Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 9 Apr 1930

Vol. 34 No. 6

In Committee on Finance. - Vote 66—External Affairs—(Resumed).

Question again proposed:—

"That a sum not exceeding £39,822 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for External Affairs, and of certain services administered by that office."

Debate resumed on the following motion:—

That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration.

(Deputy Lemass).

Mr. Little

I would like to approach the subject in a spirit of sweet reasonableness and rather in an atmosphere of trying to get both sides of the House to understand each other's point of view. In every normal country an attempt is made by the chief parties to arrive at some sort of a common understanding of differences. There is a good example of that to be had from the Naval Conference sitting in London. Discussions over different matters there led to a private conference between the members. I do not suggest that any arrangement of that sort would be possible in this country, but at least in public we should try to understand each other's point of view, in order to be able to get the best possible advantages for the nation out of the situation.

I do not want to deal with this Estimate in a small or a higgling way or as a captious critic, but rather as one who would look at the Estimate and agree to give the Government the benefit of the doubt; even to suggest that from their point of view, judging by their activities, they have done as much as could be expected of them. One must deal with the matter largely from the point of view of a question of policy and not of detail. One must deal with it, not from the point of whether we should have one consul here or whether there is too much expenditure on minor details, but from the point as to whether the Government is doing the best it can. I have no doubt there will be a fundamental difference in the points of view expressed here. We happen to be among the nations —at least fifty per cent. of the nations in Europe—that want a revision of Treaties, and it does not matter whether it is the Versailles Treaty, the Treaty of Trianon or the Anglo-Irish Treaty. We, the Fianna Fáil Party, want a revision of our Treaty, and there is nothing very violent or subversive in that attitude of mind. We are representatives of the people, and we are taking part in the proceedings in the Dáil in so far as it represents the people, and we want to use it to the best advantage for the achievement of complete freedom for the country. It is the normal thing in Europe that a nation should move towards securing a revision of Treaties wherever a revision is considered necessary. It is really here lies the difference between the two parties. The Government does not take that point of view. They accept things as they are. They accept the Treaty as the basis beyond which they cannot go. Our attitude is clearly different to that, and it becomes our duty in this debate to see that our opinion is clearly expressed—and that we do not agree with the Government in the pursuit of their policy.

In the discussion on this question last year, when the matter of partition was raised by Deputy O'Kelly, the answer was put forward by Deputy O'Connell that when France lost Alsace-Lorraine the loss of Alsace-Lorraine did not destroy the sovereignty of the French nation. The Minister for External Affairs agreed with that point of view. Then he moved from that and said that the only criticism that had been made upon the Estimate had been criticism of minor details, that there had been no statement of the case from the point of view of larger policy. We disagree with that example about France, because it does not complete the picture. To complete the picture, one would have to suppose that France had been so beaten by Germany in 1870 that not only had it partitioned France to the extent of taking over Alsace-Lorraine, but that also it had imposed upon France the suzerainty of the German Kaiser; and, together with that, that it had provided that in the carrying out of external affairs the credentials of French foreign representatives and the exequaturs of consuls would have to be signed by the Kaiser.

Mr. McGilligan

Did that happen here?

Mr. Little

I am quite open to receive further information from the Minister. I gathered from what I read that he said last year that the credentials are signed by the head of the State. Did he mean by the head of the State the Governor-General or the King?

Mr. McGilligan

What about the exequaturs of the consuls?

Mr. Little

We will come to that in a minute. In the case of credentials for the diplomatic representatives, they are signed, I take it, by the King.

Mr. McGilligan

Yes.

Mr. Little

I am just pursuing the analogy. Would any sensible person, looking at the matter from outside, say that under those circumstances France had all the attributes of a sovereign independent State? Again, in relation to the negotiation of treaties, there is a distinction implied in the Report of the Imperial Conference of 1926. It is there laid down first of all that, just as in matters of defence, so in matters of diplomatic relations, the main functions must rest where they are— that is, with the British Government.

Mr. McGilligan

Would you give us the quotation? This is an important matter.

Mr. Little

Certainly. The question is dealt with on page 25 of the Imperial Conference Report of 1926. It is headed, "General Conduct of Foreign Policy," and it says:—

"We went on to examine the possibility of applying the principles underlying the Treaty resolution of the 1923 Conference to matters arising in the conduct of foreign affairs generally. It was frankly recognised that in this sphere, as in the sphere of defence, the major share of responsibility rests now, and must for some time continue to rest, with his Majesty's Government in Great Britain."

Mr. McGilligan

"For some time."

Mr. Little

I am very glad to hear the Minister say "for some time," because the more he says those things the more harmony we are going to get on foreign affairs.

Mr. McGilligan

It is well to understand it.

Mr. Little

There is a further distinction made later on in the Report, where it is stated:—

"We felt that the governing consideration underlying all discussions of this problem must be that neither Great Britain nor the Dominions could be committed to the acceptance of active obligations except with the definite assent of their own Governments."

That is to say, the British Government can take the initiative in agreeing to a treaty, and then get the assent of the Dominions, but I do not see anywhere that any one of the Dominions has the power to take the initiative in making a treaty. If it did, it would have to get the consent of Great Britain.

Mr. McGilligan

The facts are against you.

Mr. Little

I can assure the Minister that I welcome every fact that is against my contention. I think it is only right that at every step in this procedure we should emphasise our own point of view in order that the nation may get the best out of it, from the point of view of pro gress towards our independence. The Minister must appreciate that it is of immense assistance to him, in making any effort he wants to make to find in this Dáil a party which represents a very large proportion of the people, and to find in the country a large number of people who continue to demand the sovereign independence of this country. Instead of taking up an attitude which is not in the best temper, he should rather welcome and encourage that attitude of mind.

Mr. McGilligan

What about the consuls now?

Mr. Little

The Minister says that in the matter of treaties of this sort the facts are against us. I should like to know what are the delimitations of the powers of the Dominions to enter into treaties without consultation with Great Britain. That is a question I should like the Minister to clear up. What are the new conditions in the terms of appointment of representatives and in the case of exequaturs?

Mr. McGilligan

You have it there. Exequaturs are dealt with in that Report.

Mr. Little

In the 1929 Report?

Mr. McGilligan

In the 1926 Report.

Mr. Little

In the discussion last year the Minister mentioned that some change was going to be made.

Mr. McGilligan

On that point?

Mr. Little

I am not quite sure.

Mr. McGilligan

I said it had been made.

Mr. Little

Would the Minister refer me to the section?

Mr. McGilligan

I have not got a copy of the Report here, but if the Deputy will let me have his copy I will refer him to the section.

Mr. Little

I do not want to score points. I will leave that question over for the time being. I should like to know, however, if the 1929 Report will in any way affect the credentials to be issued in future. One may say that these are only matters of detail, but it all depends on how one approaches the details. If one approaches them merely from the point of view of being satisfied with the framework of the Treaty as the final aim, it is difficult to take up the attitude of approaching these details in order to get rid of them one by one, in order that finally the sovereignty of the Dáil, in so far as it represents the people, may be brought to harmonise and to be coincident with international sovereignty.

We are at a phase in international affairs at present. These phases alternate. At one period, as is pointed out by Mahan, who was formerly a great authority on sea-power, you have a phase of war, followed by a phase in which each country tries to dominate the whole situation by means of tact, by means of diplomacy, by means of treaties, and, as a colleague says beside me, by means of bluff. That, again, alternates with preparation for other wars. Each nation during this phase tries to get the best it can out of the situation. It tries to get the greatest amount of security out of the situation. Thus, normally, nations which have the attributes of sovereign independence try to get alliance with other countries which are strong and which will keep them secure. We see that going on every day at present in the Naval Conference, where France is trying, by alliance, to get the greatest amount of security against her opponents. Likewise, we should look about and see where we can get the greatest strength, so that when times of war come again we shall be in a position of security and safety.

That is why I feel that alliance with countries like the Dominions, which are very scattered, which are very far away, and which have very little really effective power in time of crisis, cannot give us the same strength as would be given us if we were in a position to enter into treaties on our own initiative, treaties which would protect us and secure our freedom against the only country which ever threatened it— Great Britain; treaties with such powers as America or France, which would be much closer to us and could afford us much more strength. That is in the natural course of diplomacy, but it is only thought to be something in the nature of rainbow-chasing, because we will not think in terms of the historic Irish nation. In his speech last year the Minister showed that he was quite capable of taking a certain point of view in regard to the historic attitude. He referred to Owen Roe O'Neill and to the historic efforts towards independence. He showed, at least, that he was aware that that was the historic demand. There is no reason, therefore, why reasonable Irishmen should not take up the attitude that is most in consonance with the historic one. We should not look merely within the confines of an Empire which, to say the best of it, is the product of a culture different to ours and which has a different set of traditions. Would anybody suggest that Norway, Sweden, Denmark or Holland would gain anything by coming into the British Commonwealth of Nations? The reductio ad absurdum of the suggestion is contained in Bernard Shaw's play “The Applecart,” where, on the suggestion of an Irishman, America is supposed to come inside the circle of the British Empire. It has only to be stated to see at once the difference between a sovereign independent State and the status of one of the sister nations within the dominions of the Empire. If anybody, looking back on history, would say that from the point of view of expediency, from the point of view of prudence, it was a wise thing for the Irish people at any stage to have agreed to allow British interference in this country he need only look at the next chapter of Irish history to see the deplorable effects of that policy. We are entitled to argue from our past history in order to prove that. Therefore, I conclude by saying that the most prudent and most expedient thing for Irish statesmen to do is to use every effort to get out of this country, north and south, any kind of interference from outside and to establish complete sovereign independence.

Mr. T. Sheehy

I wish to remind the House that we are at the parting of the ways. We have either to uphold the Treaty in all its clauses or to follow Deputy O'Kelly, who told us the other day that we were only a miserable spot on the Atlantic, that we had no status, no hold one way or the other in the world with our friends, and that the safest policy for this nation was to remain isolated and cut away from the world. That is the policy that was put forward some days ago by Deputy O'Kelly, who would rather have us go back to the Stone Age than to assert the independence and freedom which we have under the Treaty. I certainly think that there will be very few who will vote for the cutting off of our relations with the Holy See, or with that great Republic of the West which has sent an Ambassador here, knowing well that when they were fighting for liberty a century ago this old nation of ours sent its sons to shed their blood under the star-spangled banner and under the leadership of George Washington, this nation which sent its sons to fight on the heights of Fontenoy to avenge the wrongs done to this country. According to the programme of the Opposition, we are to turn no more from the ashes, not even to protect that glorious band of missionaries from the Free State who are teaching and spreading the Gospel around the Equator, in darkest Africa, in the jungles of India, those holy priests, sons of St. Patrick, apostles following his example in the plains of China, away in Japan, around the Southern Seas and beneath the Southern Cross.

In all these countries do they require the countenance of their own great nation behind them? I appeal to the Dáil to pass this Vote in its entirety. It is nonsense to say that we have no status as a nation. We have our representative at the League of Nations, and there he will stay until the last trumpet sounds, showing that, so far as this nation is concerned, the nation which the Opposition are trying to belittle before the world is advancing steadily in influence and power, and is respected from one end of the globe to the other for the manner in which it took up the responsibility of nationhood cast upon it nine years ago. It is an example to other nations as to how they should grapple this great project, and how the work of Michael Collins and Arthur Griffith has been taken up by a gallant band of young Irishmen, the Executive Council, who, at the imminent risk of their lives, rallied round the cradle of the infant State.

I was astonished at the meeting of the Dáil on Thursday to find that any Deputy with a spark of patriotism could forget that these young Irishmen stood with their lives in their hands to protect the heritage won for us by Collins and Griffith, and the brave young men of 1916.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is wandering from the Estimate.

Mr. Sheehy

I will come back to the point at issue. I say that so far as the different items in this Estimate are concerned, there is not one that could be expunged. The Vote is intended for the protection of the interests and honour of this nation in the council of world nations, and I am confident that the Dáil will carry it with unanimous vote, outside our friends opposite.

Mr. Cassidy

There are a few questions I want to put to the Minister. He will probably recollect that on the 28th March, 1928, I drew his attention to a Bill passed by the Six-County Parliament, the Unemployment Insurance (Amendment) Bill, 1928. I would like to point out that Section 7 of that Bill lays down that applicants for unemployment insurance benefit must have been resident in the United Kingdom for a period of three years immediately preceding the date of application for benefit. The Minister, in reply, told me that the proposal of the Six-County Government appeared to be inconsistent with the International Covenants regarding reciprocal arrangements in respect of unemployment insurance. I would like to know whether the Minister brought the matter up at Geneva, and, if so, what was the result. Would he also say what, if any, negotiations took place either at the Imperial or any other conference in regard to the Lough Foyle Fisheries? Would he also tell us what is the position in regard to reciprocal arrangements as to unemployment insurance between Great Britain and this country? These are three questions which I trust the Minister will answer in his reply.

Mr. Moore

There will be general agreement, I think, in relation to this Estimate that we are dealing with the most unpopular Department of the State. Its unpopularity is not confined to any section of the people, neither to the rich nor to the poor, neither to the educated nor the uneducated, neither to the opponents of the Government nor to its followers. All over the country there is nothing but scorn for the very existence of this Department. People tell you that the country is far too poor to be indulging in window-dressing of this kind, that we have not sufficient interests abroad to justify the spending of money on foreign representatives, and that the only purpose of the Department is to spend money in ways which are not the most useful nor the most necessary to the State. When you point out that other small countries spend a great deal more than this country you are met with the remark, in the case of whatever country you are speaking about, that that was Denmark's affair, Belgium's affair or Holland's affair, and that in any case these countries can speak for the whole of their people, whereas we can only speak for a limited section. You are told, also, that so far as the influence of these foreign representatives in international politics is concerned, the only influences that count are armaments and money, and that as we have practically no armaments and very little money, our influence must necessarily be very small. That unpopularity has not decreased in recent times and, in my opinion, unless economic conditions improve no Government that may be in power will be able to keep the Department in operation.

I think it is very likely that there will be in the near future a big demand for closing down the Department and to stop the expense that has been incurred. We on this side of the House would not altogether welcome that development, and it seems to me that the only possibility of getting the Department at all popular in the country is if it could be shown that it may have a certain influence in bringing partition to an end. If it could be shown that our diplomatic representatives abroad have any influence with regard to that question, that they can interest the British Government, that they can so impress the British Government with its responsibility in the matter, or make it an international question generally, so that the re-uniting of the country would be accomplished, then I believe that the people would accept the Department as a useful Department, because nobody needs to be told that the one thing that is dear to the hearts of the people is the possibility of a reunion between North and South.

In connection with the partition question, I think the Minister might tell us in what way the facts of that position are being presented to other countries. It may seem a rather unnecessary question to ask. It may seem that there can be no difference of opinion as to how the facts can be presented. It may seem that it is a matter of history which is so recent that it can be only described in one way, that there is no possibility of a difference of opinion as to who is responsible for partition, for bringing it about and maintaining it. But the present Minister for Defence, speaking on the Estimate for External Affairs in November, 1928, said:

"I do not think it would be good propaganda for a country that has struggled so long as we have for self-determination to say that while we approve of self-determination for our own country, we do not approve of it for the Six Counties."

I wonder if that extraordinary statement would be subscribed to by the present Minister? Are the facts of the partition question being presented in that way by our representatives abroad when they speak on that question? If so, I suggest, in relation to that part of their duties, anyhow, they are doing a lot more harm than good. Yet the author of that statement was Minister for External Affairs for some years, and I presume those who acted under him at the time were instructed to represent to foreign nations that the awful crime of partition was the act of the people themselves; that no fault was found with it on the part of the Free State or any other part of the country. If that is the case it suggests an extraordinary state of things. It does look as if the Minister, in order to get a reputation for being in favour of the principle of self-determination, was prepared to misrepresent the facts with regard to the partition of Ireland. Assuredly that would not be a good bargain. Another remark of the same Minister would seem, in my opinion, to suggest that the Government attached very little importance to the fact that the country is partitioned. "I do not understand," he said, "what is to be gained by saying that partition effectively deprived this country of the advantage of independence." That statement looks particularly light-hearted with regard to the most important problem of the country. Whatever may be thought of the form of independence we possess, assuredly it is not open to the Minister to say that partition has not effectively deprived the country of the advantages of independence. A statement that the support of two armies, two police forces, two Governments, two Governors-General and a Customs border-line of about 200 miles does not effectively deprive the country of the advantage of independence, can only come from a man who lives in a world of dreams and who has no appreciation of the national dissatisfaction on the subject.

Another question arises in the same connection. Every day there are reports in the Press as to the hard way in which the minority in the Six Counties is being treated. Only last Saturday it was reported that Mr. J.S. Stewart, one of the Nationalist members in the Northern Parliament, said at Dungannon: "There is nothing staring us in the face but the policy of extermination of our people pursued by the Northern Government." Even allowing for exaggeration, it must be the case, I think, that the Nationalists in the Six Counties are having a very uncomfortable time, that life is being made very hard for them, that they are being driven out of that territory as fast as they can be got out of it. Are we to conclude that the Government here have no power, even though they are on the most friendly relations with Great Britain, even though they are never tired of insisting that everything the country requires can be gained by peaceful methods, that diplomatically they have no right to represent to Great Britain that our people in the Six Counties must be protected, that they must be given a reasonable chance to live there, and that we require equality for them? It must be remembered that when the Treaty was being discussed in Great Britain in 1922 promises were made that England would lend all her influence towards uniting the North and South of Ireland.

One of the signatories to the Treaty, I think, made the statement —"in return for a United Empire, we undertake to help Sinn Fein leaders towards a united Ireland." I know that the following statement was made by one of the signatories to the Treaty:

"If Ulster chooses to join with her fellow-countrymen in the Government of Ireland, we are sure that this would be a great advantage to the general interests of the British Empire as a whole, to the interests of all Ireland, to the special interests of Ulster. This opinion we feel bound to proclaim, and we are fully entitled to make sure that our legislation and our policy contain nothing that shall be a barrier to such an ultimate consummation."

And he later on said:

"I do not believe myself that if Irish Republicans have consented to swear allegiance to the British Crown and Empire in the terms which are set forth, I do not believe they have done so out of fear of a renewal of warfare, but it is in the hope that by so doing they will render possible that unity of North and South of their country for which more than anything else in the whole of this settlement they care."

Well, it looks as if the British leaders at that time, anyhow, appreciated that the union between North and South was something for which they had some responsibility, and if these promises are worth anything, I think we might be told whether the Government of Great Britain is being reminded of them. I know that in regard to diplomacy it is very difficult for those responsible to discuss such questions in a Parliament, but I do say again with regard to this whole Department that if it could be shown that our representatives in other countries can help towards re-uniting Ireland, either by their influence with the British Government or their influence in international affairs, if they are making that question a live issue and can show that they are helping towards the achievement of unity, then I think the Department would be saved a lot of the unpopularity that, so far as I can see, is rapidly growing with regard to it.

It is one thing, however, to ask for information; it is another thing to get it. Judging from previous experience, I do not expect to get very much information or to get any reply to my queries. I expect there will be a reference, however, to my inferior intelligence as if everybody in the House had not, long since, taken that for granted. I expect there will be more of these heartrending efforts at Churchillian smartness, the Minister apparently forgetting that Churchill has the advantage of centuries of special breeding and tradition. The Minister attaches altogether too much importance to sneers and jeers as part of his duties. Every sensible man knows that jeers and sneers are merely the fig leaf of the upstart. I think it is a pity that a Department which could be so useful to the people, which could confer such great benefits on the country, both internally and externally, should be in the hands of a Minister whose chief characteristics are his obtrusive vanity and shallowness of intellect, whose vulgar methods of debate are more suited for a pothouse than a Parliament, and whose low, ethical standards are a discredit to the Dáil. So long as these circumstances prevail, his Department can only be a laughing stock and a humiliation, and no one who values the good name of the country should vote 5/- for it.

Mr. T.J. O'Connell

Before this Vote is put there are a few questions I would like the Minister to clear up. In the first place, with regard to Deputy Little's reference to the analogy I made with France last year, I think Deputy Little will remember that he objected on that occasion to this country being referred to as "Ireland." I think it was a question of name that was in dispute.

Mr. Little

On a point of explanation, I was not present at that debate. I was down in Sligo-Leitrim.

Mr. O'Connell

Then it must have been someone else on those benches. I remember on that occasion I made an analogy that even though the provinces had been torn from France we still spoke of the country as "France."

I think Deputy Esmonde charged the Labour Party with being responsible for removing the Department of Propaganda from the External Affairs Vote. They were to some extent responsible for it, but the reasons put forward at the time was that this Vote, under the heading of External Affairs, was being used for internal propaganda rather than for external propaganda. It was on these grounds that they objected. Possibly, because there were good reasons for that objection, the objection was upheld.

I had some considerable sympathy with the Deputies who raised the point as to the reports—or, rather, to the lack of reports—from this Department, and I would like the Minister when replying to tell us whether in fact any reports have been received from diplomatic representatives abroad on political, social or economic questions that his Department would consider worthy of publication. No such reports have been made available to any great extent in any case, and I think that some of the unpopularity that Deputy Moore talks about and which I do not agree exists to the degree he says it does, would be removed if we had a greater knowledge of the work which representatives abroad are engaged in. I think that we hear altogether too little of their activities abroad. The general public do not get sufficient information as to what is being done by them. I thought we might have some information from the Minister on one matter—that is, the delay in the appointment of diplomatic representatives or extern Ministers from France and Germany. Our Ministers have been appointed there for some months now and there is no definite information yet as to when the German Ministers and French Ministers will be appointed here. I would like to know definitely if it is the intention of these countries to appoint Ministers Plenipotentiary in the same way as the Vatican Government and the American Government have appointed Ministers here. In that connection, I understand that in other countries it is usual to publish the correspondence that takes place between the respective Governments with regard to the exchange of diplomatic representatives. Will the Minister say if it is the intention to publish that correspondence with the British and Vatican Governments and also with Germany and France?

There is one other important question that I think was raised here during the debate. It would be well to have it cleared up. Reference was made to the presence at the Naval Conference of a representative of the Saorstát Government. I think it would be advisable if the Minister would explain what exactly his purpose is, and why he is there. Information as to the object of the presence of our representative in London at that Naval Conference should be given by the Minister on an occasion of this kind. I personally am not objecting to his presence there, but I believe that it would be advisable that the Minister should explain fully and clearly the reasons for his presence.

There is one other important matter that I would like to get information on. I believe that when the Saorstát Minister was appointed to Washington some years ago, he got a letter of introduction, and the letter was published afterwards, from the British Ambassador, which said that the appointment in no way departed from the principle of the diplomatic unity of the British Empire. I would like to know if, when our Ministers were appointed to other countries, France and Germany, any such statement was made by the British Ambassador; whether it was necessary to make it, and why it should be considered necessary to make a statement of that kind.

These are some points I hope the Minister will clear up when he is replying to this discussion. In so far as the main Vote is concerned, it is one of the Votes that we have, on these benches, always supported. We have criticised, and will continue to criticise its administration, but on the question as to whether or not there should be a Vote of this kind, we never had any doubt. We have none now, and that is the reason why, if I get satisfactory answers to the questions I have put, I am prepared to vote for the Estimate.

Mr. Kilroy

I would like to know if there is any possibility of anything being done for migratory workers. The constituency that I represent suffers very largely from that problem. A number of them go across to England and Scotland, and very many of them work at other employment than agricultural work. They come under the Unemployment Insurance Act and require to have cards stamped. A lot of money is paid into the British Exchequer in that way. I would like to know if there is any possibility of the Minister arriving at an arrangement whereby those people could get their unemployment insurance restored to them, so that they may be able to draw unemployment benefits while in Ireland. Most of them come home about Christmas and are unemployed for some months in the winter season.

Mr. McGilligan

I was very much struck by the attitude Deputy Little adopted on this Vote, for the first time, this year. I only hope that he was not present when his colleague, Deputy Lemass, was speaking, because the difference in tone between the two would certainly lead to disagreement between the two outside. If people had discussed this Vote in the spirit in which Deputy Little discussed it, drawing attention to points where they believed things were wrong, and seeking to get information, and asking what steps were being taken to improve matters, it would be well. Instead of that we get simply the back-street type of conversation that Deputy Lemass indulged in about people banqueting, getting places at dinners and discussions with colleagues at functions. That is the real type of back-street conversation—very far removed from the subject Deputy Little dealt with. Deputy Little had a difficulty about one point that was discussed in great detail last year. On the 5th June, 1929, Deputy de Valera raised this question as to the position with regard to exequaturs to foreign consuls. The discussion that took place last year is given in columns 871 and 872 of the Official Report. There I clearly pointed out that, in accordance with the 1926 Imperial Conference Report, for the future the only signature by way of counter-signature that would appear on documents in regard to consuls would be that of the Minister for External Affairs in this country.

Mr. Little

May I ask the Minister what exactly is the significance of the counter-signature? I take it there was the signature of the King and then the counter-signature of the Minister.

Mr. McGilligan

That is right. There was a point made that there was a British Minister's signature. There is no such thing.

Mr. Little

I gathered it was the King's signature, and from our general point of view we objected to that.

Mr. McGilligan

Deputy Little did not develop that point with regard to the question of credentials being signed by the King. Credentials or exequaturs to foreign Consuls are signed by the King on the sole advice of Ministers here. In that matter, so far as it affects this country, no defect has been discovered. If it were, however, discovered that there was any objection to our nominee or a reluctance to accept the people put up by us, then undoubtedly the whole co-equal fabric of the Commonwealth would be shattered. On page 25 of the Imperial Conference Report of 1926 we have a statement of the general conduct of foreign policy. The very words quoted mark a stage in the development of our relations with the Commonwealth. I will read one portion:—

"It was frankly recognised that in this sphere, as in the sphere of defence, the major share of responsibility rests now, and must for some time continue to rest, with his Majesty's Government in Great Britain."

Then it goes on:

"Nevertheless, practically all the Dominions are engaged to some extent, and some to a considerable extent, in the conduct of foreign relations, particularly those with foreign countries on their borders."

The whole tone of the document, not merely those words I have read and emphasised, indicates that there was a tide in these affairs, and that we simply marked the position as we found it at that particular period. I stressed to the Deputy "must for some time continue to rest" in order to emphasise the transitory nature of these provisions. It is quite clear that, coming suddenly into this sphere of operations and engaging in the task of sending representatives abroad, we cannot cover with representatives of our own all the places where nationals of ours are gathered together in any numbers. We could not, therefore, have representatives to act as a diplomatic channel for conversations between the Government of this country and the Government of every other country, and, therefore, we did recognise a special relationship with the associated States of the Commonwealth and agreed that we would use British Consuls abroad. But if a British Consul ever interferes with regard to an Irish national, he does it only in the particular instance in which he is requested to do so by this Government. That may last for some time.

Similarly with the question of defence. The position is as marked down, and for some time will be so, on account of the annexe to the Treaty, which has not yet been cleared up definitely. If the Deputy thinks the phrases imply any control by a foreign Government—I am stressing the word "Government" as opposed to the King—over what this Government wants to do, then I would like him to pursue his inquiries still further and bring forward, as I asked, all his suspicions and elevate them for the purpose of argument to the region of certainty so that we may have them examined. Where it is a matter of the King there is interference only at the request of, and on the advice of, Ministers here. I think that answers the points that the Deputy raised. There are others, but I think they are all founded more or less on that same principle.

Mr. Little

Might I put it to the Minister—it is not a question of suspicion but of clearing up a point and getting further information— could the Free State enter into a Treaty with the United States independent of the British Government?

Mr. McGilligan

I might answer "certainly" to that. But let us understand the words "independent of." We have a note here, "Procedure in Relation to Treaties." on page 20 of the 1926 Report which states: "It was agreed in 1923 that any of the Governments of the Empire contemplating the negotiation of a Treaty should give due consideration to its possible effect upon other Governments and should take steps to inform Governments likely to be interested of its intention." The Deputy earlier used the word "initiate." We can initiate a discussion with any country we like with regard to a Treaty. If the words "independent of" mean that we should not consult, in the sense that we should not inform, certain people of our intention to enter into Treaty negotiations with another nation, then the words "independent of" are not properly used. We have agreed that we would inform, but agreement to inform does not carry with it any right of other Governments to object, or enter amendments or to distort the whole value of the proposed Treaty. That is completely out of the question. Even as it stands, it is an agreement from which at a future Imperial Conference any Government, if it thinks fit, can withdraw. That was the outstanding point which the Deputy spoke of.

Deputy O'Connell and Deputy Lemass raised the question of the Free State representative at the Naval Conference. Again the attitude of Deputy O'Connell is in striking contrast to the attitude of Deputy Lemass in this.

Mr. Little

I really think the Minister will force me the next time I am speaking on the subject to make quite a different type of speech if he is going to use me as a stick to beat other members of the Party.

Mr. McGilligan

The contrast I have been attempting to make is between Deputy O'Connell and Deputy Lemass. Deputy Little is out of it this time. Deputy O'Connell asked simply what was the purpose. What did Deputy Lemass do? He referred to the newspaper report of the people attending the Five Power Naval Conference and immediately had his argument shattered by an ordinary interjection of "Who called it that?" He tried to elevate some American humorist's report as to some remarks which Professor Smiddy made into a serious argument, and asked "What policy is Professor Smiddy following; from whom is he taking instructions?" He went on to say that "At this meeting at Buckingham Palace his Majesty the King talked about our navy and its great traditions, and the Free State's voice was heard clearly and audibly in the assemblies of the world, through Professor Smiddy, thanking his Gracious Majesty for his gracious words." That is Deputy Lemass's attempt at an impartial review of what happened even on the opening day of the Conference.

Mr. Lemass

I did not say it was impartial.

Mr. McGilligan

Then I will say that it was an attempt to give a dishonest account of what happened on the opening day. That is accepted?

Mr. Lemass

It is not.

Mr. MacEntee

Say misleading.

Mr. Little

Say ex-parte.

Mr. McGilligan

I do not call it an ex-parte statement to take two lines from a report and quote them; to take the foolish comment of an American Pressman of how people spoke, not what they said; to get from nowhere the phrase "Five Power Conference," which has no authority for its use, and then to try and insinuate from that that our representative there was, as the Deputy afterwards said, a hostage in British hands, trailing along at their heels and saying whatever they liked. Professor Smiddy at the opening meeting said:

"As the representative of a small country which is one of the State's members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and is, as well, united by the closest bonds of blood and friendship with the great American Republic. I need hardly say how whole-heartedly my Government desire to see a successful issue to this Conference. Without armaments ourselves, we believe in the fundamental good-will of all Governments finally to bestow peace on their peoples. Such an achievement is an urgent necessity for the material and spiritual progress of mankind."

He ended by saying this:

"That will be the strong motive governing the work of all the delegates to this Conference, and it is the most earnest wish of the Government of the Irish Free State that it will lead them along the road towards the abolition of the crime of war."

A good pronouncement and a fair record of what Professor Smiddy said, not an attempt to distort his words, not a dishonest use of what Professor Smiddy did say. Professor Smiddy made that announcement on instructions received from here. He attends as the representative of this State and this State only. Deputy Lemass thinks his presence there will be taken as an admission that the Free State occupies in relation to Great Britain the position that any subordinate legislature occupies in relation to any superior legislature. The extraordinary fact of that Conference is that there are certain Governments who are definitely known to be in an inferior position to the Government of Great Britain, and they are not represented. They are the very ones kept away from the Conference. The people who are there are those clearly not in a subordinate position. Professor Smiddy has a place at the Conference. We saw to it that he should have a place at the Conference for the reasons stated in his opening speech, because we believe we have an interest in disarmament, and particularly in the limitation of navies. We would like to see that brought about. We believe that this country has extreme interest in all the things that Deputy Lemass derided—the humanising of warfare, the abolition of submarines, or if not that, their limitation, and the cutting down of armaments everywhere.

Deputy Lemass also wanted to know what was the Government's attitude to Privy Council appeals. He felt that the matter had been recently obscured by a certain amount of haziness. He proceeded on the basis of what he called certain deductions. He deduced that we are climbing down. Where is there any phrase used by any member of the Government which shows any change of attitude in regard to the Privy Council. No phrase was quoted from any of them—no newspaper account even. The Deputy cannot give any.

Mr. Lemass

I did not say that. I say that the fact that members of the Government are stressing the purely accidental objections to the Privy Council seems to indicate that they are no longer agitating for its abolition, but for an amendment of its constitution.

Mr. McGilligan

I want to get a quotation from any member of the Government in which the incidentals were stressed without at the same time there being remarks as to the Government's attitude clearly towards the Privy Council. People may have stressed additional arguments, but the whole basis of the claim is that the Privy Council should not exist in relation to this State. We have always said that; there has been no going back. No attempt that Deputy Lemass has made, by simply giving a series of deduction from speeches to which he does not even give a reference, can get away from the main fact that authoritative statements have been made in this House, and there will be no going back on these.

Deputy Lemass is also anxious about the Federation of British Industries and the Imperial Trades Conference. A document was referred to as if it were a binding document. It might interest the Dáil to know that the document is a statement sent round by the Federation of British Industries, a report made by the Federation to the British Preparatory Committee for the Imperial Conference, and not sent to us officially. Even if one is to go into detail, what does it set out? It sets out a certain number of principles. One is: "That the most urgent necessity exists for this country to take all possible steps to increase trade with the Dominions for the following reasons".... (2) "That in considering the problems of Inter-Imperial trade, it is essential to take into account the economic desires of the Dominions." In the first sub-head under that the Federation suggests: "That it is essential that the United Kingdom should realise that the Dominions are determined to possess as full an economic life as possible, and themselves develop manufacturing industries." They recommend in the end for the consideration of the next Imperial Conference the following suggestions: "(a) That steps should be taken to ‘rationalise' as far as possible Empire industrial production"; and in the paragraph under that it again refers not merely to the desire but the expressed intention and the practice of the Dominions to manufacture on as big a scale as possible. The document is a harmless one. It is quite an ordinary document for the Federation of British Industries to put up to a British Committee. It is introduced into the debate as if it was one of the Conference documents which was going to come forward for decision. The Deputy's summing up of the whole thing was that we should go in for live stock production, and leave industry to Great Britain, and he wanted to know is that our attitude. It is a question which should not be put, it is so clearly not our attitude. If that were our attitude, why were tariffs put on industries here? Has the Deputy had any indication recently that there is any regret about the tariffs put on? Will the Deputy give a quotation?

Mr. Lemass

The Minister for Agriculture made a speech at the National University to that effect.

Mr. McGilligan

The Minister for Agriculture was one of those who helped me to put on the tariff.

Mr. Aiken

For revenue.

Mr. McGilligan

Not for revenue.

Mr. Aiken

Largely for revenue.

Mr. McGilligan

Not largely for revenue. If the Deputy will get the account of the tariffed industries from 1924, even he could not arrive at the conclusion that they were put on for revenue purposes. It is quite clear that they were not put on for revenue. At the time they were put on, in connection with the one which was not supposed to have its full effect at once—the boot tariff—there was a remission of taxation made equivalent to the revenue likely to be received from the tax in the early years—a very definite remission of tax revenue to counterbalance it.

Mr. MacEntee

There has been, as a matter of fact, an increase in the sugar duty since, and there has been no corresponding diminution in any of the tariffs.

Mr. McGilligan

What does that mean?

Mr. MacEntee

Simply that the tariffs were put on for revenue, not for protection.

Mr. McGilligan

I do not see the point, but we will argue that out on a tariff debate. There were industries tariffed in this country, and our tariff policy cannot be obscured by the casual introduction into this debate of a document setting out the tariff policy of any federation of British industries. But Deputy Lemass will always rely on any document which proceeds from England.

We are told that the Deputy is afraid that the Imperial Conference will develop into an Empire Parliament. His view is that it should rather be kept for the purpose of consultation. I spoke at length on that point on the Conference Report of 1929, and pointed out that the mere fact that we brought the Report here for confirmation showed that we did not want to have any idea of control associated with the Imperial Conference. There is no intention of allowing that Conference to develop into anything in the nature of a Parliament, and there is no evidence that should lead anybody, except one who is dishonestly representing the matter, to that conclusion.

The Deputy again referred to the Conference proceeding on the codification of international law, particularly in two matters, nationality and territorial waters. He committed himself to the choice remark: that he did not say the Minister's policy was wrong, but that it should be known. In this he changes from his ordinary practice, which is to say, of our policy on anything, first, that it is wrong; and, second, to inquire what it is. In this he said he could only rely on the Press, and that the Press had proved unreliable. We will see for the future whether the Deputy will refrain from relying on the unreliable Press. As far as the Codification of International Law Conference is concerned, there are two or three subjects before it. As to the instructions that the Free State delegates will receive, it would take too much time to give them in detail. The Deputy, at any rate, again has to distort and give a wrong setting to the whole Conference by inquiring whether the Free State is supporting the traditional British attitude at the Conference or opposing it. There is no British traditional attitude that I know of in contrast to the traditional Continental attitude. If the Deputy will put a question as to the Free State supporting the Continental attitude at the Conference or of opposing it, even then I would not answer yes or no. I would say our delegates have instructions aimed at certain objectives, but they have to use discretion to get the best results possible out of the Conference.

Mr. Lemass

Does the Minister deny that it has not been the traditional policy of the British Government to oppose any claim to exercise sovereignty more than three miles from the coast? Is that attitude being supported by the Free State?

Mr. McGilligan

That is the British attitude and that is also the Continental attitude. That attitude is not rigidly being supported by our delegates. The instructions given to our delegates will be seen from the Conference report, if the Conference produces a report.

Mr. Lemass

Does the Minister not know what the attitude of the delegates will be until he gets the report?

Mr. McGilligan

I know the attitude which they have been asked to take up at the Conference, but I consider it undesirable to have the question raised here at this moment, and I do not propose to indicate the directions given to the delegates while the Conference is sitting. The matter of reciprocal unemployment insurance, particularly, and the matter of migratory labourers, has been raised by Deputy Cassidy and Deputy Kilroy.

Mr. Cassidy

I did not raise the question of unemployment insurance in connection with migratory labourers but agricultural labourers.

Mr. McGilligan

They are all the same.

Mr. Cassidy

No. The agricultural labourers are not insurable.

Mr. McGilligan

They are worse. There is no case for them at all.

Mr. Cassidy

Not for unemployment insurance. I said it was not an insurable occupation.

Mr. McGilligan

Therefore there is no case for it. As to the case of migratory labourers who might get work at an insurable occupation. Deputy Lemass has complained because we are not just paying benefit in these cases. This diplomatist, who is always so caustic about anything that anybody else may do in negotiations with a foreign State, suggests that pending the completion of other, and possibly better, arrangements we should give our whole case away by simply saying that we are going to pay the necessary money. No matter whether we get any repayment from the British out of the contributions that go into their fund—whether we get that or not we will pay £56,000. He asked a question as to the net cost of this proposal, and I replied that it would require about £35,000. The proposal made by the Deputy on the 26th March would cost to this country about £56,000. That is a very rough estimate. Nobody could state with certainty what it would be, because it will depend upon the period for which the people are employed on the other side, and in other circumstances, such as the number of those who go across. The estimate that we make is £56,000.

Mr. Lemass

The costs to the Unemployment Insurance Fund?

Mr. McGilligan

That is what this country will have to pay if migratory labourers are to go across, get stamps to their credit and come back, bringing no contributions with them. We pay £56,000 out of a fund built up in contributions from the State here, from the employers here and from the employees here. We are to pay it all as a free gift to migratory labourers who go across to the other side to get work and can recover, not merely every penny of what is taken from their wages and what their employers pay, but can get the State contribution in addition, as long as they remain in Great Britain. The only hardship is when they come back here. Let us look at it in another way. They go across for work. Supposing we could get a situation that no money would be deducted from their wages while on the other side; that they would get full wages—that was a suggestion which was made at one time—what is the difference between that situation and what holds now? That the migratory labourer who goes to England will get one penny per day more than he gets at present for the period of his work over there. The hardship inflicted on these people would be represented by the difference between a penny per day more or, alternatively, by the fact that when they come home they cannot get unemployment insurance benefit paid arising out of work done in England. I am not going to accept into the insurance code this very bad principle that we should pay people who have not made any contribution to the fund. The fund is an insurance fund. It is a fund built up in the way that any insurance fund is built up. It is not a dole. There has never been any dole in this country except for a very short period one bad winter. It is an insurance proposition; and there is no other proposition anywhere comparable to this that money should be paid out to people who do not pay premiums. I wonder would any Irish insurance company take on that system with regard to any of their business—paying out where they have got no premiums?

Mr. Lemass

It is a purely business proposition?

Mr. McGilligan

It is.

Mr. Lemass

And the interests of the 14,000 migratory labourers are of no concern to the Minister?

Mr. McGilligan

They are of this concern to me. They go to England and get work, and as long as they stay in England they draw not merely their own 7d., the employers' contribution and the contribution of the British Government, but something more over and above that. If these people care to leave that behind them, then, if any hardship is inflicted on them it is inflicted by themselves.

Mr. Cassidy

Will the Minister say if in his correspondence he has viewed the situation from any other angle?

Mr. McGilligan

Such as?

Mr. Cassidy

Such as that they could get paid benefits from the Labour Exchanges in this country, and the Government could get a refund from the British Unemployment Insurance Fund.

Mr. McGilligan

That is a proper suggestion, and a position that we fought for—that was the position more or less that was brought about in 1923-24. We got contributions. We got something amounting to the value of the contributions transferred over here, but the British will not have that now. They would lose at the moment about £33,000 on a rough calculation. We cannot pretend to be precise in this. I think it would be a loss to their fund of about £33,000, and that they are not disposed to give. We are prepared to enter into that type of agreement with Northern Ireland that I will not have with Great Britain for this reason, that the people who come to our territory from Northern Ireland, and the people who go from our territory to Northern Ireland are roughly about the same in numbers, so that the two funds are, roughly, at the moment gaining a certain amount at the expense of certain contributors. We want to make an arrangement whereby the people who come to our territory from work in Northern Ireland would be paid by us. But it is a different position with regard to Great Britain. Our numbers are very big there, and the numbers that come over here from England are very small. This proposition should not be put forward as one to be met out of the Insurance Fund. Let it be known as a dole. Certain people get work outside this country and lose a penny a day in their wages. They decide to come home rather than secure their benefit by remaining in England. In such circumstances, you propose to give them a present from State Funds of over £56,000. Let this whole matter be discussed on its merits, but let it not be discussed under the guise of unemployment insurance.

The Deputy raised the question of the Northern Ireland legislation, and Deputy Cassidy also raised it. This has been taken up several times. It has been taken up at Geneva, and has been taken up by correspondence and meetings with the Northern Ireland representatives. It has been gone into by delegates of the Labour Party in the greatest detail. They were delegated to meet representatives of my Department on the matter. Those representatives definitely declared that of the six or seven alternatives that were offered by my Department to the Northern Ministry, any one of them would have given a fair and equitable basis for agreement. None was accepted. After that, certain legislation was introduced, and the matter of that legislation was raised at Geneva, but not in the foolish way that Deputy Lemass would have raised it.

Deputy Lemass wanted to know what is going to be done now and when I asked if he was pretending to quote me in saying that the Northern Government's Act was contrary to international agreement he evaded the question. I think his line is that there has been a breach of an international agreement because he went on to say that if I did not take up that attitude I was doing what this Government always does, wait to see the other side of the case before deciding our own attitude. That is a pretty good line to go on. We do not want to appear foolish by bringing fatuous cases before a tribunal that has to decide impartially. We especially refrained from saying that it is a breach of the international agreement. I said that it breaks the spirit of the international agreement.

Mr. Cassidy

Did the Minister not say that it appeared to be inconsistent with the international agreement?

Mr. McGilligan

That it appeared to be inconsistent. I am forced to disclose the strength and weakness of the case here because Deputy Lemass has some view that something has been given away. Deputy Cassidy referred to sub-section 5 of the Northern Ireland Unemployment Insurance Act. But he did not refer to sub-section 6.

Mr. Cassidy

I think I referred to sub-section 1 of Section 6.

Mr. McGilligan

That is "except as may be otherwise prescribed by regulations." That is what saves this Act from being a breach of the international agreement. Supposing that phrase was not there, the only breach is this: There is an international agreement providing for agreements being made with regard to reciprocal benefits. If that phrase were not there that Act would have blocked the possibility of an arrangement being made, but as long as that clause is there, "except as may be otherwise prescribed by regulations," it leaves a loophole.

Mr. Cassidy

Did the Minister read the speech of the Northern Ireland Minister to the contrary?

Mr. McGilligan

What speech?

Mr. Cassidy

He said that this clause was introduced because of the close proximity of the Six Counties to the Free State. And he said he did not want the workers of the Free State to be going into the Six Counties.

Mr. McGilligan

It is not what is said in introducing a measure that matters, but what is in the measure. That is what is the law. The law is here that except regulations are issued certain things can happen. But if regulations are not issued certain things cannot happen. We have complained of this. We said it was a breach of the spirit of the agreement, but we are not going to appear ridiculous by saying it is a breach of the international agreement when it is not a breach.

Mr. Lemass

Has the Northern Government briefed the Minister to appear on its behalf?

Mr. McGilligan

No, but the Deputy by his idiotic question obliged me to reply, and by his idiotic arguments he has made me make statements in the House which I am reluctant to make.

Mr. Lemass

Exactly how long have these negotiations been in progress?

Mr. McGilligan

That does not matter. The Deputy makes a statement that there is a breach of the international agreement, but that we do not say that. He does not proceed to give any argument in support of that, nothing except that somebody has blown into his head "here is a way to get after these people." He has no idea about the matter at all, just a casual dishonest statement——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister is using that word too often.

Mr. McGilligan

The Deputy accepted the word.

An Ceann Comhairle

It is a word that should not be used about the Deputy personally.

Mr. McGilligan

Well, I withdraw it, and I will say "a distorted statement." He expects that we should take that point of view and proceed on it, when we know that it is wrong. Does the Deputy know enough about the Act to argue that that does not give a loophole? Does he know how far this is alleged to be a breach? Does the Deputy know the effect of that proviso?

Mr. Lemass

I concluded by stating what the Minister said last year.

[An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.]

Mr. McGilligan

The Deputy said that something approaching a complaint had been made at Geneva. They were on the lines that the spirit of the agreement was not being kept. We recognise that there was no breach of the agreement. We got our Delegates to refrain from using any language of that type, and that is the reason why we do not use it here.

The Deputy stated that on the 28th of June of last year I mentioned here that the matter of reciprocal arrangements with Northern Ireland was almost the subject of complaint by representatives of the Free State at Geneva. And so it was. The matter was brought to the notice of the two Governments and they said it would be looked into. As long as that was the condition of affairs we could bring these people to book before any international court on the grounds that there had been a breach of agreement. The Deputy, in the course of his speech, said that no doubt I would point out that the Northern Government's increased benefits are paid in consequence of the fact that the Northern Government is subsidised from Britain. As an effort at diplomacy that is certainly well worthy of the Deputy. I would look upon it as a perfectly tactless suggestion, and certainly it would not be very helpful in any endeavour to bring about the reciprocal arrangements over which some Deputies are so anxious.

Deputy Lemass, and also Deputy Cassidy, are anxious about Lough Foyle. Early in the year Deputy Lemass asked me if any formal steps had been taken by me to have the dispute which had arisen over the Foyle Fisheries examined in a definite manner with a view to a settlement; if so, to state the nature of the steps taken, "and, if not, why not?" I replied that the examination of the matters at issue in the Lough Foyle Fisheries dispute was still in progress. I answered, using as far as possible the Deputy's own words and having in mind the form of the Deputy's sentence. I understood the Deputy to mean, when he talked of steps being taken to have the dispute examined in a definite manner, not an examination in the Department, because we had already had examination of it completed years ago, but examination as between the two Governments. It was that examination to which I referred, and I may say now that that examination is still going on. When he asked me some days ago if I had taken any steps to open up formal discussions with the British, he misunderstood my previous reply, because I thought his question meant an examination as between the two Governments. There was no necessity for what the Deputy said in the course of his speech: "I want the Minister to tell us whether his Government has, in fact, done anything except discuss the issue at banquets...." Again, in a statement like that, the Deputy has got down to his own level.

Mr. Cassidy

Are we to take it that negotiations are still in progress?

Mr. McGilligan

Certainly.

Mr. Lemass

Formal negotiations?

Mr. McGilligan

I would like to have the Deputy's definition of the word "formal."

Mr. Lemass

Have official representations been made by the Minister's Government to the British Government?

Mr. McGilligan

Most decidedly. The Deputy referred to the matter of control of the Irish Lights Service. He wanted to know if negotiations were progressing and would they ever finish. There will be a convention made some of these days and the Deputy will be able to see for himself what the position is.

Mr. Lemass

Are the negotiations concluded?

Mr. McGilligan

They are not concluded in the sense that the conclu sions arrived at have not yet been fully drawn up and signed. The basis of agreement has been under discussion in a Department of this Government for four months past. The broad lines of the agreement were reached a year ago, and details were settled in the autumn of 1929. The Deputy was querying as to the Tariff Truce Conference at Geneva, the failure of which, he said, was brought about by the Free State delegates. I do not know whether the Deputy made that reference by way of compliment or otherwise.

Mr. Lemass

Was not that your object?

Mr. McGilligan

I asked the Deputy himself what were his desires with regard to that particular Conference. I put the question in an earlier debate, and no one in the House got any enlightenment from the Deputy. I said certain things in that debate.

Mr. Lemass

The Minister made himself very clear.

Mr. McGilligan

What I said certainly left the Deputy somewhat clearer. In his opening speech he threw out certain suggestions. From the arguments he put forward one would gather that we were going to abolish tariffs or help to abolish tariffs. I do not know whether the Deputy had the same opinion when I made my statement. We did not go there to break up the Conference. One does not go to a Conference of that type for that purpose. In that case the better course would be for one to stay away. We wanted to get our point of view made clear, and we knew that many other countries had the same point of view as ourselves about that proposition. It was a proposal which had advantages for a great many countries, but disadvantages for certain undeveloped countries. The Deputy asked, "Have the Free State delegates signed that convention or not?" We always felt that whatever convention was prepared, would be full of provisos and reservations. What we thought was likely to happen did actually happen. The convention has got a small number of signatures, and is full of provisos and reservations. One thing the Deputy can be quite clear about is that we have not signed.

There was another treaty about which the Deputy vaguely heard, but had no information. An agreement has been concluded guaranteeing payment for any damage that might be suffered by French nationals here. The Deputy asked me how much we were likely to pay in consequence of that agreement. We pay nothing.

Mr. Lemass

Then why was it made?

Mr. McGilligan

In order to secure advantage for Free State citizens. It is the most valuable agreement that could have been signed. In its principles its effects may be small, but it is a convention under which we pay nothing and, in return, we get certain damage inflicted on some of our nationals paid for by another Government. That is the type of agreement that I would ordinarily like to sign.

Mr. Lemass

Make a few more of them.

Mr. McGilligan

No matter how admirable an agreement of the sort might be, it would not prevent the Deputy having the distorted view which he had at the beginning, when he threw out all sorts of hints and suspicions that the whole thing was against us.

Mr. Lemass

One must be guided by experience.

Mr. McGilligan

The Deputy will not be guided, and he has not learned much from experience. The Deputy went on to speak of commercial treaties with Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Poland, Spain, and the United States of America, and he mentioned that proposals for the opening of negotiations with a view to concluding treaties had been made as between the Irish Free State and Greece, and the Irish Free State and Turkey. The Deputy's comments were: "The Minister has now told us that treaties have been concluded with Germany and Portugal. Will the Minister tell us when it is proposed to submit these treaties to the Dáil for ratification, or will he give us any indication as to what their general terms are?" The Deputy is always anxious for information, and he is very anxious to know about the treaty between the Irish Free State and Germany and Portugal. The Deputy cannot have read the Orders of the Day of some months ago, because the Portuguese Treaty has been published in all its detail. Apparently, the Deputy does not know that. How is one to get any information to the Deputy? Must it be by a course of night lessons?

Mr. Lemass

Is the Treaty to be submitted to the Dáil for ratification?

Mr. McGilligan

It must be; of course it will. The Deputy asked me to give an indication as to its general terms. The Deputy has got all the terms of the treaty.

Mr. Lemass

One out of a dozen.

Mr. McGilligan

The German Treaty has not been signed yet, but the Portuguese Treaty has been signed and it was laid upon the Table on the 7th November, yet the Deputy does not know anything about it. He does not even know that months ago it was submitted to the House and he makes it a cause of complaint that he has not been informed of its terms. I really do not know what the Deputy desires in that direction.

Mr. Little

Could there not be some formal report published in which all these things would be indicated—an index, as it were, of everything done during the year? It would be of great assistance.

Mr. McGilligan

Before the House takes a decision, saying that expense should be incurred in drawing up a list of treaties for the information of Deputies, it ought to be shown that Deputies are anxious to have these. The only complaint I have heard so far is from Deputy Lemass. He says that he cannot get certain things. Previously he queried certain reports from the League of Nations. He was told that they had been furnished, and one would have thought that he would not fall into that trap again. Now, however, he queries the Portuguese Treaty which was published in November last. How can one assume that the Deputy is anxious to know anything about that Treaty? He should pay attention to his Order Paper. Even the Press, upon which he relies so much, stated that in fact a treaty had been concluded but that its terms were not known.

Mr. Lemass

I noticed that, but I was afraid to rely on the Press.

Mr. McGilligan

But you could rely on your Order Paper.

Mr. Little

The Order Paper is a thing that you get and then you forget all about it. Let us have a little practical common sense. When you get an Order Paper you remember its contents for a week but then forget about it. There should be some sort of report furnished summarising what has been done in regard to various treaties.

Mr. McGilligan

If Deputy Little adopted that line of argument today, if he wanted to know about treaties and referred to an old statement of mine made a year ago, when I said that treaties were about to be completed or that negotiations were in progress for the completion of treaties with other countries, and asked what was the result, I could easily have given it.

Mr. Little

My point is that one wants to be prepared in advance. If there were some short report issued beforehand, Deputies would then have an index to the papers on the table in the Library, and could go in a business-like way to examine them, and the Minister would not be in the painful position of having to lose control of his best manners.

Mr. McGilligan

I hope I am not losing control of my best manners in asking Deputy Lemass, before he makes a blunder of this sort again, merely to ask in the Library whether there is any word of any treaty having been signed since my last reply.

Mr. Lemass

Having got all the satisfaction that he requires out of that statement, will the Minister inform us if it will be circulated?

Mr. McGilligan

If the Treaty is going to be ratified there will have to be information given. If the Deputy cannot get that in the Library we will see if we can satisfy him in some other way. The Deputy went on to refer to the French Treaty, and again had recourse to Press reports, and stated that negotiations had fallen through.

Mr. Lemass

No. The "Independent" stated that.

Mr. McGilligan

He quoted from the "Irish Independent" to the effect that France and Saorstát Eireann had failed to reach an agreement for a commercial treaty. He quoted a great deal more to the same effect. But in November, 1929, I was asked a Parliamentary question whether negotiations had been proceeding between the Saorstát and France for the conclusion of a commercial treaty, and whether they had broken down. The reply was that negotiations were proceeding with a view to the conclusion of a commercial treaty regulating the trade relations of the two countries. The Deputy, however, preferred a Press cutting of the 16/9/'29 to my answer on the 20th November, 1929.

Mr. Lemass

Are we to understand that the only information we can get on matters of that kind is by reading, word for word, the Official Debates?

Mr. McGilligan

I do not know what to do with the Deputy. He will not go to the Library. He will not read the Official Reports or the Order Paper.

Mr. Lemass

May I suggest to the Minister that when a newspaper publishes a definite statement of that kind, and if it is not correct, it is the Minister's duty to contradict it?

Mr. McGilligan

If I went to the pains of presenting that contradiction in solemn form, and if it were available in the Library, the Deputy would not read it. If my attention were drawn to it by means of a question I could definitely contradict it, but then again, the Deputy would not listen to it. I do not know how to get at the Deputy's mind. The newspapers gave him some material for controversy. A Dáil reply is no good for controversy. Neither, apparently, are facts any good for controversy.

Mr. Lemass

What are they?

Mr. McGilligan

Why should the Deputy be annoyed if negotiations for a treaty are alleged to have broken down, if goods going to France from this country are getting most-favoured nation treatment? That is the situation. Why should the Deputy go back two months behind that statement to get some newspaper comment to the effect that negotiations for a treaty had broken down? The Deputy was also sarcastic because we concluded a modus vivendi with Turkey, and he asked us what crisis arose to cause that agreement to be made. The Deputy does not realise how close to the mark he was in making that statement. I can assure him that there was a crisis in which two manufacturing firms of considerable importance to this country told us regarding their trade with Turkey, that certain manufacturing processes now carried on in this country were going to be moved out of the country if we did not conclude, or were not able to conclude, that modus vivendi. That was the crisis that existed. The volume of our exports to Turkey and of our imports from that country may not be very big, but it was sufficient to move two manufacturers, one in particular, to say that it would be the last straw for their trade if we did not conclude that agreement, and that it would mean the clearing out of the country of certain manufactures of these firms. We preserved those firms in this country and we kept many employees at work by means of that modus vivendi. The Deputy knew nothing about the facts, and did not care to inquire about them.

The Deputy also commented on the fact that a report had appeared in the Press that we succeeded in negotiating a Treaty with Spain and that the late Spanish Cabinet had approved of it. That is not so. There has been an attempt to negotiate a Treaty with Spain. A document has been drawn up about which there is considerable agreement. It has been with the Spanish Government for some months. If there has been any delay—I do not say that there has— it certainly has not been here. I can answer the Deputy's question similarly in regard to the conclusion of other treaties. There will be a treaty with Germany coming forward, but I cannot state the date. Negotiations are very far forward between ourselves and Italy in regard to a treaty. The Polish one is only beginning, and that with the United States of America was postponed owing to the new tariff regulations which the United States Government brought in. It is quite possible that a modus vivendi with Greece has been concluded at this moment. The Deputy's comments about the Department's delay in negotiating treaties and about its not negotiating them inside five years are the sort of comments that can proceed from a Deputy who does not take the trouble to inquire into facts. The Deputy does not appreciate the facts of the situation and has no consideration for the interests involved. Sometimes they require a speedy conclusion to a matter that has been proceeding in a leisurely way, and sometimes the country concerned requires the leisurely consideration of a treaty proposed to it.

Deputy Esmonde made a suggestion in regard to the order of officers abroad. There is some substance in what he says—namely, that we might list our foreign representatives in a particular order. We will give attention to that matter before the next Estimates are presented to the House. The suggestion that one of our Ministers for Berlin or Paris should be accredited also to Brussels is under consideration. It is not intended to close the office in Brussels entirely. The suggestion made by the Deputy appears to be the most workable under the circumstances.

The Deputy also raised a point as to the application for a seat on the Council of the League, and suggested that we should further consider the matter before making up our mind to run in opposition to Australia. It may please the Deputy to know that the most recent advice we have is that Australia has no intention of running as a candidate this year, and in fact intends to support our candidature. There is thus no conflict between us. As to the Deputy's point that a statement should be made concerning the progress of the Naval Conference with a view to showing that we are vitally interested and that we are not responsible for any delay there might be, I should say that that is a matter that may arise later. While the Conference is in a particularly delicate stage I think that it would be unwise to have any debate upon that matter.

Deputy Law asked a question as to other Conventions which are likely to be brought forward. The Deputy mentioned a certain number which I have listed to bring before the House. One relates to the treatment of prisoners of war, and the other to the conditions of the wounded and sick among armies in the field. There are two protocols dealing with statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice. One simply changes the statute and the other facilitates the adherence of the United States to that statute. There are two League Conventions, one mentioned by the Deputy and one for the prohibition of the use of asphyxiating gases. There is also the Slavery Convention, which will be brought before the House. In addition, there is one in regard to Economic Statistics. That will appear some time after Easter, and I hope to bring forward four others in addition to those mentioned by the Deputy. One relates to obscene publications, one to opium traffic, another to counterfeit currency, and there are others about which we have not yet made up our mind.

Mr. Lemass

What about the Washington Hours Conventions?

Mr. McGilligan

That is an International Labour Convention. The only International Labour Conventions which I will move are those on the Order Paper.

Mr. Lemass

Is the Minister prepared to say what the attitude of the Government is on the Washington Hours Convention?

Mr. McGilligan

We are not prepared to recommend to the House any Conventions other than those on the Order Paper.

Mr. Lemass

There is one matter with which I would like the Minister to deal before concluding. Complaints have been made concerning the treatment of Free State emigrants to the United States at Cobh by the United States authorities. I have been informed that the medical examination is of a particularly degrading kind. Whether that is correct or not I do not know. I would like to know whether the Minister has made, or is prepared to make, inquiries in that regard, as there appears to be considerable indignation amongst a certain section of the community.

Mr. McGilligan

I have not heard any complaint on that point. If I get a statement from a responsible person, not depending on hearsay or rumour, that the examination as at present conducted is considered degrading, I will have the matter inquired into.

Mr. Little

There is a considerable amount of feeling in regard to prisoners in England, who are really Irish nationals, persons who were put in jail for political or semi-political offences. Has the Minister considered their position, and have any representations been made by the Government to the British Government in respect of them?

Mr. McGilligan

Representations were early made, and were acceded to, in every case when made in relation to Irish nationals in English jails for what could be considered political offences. I do not know of any other cases.

Question—"That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration"—put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 41; Níl, 80.

Tá

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Denis.
• Blaney, Neal.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Boland, Patrick.
• Brady, Seán.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Buckley, Daniel.
• Carty, Frank.
• Colbert, James.
• Cooney, Eamon.
• Crowley, Tadhg.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• Fahy, Frank.
• Flinn, Hugo.
• French, Seán.
• Gorry, Patrick J.
• Goulding, John.
• Hayes, Seán.
• Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
• Jordan, Stephen.
• Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kilroy, Michael.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Little, Patrick John.
• Maguire, Ben.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Moore, Séamus.
• Mullins, Thomas.
• O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
• O'Kelly, Seán T.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• O'Reilly, Thomas.
• Powell, Thomas P.
• Ryan, James.
• Sexton, Martin.
• Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.).
• Smith, Patrick.
• Walsh, Richard.
• Ward, Francis C.

Níl

• Aird, William P.
• Anthony, Richard.
• Beckett, James Walter.
• Bennett, George Cecil.
• Blythe, Ernest.
• Bourke, Séamus A.
• Brennan, Michael.
• Broderick, Henry.
• Broderick, Seán.
• Bvrne, John Joseph.
• Carey, Edmund.
• Cassidy, Archie J.
• Cole, John James.
• Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
• Colohan, Hugh.
• Everett, James.
• Fitzgerald, Desmond.
• Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
• Good, John.
• Gorey, Denis J.
• Heffernan, Michael R.
• Hennessy, Thomas.
• Hennigan, John.
• Henry, Mark.
• Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
• Holohan, Richard.
• Kelly, Patrick Michael.
• Keogh, Myles.
• Law, Hugh Alexander.
• Leonard, Patrick.
• Lynch, Finian.
• Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
• McDonogh, Martin.
• MacEóin, Seán.
• McFadden, Michael Og.
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• Mongan, Joseph W.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Murphy, James E.
• Murphy, Joseph Xavier.
• Conlon, Martin.
• Connolly, Michael P.
• Corish, Richard.
• Cosgrave, William T.
• Craig, Sir James.
• Crowley, James.
• Davin, William.
• Davis, Michael.
• Doherty, Eugene.
• Dolan, James N.
• Doyle, Peader Seán.
• Duggan, Edmund John.
• Dwyer, James.
• Egan, Barry M.
• Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
• Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
• Myles, James Sproule.
• Nally, Martin Michael.
• Nolan, John Thomas.
• O'Connell, Richard.
• O'Connell, Thomas J.
• O'Connor, Bartholomew.
• O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
• O'Hanlon, John F.
• O'Higgins, Thomas.
• O'Leary, Daniel.
• O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
• O'Reilly, John J.
• O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
• Redmond, William Archer.
• Reynolds, Patrick.
• Rice, Vincent.
• Roddy, Martin.
• Shaw, Patrick W.
• Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
• Thrift, William Edward.
• Tierney, Michael.
• Vaughan, Daniel.
• White, Vincent Joseph.
• Wolfe, George.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Gerald Bola nd and Allen; Níl: Deputies Peadar Doyle and Duggan.

Question declared lost.

Vote put and agreed to.

The Dáil went out of Committee.