these things are concerned. This, I need not point out to the Minister or to the House, is a very important Estimate. I do not mean exactly as to the amount which is represented here, and I do not want to make any point as to whether our proper share is £6,000 or £8,000. I gathered from a previous statement of the Minister that the amount is arrived at on our decimal point of 0.8 of the League of Nations contribution, and as the total of this particular scheme is about £1,000,000, 0.8 of that is £8,000. But that is not a matter we need waste time on. It is not merely a question of the actual amount we are here voting, but the Vote is extremely important from quite a number of points of view owing to the intense interest that the country takes in this whole question and owing to the vital issues which are at stake for civilisation, for Europe, and for this country.

For that reason, Sir, I think that a much more elaborate statement, on what is a perfectly new Vote, is required in this particular instance. If we are discussing various other Estimates we are generally given some explanation—not always, I admit. The Minister for External Affairs who, I am sorry to see, is not here, generally introduces his Estimates without any explanation, but it is customary on the part of other Ministers, I do not necessarily say always to convey information to the House, but at least to make elaborate statements in introducing their Estimates. I understand that quite recently a large number of Deputies found difficulty, in the matter of the language used, not being masters of the language, in following the explanations of Ministers, but at all events we had an explanation of the policy, of what is involved, of the administration and of how the thing is going to be carried out. We have that in the case of services for which a Vote recurs year after year, but here we have a Vote coming before us for the first time, and beyond the fact that there is some kind of scheme, that it is international in character, and that it will be carried out by somebody—all of which we knew before—we practically have got no information in the Minister's introductory statement to-day. Now, Sir, I suggest that a discussion of this matter, until we have heard a much fuller statement from the Minister, is reducing the value of this House considerably. I shall not say that it wipes away its value as a deliberative Assembly altogether. I am aware that the President is rather inclined to think that this House has one particular function—to put in a Government or to put out a Government— and that he is inclined to regard any deliberation or discussion on the part of this House as a waste of time. I will admit that the election of a Government or the expulsion of a Government is one of the most important functions that this House is called upon to perform, but it has various other functions which are very important, and unless we get some chance, unless the Government gives the necessary information to this House to enable it to discuss and to deliberate with a certain amount of understanding of the problem which is contained in these other matters, the House is being reduced to a certain extent to nullity, and if you reduce it to nullity in its proper functions, it will cease to be useful for what the President thinks is its main function, the election of a Government or its dismissal.

Therefore, I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that we are in committee, and I think that before the debate goes on we are entitled to have a much more elaborate statement from the Minister who has charge and who is acting now as deputy for the Minister for External Affairs. This House has discussed the policy behind this Vote. It has approved the policy behind this Vote. I might sum up its approval in these particular words—I do not think I would be altogether wrong—namely, a policy of non-intervention and also, as we cannot do any better, a large portion of this House believed in a policy of neutrality, not because we are in any sense neutral as to the issues that are at stake in Spain. Very far from it. I cannot understand how anybody could be neutral as regards these particular issues, but we are neutral in the sense that we think neutrality in the military sense is the best policy to pursue in the unfortunate circumstances of the moment. I hold that in discussing this Vote these considerations must be before us. We must ask ourselves how far the Government is carrying out the wishes of Parliament and the wishes of the country in this particular matter, whether really the Government is neutral. I might urge that I do not think it is. So far as the issues are concerned, I cannot understand how it could be neutral but so far as our wishes in military matters or diplomatic matters are concerned, I do not see how we can pretend that we are observing neutrality in the present situation so long as we have a representative accredited to the Caballero Government in Spain.

An Ceann Comhairle

On that point, the Vote before the House is the logical and natural consequence of an Act of this Oireachtas, the Spanish Civil War (Non-Intervention) Act. As stated by the Deputy, the policy of non-intervention is a decided matter. On an Estimate the merits of legislation may not be discussed. In this case the House is discussing the administration, how far the policy of non-intervention has been carried out. The question of the recognition or the non-recognition of either Government in Spain is not relevant. That was fully discussed when the Bill was before the House. A discussion on the various stages of a Bill, particularly a recent measure, should not be reopened on an Estimate. I might further state that the question of recognition or non-recognition of either Spanish Government has been discussed in this House more than once since that Bill passed. It would be quite irrelevant to discuss it to-day. Debate is confined to the question of administration, and though this is, as the Deputy states, a new Estimate, it will be conceded that the House, in passing that Bill, agreed as a natural consequence to pay the cost of non-intervention.

Professor O'Sullivan

I am not discussing the question of non-intervention. I made that quite clear, but I submit I am entitled to discuss how far non-intervention is carried out, how far the scheme, which has not been elaborated, has gone in carrying out the policy of non-intervention. I am not reopening the question of non-intervention. I want to argue that this proposed committee may be partisan in its activities. The House, to my great regret—and I would say to its own shame—decided not to withdraw our representative. I am not asking the House to reverse that decision now. I realise I cannot do so. I hope I have made myself quite clear on that. I am not now going to discuss the question as to whether or not we should have a representative accredited to Communist Spain. I regard that as a matter that has been decided, wrongly, I think, but at least decided by the House. I am, I submit, entitled to argue that I have no confidence in the bona fides of this committee in the way in which they are administering the scheme. Leaving this country out of it altogether, so as completely to avoid any suggestion that I am trying to side-step your ruling, suppose I take other countries. I find an extraordinary position taken up by some of these countries. They have representatives with the Caballero Government in Spain, and yet in all other matters they treat these two Governments in Spain, if I might so call them, as being on the same footing. There is no logic, no reason in that. If you treat them as being absolutely on the same footing, one being no more a legal Government than the other, one being a Government to which you will not allow supplies to be sent any more than you are determined not to allow supplies to the other, I say it displays a lack of consistency and even worse, a certain bias, that they will deliberately give approval, which they do by having their representatives there, to one Government and not to the other, I say, Sir, that if we follow an example of that kind, as we have decided to do, I am afraid our participation in that conference will not be of much value. I believe, and I have made it quite clear that I do believe, in a policy of non-intervention. Through all the previous stages, in which we discussed this question in one way or another, you will remember that I made it quite clear that I did believe in that.

It is because I am taking that as a reality, as something decided by the House, because I believe in that policy being fully carried out, that I want a great deal more information than we have got about this Vote. I think the whole House assented to that policy for one main reason and a large portion of the House joined to that another reason. They assented because they believed that a policy of intervention, the sending of large numbers of troops and war material to Spain might very easily, in present conditions internationally in Europe, lead to a conflagration, a conflagration that might have disastrous consequences, that almost certainly would have. It might lead, I may say, to the victory of the very cause which I am anxious to see defeated in Europe. I do not say that necessarily it would do so, but the risk is too great for any sensible man or any sensible body of men to take. We can see, therefore, the reasons why we thought measures should be taken to prevent a European catastrophe of that kind, owing to the appalling loss, moral, spiritual and material, that would follow; and also, and still more—though perhaps this may seem an extraordinary thing to say—because I believe it might lead to the victory of Bolshevism. There was another reason which induced a number of Deputies to favour a policy of non-intervention, namely, because some of us, at least in the early stages, adopted the view that intervention then would prevent the defeat of the cause whose defeat we wanted to see in Spain. I should like not merely to get an assurance, which I have no doubt will be given me glibly enough, but some kind of proof, something on which to found a reasonable expectation, that this policy is likely to be a success. At various times in the discussions to which you, Sir, have referred, we have put questions to the Ministers as to how the policy was to be enforced— that is what we are discussing now— and we never got an answer to those questions. I myself remember putting a very definite and simple question at a very early stage of the debate, and I am still waiting for the answer. I think the question was repeated by Deputy McGilligan. I know no power that this committee has taken to itself which will enable it to prevent a Mexican boat going into Spain. Is not that the position? Will the Minister not answer?

Mr. Lemass

I will deal with whatever the Deputy raises.

Professor O'Sullivan

Very good. We will have an opportunity of discussing that afterwards if necessary. I know no power at the moment which will prevent a Mexican boat from going into Spain. I do not know how this committee can prevent it. I do not know how this committee can search it, or how any man who is a searcher can board that particular vessel. There may be an agreement between the 27 Powers by which, among themselves, they will allow the right to search, but how that can be made applicable to a Power which is altogether outside the 27 has not been made clear. The question, then, that I put is as follows; I have never heard it dealt with. I put it now again to the Minister. What is to prevent the U.S.S.R., the Soviet Government, from sending supplies to Mexico, and then those supplies being sent back to Spain?

Let us take another example. There was an agreement entered into by the Powers under which they all agreed amongst themselves not to send material or men, or to allow fresh volunteers even, to go into Spain on either side. The Minister and the House will remember that we passed a Bill making it criminal for anybody to take such an action—to leave this country, or even to take the first step by going into a railway station for the purpose of leaving this country, to join either of the fighting forces in Spain. That agreement, as the Minister knows, was made. Still, rightly or wrongly—this is what I want to call attention to, because a semi-war atmosphere is being worked up in connection with it—accusations are made on the one hand that reinforcements are going to General Franco and, on the other hand, that reinforcements and material of all kinds are still being poured into the Red Government of Spain. As I say, if you listen to the English radio or read the extracts from some of the English Press, you will get the idea into your head that that accusation is merely being made against the Italians, but, of course, that is only because we are being kept ignorant of the charge that is being made on the other side. It was only a couple of nights ago I heard very definite charges being made from the Italian side, over the radio—which, as far as I can see, is to a large extent an official business there—that the agreement was being violated by two countries, by France and by Russia. On the particular night on which I was listening they were dealing with France. They said that at Marseilles boats were being loaded and material sent to Spain; in the same way men were being sent into Spain from France.

I am not in a position—I hope the Minister is in some position, because after all, it is the business of the Government to give us information, or, if they have not got it, to try and get it—to weigh the value of those charges, but surely anybody who has followed this controversy even to a small extent of late will know the way in which what I might call a pre-war atmosphere is being worked up. Deliberate propaganda is working it up. What I do not like is this: the very agreement that was made between the Powers is being used as one of the weapons to spur on a war feeling. I think, Sir, that the House is entitled to some assurance that this agreement, which was intended to preserve the peace, will not become a method of bringing war nearer. The Minister refers to a scheme that has been agreed to. He said that the scheme has not yet come into operation. Therefore, I cannot ask the Minister how it is working. I cannot ask the Minister that, but at least we can be told what the scheme is. How does he think it is going to work?

Let me take the particular instance that I mentioned. We are told that at Marseilles arms are being loaded, camouflaged as something else: no person at the present moment openly loads arms, or at least none of the Powers that have deliberately promised not to do such a thing. Supposing a boat of that kind sails from Marseilles to one of the ports that are at present under the control of the Red Government in Spain. What is the method of thoroughly examining that particular boat? Who can board it? Who can compel the boat to halt? Supposing it is a German or Italian ship. If it is not, there are a lot of people in this country who are rather suspicious as to the character of the examination, and as to its thoroughness. It would be, to a large extent, making yourself your own searcher, almost as though you would expect the Commissioners of Revenue to accept without the slightest examination a declaration of income, simply a lump-sum without any details of any kind. Supposing a right of that kind was handed over to a German or Italian ship; does the Minister think that that is likely to promote the cause of peace? Is there no danger involved there?

So far as the actual carrying out of this policy of non-intervention is concerned, I should be much easier in my mind if I felt that there was goodwill behind it; if I did not realise as I fully realise, the extraordinary nature of the propaganda that is going on. I am particularly interested in the propaganda on one side. I will confess that. I have followed that propaganda for years. I know its efficiency. It is really remarkable. Nowhere, I think, has its efficiency been demonstrated more clearly than in what it has been able to carry through in connection with the civil war in Spain during the last six months. On whom have we to rely really for the carrying out of this agreement, and making effective the policy of non-intervention, which, if it could be made effective, probably would be the safest course for Europe, as we have pointed out on more than one occasion? Take France and Russia. One of them is the chief centre of propaganda. It is a country that, as one can see in the papers I get from there —and I get some—has been boasting for years of its preparedness for war. It now comes forward, notwithstanding that, as the great apostle of peace.

The main cause of disturbance, I am convinced, where European and world affairs are concerned, is the activities of the U.S.S.R. masquerading under the banner of peace. The first people to start the policy of intervention in Spain are masquerading now under the policy of non-intervention, the people whose action, whose intervention and propaganda to a large extent are responsible for the whole trouble, are now using the same propaganda under the pretence that they want to preserve the peace of Europe and under the pretence that they are in favour of non-intervention. From what I know, and, as I have said, I have given a number of years' study to this particular problem, other protestations made by that Power in favour of peace and in favour of non-intervention only drive home, to my mind, its complete insincerity so far as it is concerned.

I am not going to discuss the present Government in France. I do not believe in its desire for neutrality. It is geographically in a remarkably good position to evade these particular rules. Coming to England, I do not know what the policy of the British Government is on this. I believe in that particular case there are statesmen there, as there are in other countries, who do not realise the seriousness of this particular menace of Communism. Whether there or elsewhere, you have statesmen of that kind. I doubt if these statesmen will carry, or will be able to carry, an effective policy of this kind through. It is not that I believe that the present British Government has any sympathy with Bolshevism or Communism. I do not believe they have. It would be absurd to think so. I am not suggesting for a moment that they are on the same level as the other two Governments I have mentioned, but what I am convinced of, so far as we can judge by their actions, is that they and others have no conception of the seriousness of the menace. They see the immediate aim that they have before them, the danger of the European outburst, and are genuinely in favour of peace. They see an international strategic position, and possibly are to a large extent governed by that.

On what then can we rely for the effective carrying out of this policy? What steps, for instance, have we taken? We are members of this committee. We are contributing to it. What steps have we taken, or what suggestions have we ever made, or are we still in the position so blandly, almost boastfully, acknowledged by a colleague of the Minister that we are mere "yes men"? Our business is not to open our mouths and not to see that the bond that we are entering into is honoured! Is that our position? Is our position in regard to international conferences to be that of "yes men" or absentees? That seems to be the position to which the present Minister for External Affairs is reducing this country.

Now, I should like to know what the scheme is. The Minister says there is a scheme, and that that scheme is designed, by measures to be taken on land and sea, to prevent intervention. Well, we have not the slightest evidence; we have no information of any kind supplied to us by the Government to indicate whether the scheme is capable of bringing about, or can be considered even as likely to bring, results of that kind. It is quite obvious, if you have a scheme framed in order to prevent intervention, that that scheme must operate on both land and sea, and that measures must be taken on land and sea to see that non-intervention is carried through. I suggest that a repetition of such an obvious truth gives us no information. As I have said, what I want is some indication that this scheme is not mere pretence if the pretence itself can work, and very often it can. If you get a scheme going, even though it is not an effective scheme—I want to be quite fair and I am ready to admit that if you can fool people with it for a while it may achieve a good purpose and postpone an outbreak—prevent it perhaps altogether. It may be that this scheme has nothing more effective than that, and that some people do not expect anything more from it. Well, if it does that it does something, but again the House is in the unfortunate position of having committed itself to this policy and of not knowing how that policy is to be carried out.

As I say, I for one have very little confidence in some of the principal Powers that are engaged in putting this scheme into effect. We are not now discussing whether you can rely on the faith of the Powers. If you could there would be no necessity for this scheme. If you could rely on the goodwill of citizens there would be no necessity for a police force. If you could rely on the uprightness and fairness of all nations there would be no necessity for the League of Nations. If you could rely on the good faith of the different Powers that have committed themselves to the policy of non-intervention, there would be no necessity for this scheme. Therefore, at the basis of this scheme is fear and, apparently, well-grounded fear that the agreement would not be carried out by the Powers if the Powers could evade it. Otherwise, why the scheme? We, therefore, must assume, and so far as I am concerned I have not the least doubt that I am correct in assuming, that bad faith is to be feared on the part of some of the Powers, and here is a scheme that will have to combat that bad faith. Is it capable of doing it? How can I answer?

As you, Sir, pointed out, the Government is here introducing an entirely new Estimate. The Estimate, I admit, is one that follows logically from what was previously done in this House. I am not quarrelling with the amount of the Estimate, but it is one in respect of which we are certainly entitled to have a great deal more information about than we have got up to the present. The Minister indicated that the only thing holding up the working of the scheme to the present was the question of getting the various observers and so on. Now, what is the scheme and can the Minister show me how far it will effect the various things that I have asked him about.

I am mainly interested in two things. The great bulk of the people of this country are interested in two things, and these are: (1) the avoidance of a European catastrophe, and (2) the defeat of the Communist Government in Spain. I supported the policy of non-intervention because I thought it was the only method at the moment that I could see open to secure these two great ends. The House agreed with that particular policy, possibly not from the same motives that actuated me, but they agreed to that policy. We now want to know whether the machinery that is being set up will give reality to that policy, or whether it may not itself contribute to more bitterness and misunderstandings between the Powers. I am afraid that this Vote, from the manner in which it is put before the House, was looked upon as a purely formal affair. I do not know why the Government should be under any such impression. It is a matter in which the Opposition has shown the keenest interest all along and in which the country is exceedingly interested. A much fuller explanation is therefore demanded from the Minister.

Mr. Lemass

Deputy O'Sullivan stated that the House is entitled to an explanation of what the scheme is. That explanation was given some time ago when the Merchant Shipping Act was introduced just before Easter. An outline was given then of the scheme of observation, to the cost of which we are now proposing to contribute. In fact, from the discussion which took place then, it was obvious that the Deputies opposite were fully informed as to the main outlines of this scheme. The scheme is, of course, one which involves only observation of traffic across the frontiers or in the territorial seas of Spain. It is not a scheme of control. That fact was made clear before, but apparently it is necessary to make it clear again. So far as this country is concerned, any scheme of observation of traffic with Spain necessarily involves control of merchant shipping and, as the laws affecting shipping are administered by the Department of Industry and Commerce, the necessary legislation had to be introduced by me as Minister for that Department.

I am prepared to give again, if necessary, any information which Deputies may require as to the nature of the scheme or the action which the Government is taking to give effect to its obligations under it; but I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by a long discussion upon the principles upon which the policy of non-intervention is based, or upon which this particular scheme was devised. I assume that the various nations represented upon this International Committee agreed upon the policy of non-intervention in Spain, whatever secondary consideration may have been in the minds of individual Governments, mainly for the purpose of ensuring that there would be no general war in Europe. As that was their main purpose they had necessarily to devise a scheme for giving effect to their non-intervention agreement which would not be in itself a source of danger. It is obvious from Deputy O'Sullivan's remarks that he appreciates that a scheme of control could be devised which would appear on paper to be more effective than the scheme of observation which has in fact been agreed upon, but which would in fact be as dangerous to the peace of Europe as the absence of any agreement at all.

The different Governments may have different points of view as to the rights and wrongs of the issues now being decided in Spain, but the main concern of them all, and certainly our main concern at the moment, is to ensure that this policy of non-intervention is effectively carried out lest greater evils might befall. The Deputy referred to the allegations frequently made in the past, and which are still being made, that Governments which are parties to the agreement are breaking the agreement and are, in fact, supplying war material and other assistance to Spain. It is precisely because these allegations were made by the Italians against the French and Russians, and by the French and Russians against the Italians that this scheme of observation was first suggested, and was finally agreed upon by the parties represented on the committee.

The scheme does not involve anything more than that there shall be set up an international body, adequately financed and with sufficient resources and staff to supervise all movements of persons and goods into Spain, and therefore able to supply information as to whether in fact breaches of the agreement are being committed by any of the parties to it. The scheme involves, in the first place, that the various parties to it enact legislation making it contrary to their national laws for their citizens to send war material or to assist in sending volunteers to Spain. Secondly, that any punishment to be inflicted upon persons breaking the agreement will be inflicted by their own courts on the strength of information supplied by this International Board with the assistance of its supervisors. That particular method does not, on the face of it, appear effective, but I think that a moment's consideration will convince Deputies that it is the most effective method which can be adopted without involving very grave risks of the nature to which Deputy O'Sullivan referred. It is equally clear that unless the various Governments represented on the committee agree to the policy of non-intervention in this agreement in good faith and intend to give effect to it, the scheme itself is not going to succeed.

Deputy O'Sullivan asked for proof that the policy of non-intervention is likely to succeed, or that this scheme of observation is likely to give effect to the policy of non-intervention. I cannot give him that proof, but I think we must assume the good faith of the various Governments to the arrangement until the contrary is proved. In any event, having regard to the very terrible consequences involved, we must try out any method of averting the consequences before deciding that nothing can be done.

The scheme of observation involves the supervision of the land frontiers of Spain, a supervision which will extend to the railways and to the principal roads and passes. The Franco-Spanish frontier and the Portuguese-Spanish frontier will be divided into supervision zones, with officers of the International Board in charge of each zone. Arrangements have also been made for the supervision of cargo ships and that supervision will take place at the point of embarkation. The scheme involves that ships approaching Spanish territory will be required by their national laws to call at certain stated ports contiguous to Spain and there submit to inspection by supervisors of the International Board. Officers of the board may, in fact, travel upon these ships from these ports to their ports of destination in Spain. Powers have also been conferred in our case by our law on officers of the naval Powers, the ships of which will be patrolling the Spanish coast, to stop and board our ships and inspect papers. The arrangements which have been agreed upon appear to be adequate to ensure observation, but no more than observation, of traffic into Spain. If any of the officers of the International Board report that nationals of this country are breaking our law in that regard, then it will be for the Government here to take action against these nationals. The same thing applies in respect of nationals of any country.

The scheme, of course, does not apply to countries not represented on the International Committee. Ships from these non-participating countries will not be subject to observation by these investigation officers, nor will the goods of these countries passing into Spain be subject to control under this arrangement. It would, undoubtedly, be better, probably, if the present agreement could be extended to all the others, but apparently that has not been possible. The immediate danger of a conflict arising from the Spanish trouble is in Europe——

Professor O'Sullivan

Before the Minister passes from that, what is to prevent a European Power sending war material, say, to Mexico?

Mr. Lemass

Only that each of the European Powers have agreed that they will not send war material.

Professor O'Sullivan

Merely the good faith of the European Powers?

Mr. Lemass

I said that.

Professor O'Sullivan

It is merely that. Your observation is no good in that case.

Mr. Lemass

I have said, and I think it is obvious, that unless there is good faith, the scheme is going to break down.

Professor O'Sullivan

If there is good faith, why the necessity for the scheme?

Mr. Lemass

Because of the allegations of bad faith made by a number of parties to it, and the dangers that these allegations give rise to, to the peace of Europe. It was felt desirable that this officer observation scheme should be set up, so that the making of these allegations would not be the cause of a conflict, and that there would be means by which the truth or otherwise of the allegations could be examined. The situation is one of considerable danger. There is no sense in shutting our eyes to that fact, and anything we can do in our small way to minimise that danger should be done. The existence of the observation scheme may not avert the danger, but at least it is a step in the direction of its reduction. The contribution which we are called upon to make to ensure its success is a very small one, and altogether out of proportion to the risks we would have to run if this situation in Spain should lead to a general European conflict.

Mr. Dillon

The matter which the Minister has dealt with this morning is one of no little importance. Despite the fact that our contribution to international action must be small, in comparison with that made by others, if a Foreign Office matter of similar importance in any other State were brought before the sole legislative body in the country by the President of the Board of Trade or the Minister for Commerce I think very adverse comment would be made; but this morning, in this House, we are treated to the spectacle of the Minister for Industry and Commerce coming attended, not by officials of his own Department but attended openly and blatantly by officials of the Department of External Affairs, because the Minister for External Affairs does not think it worth his while to appear before this House for the purpose of recommending this Estimate. We all remember that the Minister for External Affairs openly boasted that when he wanted to destroy the Seanad he took from his own camp followers so disreputable a collection and put them into the Seanad, that he would have a good excuse for wiping it out of existence. That is evidence of the system whereby the President endeavoured to bring on the representative Assembly of this State contempt with a view to organising public opinion against them in the country.

Mr. Lemass

I submit that these observations are out of order.

An Ceann Comhairle

There is a joint responsibility in the Executive Council. One Minister may act for another. If the Deputy desires to arraign the President as Minister for External Affairs, he may do so by express motion.

Mr. Lemass

I should like to submit that Deputy Dillon's remarks about certain members of the late Seanad are out of order.

Mr. Dillon

Is that a point of order? The Minister has no right in that matter. If you say, Sir, that I may not comment on the absence of the Minister when a Vote for his Department is before the House, I will submit to that ruling, Sir, but it is amazing.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy referred yesterday and again to-day to the absence of the President. He has a right to do so, but in his remarks he went beyond comment on the absence of the President.

Mr. Dillon

The purpose of mentioning it this morning is to suggest that the President, who is Minister for External Affairs, deliberately absented himself from the House in order to show his contempt for it. That is my statement, and I say that, in my judgment, it is most improper. In my judgment, even his own Deputies are entitled to more respect from the President. In my opinion, he does the cause of democratic government in this country great disservice in suggesting that it is not worth his while to come and give an explanation of policy for which he makes himself personally responsible to his Executive Council as a Minister, and jointly as the Executive Council to the House. If the House is not entitled to that service from the President of the Executive Council, then the House is entitled to very little respect indeed from the people which it is supposed to govern. If it cannot govern the President of the Executive Council, then it can have very little hope of governing the people.

It has been emphasised to-day that this Estimate flows as an actual consequence from previous legislation, and Deputy O'Sullivan has rightly remarked that the principle of whether there should be intervention or non-intervention has been decided, and that, in fact, it was unanimously decided by this House only for different reasons. Each part of the House supports non-intervention for different reasons.

As I see the present situation, I am more convinced now even than I was when non-intervention was first mentioned that we were right in the decision we came to, to adhere strictly to that principle, but when we adhered to it, I think everyone on this side hoped that that principle would be carried out, not only in the letter, but in the spirit. As I see this administrative Act which we are asked to support to day, we are faced with a situation in which our concern is to restrict the area of strife to the territory of Spain. At the present time in Spain there does not seem to be any de facto Government for the whole country. There is, in our judgment, a de jure Government of Spain, but we are perfectly certain that the Valencia Government is not that de jure Government, that it has no warrant of authority to govern either de facto or de jure. In our desire to partake in and to recommend by whatever moral suasion is at our disposal, the policy of non-intervention to the whole world, I think we ought to make it perfectly clear to the whole world that we recognise the fact that Valencia is neither a de jure nor a de facto Government in Spain.

An Ceann Comhairle

At the outset of this discussion, in order to indicate what the limits of this debate might be, the Chair stated that the recognition or non-recognition of either Government in Spain has no relation to the Vote before the House, which is the granting of £8,000 for carrying out the policy of non-intervention as decided by an Act. The relative positions of the two Governments in Spain are not relevant.

Mr. Dillon

Surely. The Minister himself has emphasised the vital necessity of trying to wed to this policy and to this scheme States which have up to now refused to join. He has recognised the warning which Deputy O'Sullivan gave him of the immense dangers of leaving certain States outside the scheme, because, unless the angelic good faith which the Minister hopes for from European States is a fact, States which desire to act in bad faith and to circumvent this supervision proposal can ship their contraband merchandise to nonparticipating States, and thence ship that merchandise into Spain in definance of this arrangement. I believe it would make non-intervention and this scheme much more effective if all Governments would recognise the true situation in Spain, and I submit that I am entitled to argue, and I make this submission, that if we, by our example, could get unanimous recognition of the fact that there is no de facto Government in Spain——

An Ceann Comhairle

That point is not relevant. The internal position in Spain does not arise.

Mr. Dillon

My submission is that the two things are indissolubly associated and that this scheme cannot be made effective without certain things being done.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is a question of policy and consequently does not arise.

Mr. Dillon

You are the ultimate judge in that matter, Sir, and, I therefore, gather that the only thing that may be discussed is whether this money is to be spent or not, and not whether it is to be spent effectively or ineffectively. I submit that without doing certain things, the description of which we must defer to another day, this expenditure may very well be ineffective. I believe that if we did certain things now, and did them resolutely, and without wobbling or wriggling as the President of the Executive Council wriggled yesterday and on divers other occasions, we could get good value for this money by having a united action amongst all nations of the world——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy may not, by suppressing certain words, try to circumvent a ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Dillon

I, however, desire to add to what I have already said only one thing, Sir, and that is to remind the House that we were told three weeks or a month ago that the guillotine had to be put in force to rush this legislation through the House in order to get the scheme for non-intervention working. So far as I am aware, there are still some States peacefully legislating on the same lines on which we were required to legislate under the guillotine in one day. Other States are still brooding over the later stages of an exactly similar Bill and nobody is the least bit put about over it. I do not suppose it made a very fundamental difference to the ultimate decision this House might have come to in regard to this measure, but I think it reflects gravely on the Executive Council that, by fraudulent misrepresentation of that kind, they are prepared to flog their own acquiescent Deputies into the Lobbies for the purpose of strangling free discussion in this House.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy in commenting on what was said during the passage of a certain measure, spoke of "fraudulent misrepresentation." That is not a Parliamentary term as applied to the action of the Executive Council vis-a-vis this House.

Mr. Dillon

Perhaps these are matters about which I feel so strongly that it is not prudent——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is quite capable of expressing strong feelings without resorting to language which is not Parliamentary.

Mr. Dillon

If I have used language which in your opinion was not Parliamentary, I apologise to you for doing so. Possibly it is a matter about which I feel so strongly that it is not prudent to continue speaking on it. I will find another opportunity, however, when, without offending against the rules of order of this House, I shall be free to speak my mind more fully on the transactions which have preceded, and which accompany, the resolution which is before the House to-day.

General Mulcahy

When the non-intervention policy was agreed to here, the case was put forward from some parts of the House that it was agreed to for the purpose of avoiding a general European war. It was also argued by others that it was the best possible way of giving freedom to the forces under General Franco to develop their resources and their position, and to make successful the fight they were waging against the closing down and destruction of the Catholic churches and the murder and slaughter of ecclesiastics of the Catholic Church in Spain. Now we are passing moneys for the purpose of putting this non-intervention machinery into full operation. We cannot shut our eyes to the fact that, whether expressing the true position in Spain or merely for propaganda purposes, very prominent collectors of information on the Spanish and the European situation generally have pointed out recently that what has happened since the beginning of January in Spain is that the Valencia Government has been carrying on, and carrying on successfully, with increasing Spanish support and less foreign support, and that the Franco Government has been carrying on with decreasing Spanish support and increasing foreign support. For those people who supported the non-intervention policy on the grounds that that policy was a policy which would ultimately safeguard the position of the traditional Church in Spain, statements of that kind are very disturbing, and when we pass moneys here for more effectively implementing the non-intervention policy, we are entitled to hear some statement from the Government as to what their summary of the actual military position at the present moment in Spain is.

The Government, while putting forward the idea that the non-intervention policy is necessary in order to avoid a European war, are also concerned with the effectiveness of the non-intervention policy as helping to enable those who stand for religion in Spain to secure the freedom of their people to have a Government that will not attempt to wipe out religion and that will give freedom to exist to the traditional Church in Spain. The Government cannot be unaware that publicity has been given to that type of picture of the position in Spain.

We certainly should expect to hear from them whether that is the position or not. If it is the position, we should like to know to what extent the policy of non-intervention is going to affect the future situation in Spain. It is pointed out by people who claim to be well informed that after the 1st January the position in Spain is that the Valencia Government is operating with greater Spanish support and smaller foreign support, and that the Franco Government is operating with smaller Spanish support and greater foreign support.

Professor O'Sullivan rose.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister intervened in the debate at the request of Deputies who asked for further information. Am I to take it that I may call on the Minister to conclude the debate when no other Deputy offers.

Professor O'Sullivan

There was, I think, a definite purpose in mind when it was decided by Standing Orders that Estimates should be debated in Committee.

An Ceann Comhairle

Quite.

Professor O'Sullivan

Therefore, I do not like the practice to grow up of having a statement from the Minister at the beginning and at the end. I am quite willing that that should happen in most cases, because it facilitates the business of the House but, like the people who shut their gates once a year, we must depart from that custom on occasion, and we must insist that this is Committee procedure. I think we ought to preserve that particular right.

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not agree with the Deputy's presentation of precedents. As a matter of fact, the precedent was, save for three occasions in the whole history of the House——

Professor O'Sullivan

I do not agree.

An Ceann Comhairle

——that the Minister did conclude when nobody else offered and when called upon to do so.

Professor O'Sullivan

I agree with that.

An Ceann Comhairle

I have stated that the Minister rose but did not conclude, as further information was requested. I merely wanted to know from the House whether I can take it that, no other Deputy offering, I may call upon the Minister to conclude, questions being permitted, as is usual in Committee.

Professor O'Sullivan

I have no objection in this particular case. What I am anxious about is the avoidance of any precise precedent. So far as this debate is concerned, I am quite willing that that course should be adopted. But if there is such a precedent, I think it should not be universally followed because a lot may depend on the Minister's statement. It is of the essence of Committee procedure that there should be further opportunities for Deputies to intervene.

An Ceann Comhairle

I think you will find that the Chair will not rule stringently if information is asked for at the conclusion of the Minister's statement.

Professor O'Sullivan

I quite agree. I am not questioning that but I think the practice is one that should not grow up, so to speak, automatically. That remark was largely elicited by your intervention. I should like to ask if the Government has any information or has tried to get any information as to what is happening in Spain and, if so, what kind of information they have. I mentioned various statements which had been made and allegations put forward by one side and the other. I was hoping that the Minister could, in his capacity as Acting-Minister for External Affairs, make an official pronouncement on that point. Has he tried to get any official information? As Deputy Dillon said, I think it is most regrettable that on an important matter of this kind—I admit that one member of the Executive Council can take the place of another—the debate should be made so unreal by the absence of the Minister for External Affairs. His deputy's speech is proof of that. It was largely on his side a formal affair. If I may say so, it showed no personal touch with the subject. It is most regrettable that the Minister for External Affairs, whose primary responsibility it is, was not here this morning. I think that Deputy Dillon made a most useful contribution in pointing that out. I do not say that I am quite as much in the dark now as I was when the Minister got up to speak. I am not. I gather now that the whole scheme of non-intervention, from the international point of view, boils down to a policy of mere observation. So far as that observation is concerned, its main purpose is merely to control propaganda. According to the Minister, it has no other useful function. When I intervened and asked a question, his answer made that clear, if it made nothing else clear—as you must assume good faith on the part of those who are parties to this agreement. That is the very thing we cannot do. That is the very thing which I and others in the country would be stultifying ourselves in doing. I assume the very worst faith on the part of some of the Powers. A policy of non-intervention which is founded on a lie like that will not get us anywhere. If that is the assumption, then the whole policy is blown sky-high. It is the business of an international body to do something more than that.

What contribution has the Minister made to this particular scheme? Listening to him, I gathered that my suspicion is correct—that our Government made no contribution. We got a scheme and took it because it was our business to take it! I deny that it was our business to take it. You have Powers there whose bad faith is not open to question. We are silent, and simply take what is given to us. We are to have the observation—for what purpose? Not to question the good faith of these people. That is not now the purpose of the spending of £1,000,000, according to the Minister. The purpose is to examine the good faith of the people who question their good faith. Is not that the position put before us by the Minister— that the main purpose of observation was to prove the lack of foundation of the charges of intervention that were being made? I do not think I am misinterpreting the purpose—that it was not to prove bad faith in the Powers, but to examine the good faith of those who questioned it. We must assume that, according to the Minister. The main purpose, therefore, is to cut off propaganda as to the charges of intervention made on one side or the other, in spite of the pledged word. In that way we prevent ill-will once we prove these charges to be unfounded. That is the point made. If not, then our purpose is to find out—assuming that we cannot take good faith as a premise— whether these people are, in fact, evading their obligations. Despite what the Minister said in his reply to my interjection, I say that ought to be the main purpose—not merely countering propaganda.

I am not denying the importance of countering propaganda, but I have very little faith in this body being able to do it. If the Minister thinks that this body will be able to cope effectively with the propaganda that is going on, with no respect for truth, he is living in a fools' paradise. Take the neighbouring country, which does undoubtedly seem to have some interest in this—certainly more than our Government. We see day after day charges made there in Parliament and out of Parliament on the matter of intervention on the part of several foreign Powers. I have seen the answer given, and denials that there are no grounds for such charges so far as the Government knows. And yet the Minister must know the extent to which these charges are still repeated from day to day—as if no denial had been given. He must know not merely the extent to which they are repeated, but, to use slang, the extent to which they are getting across and to the extent to which they are used across—Channel. If the Minister does not know that, he is completely out of touch with what is happening and with the developments taking place, and I believe that he is. The Government is completely out of touch with developments.

We cannot find out from our representative what information he has to give us on anything. Surely if we have a representative with the Spanish Government, geographically in France, but accredited to the State of which Caballero is premier or head, he ought at least be able to give us some information, and he ought to know what are the views of the representatives of other Governments there. Have we, as a Government, tried to get any information on these matters? If so, why did not the Minister communicate that information and do something more than say: "These charges are being made"? I now put two definite questions to the Minister. Has he any information on this point? Has the Government sought to get any information on this point? If so, when? If they have got it what is the information? If they have not got it, what is the explanation they are not getting it? Has Russia in the spirit as well as in the letter observed her obligations under the non-intervention pact? Can the Minister for Industry and Commerce enlighten the House on that particular matter? Can he give the country any information he has on this matter in which the country is profoundly interested? Can he tell us what steps are being taken elsewhere? The Minister indicated the steps that have been taken here. We know that already. What steps are being taken elsewhere? Have all the 27 countries hastened legislation in the way that we have hastened it?

The Minister gave us as a justification for his presence here that it was his business as Minister for Industry and Commerce to introduce into the House the Control of Merchant Shipping Bill dealing with this matter. That, however, is not an excuse for the President being absent to-day, because we are not dealing now with what we intend to do as regards our shipping. We are making a contribution to the international body controlling the whole question of non-intervention. It is not what we shall do or what the Minister will do or what his colleague the President of the Board of Trade elsewhere will do. But it is what the policy of his Party and this Government, and particularly what the policy of the Minister for External Affairs will be. The fact that the Minister for Industry and Commerce has had thrust upon him the task of introducing a certain Bill, does not get over that. I must say that anything that the Minister has said—and I am sorry to have to say it—has certainly not quieted any fears I have had on this particular matter. I doubt if it will give very much satisfaction to the large number of people in this country who are profoundly interested in this question. For very many important reasons they are profoundly interested in this question of non-intervention. I regret that the Minister has not been more communicative with the House or that he does not say that he has no information.

Mr. Dillon

Deputy Mulcahy has very properly referred to the propaganda that is going around at the present time. I find it hard to speak moderately when I realise that the Minister for External Affairs of this State, who has abundant information at his disposal, all the information that the British Foreign Office has, and that our representative accredited to the Communist Government in Spain has, if he wanted to give it to this House, is silent. He absents himself from the House, and does not say a word. The propaganda at present is that this non-intervention business is to prevent arms getting to General Franco because General Franco is holding down the Spanish people with foreign guns, foreign mercenaries and foreign aid. The implication is that the gallant democrats in Valencia are challenged by a junta, a body that attacks the Spanish people by the aid of foreign subsidised military insurgents. All the evidence that an impartial mind can get by careful research contradicts that——

Mr. Lemass

I submit that the Deputy is now again trying to make the speech that he was already prevented from making by the Ceann Comhairle.

Professor O'Sullivan

No. Might I make a suggestion—the Deputy has not made a point of order——

Mr. Lemass

I make this point of order that what has happened in Spain has nothing whatever to do with this Supplementary Estimate for External Affairs.

Mr. Dillon

I submit, Sir, that this proposal to prevent intervention in Spain, so far as we intended it in the Saorstát, is a proposal to prevent any outside country interfering in Spain. I say that the Third International in Moscow are deliberately spreading rumours in every part of the world they can reach that the necessity for non-intervention of the kind we are putting in force here to-day arises from the fact that there is in Spain a military junta bringing in foreign aid to crush the Spanish people——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We cannot discuss that.

Mr. Dillon

Certainly not, but it is the duty of our Minister for External Affairs to appear here to-day and to say on this matter: "My information is such and such." I do not attach any importance to the rumours that foreign aid is going to Franco and none to the other side. Our purpose is to prevent its going to any side. The Minister for External Affairs is silent. In the presence of the vicious propaganda to which Deputy Mulcahy has referred, his very silence lends colour to that propaganda. If the Minister for External Affairs were here I would challenge him to say if propaganda of that kind is circulated from any source to this country. It is unquestionably difficult to measure one's words when the evil that one is seeking to combat is so elusive, and when you get no help whatever from the only man in the State who is in a position to help. There has been on this matter no information afforded to this House by the Minister for External Affairs from the point of view of our Government for months past.

Surely we ought to have some information here, which would help us to act and do in matters of this kind, other than what we can pick up from the English or French newspapers of what is told to the English Parliament and the French Parliament by their Ministers of External Affairs. It is admitted that the Burgos Government in Spain have no effective propaganda service. All the propaganda that is reaching outside Europe, practically, is being carefully organised by the Third Internationale in Moscow.

I ask your leave, Sir, to make this perfectly clear, that when we start a plan to prevent the dispatch of arms or war materials to Spain, we do it because we hope it will end the conflict, because we hope it will help to end the conflict, in Spain. We hope that conflict will be ended by a victory for the Burgos Government. We have no reason to believe that the Burgos Government are carrying on with the help exclusively of foreign arms or foreign aid. We believe they represent the Spanish people and we believe that but for the action of the Third Internationale of Moscow there would have been no foreign intervention in Spain. We believe there was a mobilisation of the Third Internationale in Spain for at least three years before the civil war began.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is travelling rather closely to the internal affairs of Spain.

Mr. Dillon

Surely we must be allowed to specify the grounds on which we are prepared to support the proposal to prevent the shipment of war material to Spain. If we are not allowed——

Mr. Lemass

The Dáil has already decided the policy in regard to Spain and I suggest the matter should not be reopened now.

Mr. Dillon

We are asked here to vote money to do a certain thing. Are we to leave ourselves open, by reason of our silence, to the charge that we accept the proposition that foreign arms and war material are going to Franco and not to the other side?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy made the suggestion that a certain presumed Government in Spain is allowing a foreign organisation to distribute propaganda on its behalf.

Mr. Dillon

Yes, an international organisation, the Komintern of Moscow, the Third Internationale.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy speaks of a foreign organisation which has its headquarters in a State other than the Spanish State.

Mr. Dillon

And its illegitimate children in every State in the world.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

In my opinion the Deputy in that statement is touching on the internal affairs of Spain.

Mr. Dillon

Very well. Can I say this, then, that in our judgment this supervision for which we are providing money to-day ought to be directed against all parties who attempt to send war material into Spain, and that the primary vigilance ought to be on those who started the civil war there? I suggest that special vigilance ought to be concentrated on the Third Internationale of Moscow, who shipped the first arms to Spain.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy cannot go on that line. The Non-Intervention Act has clearly indicated what this money is to be provided for; it is set out in Section 5, and there is nothing about propaganda.

Mr. Dillon

I deny that absolutely. I say that if ships are found carrying into Spain exhortations in the form of printed matter to perpetrate outrage or assassination, as I have no doubt there are millions of such documents coming from Moscow, steps ought to be taken to end it, and my urgent submission is that if our Government have not so interpreted the Schedule contained in the Act of the classes of goods to be prevented, that they ought to recognise that in this day and age no more deadly ammunition can be landed than exhortations to crime and assassination, such as has been the stock-in-trade of the Third Internationale in every civil war they precipitated the world over.

The point I want to make is this. Our point of view is that the precautions which this money is to finance, the precautions which the whole policy we are concerned to implement provide for, are rendered necessary by the consistent and unscrupulous system of intervention that is being carried on by Moscow in Spain and that has precipitated the whole situation at present torturing the Spanish nation. Our feeling is that we readily acknowledge the Government of Burgos have received help from outside Spain.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Clearly we cannot go into the position in Spain, or what was the start of the civil war in Spain; that is clearly outside the scope of this matter. This money is being voted to implement the Non-Intervention Act, which endeavours to enable this State to take part in the policy of non-intervention. We are not going to discuss what led up to the outbreak of the civil war in Spain.

Professor O'Sullivan

We are interested as to whether or not certain Powers, any of 27, are carrying out their obligations; we are interested in whether they are likely to carry out their obligations. If it is suggested that the previous conduct of a man is no guide as to what he is likely to do, I suggest the debate becomes unreal. I cannot see why Deputy Dillon is not perfectly in order in directing, as he has done, special attention to one particular Power as being a special object of observation for us so far as we take any part in this thing. Is he not entitled to do that? That being so, is he not entitled to give adequate reason why that Power should come under special observation?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Dillon has gone back in an endeavour to trace the origin of the Spanish civil war.

Mr. Dillon

Oh, no.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

To my mind, he has endeavoured to indicate that a certain Power endeavoured to foment the civil war in Spain. That is leading us into a discussion of the origin of the Spanish civil war, which is not germane to the subject-matter of the debate.

Mr. Dillon

I think I am entitled to say that Russia has poured arms and ammunition and propaganda into Spain for a period of at least four years.

Mr. Lemass

What has that to do with this Supplementary Estimate?

Mr. Dillon

It was in answer to that, that a certain foreign aid became necessary to Franco. My suggestion is that it was because of the influx from Russia that foreign aid was made necessary for Franco. If there had been none from Russia——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We cannot discuss that. That is going to lead to the reopening of the whole question of non-intervention.

Mr. Dillon

It was the influx from one State that made it necessary for the getting of foreign aid on the part of Franco. Stop the influx from Russia and my thesis is that the Spanish people, alone and unsupported, are going to support Franco. Concentrate attention on Russia. These are the people we have to fear.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This Act clearly express the intention of the House that non-intervention should extend to all the participants.

Mr. Dillon

Certainly, Sir.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Therefore, if the Deputy indicates that he wants attention focussed on one Power, he is clearly not acting in accordance with the intention of the Act.

Mr. Dillon

We are asked to vote this money for the purpose of stopping war material going into Spain. I say you should stop Russia sending war materials to the gang in Valencia, and the moment you do, the necessity for vigilance in preventing arms going to the other side will cease. Your task of preventing arms and men going from Saorstát Eireann, Portugal or Italy will vanish. Certainly, some States had no desire, and would not be allowed by the Burgos Government, to embroil themselves in the Spanish civil war, until the Burgos Government found themselves confronted by immense foreign legions, men and war material sent in by Moscow. I say stop Moscow, which has made Caballero's assault on Spain possible, and there will be no further trouble in stopping arms, men and other war material going into the rest of Spain. If you could put an end to all foreign intervention in Spain to-morrow morning by a wave of the hand, effectively and genuinely, then the Government of Burgos would prevail within three weeks. It is the steady system of Communist intervention in Spain that has kept this thing going on so long. Therefore, I say to our Government, and I say to the Governments who feel with us on that issue which is dominant in Spain: Watch Russia; watch the other Communist countries that are trying to make out of Spain the Communist State of the west of Europe; and if you stop them, then you will have no difficulty in stopping the others because, in my judgment, neither the Government of Burgos nor anyone fighting on their side would want the help of anybody outside Spain to establish decent order and regulated government in that State, were it not for the fact that they found themselves confronted with the massed power of international Communism which was able to prostitute Spain, to enslave its people and to drive Christianity out of the country.

That is the point I want to make and, to my mind, it is absolutely vital that that point should be made from this Parliament. You have got every word that is said in the French House of Deputies, and practically every word that gets publicity is an argument that the reason we want non-intervention, the reason we want this committee, is to prevent arms going into Spain wherewith General Franco will enslave and oppress the Spanish people. Every question that is asked in the British House of Commons on the matter is asked by some person who pretends to be a disinterested person and who wants to know: Is it true that General Franco used the arms he got to slaughter the babies of the people of Spain; did he blow up churches, and is he suppressing savagery?

Again, the innuendo is that arms are being sent in to enable Franco to hold down the Spanish people. I do not believe there is a single creature in this House who does not, in spirit and heart, agree with me, and I am making the case, not so much to convince Deputies here, as to express from this House what I believe to be the views of us all. The beauty of the Communist propagandist is that he has no sense of humour at all.

Mr. Lemass

Again, Sir, I submit that all this has nothing to do with this Estimate.

Mr. Dillon

It has, and very vitally to do with it. This Bill is not going to be used internationally for the purpose of suggesting that we joined to keep arms out of Spain to prevent General Franco from crushing the Spanish people. That is what the Third Internationale will try to make it out, and that is what I want to prevent. I want to nip that propaganda in the bud, and I want to show how infamous and indecent Communist propaganda will be hung on this.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Communist propaganda cannot be discussed on this Estimate.

Mr. Dillon

But surely, Sir, we can warn the people of the country of the full meaning of this Bill?

Mr. Lemass

What Bill is the Deputy talking about?

Mr. Dillon

I am talking about the Estimate which the Minister pretends to know all about and of which he knows nothing at all. The Minister comes swaggering in here to talk about external affairs as if he knew all about it when, as a matter of fact, he knows as little about external affairs as the flagstaff on top of this House.

Mr. Lemass

I shall be staggering out in a moment if I have to listen to the Deputy much longer.

Mr. Dillon

I say that Communist propaganda can be attached to this, and I want to prevent that. I want to demonstrate the grotesqueness of the allegation that the object of this is to prevent arms going into General Franco because he is oppressing the Spanish people.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister has nothing to do with the question of propaganda. He is not responsible for that. The Minister is responsible for administering this money in connection with non-intervention, and nothing else.

Mr. Dillon

But is it not his duty, Sir, to come in here and speak out boldly of his knowledge of the conditions in Spain and to justify his recommendation of this Estimate to the House? He is skulking away from it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is not the point. The Deputy is referring to the propaganda position of a certain international organisation.

Mr. Dillon

Yes, and I do not want any act of this House to be woven into that poisonous pattern speciously and fraudulently.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister is not responsible for that.

Mr. Dillon

My respectful submission, Sir, is that, while he certainly is not responsible for its being done— nor would be responsible—I say that, by his failure to come here and speak out boldly, he makes it possible to be done. I want him to raise his voice to-day so that nobody, however skilful, can misrepresent what we are doing as part of Communist propaganda. I want to make it clear that in our view, if this policy becomes effective, then the Government of Burgos will control Spain in three weeks, because 90 per cent. of the Spanish people want it to do so, and the reason we are working so hard for effective non-intervention is because we believe that the arms going into Spain are going in from Moscow to enable Caballero to hold down the Spanish people, and we want to stop that. That seems to me to be a perfectly net point. I want to call evidence to show that we are right in that, and that we believe the effect of this thing will be to strip Caballero of arms.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We have decided on non-intervention.

Mr. Dillon

Yes, and rightly so. We want to prevent arms going in to Caballero to enable him to hold down the Spanish people. We believe that is the purpose of this money, and, to make it effective, it must be spent to prevent the sending of arms into Spain from Moscow. There will be no necessity to prevent arms going to General Franco if you only spend enough of it to prevent Moscow sending arms or money to Caballero. I say that Caballero is holding down the Spanish people by means of the arms he is getting from Moscow, and in proof of that I quote the statistics given by the First Lord of the Admiralty in the House of Commons the day before yesterday, in which he says that 17,000 refugees have been taken out of Spain.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We cannot discuss the internal affairs of Spain. The Deputy is defending one presumed Government in Spain, and that is intervention in the internal affairs of Spain. We are discussing how this money is to be expended in non-intervention.

Mr. Dillon

Well, Sir, I felt that I was being very relevant in saying, categorically and exactly, how I wanted £9 out of every £10 to be actually spent on doing a certain particular job, the preventing of weapons going from Moscow to Caballero. I was prepared to point the route, to mark the spot, and to see how each particular 1/- should be spent. Has anybody in this House been more relevant before? I was able to give my reasons why I thought that was necessary, because I believe that those were the arms that were foreign arms, insomuch as they were being used by a treacherous Spaniard to oppress the Spanish people. I think I have been more relevant than anybody in the House to-day. I point to the stuff, to the man, to the ship, to the day, where I want this money to be spent, and I say that all that arises from the fact that one part of Spain is oppressed, in evidence of which I call to your attention that the British Fleet had to take 17,000 refugees out of Spain, all of which were taken out of the part of Spain where Caballero is in control, and not a single one of which was taken out of the part of Spain where General Franco is in control.

I say that that is evidence that the people living in that part of Spain that is under the Burgos Government, whether they agree with the political philosophy of General Franco or not, are at least living under a civilised Government and are not having to fly from the country. This, I say, is proof that there is a true Government of Spain there, and not a foreign-controlled Government, and that is evidence that here you have not got the foreign arms and foreign control whereas, in the other part of the country, where there are foreign arms and foreign control, you have oppression, victimisation and persecution of the people, imprisonment and torture—all of which, I say, is indicative of a system representative of the Third Internationale of Moscow, and I say that it is the Third Internationale that is sending in these arms and help to a man who would not last three weeks without that help. That is why we are in favour of non-intervention. That is why we are prepared to give the Minister the moneys that he wants to supervise shipments going into Spain, not to protect the Spanish people from any arms going into Franco but because we believe that this trouble would not have occurred if there had not been going on for years the importation of arms and ammunition in vast quantities from Moscow. Stop that and the problem of non-intervention will be solved. You will need neither a ship nor an inspector to enforce non-intervention. The Spanish people will settle it for themselves. Until you stop the intervention of Moscow in Spain, measures of this kind will be necessary, and unless it is stopped, a day will dawn when Moscow will manifest itself not alone in Spain but in France and Germany, in Belgium, Great Britain and in Ireland. I want you to nip that in the bud now by throttling Moscow at the gates of Spain.

General Mulcahy

Before the Minister replies I want to call attention to another point. I think this House is entitled, before agreeing to this Vote, to discuss whether certain of the non-intervention proposals are advisable in view of what is happening in Spain. If, as I suggested this morning, well-informed observers of the situation in Spain have recently pointed out that the position in Spain, subsequent to the 1st January, was that the Caballero Government was carrying on with greater Spanish support and less foreign support, and that Franco was carrying on with diminishing Spanish support and increasing foreign support, this House is entitled to consider whether, even with a view to preventing a European war, it is going to continue the non-intervention policy and to spend money on the carrying out of it. What the Minister might have to say in reply to the point I raised on that matter, might entail some further remarks on the position in Spain, because if the position in Spain to-day is that the Caballero Government is dominating the situation and is tending, as that statement would appear to show, to overcome the Franco Government and the Franco forces, then, when you have such countries in the world as Italy and Germany, who are looking so much for fight, many of us would prefer to see them exercising their predilections in that respect in preventing the development of a Communist Government in Spain before Communism has finally rooted itself in Spain. In that way they would save Europe from a situation that it would inevitably have to face later on after a Communist Government had established itself in Spain. The voting of money in this way may be a very simple matter. We, no doubt, could not do very much to assist in a military way, much as we would like to defend Catholicism and the Catholic Church in Spain; but if the situation is passing to the stage which I mentioned here, we ought to open our eyes here and the Minister could help us to do that.

Mr. Coburn

I should like to have some information as to the manner in which this £8,000 is to be spent. Of course, our worthy President is not here to tell us. Possibly he thinks that the amount is so small that it is not worth his while to come here to tell the Irish people what he proposes to do with this £8,000. Possibly I may not be so highly educated as the President, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, or the members of the Fianna Fáil Party or the Labour Party, or I may not know so much about the Internationale as these people, but still I should like to know what is going to happen this £8,000. Some of the questions I should like to put are: How many representatives will the Irish Free State have on the International Committee? What are the qualifications for men who are to be appointed on the Committee? What will their salaries be? Will it be necessary to have the same qualifications as are required for an appointment at home—a knowledge of Irish as well as a knowledge of Spanish?

I am very interested in this matter, because it has been rumoured all over a certain county that there are certain aspirants for nomination in the coming election. I have been told that one of these men, on condition that he does not go forward to make things awkward in a certain county, has been promised that he will get a job in a certain position. I want to know whether part of this £8,000 is going to be used as a sort of hush-money on behalf of the Fianna Fáil Party in the coming election. Is this a sort of subterfuge whereby these men will receive a cheque for a couple of hundred each as members of this committee in order to stifle their activities during the coming year? That is quite on the cards and it has been reported freely all over the country.

I should be sorry to see any of this £8,000 expended in that direction, in view of the fact that we have so many men working only three days a week and that the free beef scheme has been stopped. I think that this £8,000 could be devoted to a better purpose than to stopping these men from making trouble during the coming election. Eight thousand pounds, after all, is not a very small amount. Again, I should like to know whether the money will be paid by the International Committee or will be paid direct by the Free State Government. These are all important matters that I think should be made clear here before we vote this money. The man primarily responsible for the Vote is not here. Of course, he likes to keep in the background, to be the great be-all and end-all of everything. He has not the pluck to come here to let us know what he is going to do with this money, where it is going to be paid, whether the salaries attaching to membership of the International Committee will be paid by the International Committee itself or whether it will be paid by the Executive Council. Of course, if it is paid by the Executive Council, we know that the appointments to these positions will be made on purely political grounds and that men will be appointed on the committee purely because of their political affiliations. That is quite on the cards at the present time but, possibly, the Minister for Industry and Commerce did not hear it. That rumour has been all over the country, and I should like if the President were here to give a categorical denial to it and to say that the Government does not intend to make use of any part of the £8,000 to stifle the activities of certain persons or to prevent certain men going forward at the coming election.

Again, as Deputy Dillon has stated, this question of non-intervention in Spain depends on whether that non-intervention will really be non-intervention. After all, this Estimate is the natural consequence of the introduction of the Act, and in discussing the Estimate we must more or less discuss the Act. I do not intend to go into all the details, possibly I am not competent to go into them; but looking at it from the honest point of view, I want to know whether any part of this £8,000 is going to be used for the purposes I have enumerated to-day. I believe that the Executive Council, with all their boasting about being honest men, are not above silencing certain people, who are at the present time making trouble, by giving them jobs on this Non-Intervention Committee. It is right for an honest man to speak out the sentiments of his mind. I say that the report which is being spread over certain parts of this country is that men have already been promised jobs on this Non-Intervention Committee, and that part of this £8,000 will go to pay the salaries of those men. I should like to know, if that is a fact, whether the salaries will be paid direct from the Executive Council or whether they will be paid through the International Committee, and what are to be the qualifications of those who will be appointed on that Committee. All those are things which are important. They may be small in the Minister's view. They may be small in the President's view; they must be very small in his opinion in view of his absence from the House on this particular occasion, but it would be as well if the ordinary man in the street had that information. I am one of those who want to know whether any part of this £8,000 is going to find its way into the channels which I have enumerated. I should like the Minister to make that clear before this Vote is passed.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister to conclude?

Professor O'Sullivan

Subject to some questions, possibly.

Mr. Lemass

This is purely a formal Estimate, and it is very difficult to see how it could have called forth such a flood of irrelevant oratory from Deputy Dillon. This House has agreed to the policy of non-intervention in Spain. I think that policy has had the support of all parties in the House. Furthermore, the House has agreed to the scheme of observation on the Spanish frontier, and has passed legislation enabling the Saorstát to conform to the requirements of that scheme. The final step is the making of a contribution to the cost of this observation plan, a cost which is likely to be considerable, but towards which our contribution is very small. I think that most of the discussion which we have had here to-day was entirely irrelevant, if one leaves aside for a moment the observations of Deputy Coburn. Deputy Coburn has, at least, the distinction of making a relevant speech, if not the only relevant speech from his side of the House so far. Deputy Dillon, of course, was so wide of the mark in most of his observations, and his conception of the position was obviously so divorced from the facts, that it is very difficult to reply to anything he said, if, in fact, what he said calls for a reply at all.

I pointed out that there is no proposal at present for the actual control of the shipment of arms or the sending of volunteers into Spain from other countries. The Non-Intervention Committee was established when agreement was secured amongst the countries which are a party to it—the countries of Europe in favour of the policy of non-intervention. The negotiation and the conclusion of that agreement was a considerable achievement, and a matter of considerable importance to the peace of Europe, but it is quite obvious that the agreement is of no value unless the parties to it intend to observe it. The various observations of Deputies opposite as to the possible bad faith of some of those parties were on that account beside the point. Every international agreement has no validity except in so far as the parties intend to keep it, and this agreement is no different to any other in that regard. There were allegations that the agreement was not being kept, allegations which, to the minds of some people, appeared to be giving justification for the scrapping of the agreement and the resumption of intervention, with the danger to the peace of Europe involved therein.

Because of those allegations, and in order to ensure that there would be complete and proper observation of all traffic into Spain, this scheme of observation, this scheme for the appointment of supervisors for the patrolling of the coast and the supervision of the land frontiers, was adopted. All the countries have agreed to this scheme of observation, and the necessary steps are being taken to bring it into existence. We are making a contribution to the cost of it, and that is the sole purpose of this Estimate. Deputy Mulcahy wants to know what the effect of the policy of non-intervention has been upon the military situation in Spain. My opinion in that matter would be of no value.

General Mulcahy

I have not even asked that. I have drawn the attention of the Minister to the fact that there are those serious reports, and I have asked him if he will let us have some information on the situation.

Mr. Lemass

It is quite obvious, both from the discussions which took place here and from the articles which one can read in the Press, that both expert and inexpert opinion on the subject differ. In view of the very emphatic opinion—no doubt expert—expressed by Deputy Dillon here to-day, I am surprised that Deputy Mulcahy should still be seeking additional information.

General Mulcahy

Why?

Mr. Lemass

Because Deputy Dillon seems to be so well informed on the matter.

Professor O'Sullivan

A nice conception of the duties of the Government!

Mr. Lemass

There is no duty imposed upon the Government to answer, on this Estimate, the questions addressed to it by Deputy Mulcahy. At the very most, an expression of opinion could be given, but I do not think any expression of opinion would be of any value at the present time.

General Mulcahy

I should like to put one matter to the Minister as he is on the point. We are spending money on a non-intervention policy. What would be regarded as very authoritative opinion has quite recently stated what I have stated here. The Minister, no doubt, through his Government sources and the international exchanges between himself and the British Government and others, has information as to what is the internal situation in Spain, and he surely has the responsibility of giving the House some information which would either confirm or deny statements of the kind that I made, because if the circumstances there are as stated, it would have a bearing on the question as to whether we should be a party to a non-intervention policy.

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy is quite right in saying that his question has a bearing on whether or not we should be parties to a non-intervention policy, but the Ceann Comhairle has made it quite clear that that question does not arise on this Vote, and would be out of order.

General Mulcahy

I would submit that the question arises as to whether people who voted for legislation approving of a non-intervention policy, would —now that time has passed and more important and very different information has been placed before us as to the circumstances there—agree to voting the necessary money to implement it. Surely this House is entitled to change its mind on a particular policy, and particularly to change its mind by refusing on one particular date to pass money to implement a measure which it passed on a previous date, and in respect of which it had got no information.

Mr. Lemass

The House is quite entitled to change its mind, but there is a legal and ordinary way of doing so.

General Mulcahy

What is a more legal and ordinary way than by taking the earliest opportunity and by voting against the granting of the money?

Mr. Lemass

The question of policy does not arise on a Supplementary Estimate, and the advisability of repealing or continuing legislation cannot be discussed in relation to it either. Deputy Mulcahy, of course, knows that quite well, but he is just taking advantage of the introduction of this Estimate on a Friday morning to make a number of irrelevant observations which he thinks are going to get publicity in the evening papers.

General Mulcahy

The Minister said there is an orderly way of doing it. This is the only means we have of getting a decision taken on the non-intervention policy. There is no other way of raising it in this House without the permission of the Government. We could not effectively do it on the Estimate for the Department of External Affairs, because there is no money in that Estimate for this purpose. This is the time and the place to do it, when the Dáil is being asked to vote money.

Mr. Lemass

I am not going to enter into a discussion with the Deputy on his point of order. On the Estimate for the Department of External Affairs, the external affairs policy of this country can be discussed in an orderly way. It cannot be discussed on a Supplementary Estimate. This is a merely formal step arising inevitably out of decisions already taken by the House on the policy of non-intervention. The absence of the President was commented upon by Deputy O'Sullivan, who said that it was due to the fact that the President regarded any discussion in this House as a waste of time. There is, in my opinion, no more fanatical democrat in this country than the present President of the Executive Council.

General Mulcahy

With the accent on the word "fanatical."

Mr. Lemass

And the essence of democracy is this, that any representative of the people has the right to talk any nonsense he likes in this House, so that I can assure Deputy Dillon, Deputy Mulcahy and Deputy O'Sullivan that if ever their right to talk nonsense here is challenged they will have no more vehement defender of that right than President de Valera. In answer to Deputy Coburn's point, this money is going as a contribution to the International Committee under the agreement regarding non-intervention in Spain. So far, the members of the committee have given no indication of any interest in the impending general election here.

Mr. Coburn

In view of the fact that the Minister has stated that I was the only member of the House who made a relevant contribution to this debate, I would be glad to have a reply from him to the questions I put. I think that as a member of the House I am entitled to get the information I have asked for. We have been asked to vote this money and surely we ought to know where it is going.

Mr. Lemass

It is stated in the Estimate where it is going.

Mr. Coburn

We should have more information about it. What representation are we going to get on the committee for this £8,000?

Mr. Lemass

That is also set out in the Estimate.

Mr. Coburn

There is nothing set out but the £8,000. How many representatives are we going to have on the committee? The Minister did not tell us anything about their qualifications. Who is going to appoint them? Will their appointment be subject to ratification by the members of the International Committee, or are they going to be appointed by the members of the Executive Council in Dublin. I think the Minister should be obliged to me for speaking out. I much prefer to speak out my mind in this House rather than keep things secret for the platform at the general election. I am not one of those who wants to make political capital out of this. But I think that before we vote £8,000 we ought to know where it is going. Again, I say that the Minister admitted that I had made a relevant contribution to the debate. I was meticulous in keeping within the terms of the Estimate. Will the Minister give a definite reply to my questions: How many representatives are we going to have on the committee, who is going to appoint them and what qualifications are they expected to have? Will a knowledge of Spanish be a necessary qualification just as knowledge of Irish is to enable one to get a job from the Government in this country? It does not much matter, of course, what one's other qualifications are so long as one has a knowledge of Irish. There is not much use in sending a representative to Spain if he does not know the language. He will not be of much use on a committee, and, consequently, may have to spend his time roaming over the mountains and along the rivers.

Mr. Lemass

The whole of the money is going to the International Committee. The Irish Free State is not represented on that committee. The board of control which will appoint supervisors will determine the conditions of employment and the rates of remuneration for the supervisors. I stated, when introducing the Estimate, that in consequence of our contribution some ten or 11 persons of Irish nationality were likely to be appointed by the board.

Professor O'Sullivan

Will they be recommended by the Executive Council?

Mr. Lemass

I think they will. They will take some steps to get people with suitable qualifications, but what the qualifications required are I do not know.

Mr. Coburn

If the Minister had stated at the outset that these people were to be recommended by the Executive Council it would have finished the thing. I raised the matter because of rumours that were going about to the effect that certain men are going to get a job on this committee. It is said that they are giving trouble within the ranks of certain Fianna Fáil cumainn throughout the country, but that they are now prepared to stand down on the condition of getting a few hundred pounds out of this £8,000 of the people's money in the way of jobs on the committee. That is how some of this £8,000 is going to be spent, to make things easy for Fianna Fáil at the next general election.

Mr. Lemass

The answer to that is that things are going to be very easy for it at the next general election.

Mr. Coburn

Of course, it would not take £8,000 to knock me out at the general election.

Mr. Lemass

I do not think so.

Professor O'Sullivan

I put a definite question to the Minister: Has he any information whether or not, since the conclusion of the non-Intervention Agreement between the Powers, Russia has, in the spirit and in the letter, observed that non-intervention agreement? Has the Minister any information on that point?

Mr. Lemass

No.

Professor O'Sullivan

I gather that the Minister has none.

Mr. Lemass

I have stated that I am not in a position to answer.

Professor O'Sullivan

Then the Minister has no information. Has he sought any information?

Mr. Lemass

What has that got to do with this Estimate?

Professor O'Sullivan

It has. We have the Minister coming in here and telling us that the voting of this money is a purely formal affair.

Mr. Lemass

The setting up of a scheme of observation.

Professor O'Sullivan

I want to know whether there has been any intervention on the part of Russia. Has the Minister information, or has he not?

Mr. Lemass

My answer is that the scheme of observation has not yet been set up.

Professor O'Sullivan

Has the Minister, in fact, any information?

Mr. Lemass

The scheme of control has not yet been brought into existence.

Professor O'Sullivan

The Minister cannot answer the question. I have noticed in other Parliaments the answers that have been given to questions of this kind. For instance, when the Foreign Secretary in England was asked in Parliament whether there had been a landing of Italian troops, he did not give the answer that a scheme of observation had not yet been set up. I again ask the Minister has he any information, or has he tried to get any information?

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy should send that to the Skibbereen Eagle.

Professor O'Sullivan

That is the attitude adopted by the Minister and by the President towards this whole question of Spain and Communism all their lives, and I am satisfied now with his answer.

Estimate put and agreed to.

Estimate reported and agreed to.