This debate has wandered over a great many points. Deputy de Valera announced that his Party were going to vote against the Estimate for reasons which I could not actually gather. I know that one of the objections to the representatives abroad is that, instead of making clear the wishes of the Irish people, they apparently allow themselves to be utilised in the pursuit of political party propaganda. He went on to indicate what he thought should be the attitude of the representatives abroad, and he had a further proviso as to what was going to be the attitude of the Irish people with regard to a war hereafter. He asked if our representatives abroad made it quite clear to the Governments to which they were accredited, and used their influence throughout the countries to which they were accredited, to see that the sympathetic consideration of those people should be given to the Irish people's wish that in any war hereafter they should be neutral. I would not like to determine at this moment what will be the Irish people's attitude in connection with any war hereafter, or to say that our representatives abroad should be given officially as part of their instructions a direction that they should embark upon an amount of propaganda for getting other nations sympathetic to Irish claims, so that in any war which occurs this country should be allowed to remain neutral. I do not know where this proviso as to what the Irish people will do afterwards comes in. I do not know if the Deputy is again searching his heart to find out what the people wish. I do not know that we, as an Executive Council, holding office for a number of years, should set out on a course of conduct which would be nothing more or less than broadcasting to outside nations, say, to the United States of America, all the propaganda which the Deputy tries to put out through his own partisans when they are sent there.
The Minister for Agriculture referred to one statement that has been made. Are we to have it broadcast by representatives of ours that it was a statement made in this country in the past that if certain votes were not cast in a certain way war was going to be carried on by coloured troops in this country? That is not the purpose for which any Government I know uses its foreign representatives. It seems to be a peculiar situation that the representatives abroad should be criticised for trying to picture to the people in the countries where they live what the conditions are that operate here. That can be very simply expressed. They state that the Treaty was signed. They state that there were Articles of Agreement for the Treaty, and that these Articles were passed in a particular way. They state that under that elections were held and that certain results were achieved in those elections. They state what seems to them to be the position of the Free State, say, in America, and that is open to criticism by anybody who believes that the statement is wrong; it is open to criticism amongst a well-informed section of the American populace that might be listening to them. But that these people should go out of their way simply to say that we have only surface co-equality, that we did not sign or accept the Treaty voluntarily, would be a strange thing for people to do who held back to any tradition that the Dáil had accepted the Treaty and that the Treaty position was secured, not as Deputy O'Connell, by an incidental remark, seemed to insinuate, by any British Act, but by an Act of a previous Dáil, an Act of the people voting in the Dáil.
I am asked by Deputy Lemass—I am not sure if I am asked by Deputy de Valera—that I should go into a discussion as to the routine activities of the Department, or the trade activities of the Departmental official abroad. Deputy Lemass certainly did ask me; in fact, Deputy Lemass put it in this way, that I had stated that information could not be given, and he said that surely as these representatives, who are paid out of this Vote, had been doing something the House should be able to have details given to it. I have avoided giving details in this case, and I think Deputy de Valera understood the reasons perfectly well, because I said that there was a certain reorganisation on foot, that hereafter the details of that reorganisation would come before the House, and that that would be the time to go into the routine activities of the Department as to the general line upon which representatives abroad work. I do not think that information could be given until the reorganisation is carried through.
Information in the form of reports is circulated to Deputies as to the activities of foreign representatives, mainly in trade, but sometimes in other matters. I do not think that there would be any good in having two debates. What is the good of taking up the Geneva office, the Brussels office or the Paris office, if, as has been outlined, the Paris office, which now consists merely of a trade representative, is going to be extended into something else? The time, surely, for a discussion of that will come when a definite proposal for the extension of that office is before the House, and similarly with Brussels. It might be asked if there was to be no other Vote asked for in this matter. Why go through figures which are really before the House in the published returns that are issued to Deputies? If I went into these figures with regard to, say, the Brussels office, if the Brussels office is going to be substantially changed, if it is to be put under new direction, if there is going to be any change, either in the status or the method of control, the time to discuss that would come later, when a Supplementary Estimate comes up. But even then I view with horror a situation in which I would be asked to state the routine activities of the Departmental officials abroad. I rather hope that what are described as routine activities will be put before the House in reports, circulated either yearly or at other periods, according to whatever material can be handled.
I am making no promise with regard to the future, until I see what staffs will handle the information and how it can be best presented to the House. If anyone wanted to see what the routine activities of the Department are it would merely be a matter of visiting the headquarters office, or some of the offices abroad. Nobody could pretend to cover in a speech all the petty details of the ordinary office, either for trade representatives or diplomatic representatives abroad, and I hope that reports will not be clogged up with statements as to more definitely routine things. In addition to that there have been statements made in various discussions as to what are the general lines on which the office works. I had taken for granted that these would have been adverted to previously and that all that the Minister would be expected to state in succeeding years would be important changes or new directions in the line of procedure. I do not at all agree that there is any evasion in the statement that reorganisation is on foot. Progress brings about reorganisation. The old organisation of the Department was as it was when it was first taken in hands, and unless people were to advert immediately to gathering together a staff and the setting up of an organisation outside any activities that were previously foreshadowed, I do not see how any other circumstance could arise than that before us now, namely, that the consideration of matters now to be handled by the Department necessitates the employment of more staff, the placing of people in more definite positions, the change in the status of certain office representatives, and the fiting of the whole situation, office, office equipment and staff, to the new duties, or the duties we now seem to have accumulated and which require attention.
Similarly several people have asked, with regard to trade representatives, if an effort has been made to obtain alternative markets. There seems to be a peculiar confusion of thought with regard to this question of alternative markets. I do not know that anybody is going to demand that people should be sent abroad having as their instructions that at the moment the certain flow of our exports is towards a certain market, and that that must be changed whether alternative markets offer better possibilities or worse. It is a question of a relation and comparison, and it is amazing the enthusiasm there is for alternative markets, whether or not the new countries that apparently are going to be opened up for our produce are going to offer equally good conditions, or worse conditions. It seems to me to be absurd. There has been an attempt made in a small way to secure other markets. All the results achieved can be seen year by year, or month by month, in the Trade Reports which are issued. These are things which should be looked to. I hope no one is foolish enough to rely on trade returns of imports and exports as the only evidence that can be given of the actions of our representatives abroad. There is a great deal more to be done abroad even than trade. There is a great deal more than trade or than what is called diplomatic relations to be looked after abroad. There is the collection of information for the Department, social legislation, methods of finance, methods of taxation, and status in various ways. It would be quite absurd and unfair to those who are abroad to take as some of their activities, or as evidence of their activities, the trade returns published from time to time, or even to take as evidence the activities of the trade representatives themselves.
Deputy O'Connell has asked about the Constitutional Committee. I am sure the Deputy realises the extreme importance of the matters set out under the three sub-heads in the Imperial Conference Report, and the points to be dealt with by the Committee, and realises the importance of having everything very definitely and clearly considered and all the material gathered together before a delegation from this country would go into such a Committee. It has taken a considerable amount of time to prepare. I might stress again what was stressed by the Minister for Defence, that, in so far as the third heading is concerned, we have a very definite position that the Colonial Laws Validity Acts have no relation to this country. I am having all the materials prepared to justify the position we have taken up. Obviously we did not take up that position without previous consideration, and arguments come up from time to time and have to be met. All the other Governments have exactly the same problem before them. The Deputy will admit that these are very grave constitutional points that have to be inquired into. The Deputy will know hereafter what is the attitude of the Free State representatives on such a Committee. In addition to the time required for preparation, there have been difficulties of a temporary nature with regard to this Constitutional Conference. I refer to the elections in other countries. We had our own election last year. That Committee is to meet next year, and the material with regard to it will probably be circulated to the Governments to be represented quite soon. We are certainly going to lose no time in getting that Committee together consistent with our own preparations and readiness to enter into its deliberations.
The Deputy referred to his experience at Toronto at an exhibition there, and to the fact that the Free State exhibit was a small one. In another Vote, already passed by this House, there is a certain sum given me for international exhibitions and fairs. It is a small sum of money, and was definitely made small for this reason: Up to date, when invitations have been issued with regard to participation in international exhibitions and fairs, the first thing to do is to find out how far industrialists and commercial firms here will support such an exhibition. Mainly the response has been very little; very, very disappointing. It is almost impossible to get industrialists and commercial people in this country to recognise the value of such exhibitions, and the small Vote asked for in the Department of Industry and Commerce is indicative of the success we have had in getting these people to agree to participate in exhibitions of the sort. In the matter of Balbriggan wear, to which reference was made, that is rather a technical thing. There have been decisions on some of these place-names under the Trade Marks Copyright and other Industrial Property Acts, which refer now not so much to the country of origin as to specific types of articles and types of fabrics. Whether this is a case in point I cannot say. I would have to have details of what the Deputy speaks of before me, and have them examined departmentally. The Deputy asks about the optional clause, and in connection with that I cannot do better than read what the Vice-President stated at Geneva on 10th September:
The delegate of Canada, Mr. MacKenzie King, on Friday last recalled to us that his country had, many years ago, agreed with the United States that any disputes that might arise between them should be settled by arbitration, and that, in fact, many disputes have been so settled. He added, to the gratification of the Assembly, that experience led the people of Canada to favour, in so far as Canadian questions were concerned, the reference to arbitration of all international disputes of a judicial or legal nature, and the settlement by methods of conciliation or arbitration of all other differences which might arise between Canada and any other nation.
He went on to say:
I do not hesitate to say that the Irish Free State is no less strongly in favour of arbitration than Canada.
That represents the general viewpoint of the Government with regard to the Permanent Court and the optional clause. That matter is being definitely considered and that marks the point reached in September. We hope to progress further in that respect later. Deputy O'Connell asked whether it was not expected that the trade representative in New York might be sufficient for Canada also. In so far as there has been consideration given to the question of Canada—and it has been definitely considered—the indication is not that we would be satisfied with a trade representative in New York for Canada also, or even that we should have merely in Canada a trade representative. I can go no further than that at the moment. Deputy Lemass wondered what was going to happen if our representatives at international conferences by their vote or by deliberations, or by what they said, brought about strained relations with Great Britain, and I think he asked—he certainly implied it if he did not put it explicitly—if the Free State Government would support them. I cannot understand the circumstances in which representatives of this Government would bring about strained relations with British representatives at an international conference, and that the Free State Government which appointed these representatives would not support them. I may not have taken down the Deputy's question correctly, but the context in which the phrase occurs implied that the Free State representatives who went to international conferences were always bound to agree with the British representatives. Again, that is a matter that can only be answered by pointing to the various discussions and conferences when there have been occasions on which there was a most definite disagreement, a disagreement which was maintained to the end, while still friendly relations were preserved. It is not improbable these things will happen again, when the Free State point of view at an international conference will be diametrically opposed to the attitude of the English representatives. But there is no reason why there should be strained relations simply because there is disagreement at international conferences. The Deputy asked a question, to which I have referred already: are we endeavouring to get sympathetic consideration for this State's neutrality? He spoke about neutrality in a future war, and about the attitude of the citizens in this country in a future war. I wonder would any man be brave enough to stand up and say what was the attitude of this State in the last big war?
What was the point of view which was expressed by the President on Deputy Carney, Deputy O'Reilly and Deputy Flinn in a compulsory capacity in uniform? What was the attitude of Deputy MacEntee, who wanted to get into uniform and missed his train? What was the attitude of a great many other people in this House who took up arms against the particular people who were fighting? Surely the situation changed. The situation in 1914, at the outbreak of the world war, was entirely different from the situation here in 1916, and from that on until the war ceased. Who is going to say what is going to be the attitude of this State towards a future war, and, again, who is going, with any assurance, to claim that only this country is to be guaranteed, alone of all other countries in the world, against participation in a future war? Who is going to say why we should be singled out? Deputy Kennedy, in reply to Deputy Law, said that our position under a Republic would leave us in a much stronger position than we are in at the moment. Deputy Law at any rate put up an argument—it may not be acceptable to Deputy Kennedy—that being associated in a certain capacity with certain nations we are strong in the matter of armies and navies, and that there was less chance of invasion than if this country had to rely on itself, as it would in the end, because treaties of neutrality and guarantees of neutrality do not count for much when war circumstances intervene.
Deputy Lemass referred to the alternative markets, a point to which I referred, and went on to refer to the importance of Soviet Russia and the sale of herrings to that country, about which Deputy Mullins afterwards got so lyrical. I am not at all sure that this country cannot sell all the herrings it has to Russia. If it is found that the absence of some diplomatic relations prevents herrings being sold to the Russian population who are ready to pay for them, I would like to have that made clear to me. On the only occasion on which a business proposition came up to me from people interested in Russia, it was framed in such a way that it could not be classed as a business one at all, and it failed on that ground. Even on that occasion there was never any question about the absence of a trade representative or a diplomatic representative, or of the absence of any treaty with Russia or of any part of it. Deputy Lemass made the insinuation that if we could get the permission of our Imperial masters we could have a resumption of trade with Russia. There is no permission necessary for anything we have to sell to Russia if she wishes to purchase and pay for it. The best way to test that is, let us get a decent, sound, economic proposition and see if it is going to be prevented by any outside agency or absence of trade relations, and let us see if in those circumstances we cannot proceed to link up with Russia in a definite way.
Someone afterwards said—I think it was Deputy Mullins—that a Cork factory was to have the monopoly of the supply of tractors. I do not know where the monopoly is to be secured to the Cork factory with regard to the supplying of tractors anywhere. There is one firm reckoned to be the main firm for manufacturing tractors here, but that it has the sole right of sale to any country outside I have yet to learn. Deputy Esmonde was disappointed that I had only referred to one or two items with regard to what I call the advance made internationally this year. I could not refer to the Bremen or to the visit of the Chief Justice to the States, although these were two events of great importance, because I was only dealing with things which have some connection with the State as a State. Although it is true that we were connected with the flight across the Atlantic, and that it was an important thing that the Chief Justice should be invited to America by the Bar Association of America, those are not matters which appertain to the Department of External Affairs.
On the matter of civil aviation, Deputy Esmonde was anxious that the convention referred to in the last portion of the Annexe to the Treaty should be concluded at once. The convention does not hold up the development of civil aviation. What holds it up is the want of money, and it is impossible in the present condition of things, I think, to look for any new money for civil aviation development. It may be possible to get money for civil aviation by way of subvention by subtracting it from other Votes, and I am attempting to have that done, but if there is money for civil aviation the question of this convention does not arise. It only arises in certain circumstances, and these circumstances have nothing to do with civil aviation and its development.
Our relation with Australia is a matter which may have to be contio sidered hereafter, but these relations have to be taken in the order of their importance gauged on the facts before us, and although it is quite true that Australia holds a considerable number of our people we have interests of more immediate importance in countries other than Australia. The Deputy may rest assured that the question of Australia as a member of the Commonwealth of Nations will not be lost sight of.
The Privy Council was referred to by Deputy Esmonde and some other Deputies. There has been a change in the situation with regard to the Privy Council. That particular situation. which was not very clear early, was very much clarified at the 1926 Imperial Conference. There is a very definite statement made in that which Deputy Esmonde quoted in a question which he put to me some days ago:—"That it was no part of the policy of his Majesty's Government in Great Britain that questions regarding appeals should be determined otherwise than in accordance with the wishes of the portion of the Empire primarily affected."
Then there are changes to be considered, and we reserve our right to bring up the question again, but meanwhile and all the time that declaration I read stands, and that is the declaration upon which we found any course of conduct we may take with regard to appeals generally and the right of specific appeal. Deputy Hogan raised a point, I think, as to whether we were represented on one appeal which was taken before the Privy Council. We may have different views on different cases. The Deputy says we do not recognise the court. It is not right to say that we have held that attitude always. There was a definite statement made here certainly when the Lynham and Butler case was being considered. There was a definite type of case in which it might be considered for years to come, while certain implications to the Treaty were being considered, that it was right to allow certain appeals to go before the Privy Council. That situation has changed definitely by the attitude of the people who granted the right of appeal where it did not seem right to us it should be granted. There is a changing situation which has to be met in different ways.
Deputy Mullins thinks that Ambassadors sent from this State are only shams and hypocrites. That opinion may carry weight with some people who may regard the Deputy as an authority on ambassadors, on shams and hypocrites, but it will not hold against facts. The facts are that representation abroad has been found to be very useful and to have beneficial results for this State, both from a status and a trade point of view. The only suggestion which, I think, Deputy Mullins made was that we should appoint trade representatives to Russia. His whole speech seemed to proceed on the basis that if we had a trade representative there it would be his business to sell fish to the Russians. That is not the business of a trade representative, who generally has to tackle trade questions, to clear up difficulties, and to make it easier for traders to trade with particular countries, but not to become recipients of cargoes of certain goods and to proceed to unload them on the Russian or any other market. The Deputy, having the view that ambassadors are no good, and that a trade representative in Russia might be good, is completely out of touch with modern thought on these matters, because most nations have come to the conclusion that diplomatic representation, including, as it does, trade and commercial representation, is a much better type of representation than merely trade representation. The diplomatic agent, who is in direct touch with the Government of a country, must be of greater value to his country than a particular type of representative who cannot get into direct touch with such Government.
The situation will change according to the relative importance of a country and its trade, or according to the diplomatic matters that have to be dealt with. Deputy Kennedy asked a question as to foreign litigants. That is not any part of the Department's business. I thought he was referring to people here having some right of action against people abroad. The Department does not act as a legal adviser to people in this country who think they have a right of action or a claim on property abroad. There might be questions arising out of a particular case which it would be the duty of the Department to clear up. If an individual case does arise it is the duty of the people concerned to have legal representatives who will probably have legal agents abroad who could be briefed on the matter, and they could get the situation cleared up in that way.
Deputy Cooney was very angry with my reference to sandwich-men. I have no attitude, either of disdain or contempt, with regard to them. The Deputy asked a foolish question. He apparently thought that he discovered a mare's nest and that people were being forbidden for political purposes to carry sandwich-boards. I found out that the reason they were prohibited was because they did not obey the police regulations in regard to them, and I told the Deputy that that type of subject was more in his line than diplomatic representation. I might say the same to Deputy Corry, who gave us an example of the motley and whose remarks, though they may have amused himself, lowered the tone of the whole debate and the dignity of the House. He said that the Minister for Finance had to borrow money to provide funds for these expenses. If he has to borrow, it is not to meet these expenses. They are ordinary expenses which have to be met out of taxation, and if there is borrowing it will be for another purpose.
In reply to the observations of Deputy Lemass in regard to visas, I may mention that the total expenditure of the Department was £48,000. Receipts from passports were £11,000, and there is a sum of £850 for rents receivable for the letting of part of the High Commissioner's offices. There is, in addition, a sum of £13,000 from visas collected by means of revenue stamps, and that amount appears in the accounts of the Revenue Commissioners. Last year the amount received was about £11,000. As I say, the estimated receipts from that source will reach £13,000. That is not shown here, because it is credited in some way to the accounts of the Revenue Commissioners.
