The Taoiseach considers that he has touched upon all the points. I do not think anybody ever covered with so light a touch so many spots scattered in many different directions. I do not know if I remember the opening lines of a poem which mentions dawn on the hills of Ireland. The Taoiseach's introductory statement struck me as something like the dawn of something. He told us that Australia is a country that our association with the British Commonwealth brings into special relationship with.
What is the relationship, political, social, economic, or financial to the British Commonwealth in respect to Britain, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Canada? I ask the question at this point so that the Taoiseach may be thinking it over. Now that there is a dawn of some kind, let us begin to look into the dawn to see exactly what we would like to discover there. Therefore, I ask in the political, social, economic and financial sphere what are the special relationships we have with any of the countries of the British Commonwealth.
The Taoiseach mentioned the establishment of an Embassy in the Vatican as a step of deep significance. There is no use in using words and pretending that they mean something. Now that we have an Embassy at the Vatican, we ought to have it made a little clear as to what is the deep significance of that act of ours. The Taoiseach mentioned how wide flung as a race we are. There is no way in which we can see that so well as when we say that our people have built up the Church in nearly every country in the world. But there is no place, particularly in some of the places mostly associated with English speaking countries. where our people have built up the Church where they have not brothers and sisters building up their administration, their industries or commerce.
It is particularly in relation to the significance of the establishment of our relationship with the Vatican, and its reaction on our public work here, that I would like to ask for some explanation if not now, in the months immediately in front of us, because comparatively recently, at the beginning of this year, recent Vatican policy was commented on in the publication of the Royal Institute of International Affairs called The World To-day. In a small paragraph, the writer says:
"The whole attitude"—
that is, of what he describes as recent Vatican policy
—"may be summed up in words spoken on the Pope's Coronation Day: `More than ever must the Church assume a social character in proclaiming and realising the Gospel'; and the wide range of subjects and persons embraced in Papal speeches, from science to journalism, from mathematicians and doctors to congressmen, teachers and trade unionists, is proof enough that the Vatican is not content with a religion confined to a part of life."
I should like to ask whether in our conduct of public affairs and in our social organisation and the development of both social and political machinery, we are likely, as a result of the establishment of this new Embassy, to be more guided in our work than we seem to have been in recent years by the various suggestions, representations, teachings and warnings enshrined in so many of the Encyclicals. Referring to Christmas Eve Allocution of the Pope, the article in this publication says:—
"An important place in the second part"—
that is, the second part of that Christmas Eve Allocution
—"was given to the problem of securing a properly informed public opinion—‘one fed on truth, not poisoned by propaganda'. Statesmen, therefore, have ‘a democratic duty', as the Roman Catholic Hierarchy of England, Wales and of Scotland said in the Pastoral broadcast by the Vatican a year ago, ‘to educate and inform the people they serve'. The great majority of men, continued the Allocution, are peaceful if told the truth and not stirred up by lies.... From the question of an informed public opinion it is a small step to the question of civic responsibility. The Pope's Message on Christmas Eve, 1944, with its distinction between the inert ‘mass' and the self-conscious ‘people' seems to mark an evolution from the earlier conception of the citizen as the innocent victim of his country's Government, to what might truly be called an Anglo-Saxon view of responsibility. Take, for example, what the Pope said in an audience he granted last year to British Ministry of Labour officials who had been lecturing to the troops in Italy: ‘The people cannot shirk responsibility for the conditions under which they live, if they fail to exercise their right and duty to help to shape them'."
I think we might even see in the statement that the Taoiseach has made to-day how little the Government here care for an informed public opinion and for giving the facts of the situation to our people, for feeding them on truth instead of propaganda which can be distorted in one way or another.
It will come as a surprise to many people, and as a welcome surprise to a lot of people, to read the Taoiseach's remarks to-day about our association with the British Commonwealth, bringing us into special relationship with, at any rate, one of the members of the Commonwealth. They will all be asking themselves what these relationships are and why we do not do anything about them. The Taoiseach has indicated that, in a very short time, representatives of this country will sit down with representatives of the other members of the British Commonwealth to discuss various scientific problems, various questions of standards and, I think, questions related to food matters. What kind of consultation has gone on between the Government and Irish scientists preliminary to these conferences which will enable the representatives of the Irish Government to speak the mind of our Irish scientists?
In the same way, what consultation has there been with any of the trades or organisations in any way affected by the fixing of standards as a preliminary to Irish representatives sitting down with representatives of the other members of the Commonwealth to discuss standards? What kind of preparation has been made for these conferences? There has been no preparation at all—at least no preparation in public—and I do not think that the Irish mind can be expressed at any conference without public discussion from which both the public as a whole and the various organised bodies concerned can have an opportunity of knowing what are the subjects for discussion. To say that the Taoiseach touched on these matters is almost to exaggerate what has happened. We have had no indication as to the scientific purposes for which these conferences have been called, what is on the agenda of any of these conferences, who are the people sent as the representatives of Ireland or what preparation has been made for them.
Now that a move is being made to send Irish representatives to some Commonwealth conference, the question will vitally and very emphatically arise: why were we not at the conference held comparatively recently at which the Prime Ministers of all the Commonwealth countries sat down in serious consultation to decide the commercial and financial principles upon which they were going to try to base their discussions with other countries in the world, with a view to establishing, as it seemed to them, the best possible system and the best possible principles of international trading, so that, by mutual co-operation in world trading, every country might have an opportunity of increasing employment and raising its standard of living to the highest possible level? Why were we not at that conference and what information have we got as to the principles of commercial and financial procedure decided on by these countries? Because we are vitally interested in the decisions taken there; and we are vitally interested in the outcome of the various conferences that will be held in the future, and for which that conference was merely a preparation. I have already asked the Taoiseach on a prior occasion for some information as to whether we were invited, or represented, at that conference, or notified as to what was discussed there. He had no information to give. He has not given us any information now. He has told us that any necessary consultations would take place in good time. What is involved? The United States Government invited a world-wide conference to be held next year to deal with trade and employment. As a preliminary to that, the President of the United States invited a certain number of countries to a preliminary conference—that is, the United States Government invited the Governments of the United Kingdom, of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Belgium, Luxembourg, Brazil, China, Czecho-Slovakia, France, the Netherlands and the Soviet Union, to a preliminary conference this year.
As a preliminary to that, there was a conference held representing the members of the British Commonwealth and Empire. In relation to that conference, the Lord President of the Council, Mr. Morrison, explained that it was vital for the success of the negotiations in which the United Kingdom delegation would be engaged, that it should enter any such negotiations with a full understanding of the considered views of trade, of industry, and of labour. Not content with calling a Commonwealth preliminary conference to the preliminary conference called by the United States, they exhaustively canvassed the trade unions and the industrial and commercial interests in Great Britain with a view to seeing what matters of importance were then under consideration by any branch or section in Great Britain of which note should be taken when the representatives of the United Kingdom sat down in conference with the other Dominion Premiers, or with the preliminary group of countries, or in the subsequent international conference later on.
To some extent we are more vitally interested in the outcome of these conferences than other countries, because we are dependent to an enormous extent for our export trade, and particularly for our export trade in agriculture, on Great Britain. For what are we keeping representatives in London and in the United States of America, and elsewhere, if we are not keeping them there in order to increase our markets at home, and thereby increase our employment at home and raise the standard of living in the country. In what other way can we achieve that except by co-operation with other countries? The Estimate shows that in personnel we are going to spend £15,813 in London, and we are going to spend £24,395 in the United States. There is, perhaps, a certain want of proportion in the amounts of money shown there, but I do not want to go into that now. It may be important. What I particularly want to concentrate upon is what is going to be done by mutual conferences and mutual discussions to see whether we cannot get something out of our relations with Great Britain, which will react favourably on the employment, and wealth, and the prosperity of this country.
In the year 1929 Great Britain was taking £45,000,000 of our domestic produce—agricultural and industrial. In 1930 she was taking £43,000,000. In the heights of the economic depression Great Britain was taking £37,000,000 of our national produce. Our market with Great Britain was bringing into this country more than one-quarter of our total national income. By 1938 Great Britain was only taking from us £20,000,000 worth of our domestic produce. We had reduced ourselves to a position where only one-eight of our national income was coming from the sales of our production to Great Britain. I mention that in order to demonstrate to the House what sound relations and the proper handling of our affairs between ourselves and Great Britain could mean to this country.
I would like to ask the Taoiseach whether he has got from those countries where we have representatives — such as Canada and Australia—any information as to how these various countries are pursuing their international relations in trade and commerce and how they are trying to bring about a position of full employment and a higher standard of living in their countries as a result of that. I refer particularly to Canada. Anybody who has any knowledge of world affairs to-day and anybody who is interested in the work and struggle that is going on in these various countries to build up industry and provide employment, must have their eyes on Canada. They must have seen that, not content with the enormous developments that are taking place there both in agriculture and in industry, Canada is making tremendous efforts through her representatives, particularly in Great Britain, to build up and develop markets for her goods, and thereby provide employment for her people and a better standard of living because of the vigorous development of international trade.
In the beginning of this year the Canadian Minister of Trade and Commerce visited London. Speaking in London of the activities of the Canadian Government in her search for full employment and a rising standard of living through trade with Great Britain, he said that the Government of Canada had fixed, as the target for post-war exports, the figure of 1,750,000,000 dollars—this was an increase of about 50 per cent. above the pre-war level in dollar value, but was only about 15 per cent. higher in the amount of goods exported. That is, they were fixing that as the target for that part of the national income which they intended to achieve through their export trade. He went on to say: "Some people had suggested that this transformation in Canadian economy meant that Canada would be able to practise a greater degree of self-sufficiency in the future than had been possible in the past, that they would be less dependent on world markets for the sale of their surplus goods and that their imports could contract in volume." He wanted to repudiate that suggestion as emphatically as he could. For years to come it would be impossible for Canada to get a high level of employment and national income unless they continued to be a very extensive export nation. About one-third of their total national income normally came from export trade.