Last night if I had another half-minute I think I would have finished my statement. As far as I remember, I answered all the points raised, particularly by Deputy Johnson, except one, and that is one that it is practically impossible to answer. Deputy Johnson raised the point of our position in case of war. The Deputy may remember that on 5th February the same question was raised, and I said at the time that as regards actual participation, the point was covered by Article 49 of the Constitution, and as to legal or technical war, it was a thing that was very doubtful and was largely dictated by brute facts. Deputy Johnson himself, I think, pointed out that public opinion in the Dominions was tending very largely towards the assertion of a position whereby the Dominions would not be either technically or legally at war necessarily by the fact that Great Britain was at war. That is the opinion certainly, but I think so far it cannot be given as a definition. I think the whole trend of things will tend to make that opinion a fact. How far as a fact it will have any reality in the case of war it is very hard to say. It would be a valuable thing to have it established that the Free State would not be even technically at war, but from the point of view of utility the position of the Falkland Islands would be much more effective. I can only say that the general growth of opinion is towards the point maintained by Deputy Johnson, namely, that it would be possible for Great Britain to be at war and other Dominions not to be even technically at war, but I do not think that is a thing that so far can be laid down as an actual definition.
IN COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - ESTIMATES FOR PUBLIC SERVICES. VOTE 65 (DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS).
I only want to say a few words to support the Minister in not laying down any definite formula as to our participation in wars. The Constitution is perfectly clear that we cannot be involved in war, except in case of invasion, without the consent of the Oireachtas. But war over-rides all rules. There are citizens of the Saorstát on ships at sea, and those ships may be sunk and the lives of citizens of the Saorstát may be lost. There are citizens of the Saorstát earning their living in foreign countries. In case of war with Great Britain, those foreign countries may disregard the fact that they are nationals and not nationals of Great Britain, and imprison them. We must review the situation as it arises, and we cannot lay down formulas in advance. The provision in the Constitution is sufficient to safeguard us, and so I think the Minister is wise in not committing himself definitely to any precise definition of our position in the case of war. You cannot do so. But we can and should work for peace, and we can do more, I believe, by reason of our position in the British Commonwealth of Nations than if we were an isolated power. I have an intense hatred of war because I have seen war. I have an intense desire for peace, and I believe that instead of formulating our position in Ireland we shall do far better for ourselves and far better for the world if we keep ourselves free always to discourage war and always to work for peace.
Under Standing Order 93, I beg to move to refer back this Estimate for reconsideration to the Minister. I do so on several grounds, on the grounds of the illegality of this Estimate, on the grounds of the negligence of his Department and on the grounds of waste of public money. In the first place, with regard to the illegality, Deputies have been asked to vote this sum of money for the Department of External Affairs, and presumably they consider that in doing so they are voting it for a Department such as is defined by law in the Ministers and Secretaries Act, 1924. It is my contention and belief that the Department as at present constituted and administered is not a Department as defined by law under sub-section (11) of Section 1 of the Ministers and Secretaries Act.
Perhaps for the information of the House I might read out that section which defines the position and the functions of the Department for which Deputies think they are voting this money. This sub-section says: "The Department of External Affairs, which shall comprise the administration and business generally of public services in connection with communications and transactions between the Government of Saorstát Eireann and the Government of any other State or nation, diplomatic and consular representation of Saorstát Eireann in any country or place, international amenities, the granting of passports and of visés to passports, and all powers, duties and functions connected with the same." It is my contention that the Department, as at present administered, does not fulfil the conditions required by the Ministers and Secretaries Act. I had thought for a moment that Section 12 of that Act, which makes it possible for the Executive Council, by Order, to distribute functions and duties amongst the different Departments, that it perhaps could have saved this Department from any charge of illegality in the conduct of its affairs, but I find that in the sub-section to Section 12 any such decision by the Executive Council must be communicated to the Oireachtas, and the Order of the Executive Council to that effect must be placed before both Houses of the Oireachtas.
The words in the Act are: "This Department has control of communications and transactions between the Government of Saorstát Eireann and the Government of any other State or Nation, and all powers, duties and functions connected with the same." It is quite obvious that such a Department is necessary in a sovereign State. If that were the case there would be less objection to this Vote than there has been in the Press and elsewhere and as has been expressed also in the Dáil within the last few years. I am convinced that the most important section of our external affairs includes "communications and transactions between the Government of the Saorstát and the Government of any other State or Nation, and the powers, duties and functions connected with the same". I contend that these "communications and transactions" are not under the control of the Department for which we are asked to vote this money. As a matter of fact, we have several Ministers for External Affairs in this country. We have the President of the Executive Council, the secretariat of the Executive Council; we had, until recently, when he became a financier, Deputy Duggan; we have also the Governor-General; lastly, we have the Minister; the least important is the Minister, who is officially designated as Minister for External Affairs. I do not suggest, and I do not wish it to be implied, that the Governor-General exerts any influence in any way as regards the relations of this country. I would not wish it to be understood that he acts in any way contrary to the opinions and advice of the Executive Council. But I do maintain that he fulfils the requirements under the Act by being at any rate one of the Ministers for External Affairs, seeing he does control "administration and business generally of public services in connection with the communications and transactions between the Government of Saorstát Eireann and the Government of any other State or nation." That likewise applies to the President and to the Executive Council.
I have on many occasions drawn the attention of the Dáil and the Government to this anomaly, this confusion, this lack of unification and control of our relations with, in particular, the Government of the United Kingdom. I am convinced that that lack of uniformity has resulted in many unfortunate disasters—I might almost term them so—to this country during the last few years. It is admitted in all parts of the House, I am sure, that our relations with Great Britain and Northern Ireland are amongst the most important and essential interests of the State at the present time. It is intolerable that those relations should be conducted in an inefficient and a confused manner by several Departments of State. If my information is correct, the greater part of the communications and transactions between this State, the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland are not conducted by the Department of External Affairs but are conducted by some other Departments, whereas minor transactions do come within the purview of the Department whose Vote we are discussing.
I might save the Deputy some time if I mention that his information is incorrect.
Does the Minister, then, contend that his Department carries out the "administration and business generally in connection with communications and transactions between the Government of Saorstát Eireann and the Governments of all other States or Nations?"
Yes.
My information is to the contrary.
I mentioned that it was incorrect.
I am convinced that this Department does not control all communications between this State and any other State or Nation. If that is the case, this Department is reduced to the position of being practically redundant and unnecessary. It is reduced to the position—many people have stated that it is the position occupied by the Department at the present time—of being an advisory committee on etiquette, and its advice is not always accepted. An example of the absence of control in this Department over our relations with Great Britain was given during the negotiations, the communications and transactions, in connection with the Boundary Pact last December. When the majority of the members of the Executive Council were in London communicating and transacting business with the British Government, it was noticeable that one Minister who was not in that position was the Minister who, according to the Ministers and Secretaries Act, is supposed to conduct the communications and transactions with external Governments.
This absence of uniformity, this confusion in Government Buildings, has been the cause of many misfortunes to this country, from the point of view of developing and defending the national status. I do not know what resources this Assembly possesses; I do not know if there are any means whereby the Dáil can force the Executive Council to carry out the law inside Government Buildings. I have consulted legal opinion on the matter. One very distinguished person suggested that the only method was a petition of right, whatever that may mean. Apparently we have no means of seeing that the laws passed by the Oireachtas are carried out by the Government inside Government Buildings. That is the first point I would like to make in connection with this Estimate. I am convinced that this Department does not fulfil all the functions and duties necessary and has not got all the powers as defined in the Ministers and Secretaries Act.
With regard to the negligence of this Department, I notice in the Estimates that a considerable sum is expected to be obtained by passport fees and visa fees in the United States. Passports are issued by the Governor-General of the Irish Free State, and on the first page of that passport His Excellency requests and requires in the name of his Britannic Majesty that all assistance shall be given to the bearer of the passport. It has come to my knowledge that in every quarter of the globe these passports are ignored and insulted by British Consuls, representatives of his Britannic Majesty, in spite of the categorical requests and requirements of the Governor-General of the Irish Free State demanding that the bearer of the passport should be given every facility. Whenever the bearer of an Irish passport in a foreign country does not possess on his passport the visa for going to some country to which he wishes to go, he has to go to the British Consul, and the British Consul refuses to recognise the passport issued by the Governor-General of the Irish Free State. He says that he will accept it as evidence of British nationality. He confiscates the passport and issues a British passport on which he adds the visa to the country to which the person requires to go.
This has been going on since the time that Irish passports were issued, and it is an intolerable situation. We are supposed to be a co-equal member of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and when passports are issued by the Governor-General of the Free State and the Governor-General's signature is insulted and ignored by every twopenny-ha'penny passport official throughout the whole world—I only refer to passport officials of the British Empire—I think it is high time for the Department of External Affairs to see that that state of affairs is remedied. That has been going on for two years, and it is high time it was put an end to.
There are many other matters I could refer to—matters of negligence. It is a fact that paid officials of the British Foreign Office conduct at the present time—in the year 1926—propaganda against the financial stability of this State in foreign countries. These are matters which should be protested against amongst our co-equal and friendly neighbours in the British Commonwealth of Nations.
Will the Deputy give us a little more information on that point?
I am prepared to give long extracts, if Deputies wish. I have not them with me, I am sorry to say, but I am prepared to give them to the Minister and to Deputies. In practically all the countries of Europe, the new countries and the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, there is a Government publication issued in the French language which gives information about that particular country for the benefit of foreigners coming in or foreigners living in the country.
I would mention such papers as "Gazette de Prague" (CzechoSlovakia), "La Bulgarie" (Bulgaria), "La Pologne" (Warsaw), "Argus" (Bucharest), "Message d'Athénes" (Greece), "Bouyouk Yol" (Constantinople). Nearly all these papers have got British correspondents who write every week a British letter, and these correspondents, from the information which I have received, are in many cases, officials of the British Foreign Office.
There are other papers in America to which the same applies, and I have taken the trouble to subscribe to these papers, and repeatedly, almost every week, the British correspondents engage in jibes and attacks on this State, on its financial stability, and on its commercial prospects with regard to trade. These correspondents are, as I have said, officials of the British Government. There is another matter which deserves attention. I presume this Department, although it has not control of our external affairs and does not fulfil the requirements of the Act, is supposed to see that international obligations are fulfilled by this country towards other countries, as well as by other countries towards us. There is an international engagement which, in spite of the opposition of many Deputies of this House, was passed last December, and it has been registered at the League of Nations, namely, the Treaty Confirmation (Amending) Agreement Act, 1925. The fifth article of that agreement refers to a matter which Deputy Johnson has often raised in this House, namely, the abolition of the Council of Ireland and the meetings between the Governments of the Irish Free State and of Northern Ireland, as and when necessary, for the purpose of considering matters of common interest arising out of, or connected with the exercise and administration of the powers of the Council of Ireland in regard to Northern Ireland. That article, as the spokesmen of the British Government announced in the British Parliament, was inserted at the express request of the Irish delegates to that furtive conference, and it was held out to us here in the Dáil as a valuable link in keeping the two parts of Ireland together.
It is now six months since that agreement, wise or foolish, was accepted by the Oireachtas, and there has been no sign on the part of the Executive Council of any attempt to meet the Government of Northern Ireland for the purpose of fulfilling Article 5 of that agreement. It was mentioned in the Press that a visit was paid by Deputy Duggan to the Northern Parliament, but that could not be considered as fulfilling the requirements of this article. Of course it is quite probable that there is no department in Government Buildings considering our relations with Northern Ireland. We have, at least, heard of none, and presumably there is none. As I understand, Northern Ireland and the Irish Free State are drifting more and more apart. There is no political hostility, but each section of the country is ignoring the other. This article was held out to the Dáil as containing a hope of ultimate unity, but since that time, apparently, the Executive Council have come to the conclusion that it served its purpose in order to enable this agreement to be passed through the Dáil, and it may safely be relegated to oblivion. If this Department, for which we are asked to vote this money, is supposed to look after our external relations and commitments one would suppose that it would have taken some steps to see that that article would be carried out. Apparently, from the information we have received, it has done nothing of the kind.
There is another matter in connection with the waste of this Department to which I would like to refer, and that is, the fact that we are asked to pay over £15,000 for representation in the United States of America. Yet any legal documents which have to pass from this country to the United States and through Great Britain, in connection with aliens and in connection with all forms of property transactions, with the fees attached thereto, have to pass, not through our representatives, for whom we are paying £15,000, but through the British consuls. That is an anomalous state of affairs
These notarial functions, which are among the principal functions of consuls in every part of the world and for which substantial fees are charged and given to the Exchequers of the countries concerned, are denied to our ornamental representatives for whose upkeep the taxpayers are asked to pay £15,000. There are many other items which could be referred to, but, in conclusion, I would like again to stress the fact that this Department is not fulfilling the requirements under the Act establishing it. At the time of the passing of that Act, Deputy Heffernan, I think, put down an amendment to the effect that this Department should be placed under the Executive Council. It was before the split in the Government Party and, though a member of the Government Party at that time, I could not bring myself to vote against that amendment as I felt it was right. I felt convinced that there could be no unity, no intelligent coordination of our relations with Great Britain, unless they were all brought under one Department. That has not been done. The result is that there has been chaos, and there still is chaos, while the results to the country have been unfortunate, and, apparently, it is intended to continue the same system. On those grounds, and because I believe that this is a very great weakness in the administration of the country and the whole national position, I move that this Vote be referred back.
The arguments of the Deputy are very good except for one flaw—they are mostly based on non-facts. All forms from the British Government to the Irish Government and from the Irish Government to the British pass through the Department of External Affairs. It is true that despatches sent by us to Great Britain bear the Governor-General's signature. I quite agree that that is an anomaly. Deputy Esmonde was not here last evening when I referred to certain anomalies and said that one was that in connection with the office of the Governor-General, which arose from the fact that originally the office was an office of the British Colonial Office, that it has devolved entirely from that position, but that certain things remain. It is true that when we send despatches to Great Britain the Governor-General's signature is upon them, but we do not recognise his right to alter one word or comma in them.
Is that despatch sent by the Minister's Department direct to the Governor-General?
Yes, and no other Department. Many despatches dealing with technical matters in other Departments are drafted first by those Departments, and they come to our Department which, as you might say, "vets" them. They go to the Governor-General, who sends them to England. I agree with the Deputy that it is anomalous that they should pass through the Governor-General, but, as I say, we do not recognise the Governor-General's right to alter one word or comma in those despatches. The Deputy referred to the position in regard to passports. Passports contain a request to give to the person visiting a foreign country the usual amenities. When Irish visitors go to Great Britain my information is that they receive those amenities. The Deputy has an unfortunate habit, not exactly of departing from the truth, but of indulging in considerable exaggeration. We have had some cases where the British consuls refused their services.
Can the Minister give a single case where the consul did not refuse?
I think there are many cases where the consul has not refused, but there are a number of cases where he has refused. I do not know that they have been as many as the Deputy suggests. We certainly have had a number of cases. In China, for instance, I think the French Consul acts for a Swiss citizen. It is a courtesy arrangement. We do not pay the salaries of British Consuls but generally, in the case of the Dominions, the British Consul, as an act of courtesy, does service for the bearer of the passport. In a number of cases he has not done it.
You cannot insist upon a person performing an act of courtesy. We have no right, that I can see, to demand that a British Consul appointed by the British Government, acting for the British Government, and paid by the British Government, should give services to our citizens. I think the British Government makes a very bad mistake. I referred here last night to the need, in so far as unity is necessary in the Commonwealth, that that unity can only be got by unanimity and unanimity can only be based on lack of friction. I think this courtesy is a courtesy which, in the circumstances, could be expected. It is not a thing that we can claim. It is a thing we think possibly we might be justified in expecting and in being disappointed at not receiving, but we have no right to claim it. That is one of the points that might be cleared up in October. Another matter which should be dealt with in October—whether it will be finally cleared up is another thing—is this very matter the Deputy referred to of the Governor-General signing dispatches. A British Consul, the Deputy said, confiscated passports. I have not heard of a case of his confiscating a passport. I have heard of a case where he misrepresented the case to the bearer of the passport. He suggested that there was something wrong with the passport and that the best thing for him to do would be to issue another passport.
The Deputy also used his habit of grotesque exaggeration in connection with another matter. He said that almost without exception every week in these propaganda papers conducted by Eastern European countries in the French language an article written, he tells us fairly clearly, by a British Consular representative, contains propaganda against the financial stability of the Irish Free State. That may have happened. If the Deputy would come along and bring me conclusive proof— that I could myself use—that an article in such a paper containing such propaganda has been written by a British official, I shall certainly take steps in the matter. We have had many suggestions of acts which might be considered more or less unfriendly by British Consular agents. To deal with cases like that you have to have conclusive proof. People come and tell me that somebody else's mother was travelling, but when we try to get something that we could base a case on we do not succeed. If the Deputy is prepared to come along and prove his statement it will enable me to act. His statement was that almost weekly, in all these papers, British Consular agents or Consular officials—
I never mentioned Consular officials. The Minister, I think, is exaggerating what I said. I would be very glad to supply him with great numbers of these articles, which, I understand, have been written by paid officials of the British Government, whether in that particular country or in London. I would be very glad to bring them to his notice, but I would suggest that it ought to be the duty of the Minister for External Affairs, and not of any private Deputy, to find out these matters.
I might be permitted to digress and tell a story about a man who was up before a judge. "Do you always do this?" the judge asked him. "Yes, my lord, always," was the reply. "Remember now, you are speaking on oath," said the judge. "Do you always do it?""Yes, my lord, almost always," was the reply. "Almost always?" asked the judge. "Yes, my lord, nearly almost always," replied the man. I am afraid if we are to discuss much further something like that will happen. The Deputy undoubtedly clearly suggested that articles appeared weekly, or almost weekly, and that they were written by Consular officials.
He said Foreign Office officials.
I said paid officials of the British Government.
Let him come along and give me the evidence that I can base a despatch on. Let him give me the names, the dates, and the proof that these men wrote the articles. We strongly suspect all sorts of things. I have often seen a man get out from court when everybody felt quite definitely that he was guilty, but it is another matter to prove it. "Almost every week" were the words of the Deputy. I think those were the chief points he brought up. I quite agree as regards the Governor-General. Last night I referred in general terms to a great many anomalies of that kind. I suggest the fact that the Governor-General's signature is affixed to a despatch does not in any way mean that he controls those despatches. The Department answerable for them and that sees whether they are in order is my Department, and the Department from which most of them originate is the Department of which I am in control. The Deputy also mixes up Ministers with Departments. Most of the negotiations are not done individually by Ministers. Most of our negotiations in London are done by the High Commissioner. The Executive Council or the Department of External Affairs reserve the right to use anybody that in their opinion is a suitable person as their agents. Many Ministers have been over in connection with matters relating to their Departments or to Executive Council matters in general. It is not necessary, for instance, that I should go over to argue the question of double income tax. Usually an expert official goes over. He does his business and reports to the High Commissioner what he has done. The High Commissioner is not an expert on double income tax. It is a thing that very few are expert in. There is general responsibility in the Executive Council, and the Executive Council as a whole, or my Department as a Department, uses various agents. It does not follow that only the Minister for External Affairs will have any dealings with other countries.
As to the meeting with the representatives of Northern Ireland, first of all it is a thing that should be made clear that Northern Ireland is not foreign or it is not a State.
Is it Home Affairs?
It is not a State.
Under what Estimate can we raise the question of our relations with Northern Ireland?
The difficulty about dealing with Northern Ireland— I am sure the Deputy will appreciate it—is that after the long and bitter feeling that was aroused in connection with the events of the last few years very little said and very little done would continue that bitter feeling. It must, in my opinion, be allowed to subside. Things could be done much better without advertising them. Nothing is being done. If people thing that the Executive Council has been wrong in that respect, I am prepared to take the blame of it, and I think it should be raised on my Vote.
The President anticipated what I was going to say, to some extent. I do not think that the Treaty Amending Act stipulates that such a meeting shall take place in any given time. I think while the Executive Council has the responsibility it must be regarded as the best judge of when the best time comes along. The Dáil may move a resolution saying that they consider that such a time for such a meeting had already arrived. As things are the Executive Council's opinion must be considered as of almost equal weight to that of Deputy Esmonde. The Deputy also referred to the question of the consulate powers of our trade representatives in New York. Again in general terms I covered that position last night. I quite agree that we should recognise no suggestion whatever that the Dominion Governments have not the power to appoint exequatur consuls in other countries.
I mentioned the whole representation in America, the Minister included, and they cannot perform these functions.
The Minister can perform all the functions performed by a Minister plenipotentiary of any country. As regards the trade representative, there are certain functions which until he takes the position of an exequatur consul, he cannot perform. I think as we have appointed a Minister Plenipotentiary we can also have a certain fully qualified consul. I have stated here before that I am not in a great hurry provided I see things moving in the right direction. I think the whole consulate question should be raised at the Imperial Conference. I agree with the Deputy again that he is not an exequatur consul and cannot fulfil all the functions of an exequatur consul. There was one minor point the Deputy slightly misrepresented. He said the office in America cost the taxpayers here £15,000 a year. The actual cost to the taxpayers here is something less than £5,000.
Would the Minister give us a little more information on the point that was raised by Deputy Esmonde, in which he was met, to some extent, regarding the confiscation of passports. Deputy Esmonde stated that passports had been confiscated by British Consuls. The Minister meets that by saying that he has no information of any such thing as confiscation, but, as I understood, he accepted the statement, modified to the extent that the consul suggested that the passport should be retained and another passport substituted. I think I am stating the position clearly, but what I desire to know is whether if that is the position and the Minister was aware of it he took any steps to protest against that action and what was the result of that protest, because it does seem to me to involve a very important question— the status of the Free State.
I am not quite sure whether the Deputy is correct in saying that the consul retained the passport.
I thought that was the Minister's point.
To give a type of case, somebody is going to a country which does not require a visa, and in which there is no Free State representative. He requires to go from there to a country needing a visa. He requires a signature or something like that from a Consular representative in a country, and he goes to the British Consul. In our passports our citizen is described as "a citizen of the Irish Free State and the British Commonwealth of Nations." The British Government and most of the Dominions have on their passports "British subject." I myself am very doubtful as to whether there is anybody who can exactly be described as a British subject at all. The form we use is in exact accord with the Treaty of the 6th December, 1921. I am, therefore, satisfied that it is a perfectly adequate description. The British Consuls act as though they have received instructions that they must not give facilities to anybody who is not described on the passport as a British subject. Therefore, when our people require the services of a Consul he refuses them. I have heard, but I have no proof of it, that a Consul has said: "This passport is not in order. I will give you another passport." I have heard that stated. This has been the subject of considerable argument and protest between us and the British Government. Deputy Esmonde, I think, was with me once when we were in London arguing that particular point. We cannot really claim this courtesy from the British Government but we have protested. I think this is one of the many anomalies and possible causes of friction, misunderstanding and misrepresentation which should be cleared up at the Imperial Conference. But I do not think there is any matter which we have protested more about than this matter.
On a point of order, may I ask you, A Chinn Comhairle, to clarify the present situation. Deputy Esmonde has moved to refer back the Vote, under Standing Order 93, which says that it shall be in order, before entering on discussion of the items in a Vote, to move that the Estimate in question be referred back to the Minister. If we have entered on discussion of the items Deputy Esmonde is, I presume, out of order. If we have not entered on discussion of the items, then I had a motion on the Order Paper to reduce one item by £700. It does not appear on the Order Paper to-day, but I would like to know exactly where we are. Instead of talking about local government, I engaged in local government last night and, consequently, I missed some of the debate. I should be very grateful if you, A Chinn Comhairle, would rule whether the items have been entered upon or whether we are still to undertake that task.
I am rather at a disadvantage, because I was unwell last evening and did not hear the beginning of the debate. I am not able to state whether we have entered upon discussion of the items or not. But it is simply a matter of fact whether we are discussing the items or the general question.
I was here last evening and I can assist you, A Chinn Comhairle. At ten o'clock last night we took up this Vote. The Minister closed his introductory statement about 10.10 p.m. Deputy Johnson raised some points. Deputy Hall also raised some points and then the Minister was replying. He had half a minute to go, but he could not restrain himself and crossed the boundary. To-day we took up this Vote and the Minister completed the statement which he had intended to complete last night. Deputy Esmonde came in and moved, under Standing Order 93, a motion to refer back the Estimate. Having got that far, Deputy Johnson contributed to the debate and the Minister has replied. That is exactly the situation at the moment.
I understood it was customary to deal with the Orders of the Day as they appear on the Order Paper. Although there was no previous notice, about half a dozen Estimates were passed over last night and this Estimate was brought in. Encouragement was given to that course by Deputy Sir James Craig, who said that the Estimate had better be passed as quickly as possible, because Deputy Esmonde was not present.
With the last point mentioned by Deputy Esmonde, I am not concerned. It seems to me that a motion to refer an Estimate back for reconsideration is a motion of which we should have notice. If the Deputy makes the point that there is nothing in the Standing Order about notice, the answer is that unless a Standing Order prescribes that, notice need not be given, then the necessity for notice is implied. It has been the practice, in dealing with Estimates, to take certain motions without notice, but this year, on the opening of the Estimates, I announced that I would refuse to take any amendment without notice, making reservation in respect of a case which, in my judgment, should be regarded as exceptional. I think if the Deputy has such a serious view regarding the Estimate that he desires to have it referred back, he ought to have given notice.
If that is the case, I will, with the leave of the Committee, withdraw my motion—if, in fact, it ever existed.
I think it is doubtful whether it ever did exist. I will now put the main question.
Are the sub-heads disposed of?
The Deputy can speak on the sub-heads if he so desires.
I had an amendment on the paper last night, but I do not know what happened it.
The Leas-Cheann Comhairle called on Deputy Cooper and he was not present.
I understand that the motion on the paper was marked "Not moved" last night, as the Deputy was not present when called upon.
Deputy Hall raised that as a point of order last night. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle called on Deputy Cooper immediately the Minister had made the statement and before the general question had been discussed. No ruling was given on that point of order.
I should like to know if we have disposed of the sub-heads or not.
We have not.
I desire, then, to raise a question on sub-head A (4), which refers to the cost of entertaining distinguished foreigners. I agree that this sub-head is necessary and valuable. I have seen, within the last month, how valuable it can be, because the Minister entertained, under this sub-head, I presume, a distinguished citizen of the United States. He invited not only members of the Executive Council and distinguished American business men, but he was good enough to invite representatives of parties other than his own party. The result of that entertainment was a column of very valuable publicity in one of the most important pages of the "Boston Globe," which is a very influential paper. I do not know how much the lunch cost—I suppose it did not cost more than £30—but it certainly would cost more than £30 to get a column advertisement on a good page of the "Boston Globe."
There is justification for this Vote, but I should like the Minister to justify the increase in this Vote. Last year we voted £500. This year we are asked to vote £1,200, which is more than double the former amount. Last year there was exceptional cost imposed on the Executive Council by the entertainment of a convention of American doctors. That entertainment was given in the Museum adjoining. It was, if I may say so, an admirably planned and arranged entertainment. The whole manner in which the function was carried out redounded to the credit of the State. I make one reservation—I did not seek the refreshment department and I cannot speak with regard to that. But in every other respect, and particularly in regard to the music, the entertainment was admirable. That was done on a Vote for £500. How can the Minister justify an increase of £700 on that? I do not know if any similar convention is anticipated this year, but even if it is, one might hope that it would be catered for as well for £500.
I do not think the Dáil will grudge money on this account. It is desirable, in view of our relations with the world outside, that we should impress them with the fact that we are an established and well-ordered State in exactly the same position as any old European State, that we have dignity and authority and that we can entertain our guests. But we did that on £500 last year. If more is needed this year, if any exceptional emergency arises, could not the Minister come down with a supplementary estimate? I do not think it would be grudged. The voting of a large amount under this sub-head is rather a temptation to the Ministry to overspend on other sub-heads and use their savings for this sub-head.
I should like if the Minister would justify the amount, apart altogether from the increase. It is very interesting to hear the effect of the recent entertainment. Possibly there are some effects that we do not hear of. Deputy Cooper has told us that that entertainment secured a column of attention in an American paper. What advantage is that? What advantage is it to the people who were around the corner of the hotel, who had not a good dinner for three weeks before? It is just as well that we should keep some kind of even balance and understand what the advantage is of giving an impression that we cannot sustain—that this nation is in the position of entertaining foreigners when it cannot possibly look after the interests of its own citizens properly. It is a gross waste of public money to create false impressions even to the extent of a column of American newspaper space, which Deputy Cooper seems to rate so highly.
It was a column signed by a very able American banker.
Mr. HOGAN
That does not add to its value.
I think Deputy Cooper has made a mistake. The doctors were, I think, entertained out of our Estimate for the previous year, which amounted to £750. A certain courtesy exists among nations, and a great many Deputies have experience as to how that courtesy works in other countries. This year is an exceptional year, with a strong possibility of exceptional calls on this Vote. We are going to have visiting within a few hours' distance of us the Prime Ministers of certain States with whom we are in very close alliance. In addition, there will be other Ministers and officials. These visitors will be from countries with which we are in very close alliance and with which our interests are very closely connected. There is an International Women's Body coming here. The doctors came at very short notice last year. There was a Celtic Congress sprung upon us at very short notice. There is an International Military Exhibition at the Horse Show this year. We know of the visit of the International Women, we know of the International Military Exhibition and of the visit to Europe and to Great Britain, in particular, of Prime Ministers, Ministers and officials of those countries known as the Dominions. This sum, which Deputy Hogan considers a large sum, is infinitesimal compared with the amount available for such work in practically every other country. I feel that this year it is necessary for us to have a fair sum of money available and not to have to ask the Prime Minister of a Dominion to come here in such a voice as to clearly indicate that we hope he will not. Last year an American flagship visited us unexpectedly, and this entailed certain expenditure. This year there is the possibility of certain war vessels of other countries coming here. The thing I want to stress, however, is the fact that the Imperial Conference is on this year and that it is certainly due to us to give the courtesy of invitation and the courtesy of entertainment to representatives of the Dominions. That would not take the whole, but apart from that, to our knowledge so far there are the International Women and the international competition at the Horse Show. But generally when we have had to give entertainment we have had very short notice. We have the twelve months to run, and it might very easily happen that in spite of the £1,200 there we might have to come here for a Supplementary Estimate under that heading.
My view upon this question is pretty definite, that we ought to provide a sum of money which would enable Ministers, somebody representing the citizens of the country, to entertain visitors with something like the courtesy that any important company of individuals, not to speak of citizens of the State, would desire to show. I think that it is certainly due to us, if we desire to make a claim to statehood, that the heads of the State should be in a position to act accordingly, following the custom of the world, with moderation, in a matter of this kind, and I have pleasure in voting for a sum of this nature under the formal title that it is for official entertainment. Otherwise we would be forced to wait for private individuals out of salaries, or officials out of salaries, to perform these courtesies. On several occasions when the Vote for the Governor-General has come forward I have attempted to reduce the amount to be voted to that official and I propose to continue to do that. I would prefer that the entertainment that is to be given, the hospitality that is to be offered, to representatives of other countries, should be done by the Ministers whom we appoint, whom we have control of, rather than by, shall I say, a figurehead, who is not appointed, in a way, by the people or the people's representatives. I think it is essential that Ministers should have available a sum of money to extend hospitality and reasonable courtesies to visitors. I would say, too, for fear that there might be some misapprehension, that so far as I have seen these entertainments, the hospitalities have been moderate, restrained, and by no means extravagant, and I think that the figure that Deputy Cooper let fall must have been an accident.
It was an accident. I think it was less than £20.
However, apart from that, I feel that there is a necessity, if we are going to deem ourselves to be a State, with an official body representative of the people, who will be looked to to meet visitors from other countries, that there should be some means whereby such visitors can be formally received and entertained, and we cannot do that unless we are prepared to vote the money for the purpose.