Committee on Finance. - Vote 65—External Affairs. – Dáil Éireann (12th Dáil) – Friday, 20 Jun 1947

Committee on Finance. - Vote 65—External Affairs.

An Taoiseach

Tairgim:

Go ndeonfar suim nach mó ná £99,030 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfas chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31ú lá de Mhárta, 1948, chun Tuarastal agus Costas Oifig an Aire Ghnóthaí Eachtracha, agus Seirbhísí áirithe atá faoi riaradh na hOifige sin (Uimh. 16 de 1924).

The main Estimate, as Deputies will see, is substantially higher than last year. This is mainly due to the increase in Civil Service salaries, following consolidation, and to corresponding increases in foreign allowances. These increases are provided for under subheads A (1) and B (1). There are some further increases for new services; for example, £2,826 for the Legation at Brussels, and £1,500 for honorary consular representatives. There is also an increase of £450 under sub-head A (2) —Travelling Expenses. That is due to the large number of international conferences now being held. The increase of £1,000 under sub-head A (5) for official entertainment is made necessary by the higher entertainment costs, by the expansion of and changes in foreign diplomatic representation here —and also to the fact that we have had some important foreign visitors. I will deal later with the increase of £940 under sub-head A (6)—Refugees.

Coming now to the work of the Department, I might first say something about the steps we have taken to ease the burden of the restrictions on passenger travel and to simplify the regulations as far as possible. Agreements abolishing visas have been entered into with Belgium, France, Switzerland, Sweden and the Netherlands. During the year we also arranged that travel permits which were previously issued annually, would be issued or renewed for a period of five years for the same fee. It can easily be seen that this arrangement saves applicants trouble and expense. It also enables staffs to be somewhat reduced.

The work entailed in connection with travel permits will be realised when I say that the annual renewals numbered about 30,000 in Dublin and 76,000 in London. We have also made a new arrangement under which "travel identity cards", to be obtained direct from the Gardaí at a reduced fee, will be substituted for travel permits. Travel permits will still be required by those who are going to seek employment. "Travel identity cards" will be available for all other persons travelling to Great Britain such as people going to see their friends, etc. There are obvious advantages to the public in this relaxation which will eliminate delay in the issue of travel cards. The reduction of fees will be largely offset by staff economies.

It is proposed also to introduce a collective passport system which will be available for members of clubs and associations travelling abroad, sports teams, pilgrimages, study groups, etc. Again, the advantages are pretty obvious. The traveller will be saved the expense and trouble of applying for the individual passport or travel identity card. This will involve a certain loss of fees, of course, but it is expected that to a great extent the loss will be compensated for by economies in staff and by the increased receipts which are anticipated from the general resumption of travel. We already have indications of that increase in travel in the fact that 6,273 passports were issued last year as against 1,635 in the previous year, and 59,187 travel permits as against 46,217 in 1945-46. The Exchequer extra receipts from fees for passports, visas and consular services are estimated at something like £30,000, representing a sum which is about 18 per cent. of the total Estimate—that is the main Estimate and the Supplementary Estimate.

The working of the travel permit system, as Deputies are aware, depends to a considerable extent on the Gardaí. It has put a good deal of extra work on them and I should like to say how much we appreciate the satisfactory manner in which that work has been carried out.

During the year civil aviation agreements were concluded with five countries—with Great Britain in April, 1946, with France and Sweden in May, 1946, with Denmark the following October, and with Czechoslovakia last January. These agreements are of value, not only in developing air communications but in facilitating contacts between ourselves and other countries, and in fostering closer trade, cultural and other relations. For example, we have had visits from the Dutch and Belgian Ministers for Economic Affairs in connection with the inauguration of the air lines with these two countries.

We have also become parties to a certain number of multilateral agreements, including the International Civil Aviation Convention drawn up at Chicago in 1944, and the Constitution of the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation—the Dáil will shortly be asked to approve the Constitution—of the New World Health Organisation with a view to our becoming a member of that body.

We were represented at quite a number of international conferences during the year. Amongst these were the International Labour Conferences at Seattle in June, 1946, and in Montreal in the following September and October; the United Nations Health Conference in New York in June and July of last year; the General Assembly of the Food and Agricultural Organisation in Copenhagen in October, 1946; the Assembly of the International Civil Aviation Organisation in May-June, 1946, and other aviation conferences held in London in September and in Dublin in October.

At the London Conference, an agreement with regard to weather stations in the North Atlantic was drawn up which will shortly be submitted to the Dáil with a view to ratification. We were represented also at the Commonwealth Conferences on the International Trade Organisation held in London in October, 1946 and in March, 1947; at the Commonwealth Conference on Nationality and Citizenship Questions held in London last February; at the International Wheat Conference held in London in March; at the International Conference on Industrial Property in Neuchatel in February; at International Conferences on Broadcasting held in Brussels and Geneva in 1946, and at the Plenary Sessions of the Inter-Governmental Committee on Refugees in London in December.

Deputies are aware that the League of Nations has been wound up. In reply to a question by Deputy Norton in April last, I explained the position in our regard in respect of the League assets. The position is that about £40,000 is due to us payable in cash or, if we become members of United Nations Organisations, as credit against our contributions to that organisation. The League of Nations buildings at Geneva have been transferred to United Nations Organisation.

The winding up of the League of Nations brings to an end the secretaryship of Mr. Seán Lester. In 1929, Mr. Lester was appointed our permanent representative to the League at Geneva. In 1934 he was seconded to be League High Commissioner in Danzig. In 1937 he was promoted to be Deputy Secretary General of the League and in 1940 he was made Secretary General of the League. He has, as Deputies will see, filled a number of important offices, and I can say that he filled them with considerable credit to himself and also with credit to our country.

I come now to the question of the Inter Governmental Committee on Refugees—sub-head A (6). This committee was established in 1938 to deal with the problem of German and Austrian refugees. Towards the end of the war, its functions were extended to cover all classes of refugees, including what we call displaced persons. This expansion of functions naturally entailed increased expenditure. For Budgetary purposes this increased expenditure has been divided into two parts—administrative expenses and operational expenses. The sum of £1,690, provided under sub-head A (6) represents our contribution to the administrative expenses for a full year. The Inter-Governmental Committee, however, will cease to exist at the end of the present month, when its work is to be taken over by the International Refugee Organisation recently established by the United Nations Organisation. If we are to become a member of the new organisation, the question will arise as to whether or not we shall have any responsibility for operational expenses. Meanwhile, we shall have to contribute to the Inter-Governmental Committee only half of the contribution provided for under sub-head A (6).

With regard to the provision for diplomatic representation abroad, Deputies will note that this Estimate provides for 13 diplomatic missions as compared with six some ten years ago. As the Minister for Industry and Commerce stated recently, international trade is becoming more and more dependent on inter-governmental arrangements and it is impossible to deal satisfactorily with other governments on matters of this kind unless you have a man on the spot. It was for this reason that we appointed a commercial secretary to the legation at Washington and that we recently sent Mr. Kerney, the former Minister in Spain, as head of the economic mission to South America. Deputies will see, therefore, that as our trade relations expand it will be necessary to expand also our diplomatic representations.

Provision is being made this year for two new missions, one a Legation at Brussels and the other a Legation in the Argentine. There are, as I have pointed out on previous occasions, some other countries with which we would naturally like to have diplomatic relations, but we have to measure our capacity to meet expenses in these cases and to go more slowly than certain considerations might, perhaps, suggest.

A competition will be held shortly for junior appointments in the diplomatic service. I hope that university graduates with the necessary qualifications will interest themselves in these vacancies and will come forward as candidates in good numbers.

As Deputies are aware, our consular posts in the United States are staffed with full-time consular officials. There are places abroad, however—for example, Antwerp, Shanghai and Manila —in which some provision for the discharge of consular functions is desirable, but in which the volume of work would hardly be sufficient to justify a whole-time staff. There also have been requests for consular representation from large cities in the United States. To meet this demand it was proposed to establish a corps of honorary consular representatives. That is the practice which obtains in other countries, not only in the larger countries but also in small countries such as Denmark and Norway. Honorary consular representatives are not salaried. They receive an office allowance of about £150 a year and are usually entitled to retain portion of the consular fees which they collect. They perform most of the functions of ordinary consular representatives, such as the granting of visas, endorsement and renewal of passports and the answering of trade and other inquiries. It is our intention to appoint Irish citizens as far as possible. When this is not possible, other duly qualified nationals in the locality concerned will be selected. The normal procedure in connection with public appointments will not, of course, be applicable to honorary consular representatives. They will be appointed and commissioned by the Minister for External Affairs under the authority of the Government. The Estimate provides for between ten and 15 such appointments.

Sub-head A (8) of the Supplementary Estimate provides £10,000 for the development of cultural relations with foreign countries. Increased attention is being devoted to this kind of work by other countries, and I have received frequent complaints about our lack of enterprise in that respect. It is very desirable that a start should be made with this important and valuable work. Owing to circumstances known to Deputies, our country in the past has not been sufficiently well known and understood abroad and the facts of the situation here have been frequently misrepresented: in fact, they are frequently misrepresented even at the present time. We have had several proposals from other countries for the development of cultural relations, and we have not so far been in a position to accept them, because of the absence of appropriate provision here for handling activities of this kind. The work contemplated would include such projects as book, art, photographic and film exhibitions, the exchange of studentships and lectureships, lecture tours, the preparation and distribution of informative handbooks, and so on. The idea would be to make available to other countries, in so far as it can be done within the means provided, information about every aspect of our national life. As regards the question of organisation, what is proposed is that a committee should be set up consisting of some 12 or 15 persons prominent in the cultural life of the nation, and if possible with some knowledge of other countries, based on travel or residence. It is intended that the committee should be advisory in character. The purpose of this committee will be to examine and make recommendations with regard to schemes and proposals involving expenditure out of the sub-head. The Minister may reject the recommendations but, on the other hand, he will not be able to incur any expenditure under the sub-head contrary to the advice of the committee. Provision is in the form of a Grant-in-Aid, any balance of which remaining unissued at the end of the year will be surrendered to the Exchequer. A report will be furnished each year on the various activities undertaken under the sub-head during the previous 12 months.

In sub-head A (9) of the Supplementary Estimate, provision is made for an expenditure of £500 to cover the editorial expenses of a new official handbook. There is a pressing need for an up-to-date official handbook of this country. The lack of such a publication is a considerable handicap, particularly to our representatives abroad. To meet this need it is proposed to revise and re-issue the Saorstát Eireann Official Handbook published in 1932. Much of the material in the former handbook can be used again with slight changes to bring the matter up to date. It will also be, of course, necessary to add some new sections. The writing of these articles will be entrusted to experts in their subjects, and the sum of £500 is intended to cover the payment of fees for this purpose. The cost of printing and publishing will be borne on Vote 21, that is, the Stationery and Printing Vote. The general direction of the editorial work will be done by the Director of the Government Information Bureau, in consultation with the various Departments. It is intended that the handbook should be issued in two editions, a special illustrated edition and a cheaper edition for wider circulation.

I have been asked questions from time to time about our application for membership of the United Nations Organisation. I do not know if it is necessary for me to repeat again the information which I have already given to the Dáil. Last August, the Security Council recommended that three applications out of eight should be accepted and failed to recommend the other five, including Ireland's. Our application was supported by all the members of the Security Council, except Australia and Russia. Australia abstained from voting on purely procedural grounds. Russia's objection was based on the fact that we had not what they called "normal diplomatic relations" with the Soviet Union.

Mr. Dillon

Would the Taoiseach say what were the procedural grounds that Australia objected on?

The Taoiseach

At a later stage I may be able to give that information to the Deputy. When the Council's report came before the Assembly a considerable measure of dissatisfaction was expressed. Delegations complained that, in failing to recommend States which possessed the qualifications prescribed in Article IV of the Charter, for reasons in no way connected with the Article, the Council was really going outside its proper functions. That view was not accepted by the Soviet delegation which, on that occasion, added that it considered our attitude during the war had not been in conformity with the United Nations Charter.

Finally, the Assembly adopted a resolution asking the Council to reexamine the five applications on their respective merits as measured by the yardstick of the Charter in accordance with Article IV. The Assembly also asked the Security Council to appoint a committee to confer with a committee of the Assembly with a view to preparing new procedural rules governing the admission of new members. These two resolutions were unanimously accepted by the Security Council on the 29th November last. The Council, therefore, has agreed to reexamine the five applications. The Assembly and Council committees appointed to reconsider the procedural rules governing admission of members began work at the end of May, 1947. No formal action has yet been taken by the Security Council on the first resolution.

Italy, Bulgaria, Hungary, Roumania and Finland will now become eligible for membership of the United Nations Organisation on the coming into force of the peace treaties. These treaties bind all the Allied and Associated Powers to support their candidatures. When the applications of Hungary and Italy, who have already applied, came before the Security Council, it was urged that applications already made should be re-examined before consideration was given to the new applications. No specific decision was taken on this point, but the Hungarian and Italian applications were referred to the Security Council Membership Committee for study and report "at the appropriate time." That is the present position. I think there is nothing further for me to say on this matter.

With regard to the Dáil resolution concerning Archbishop Stepinac, I want to give a short account of the action taken. In accordance with its terms the resolution was brought to the notice of other Governments. We pointed out that the general principle, that is to say, the evil from the moral and practical point of view of religious persecution was already internationally recognised but that it was urgently necessary to give concrete effect to the principle and that the best method of doing that was by the energetic action of liberty-loving States to secure an international convention laying down the principle and providing effective action to secure its observance. The replies received showed a wide measure of agreement with this point of view, coupled in some cases with a certain amount of scepticism as to the prospect of effective action being taken in view of the present-day conflict of ideas and outlooks. The United Nations Organisation has now taken up the question and the best prospect of effective action seems to lie at the moment within that body. On the 19th November, two days before the Dáil resolution was passed, the General Assembly of the United Nations Organisation passed a resolution calling on all Governments to put an immediate end to religious and so-called racial persecution and to take prompt and energetic steps to that end.

The Committee on Human Rights, set up by the Economic and Social Council, is preparing an international Bill of Human Rights which will deal with this general problem and which is expected to come before the General Assembly in 1948. That is where the question rests at the moment and it is difficult to see what further effective action could be taken.

I think I have covered at this stage most of the points on the Estimate calling for attention. I suppose the Resolution for the Supplementary Estimate is to be moved at a later stage.

Mr. McGilligan

I move:—

That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration.

I move that the Estimate be referred back, first of all, on account of the completely inadequate presentation the Taoiseach has made of the matters concerned in this very important Vote; secondly, on account of the pretence to a large extent that it is associated with certain matters that were or are covered by the Vote and, thirdly, because of the fact that the Taoiseach has adopted, as he has done in other cases, the practice of running away from certain matters very intimately associated with this country and on which Deputies should be given some enlightenment by him on this Vote.

What is called Foreign Affairs Day in most Parliaments is a big day, and one when one generally hears the comment made in regard to the introductory speech that a person is praised for having marked out very specially the principles on which the international conduct of the nation has been directed. Sometimes, a complaint is made that the principles have been overclouded by the multiplicity of the details given. We certainly cannot make either of those comments on the Taoiseach's speech. There has been no principle set down and no details given to overcloud any principle that might have been stated or dragged out of the Taoiseach's remarks.

There are many interesting problems facing the world at this moment. Even if we are in a bit of a backwater and some way removed from the main current of affairs, and although we may not be able to take part in moulding events, we certainly can be seriously affected by what is happening outside. One would have thought the Taoiseach would have given the country, through the Dáil, some enlightenment as to our attitude to the big problems in the world of international affairs. Apart from that, there are smaller problems more intimately associated with us and with the other part of this country and with Great Britain, and on these the Taoiseach has been strangely silent this morning, whereas lately he never seems to miss an opportunity of being vocal, if not very active, in connection with these matters when he is outside the Dáil.

Here is this Vote presented to us and one of the Taoiseach's remarks is that we have now 13 foreign representations, where about ten years ago we had six. I remember when we had less than six and when less than six was thought too many for this country. In 1931, the Tánaiste at the moment argued that money was being spent on diplomatic missions abroad under the control of the Minister for External Affairs and that, when economies were being sought, that Department should be the first, if not the biggest, field for such economies, particularly in relation to its foreign posts. Now, of course, we have a change. We have more than doubled the number of people abroad and the only hint of excuse given in that connection is what the Taoiseach has said in one sentence— the Minister for Industry and Commerce has announced his view that trading for the future is to go along inter-governmental lines.

Incidentally, that looks to be rather a bleak future for the country, if it means that we must have people representing us in order to have trade abroad. The Taoiseach refers to a deputation to the Argentine. For what? In order to get maize—when we cannot get it. Years ago when it was plentiful, we would not take it, but now we want to send a trade representative to Buenos Aires to get the maize that we refused when it was on offer. That will be paraded as one of the excuses—"reasons of trade"— why our representation abroad should be increased. I do not know whether this country has decided on this policy of inter-governmental trade, or of doing trade through organisations under the control of, or in some association with, the Government. I sincerely hope that no decision has been taken. I do not know of any occasion when this House got an opportunity of pronouncing on the question and if the only reason for asking us to vote further moneys is that the Government intend to have inter-governmental trade or concerns engaged in such trade, the sooner we have a debate on that point the better.

In looking through the Estimate I glanced at one thing at which I always glance in these days. The Taoiseach told us that the greater part of the increase in the External Vote this year is under the heading of salaries, wages and allowances. It is a remarkable thing that the increase in the salaries for the home staff amounts to £4,000. The old salaries used to be on the basis of £27,000, and we are adding £4,000, bringing it up to £31,000. The ordinary calculation we accept here is that the old £27,000 has now a purchasing power of less than £16,000 as far as the home people are concerned. We are giving them £4 to every £27 and that is supposed to be our best effort in regard to this important Department, to equate the present-day value of money with present cost of living conditions. When we turn to official entertainment—I am not decrying official entertainment and hope it will go on —there is no such meagre business as giving an advance of only £4 on £27; we doubled the sum. When it comes to foreign representation, we at least do better, although I do not suggest we do what is required in connection with it. We should remember, when we think of the people we are sending abroad, that they are finding themselves faced with a cost of living increased beyond that which the old-time salaries can carry. That cost of living in relation to money has developed higher in this country than in any country in the world, with three exceptions—and in two of the three exceptions we have no representative.

I would like the Taoiseach to tell us if he has any plan with regard to the development of foreign representation. Is it a question on which we just act haphazardly and when some country says they would like to have somebody come from Ireland in an official capacity, we respond to that. Have we a plan and, if we have, is it based upon anything? Is it based upon matters of kinship with a particular country? I could realise that as a proper reason for sending people abroad. Is it for political reasons, because we are associated either in terms of politics or in actual trade with a particular country? Is it on account of religion, which is clearly the obvious reason why a representative was sent to the Vatican? There is quite a number of these countries with which I see we have representations and I fail to understand why they were chosen ahead of other countries which I am sure were anxious to exchange a representative with us. The Taoiseach will probably enlighten us as to whether there is any plan or whether we proceed on the basis of leaving the initiative to the other country and, when they ask us for a representative, we consider whether we can afford it and what the results are going to be.

Our chief representatives go under a variety of titles. We have an Ambassador to the Holy See, a Minister in the United States, a Minister to Spain, a Minister to Italy—a Minister at the Quirinal as well as the Ambassador at the Vatican—a Minister in Paris, officials nominated as Chargé d'Affaires in quite a number of countries; in Great Britain we have a High Commissioner, in Canada a High Commissioner, in Australia a Representative. What is the meaning of this diversity of title? It has been pointed out in connection with the representative to the Holy See that he is the only person who ranks as an Ambassador. It is not fully understood, I think, what the importance of the Ambassadorial rank is. It is that he has direct access to the head of the country to which he is accredited and he represents personally the person who accredits him, so that we have singled out—and it is a rather ironical circumstance—the person who used to be the secretary of the Department of External Affairs to be, in the most intimate way, the representative of the King at the Vatican. It has been said in a paper recently that with regard to one of the courtesies of diplomacy which had to be observed when that appointment was made, the Vatican wrote a personal note of thanks for the courtesy to His Majesty the King. That is the position in which that gentleman is. He is, in a much more intimate way than anybody else, the direct and personal representative of the individual from whom he gets his credentials. Men who are Ministers are Ministers without, so to speak, any flaw in their title. They occupy what would be expected to be the position of a Minister appearing in any Book of Estimates such as this. We have, however, High Commissioners in Ottawa and London, and we have the peculiar title given to our representative in Australia of "a representative".

All these people are popularly phrased in our Press as being Ministers. It should be understood that they are not, and, so far as I understand the practice, neither the High Commissioner in Canada nor the representative in Australia ranks as a diplomat at all. That, of course, is owing to the peculiar position in which this country finds itself in respect of its external affairs under the External Relations Act. There is apparently some difficulty in the King, even when used as an organ or instrument of association, appointing a Minister to himself, and hence there has to be some removal from the line of diplomacy, and we get people with the titles of "high commissioner" and "representative". So far as the home country is concerned, an attempt is made to have these gentlemen represented as being full-time Ministers. By not being Ministers, they avoid one thing—they do not have to carry with them to the countries to which they go credentials signed by the King, and in that respect they are possibly relieved of some embarrassment, even though they may suffer in the status they acquire when they get to the particular countries.

Recently, we had what was called a trade representative sent to Buenos Aires and he announced, when asked if diplomatic relations were about to be established between the Republic of the Argentine and the Republic of Éire, that the answer was in the affirmative. One only hopes that the gentleman who talked about establishing diplomatic association between the Republic of Éire and the Republic of the Argentine will get the appointment and will have the delightful task of explaining to the republicans of the Argentine why he goes to that Republic from the Republic of Éire carrying with him a document signed by the King of England. I only hope that as much publicity will be given to his explanation of that point as was given to what he said about England in another connection. Certainly anything he says in that regard deserves publicity and will be taken by this country as at least something in lieu of the explanation the Taoiseach has always avoided giving in this House on that matter.

There are some minor matters, but matters which are somewhat important to this country in an intimate way, to which I want to refer, such as the old long-disputed questions of the position with regard to Lough Foyle and Irish Lights and certain trouble which there was about Carlingford Lough. I am sorry that Deputy Blaney has left the House. There was a time when Deputy Blaney was so exasperated by my failure to move in such matters that he threatened to lead out his local militia in an attack across the waters of Lough Foyle on the forces of the North, or of the British masquerading as forces in the North; but 15 years have since passed and all I have ever heard from the Taoiseach was that he had not been able to advance the matter anything beyond the point to which it got in 1932. Is that still the situation?

The position with regard to Irish Lights has, I think, got more confused than ever. There was a time when there was some difficulty with regard to the lighting of these lightships, buoys, and other things in the way of warning to shipping around our coasts. It was quite clear that the dues collected from shipping which touch at our ports could not possibly meet all the expenditure required for the lighting of the coast as warning against danger at night. In the end, it was very definitely recognised by the British Government that these lights were not to any great extent for the safeguarding of such limited quantities of shipping as put into our ports, when we might collect dues from them, but almost entirely for the protection of ships coming from America and going to the Continent and, more particularly, approaching our coast in order to get to Britain. An agreement was made that the British would meet the whole cost of the service, leaving the election or selection of the Irish Lights personnel to be made by us. There was some difficulty about the machinery of payment and that difficulty was not entirely resolved in 1932. Has any change been made in the situation? Are we still in the same position? Are the British still paying these moneys and do we willingly, as I imagine we should, accept them, while we still have charge of personnel to be appointed?

If that be the situation. I wonder what is the differentiation made in respect of civil aviation. So far as I can gather, Shannon Airport is mainly designed as a junction. It is used, in the main, by people who want to get to Britain and by people who want to get to some part of the Continent, but we apparently decided it is worth our while to carry the whole expenditure of Shannon Airport, even though the emoluments we derive, or anything we derive outside this great matter of prestige, are very small. I should imagine that those who might be negotiating the Irish Lights' point at present will find themselves somewhat embarrassed, if any comparison should be made between our attitude and the expenditure we willingly bear in respect of giving people who want to get to England a safe landing place, at great expense to ourselves, at Shannon Airport and our attitude in connection with Irish Lights.

Those are small matters which arise on this Estimate. The big matter— and one wonders why the Taoiseach did not face it boldly—is the question of Partition. I notice that, at the recent dinner in connection with the Fianna Fáil Party, the Taoiseach announced that there were two chief objectives, the undoing of Partition, the bringing back of the Six Counties and the restoration of the Irish language. He went on to say—this is the propaganda which has to be spread every possible time—that we had established a republic in the Twenty-Six Counties and we hoped to get the Six Counties to join that particular republic. There was this condition put in by the Taoiseach—there always has to be some sort of cover up—that "anything that appears in any way to derogate from the status of the republic can be put right at any moment our people please. The position at the moment is that as a matter of foreign policy we are associated with the states of the British Commonwealth, as a matter of external policy. If anyone wishes to change that policy, they are free to do so; they have not to ask the permission of anybody". There is not much change in that from many years ago. We want to undo Partition. We must get back the Six Counties and we must get them to join this particular combination of Twenty-Six Counties which we designate a republic.

In that connection, I feel that we have not got even a straight line as to our approach to the people mainly concerned. I have here a copy of a cutting from The Standard newspaper published in Buenos Aires of Wednesday, 4th June, 1947, the heading of which is: “Éire's Official's Farewell Statement.” The sub-heading is: “Food Mission or Political Propagandists?” and the third heading: “England's Alleged Anti-Democratic System.” What follows—I do not intend to read all of it—is what I might call a bit of a whinge against the British attitude in relation to the Six Counties and ourselves. It starts by saying:

"England is believed to be the home of democracy in her own country and elsewhere. Is it not time that she and the civilised world should begin to be ashamed of the very anti-democratic system sponsored by England in the six Irish counties incorporated against the Irish people's will, into her United Kingdom?"

There is talk about a plebiscite as being the only democratic way of settling the matter. Then follows a most odious comparison of what England is alleged to be doing in connection with the Six Counties and what Russia is doing with certain of the countries bordering her. I need not read it all, but it does bring out the special point that diplomatic relations are about to be established between the Republic of the Argentine and the Republic of Éire.

Mr. Dillon

What is this Minister's name?

Mr. McGilligan

I believe it is Mr. Kerney. He was sent over there to get maize. He had the nerve to say that prior to the recent war we imported from the Argentine annually about 400,000 tons of maize and that at the moment we have 250,000 tons of that commodity on order. He said that the purpose of the Food Mission was to establish direct contact with our sources of supply, to discuss with the Argentine authorities questions relating to future supplies and to ensure shipments at an early date of reasonable quantities of wheat, oils and fats—in other words, the purpose of the mission was to establish direct contact and friendly relations and to get maize. We do not want culture at the moment. What we want is maize, and we are down to the level of the pig and the bacon industry in this country. Though we sent Mr. Kerney on a mission to the Argentine to get maize, he thought it proper to address the Argentine on the subject of Partition and, in introducing that subject, to get a back-swipe at England. I am not going to analyse his speech except to say that I think it was a deplorable event. Certainly I consider that that speech would not put him in the front line of diplomatists and that if he is being considered for anything he should not get any bonus marks for that particular performance in the Argentine.

Quite recently my attention was called, in this city, to a statement made in the British House of Commons by the Home Secretary, Mr. Chuter Ede, in relation to legislation that was then before the British House of Commons to the effect that this was the first time, so far as he could discover, that both Governments in Ireland had approached his Department with a wish that this economic co-operation should be enshrined in the Statute Book. No denial has been issued. So it would seem reasonable to accept it as being correct—that this Government joined with the Six-County Government in asking the British to see that a certain piece of legislation was put through the British House of Commons.

If it is not true a simple denial will meet the case. If, on the other hand there is some truth in it, if it was connived at, I would like to know what is the policy behind it, what is in the offing, what are we aiming at and what happy results do we expect? In sharp contrast to what a representative of this country said abroad I want to refer to an address made by the present Minister for Local Government to the Royal Institute of British Architects in the Gresham Hotel, Dublin. It is reported in the papers on Friday, June 13th. The Independent newspaper in this country thought the speech to be of sufficient importance to frame and set out in heavy type one part of it, and this was such a very amazing pronouncement that it drew down upon the gentleman in question the compliments of people in the country by whom he would not like some years ago to have been complimented. They complimented him for his courage in facing up to the realities of the situation. There was a framed paragraph headed: “Ties of Blood and Common Interest,” and underneath the following:—

"The British and the Irish people have a great deal in common with each other. Both peoples have sent their sons and daughters to found and to build up the great democratic States of the world. We may claim to be jointly the progenitors of the great nations which now people the greater part of the North American continent, the whole continent of Australia, and the whole of New Zealand. There is hardly a leader of public opinion in those countries that is not proud to trace his ancestry back to those islands. We Irish and British are associated with each other and with them by ties of blood, of trade, of political tradition, and of common interest in great issues that touch the peace, prosperity and the security of our countries and of the Christian world."

Mr. Dillon

Deputy McCarthy is getting weak!

Mr. McGilligan

That has been called a courageous statement. It is a bit ludicrous in the cold grey of a Friday morning—this claim that we are jointly with the British the progenitors, we might say, of the whole of the United States of America and a bit of Canada thrown in, the whole of Australia, the whole of New Zealand, and that we are boasting now that

"we are associated with each other and with them by ties of blood, of trade, of political tradition and of common interest in the great issues that touch the peace, the prosperity and the security of our countries and of the Christian world".

One must remark on that speech that it was made before the delegates to the annual conference of the Royal Institute of British Architects held in the Gresham Hotel. I do not know if people in this House ever saw a play called The Drone in which trouble occurred about a proposed breach of promise of marriage action. The man in question was asked if he had actually said the words to the girl and he said he had. He was asked if there were any witnesses and when the gentleman who tried to break the match heard there were no witnesses he brightened up. Were there any letters?—None. Was there any exchange of photographs?—None. Was there any ring? —No. Was there any courting?— Well, that was the difficulty. He had been seen with his arms around the girl but he explained that it was the night of the social, and then the answer was given that if it was on the night of the social it was a different matter. You see, this was the night of the social and if the Minister for Local Government was found exchanging photographs and rings and giving a display of affection we can pardon part of it as being the night of the social. At the same time it is recorded in the cold print of the next day and it is on record for hereafter—an approach quite different from that of the gentleman sent to collect maize when he went to the Argentine !

That is not, however, entirely or completely or exclusively the view of that Minister. That Minister recently went to another social. He addressed a meeting held under the auspices of a South Dublin Comhairle Ceanntar, Fianna Fáil, and he dealt there also with the subject of Partition. He attacked a group of people who are, according to the Minister, arrogant enough to think that they should play any part in the political life of this country, and he asked about their records. He went on to remind the group of the negotiations which Mr. de Valera, Mr. Lemass, Dr. Ryan and himself conducted very successfully in 1938, as a result of which.

"we were enabled to abrogate the Treaty of 1922 with its Defence Clauses, get back our ports, and settle the Economic War, and the only issue left for further discussion was Partition".

He said we had persuaded the British Prime Minister that the Six-County Parliament was an anomaly and an anachronism. Remember this claim— we persuaded the British Prime Minister that the Six-County Parliament was an anomaly and an anachronism? I quote further:

"I think we had convinced most of his colleagues in the British Government that it would be to the benefit and advantage of the people of Great Britain if we had a united Ireland, and I have no doubt whatever that if we had been able to put before the British people the same arguments as we had been able to advance to the Government, we would have secured the support of the British people for the ending of Partition, and we would have isolated the Six-County ascendancy and placed them in a particularly undignified position."

The glittering prize was almost within our reach in 1938! The persuasive eloquence of the Minister for Local Government, added to that of his less distinguished colleagues, had persuaded the British Prime Minister! He told them further that in consequence of what they were able to do the Fianna Fáil Organisation and the Friends of Ireland in Great Britain— apparently they are two different groups—

"initiated a large propaganda campaign to bring home to the people of Great Britain what a great wrong had been done to this country by partitioning it, and what a great advantage it would be to have a United Ireland. That campaign was started in the autumn of 1938, and it was meeting with considerable success. The whole thing was going like wildfire."

I was fully alive to the trend of affairs in 1938 and I do not remember any propaganda worth talking about in 1938 and certainly nothing that caused such enthusiasm amongst the people at home, as the Minister would have us believe, that they would describe whatever was happening abroad as "going like wildfire". We all know that the Minister has to go to a great height in order to get a great descent, and the descent was necessary in order to have trouble caused with his group of new politicians. The whole thing, he said, was going like wildfire, when suddenly this group served a declaration of war on Great Britain and its people. Then he said:

"This campaign did not advance the national cause. It set back the cause of Irish unity by a generation."

Can anybody explain this to me? Mr. Kerney goes to the Argentine to tell the Argentinians of the shocking conduct of Great Britain towards us. Yet the Minister for Local Government can claim that we are united with them by every tie a man could think of as uniting two sets of people together. The Minister for Local Government can say that Irish unity has been set back by a generation because, when he and his colleagues inaugurated a great campaign which was going well, certain people broke in and served a declaration of war on the English people.

The Irish Independent carries a longer account of what the Minister said. He went on to say:—

"After the war broke out the I.R.A., in order that the cause of their allies should be advanced, decided that to the extent which they could encompass it, this country was going to be left without arms and ammunition. On December 23rd, 1939, they had the raid on the Magazine Fort."

Then we had this amazing revelation about the past:—

"Had there been any other Prime Minister than the late Mr. Neville Chamberlain, who was determined to close the last chapter in the sad and embittered relations between Britain and Ireland, and to add a new chapter that we two peoples should stand side by side, what might have happened after the Magazine Fort incident?"

People will remember the talk during the war years about the magnificent defence preparations and how we were going to resist to the last and how we could resist and make an invader pay dearly. The Minister said:

"If British policy had been such, it would be an easy matter for them to come and take back what we had gained from them. It would be easy for them to come down and occupy the ports and the City of Dublin and the whole of the Twenty-Six Counties and make them a basis for the military bases on the Continent."

And if they had done that, what would have been the fate of our people?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.

Mr. McGilligan

We were perilously situated so far as defence was concerned. That is only a side-issue so far as this topic is concerned.

We have the allegation here that the whole cause of Irish unity was set back, but that was not because this country decided, in its wisdom, to remain neutral; not even because we were acting like a dog in the manger occasionally. We were getting in supplies from Britain at great cost to British lives and ships. We received these and said very little in the way of thanks to them. We always had the same propaganda against them here. But, according to the Minister for Local Government, it was not any of these things that set back the cause of unity in this country. It was not even the question which some people feel might be at the bottom of it—the reluctance of the British to complete the remaking of the island. There was no question of strategical points; no question of trying to find out whether they could get any defence policy, even an offensive and defensive alliance; but simply because Mr. MacBride and his colleagues served a declaration of war on the British Government.

I do not like to go back too far into history. When I was sent to represent this country at gatherings in England, I hardly remember one occasion when I found it possible to sit down at the same table to negotiate with British negotiators that some murder was not committed, some outrage at home on people who would be regarded as having some sort of British association. Anything that was possible was done in order to destroy any good outcome that might have resulted from negotiations that were going on. It ill becomes a gentleman with the background of the present Minister for Local Government to question the activity of anybody as having set back the cause of Irish unity. He will have considerable room for thought if he sits down to ponder over his own performances and put them in the balance against anything—horrible and all as the things were — that the I.R.A. are alleged to have done from 1938 onwards. If the Minister puts his performances in the balance against them, he will find he is a person who has no right to throw stones or even to pass criticism upon what people, not associated with the present Minister for Local Government, did in 1938 or any other years.

The Minister for Local Government, however, is very keen at the moment on our associations with the British people. He paraded our relationship and the blood ties and ties of family intermingling our history, and everythings else. We have signs of that elsewhere. The new Minister for Agriculture, when he was challenged in the Seanad in connection with some matters about cattle, said that it riled him to hear this talk about the desirability or undesirability of our feeding John Bull. He had no doubt about feeding John Bull. That was part of his policy. He pursued that policy, riled and all as he was. It was interesting to see the effect upon him emotionally of the demand for a trading policy with Great Britain.

When I raised the question of our sending all our money abroad, the present Minister for Finance told me that I had forgotten an amazingly big factor in the whole international situation so far as money is concerned, and that was, that Great Britain had been the centre of international finance, insurance, etc. He prophesied that Great Britain would get back to that position and that anybody who contemplated our money being whittled down by anything which might happen in Great Britain did not know what he was talking about. The Minister for Finance elevated Great Britain to the highest point in the scale, and I am sure his speech made very comforting reading for the people, if they did read it, in 1945; but they might now look grimly at it when they compare his glowing periods about the future of Great Britain with Great Britain's present position.

In the same debate in 1945 at an earlier stage the Minister for Finance said:

"Whatever dangers may have been inherent in the fact that, for good or ill, over generations, our economy has been closely linked with that of our neighbour, whatever dangers there may have been inherent in that position when Great Britain's own independence was insecure and was in danger, that danger has definitely passed since Great Britain emerged as one of the victors in the war. Naturally, of course, she has suffered greatly. She has lost a great part of her easily realisable assets—her liquid assets—but she has emerged as still the strongest commercial Power in Western Europe and still fit, by reason of her colonial possessions and the real assets which these represent, to hold her place in the commercial developments of the future."

If Great Britain desired any champions she had them here; so much so that even Deputy Dillon was moved to say. "Will somebody strike up ‘Rule Britannia' and we can all go home?"

I will get back to the point whether there were any presents or photographs or exchange of letters. Certainly there have been presents and certainly exchanges, whether couched in letters or shouted across the Channel makes no difference. I asked the Taoiseach before what reality there is in his going to various gatherings and complaining about the loss of the Six Counties, at the same time pouring out the manhood of the other three counties of Ulster. I know of the injunction we get from Scripture, that if you are smitten on one cheek you should turn the other. If you apply that geographically and, when you have six counties taken from you, you present them with three more, that seems to me to be pushing a good point possibly to an exaggerated degree.

The Taoiseach must face up to this. When he is talking, and doing little else than talking, and talking only occasionally and in select company about Partition, we are actually exhausting this country of its manhood. I have already pointed out that, since the war started, the people who have been swept out of this country by the pull from the other side and the poor conditions at home are the equivalent of the men, women and children of the remaining three counties of Ulster. We have given them our treasure in so far as we have given them our trade, in so far as we have given them surplus trade that they have not returned to us. We have piled up all these things and then the Minister for Local Government clasps the whole nation to his affectionate heart when he goes before a British group of architects. But when Mr. Kerney goes to the Argentine, we get the whinge started all over again and we have this very odious comparison with Russia.

I have often asked here, when we speak about Partition, what approaches have we made on our own to the problem. A certain amount of effort can be put into telling other countries what the position is, representing it objectively. There is talk about gerrymandering, talk about the conditions under which certain numbers of people have to live in the North, but we must not forget—and the Minister for Local Government did not forget—that there are other people to be considered, unfortunately, as well as the British or our compatriots in the North and our religious affiliations in the North. There are other groups in the North who have to be considered.

It has been pointed out in a very critical way—I do not know whether there is much in it—that when the Minister for Local Government was talking to British architects it was mentioned that if a solution of the problem of Partition is to be found, it must be one acceptable to all concerned. I do not know if too much has not been made of these words, but there is the phrase that is on record. Does it mean that we have to wait until all concerned agree to the abolition of Partition? All concerned would mean everybody in this country and then there would be the British people. In some quarters it is contended that there is an obligation on the British Government to get rid of the Parliament in the Six Counties, but we must, if we are to be realistic, accept the situation that there are two groups in Northern Ireland, one group very anxious to affiliate with us and another group very distinctly hostile to such affiliation.

What are we doing to render the situation easy for those who are hostile to us? I can see one policy which simply says, as the late Sir James Craig said long ago: "Not an inch; we are going to stand on our rights as they have been accepted by the Six County people and we will not yield one inch of what we consider to be the full rights of a self-governing community here." On the other hand, we might say that we realise there is a situation which calls for some lessening of the ordinary claims which a democratic Government might make upon those people in the area over which it rules.

Have we ever thought of how long we postpone the day on which Partition would be done away with by insisting too much on our rights here and by not easing the entry of the Six Counties into our group? For instance, one of the great complaints in the North is gerrymandering, and objectively the case is clear. One has only to set the population in certain groups and counties in the North, examine what representation is allowed in Parliament or on the local authorities, and then see what wrong has been done. I would like to get the situation so mended here that there will be no cause of complaint, and no finger of scorn can be pointed at us by those who do not want affiliation in the North.

There are two ways of getting the influence of local authorities behind you. One is to gerrymander, to see that the people opposed to you will not get correct representation. The other is to allow democratic institutions full play, to let the people vote and, when they have voted, to suppress the local authority and put in a county manager. Suppress the local authority in any event and put in someone who will govern, someone appointed by the Central Government. Is there much use in our complaining of gerrymandering when we announce, through our legislation, that one of the reasons why the Minister for Local Government can abolish a county council is because it will not strike the rate which he thinks it ought to strike? That is not exactly giving free play to democratic institutions. It may mean that you allow a group to be elected, but it is not giving full effect to the voting power.

A complaint is made in the North with regard to an Act called the Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act and that Act is often brought up for discussion. Any time I meet people from England who inquire into the situation, they always talk about that Act. I have had many embarrassing moments until they left the subject. That Act is no worse from the point of view of the person who is outraged by it, the person who objects to it, than our Offences Against the State Act.

Mr. Cafferky

Is it as bad?

Mr. McGilligan

One can analyse it. One hears the comment made that it is a shocking thing to have a Government empowered to put its political opponents in jail without trial. Perhaps the words "political opponents" are brought in in that context to beg the question. Suppose I turn it this way, that it is a wrong thing for a Government to put anybody in jail without trial. We have taken that power and we have taken it as part of our constitutional machinery, not for a national emergency, not for war, but as part of our ordinary law, to be brought into operation when the Government, by proclamation, establishes that the ordinary courts have broken down or that administration or other things demand it.

One does not expect decency from the Deputy.

Mr. McGilligan

The decency we had from the Taoiseach was that while a case was pending, while it was sub judice, the Taoiseach came in here and took it out of the courts to have it decided in this House. Now, because he says the appeal is still sub judice, it is supposed to be wrong for me to refer to it.

We have not a head of State. The functions that are ordinarily carried out by a head of State in other countries are carried out here by the King, and there is no good in blinking that fact. It is true to say that we can get rid of that situation any time we like. I wonder why we do not do it? There seems to be some compelling reason against it. I wonder are we right to continue with what has been called this living lie phrase, and in talking about the pretence that is associated with all this matter. It is pretence. We have our External Relations Act and the phrase in the Constitution which enables every matter concerning our external relations to be handed over to the King. We have the External Relations Act which definitely handed over certain things, and, incidentally, when we were handing them over we used this type of language when accepting the abdication of one King and the taking on of another that we talk of "a person who if his said Majesty had died on the 10th December, 1936, unmarried, would for the time being be his successor under the law of Saorstát Éireann".

I have often wondered who drafted that phrase. I had never understood that such an Act as the Act of Settle ment had been accepted as part of the law of Saorstát Éireann. It is apparently so in this. I doubt if Deputies know what is in the Bill of Rights and in the Act of Settlement. As far as the King of England is concerned "every person who is or shall be reconciled to the Church of Rome or shall hold communion with the Church of Rome or shall profess the Popish religion or shall marry a Papist" shall be forbidden to be King, but he would be the person who would be the successor under the law of Saorstát Éireann. I never knew that we had taken over the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement in that sense. I regard that as being inconsistent with our two Constitutions. Under the Act of 1936, we took over the gentleman on these terms, and we are still carrying on under that. We took him over and we are carrying him for all the important functions ordinarily discharged by a head of State. I say that the Taoiseach, no matter what evasion he uses, will not be able to establish by any process of comparison with any other country that An tUachtarán is the head of State so far as our external relation are concerned.

These are some of the more intimate matters that I thought the Teaoiseach would have dealt with. There is, of course, arising out of that the very definite matter as to what our association is with the Commonwealth, apart altogether from association with Northern Ireland. Will the Taoiseach tell us, even at the end, whether he is aware of the problems that are besetting the world, whether he is aware of the great menace that is spreading from the East nearer and nearer to this country, and whether any steps have been taken against that in association with others and, if so, in association with whom and what links he has tried to get of a protective type against this terror, and how he has tried to help in any way to give strength to those who must be strengthened if that terror is to be resisted? I have asked that the Estimate be referred back so that we might have an adequate presentattion of the pretence associated with our whole external relations, and because we have not, apparently, got any clear line of policy, as evidenced by Ministers, of the relations between this country and Great Britain, leading to better relations between this country and Northern Ireland.

Mr. Dillon

Those words of Deputy McGilligan's are words that I think everybody who loves Ireland should remember well. It does not really matter two hoots what sort of credentials our foreign representatives may carry or what credentials the Minister for External Affairs may accept. The evil is that whatever they are, there is a conspiracy to persuade our people that they are something else. The evil is that we are living a lie; the evil is that whereas our fathers would have scorned to live a lie, those of our generation and the generations that are coming up after us have been taught to think it is cute. It is that belief that is rotting the morale of our people. Instead of being themselves too proud to lie for any reason, they are being taught that, if you can live a lie and get away with it, no evil consequences will result. That is an illusion.

Do Deputies not feel a sense of humiliation that an Ambassador of ours professing to represent an Irish Republic presents to the Papal Secretary of State letters of credence addressed to the Holy Father by His Majesty King George VI and diplomatic courtesy imposes on the Holy Father the diplomatic necessity of addressing a letter, in reply to credentials presented by the Ambassador of the Irish Republic, to the King of England, thanking him for the gracious terms of the letters of credence which have recently been presented by the Ambassador from the Irish Republic? Does not that make one's flesh creep?

Is not there something rather disgusting in the scene that is enacted when every foreign representative arrives here? The one precaution our diplomatic corps must take is to ensure that, whoever else the incoming diplomat may meet, he will not come in contact with the President unless and until he has driven to Dublin Castle to present letters of credence addressed to King George VI to that monarch's representative, the Minister for External Affairs, who receives the letters on the King's behalf and, presumably, in due course relays them to him. Then and then only will the incoming diplomat be permitted to proceed to Arus an Uachtaran, there to drink a hospitable cup of tea with the President. Have Deputies ever asked foreign diplomats who have gone through that procedure their reaction?

It is disagreeable to be downtrodden; it is horrible to be oppressed; but, there is no adversity that cannot have about it dignity if it is endured with fortitude. It is humiliating and grievous in a very peculiar way to see Ireland with her peculiar history at this late stage of her long story being laughed at, under the rose. Believe me, when the ambassador of the Irish Republic arrives floating on a letter of credence issued by King George VI, and when the Minister of a foreign nation reaches the capital of the Irish Republic and discovers that his first diplomatic duty is to present letters of credence to the Minister for External Affairs who receives them on behalf of His Majesty King George VI and then to proceed to Arus an Uachtaran for a cup of tea, under the rose, they laugh and I do not like it.

I want to say most emphatically, in answer to the query addressed by the Minister for External Affairs to Deputy McGilligan, if I had to choose between that kind of fraudulent make-belief and whatever hardship and inconvenience and evil that may ensue from cutting the painter altogether with the other nations of the Commonwealth, I would deliberately choose the latter. No misfortune could be greater than that the rising generations of our people should be persuaded that those to whom they would naturally look for guidance are content to live a lie.

I would like to ask the Minister for External Affairs why is it that, when he introduces this Vote, he confines himself to a dreary recital of the subheads, which have already appeared in the volume of Estimates? We can read the notes annexed to that Estimate just as well as he can and it is merely waste of time to drone them out here again when he is introducing his Estimate. What this House expects from him is a reasonably comprehensive statement of the Government's foreign policy with a view to permitting those of us who are interested in it to debate it knowing what it professes to be. That, of course, he carefully eschews giving, so that when everyone else has spoken he will have an opportunity of saying the last word without any danger of his observations being commented upon in a critical way.

From listening to the Taoiseach today it would appear to me that, whatever he himself may know, he does not want our people to realise the true situation that is obtaining in the world. In fact, what is happening at the moment in the world is, the issue is being decided for a very long time whether the lives of us all in every country are going to be controlled by a political philosophy based upon pagan materialism or by a political philosophy based on the traditions of Christendom. A strange atmosphere has involved foreign politics in almost every country in the world, the nature of which I do not quite understand. The more outrageous, the more reckless, the more bloodthirsty the activities of the Polit Bureau in Moscow become, the more the convention seems to spread that no one is to say anything about it. The plain truth is that the Polit Bureau in Moscow is now engaged on a crusade to achieve for its gang what Hitler and the Nazis sought to realise for their gangs in 1939. It is well to remember, because it provides a key to the problems that confront mankind, that on the eve of the Nazi effort in 1939 they had one voluntary ally in the world and only one, and that was the Polit Bureau of Bolshevik Russia. The only sovereign State in the history of the world which, voluntarily dealing with Berlin on equal terms, entered into a military understanding the secret clauses of which provided in anticipation how Berlin and Moscow would divide the spoils when their assassination of Europe had been consummated.

Typically, the thieves fell out and in the ensuing slaughter one of them has perished. The Bolshevik one survives. I remember saying, in the middle of the war, when the Nazis seemed to be sweeping all before them, that Europe was now in the position of a fugitive from a man-eating tiger, that when the breath of that tiger was hottest on Europe's neck, by the blessing of God's Providence, a panther had sprung on its back and was tearing it to pieces. My position was that, as long as it was at work on the man-eating tiger, more power to the panther; but that imposed no obligation on us, when the war was over, to say "Puss, puss" to the panther. The tiger has been disposed of, there is not a vestige left; and now this world has got to realise that we are face to face with the panther. The whole immense power of Bolshevik propaganda is at the moment designed to persuade the world that Russia has nothing but peaceful intentions, while she is gathering steadfastly and with perfect precision for the blow which she hopes will paralyse the world.

If anyone doubts that, let him read two documents. One is the Report of the Canadian Royal Commission on the Soviet spy ring that operated from the Soviet Embassy in Ottawa. I remember a Deputy of this House once exhorting us all to establish diplomatic relations with the Soviet. You might just as well bring the Ogpu and instal it on Merrion Square. Anyone who has read that Canadian Royal Commission. Report and does not realise that is just a fool who should not be let out alone. The second document to which I invite the attention of Deputies, if they have any doubt, is the Report of the Commission of the Senate of the United States of America on un-American activities, from 1919 to date. It was published three days ago.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Are all these matters on the present Estimate?

Mr. Dillon

Our foreign policy can have to do with nothing else, unless it be that we choose to stick our heads in the sand and fumble with futilities because we are afraid to face the facts. At this moment, the Polit Bureau in Moscow is pursuing a prepared plan for the conquest of the continent of Europe. Witness the proceedings in Hungary and the recent arrest of the Leader of the Opposition in Bulgaria, coupled with the announcement by the Bolshevik agent in Yugo-Slavia that another effort is about to be made to murder Archbishop Stepinac. All that is part of a pre-conceived plan, the design being ultimately to control Europe.

The realisation of that design depends entirely on whether the Polit Bureau in Moscow can destroy Great Britain. There is only one Power in the world that can meet the challenge of force if it were issued from Moscow and that Power is the United States of America. To meet a Bolshevik challenge of force in Europe, the United States must have some place from which it can reach Europe and in which it can build up its power with which to reach Europe effectively. Deprived of the islands of Great Britain and Ireland, the United States has no such base, as any base with a land frontier with the rest of Europe could be overrun by the forces of Bolshevism before the resources of the United States of America could place it in a state of defence. Therefore, so long as the bases in these islands remain available to the United States of America, no challenge for war will be issued by the Polit Bureau of Moscow, since they know that to do so would merely initiate an encounter which they were foredoomed to lose—and they are not going to start a war which they think they are going to lose. Great Britain and the United States have no interest in starting a war and do not intend to do so.

If the nations of Europe believe that ultimately the Bolsheviks are going to control the whole Continent, they will proceed to make friends with the Mammon of iniquity now—and who will blame them? What is the use of standing out against Bolshevism in your own country, if the Bolsheviks are allowed to come in subsequently and do what they are doing at this moment in Hungary and Rumania? Therefore, any politician in Europe who has to make his choice while, like the sword of Damocles, the Bolshevik conquest hangs over his country, will choose to get on the Bolshevik band wagon, as if he tries to resist it and fails, it means for him imprisonment, torture and death when the Bolsheviks arrive.

Every nation knows that, unless the combined forces of the British Commonwealth of Nations and the United States of America are deployed against the Russian threat, Russia will overrun Europe; but if the combined Anglo-American resources are deployed against that threat, Europe will not be overrun, because Russia will not try to do so, knowing that she is foredoomed to failure. On the day that that conviction is carried to the minds of European states, every Communist fifth column in Europe ceases to be the pursuer and becomes itself pursued. Do Deputies remember the Nazi gang we had in this city? While the Germans were winning the war, they were swaggering about like gamecocks. Then the tide turned, the feathers began to droop and the ones who loved the Fuhrer, the ones who were so anxious to lunch with his Ambassador, spent most of their time explaining that it was only a sense of duty made them do it and all that potential fifth column vanished overnight.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I must say that I cannot see what this has to do with this Estimate.

Mr. Dillon

So, in every city in Europe, the Fifth Columns that at present threaten their sovereignty, should they, too, be convinced that those on whose behalf they work at present to betray their countries were fated never to come within their borders, that the Bolsheviks would never come, will fade and wilt, and, instead of seeing one country after another sold by its own traitors, you will see free peoples again choose for themselves the type of government under which they live, under no constraint of force to submit to Bolshevism or any other system, except one of their own choosing. In that hour genuine liberty is born again, not only for every country on the continent of Europe, but for us, because we have no guarantee of freedom. Our freedom is not worth one hour's purchase if Europe perishes—we perish with her. If Europe is redeemed Ireland's is the redemption, too.

Just as the intentions of the Nazis were recorded in Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler and nobody would believe them—it has been demonstrated that every word he wrote he meant and proceeded to carry into effect—consult the works of Lenin and Stalin and you will find that both of these men declare that it is unthinkable that Communist Russia could survive, unless and until Communism had conquered democracy and freedom in every country in the world, and at this moment they are proceeding along precisely the path mapped out and resolved upon 20 years ago: (1) the conquest of Europe, involving as an absolute pre-essential the destruction of Britain, (2) the extension of control over Africa and Asia, which, of course, is at present being undertaken in Northern China, (3) the infiltration of the South American Republics, and then the final battle for the conquest of the United States of America.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Will the Deputy come to a consideration of the administration of the External Affairs Department?

Mr. Dillon

Small, insignificant as we may appear to be to those Deputies who prefer to live a lie, the sovereignty and independence of this country are to me more important than the sovereignty and independence of the United States of America, Great Britain or any other country in the world. My prime interest is to see this country free. This is where I live; this is where my children will live, please God; and this is where all I care about is inevitably destined to be; and what causes me grievous apprehension is the possibility that our country and our people should, by inadvertence or folly, suffer themselves to be used by that Polit Bureau in Moscow of which I have spoken to achieve the diabolical ends Moscow has in mind. Remember that the keystone of their policy is to foment every sense of grievance and every potential cause of quarrel in every country in the world for the purpose of weakening those who together can constitute a front arrayed against Communism. Thus we have the Communist interest in the Zionist movement in Palestine; we have the Communist interest in the fate of Egypt and the Sudan; we have the Communist anxiety about the plain people of the Philippines; and we have the Communist solicitude for Cuba.

Now, to my revolted and consternated gaze, we have the Communist interest in Partition. Deputy O Briain smiles at that. I do not like Communists and I do not trust them. Remember that their policy is to use anybody and anything for their own ends. Sometimes it suits them to work in with the authorities where they are functioning, and sometimes simple Irish chaps, thinking they were serving the national cause, might be sent upon chores which had criminal consequences, and, during the 15 years' penal servitude they would earn, would often wonder how the police got to know. If they knew as much as some of us know, they might learn in time. There is no question of honour, no question of loyalty, no question of truth, no question of any moral law at all when you are dealing with Communists. I want to sound this note of warning, perhaps the Leas-Cheann Comhairle will now understand the application of this to our foreign policy. Let us be careful lest the Polit Bureau in Moscow be enabled by our folly or our ignorance to use our people in Great Britain and in the United States of America for the purpose of serving the prime interest of Communism in the world to-day, i.e., the fomenting of misunderstanding and ill-will between the United States of America and the British Commonwealth of Nations. When I find the Communist party instituting what they are pleased to call the "Connolly Clubs", called after the late James Connolly, the 1916 leader, using his name to draw young Irish workers in England into the clubs, and I find the clubs publishing a newspaper, the editor of which until recently was Mr. Pat Dooley, a well-known member of the Communist party in England, and when I find that the clubs are being used to summon meetings at the Holborn Viaduct Hall for the Irish workers at Daventry and that the guest speaker is Mr. Arthur Horner, the secretary-general of the Communist party in England, I begin to wonder since when did Mr. Horner develop this love for Ireland, who warmed his heart for Ireland and who suddenly told him that Partition was now the party line? I know.

He was told that it was a useful rally to get in on, that nobody gave a damn as to whether Partition was abolished or not, but that from the Communist point of view it was helpful to keep the ball rolling and anything that happened would be used with great advantage in America. Some people may think that is fanciful. Look at this document. Deputy Briscoe brought over a nice friend recently who visited us here in Ireland—Mr. William B. Ziff. Mr. William B. Ziff went to visit the Taoiseach when he was here. "During my visit," said Mr. William B. Ziff, "I was scheduled for a 15-minutes' broadcast to America. Mr. de Valera had given me permission to convey his greetings and his good wishes to the people of America."— You can imagine the terms under which that was done—"I have just come from the Taoiseach who wishes me to tell you he sends you his love and blessing.""In the circumstances," says Mr. William B. Ziff, "I thought I ought to show the wording of my broadcast to Mr. Frank Gallagher who is at the Bureau of Information. Mr. Gallagher looked at me and said: ‘Oh, no, I do not want to see any part of your broadcast, that is not necessary.'" However, Joe Blowick, James Dillon or Dick Mulcahy could not speak in Foxford until every word had been censored, but Mr. William B. Ziff—"Not at all, say what you please!" It was my turn to look in open-mouthed amazement at this Zionist——

Mr. Cafferky

Financier.

Mr. Dillon

He is a Zionist. I like to watch people functioning not only when they are on their best behaviour but when they are showing themselves in their true colours. Mr. Ziff went home. Where were his articles published?—in the Hearst newspapers, the most vicious anti-British chain of newspapers in the United States of America. Then a rally for freedom was held in New York—Rally for freedom of Palestine—Rally for freedom of Ireland and Palestine. Free Ireland— Free Palestine. Support the resistance against the British terror! Under the auspices of the united Irish of America and the Jewish war veterans of America. Mr. Charles F. Connolly, the editor-publisher of the Irish Echo, a great admirer of the Taoiseach—he says he is a wonderful man. The Honourable Andrew Somers, Congressman from Brooklyn—God knows who he is. Y. Ben-Ami, recently returned from Palestine. Nathaniel Kaplan, King's County Comdr., Jewish war veteran, and Mr. William B. Ziff, fresh from his collogue with Taoiseach de Valera, author “Ireland To-day,”“Rape of Palestine,” Chairman. Entertainment: singers, pipers, dancers. The Palestinians were putting on kilts for the day. I suppose the Irish were expected to appear in caftans. But the important thing was to lend verisimilitude to the suggestion in New York that Ireland shared the view that the base, bloody and brutal British were cruelly oppressing the Jewish people, that we were all Zionists here and understood them and that everybody representing the British Government in Palestine was engaged on a savage and cruel crusade against Zionist liberty.

Further, the Taoiseach could be quoted as approving that proposition by his interjection here in regard to the Palestine Police Force, that he hoped that no national of this country would belong to such a force and that he could not see why any should. God knows why they should not. I have met many of them in it, decent, respectable men, and though the Taoiseach is to-day quite prepared to take up a lofty attitude: "shame on anybody who belongs to it", and if the Lord spares him fill his Party with their sons just as he has done with the sons of the R.I.C. It would be the greatest shame in 20 years' time to be the son of a Palestine policeman just as it now is to be the son of an R.I.C. man. The difference is that some of the best friends I ever had were members of the R.I.C.—decent, respectable Irishmen, just as at the present moment there are decent, respectable Irishmen in the Palestine Police Force. I have more respect for the fathers of some of the Fianna Fáil T.D.'s than some of the T.D.'s themselves have for their fathers. I never was ashamed to say so and I am not now. These things to which I have referred are evidence that an effort is being made by the Communists to use our people and our cause as an instrument with which to drive a wedge between the British people and the people of the United States of America. It will not succeed, be sure of that.

But, unless we make it clear in no uncertain terms that we are no party to it, that we do not approve of it, and that we would not wish to see the evil of Partition ended by the help of the Communist parties in this country, Great Britain, America, or anywhere else, great harm may be done to our country and amongst people throughout the world who hitherto have been proud to claim this country as the mother country of their race. Americans are a patient people and a decent, hospitable people, up to a point. But, if the impression were ever created in the United States of America that we here in Ireland claimed, never mind asserted, the right to address people of Irish extraction in America for the purpose of persuading them to combine in America to bring pressure to bear on the American Administration in a particular direction in their foreign policy we could evoke in America a degree of resentment the ferocity of which would stagger us.

An Ceann Comhairle resumed the Chair.

Mr. Dillon

I beg of the Taoiseach to give up living in his salad days. The world has changed greatly since he was careering about the American Continent 25 years ago. Those in America and abroad who derive from this country all look back to the source of their origin; but they do not want to be known as hyphenated Americans, and, in the last analysis, if the choice ever fell to be made, those of our people who have made their home in America would choose America in preference to Ireland, and they are perfectly right. The most excellent quality they have is the certain knowledge that the United States of America, which has received them, need never doubt that, if a choice arose between the home of their adoption and any other country in the world, anyone who has an Irish name or claims to come from Ireland will loyally observe his first and only duty in a time of choice to the United States of America and all she stands for. The people who will most bitterly resent any action on our part which could conceivably give rise to misconstruction in that regard will be the people of Irish extraction themselves in the United States of America.

The Deputy has already given that matter as a subject for debate and he cannot have it on this Vote and on the Taoiseach's Vote.

Mr. Dillon

I outlined in the message I addressed to you the economic measures that might be related in connection with that problem. At the moment I am concerned purely with politics and I want to differentiate when the appropriate time comes—if ever it should come—how vital it is to separate the two, because an attempt to mix them must inevitably result in the failure of both. I am talking now about our political foreign policy, the keystone of which must be the recognition of the supremacy and unique importance of the principal question to which I have referred.

The only guarantee the world has against the realisation of that disaster, conquest by the Comintern, is the continued co-operation of the United States of America, on the one hand, and Great Britain and the Commonwealth of Nations on the other. To that continued understanding and co-operation this country, and those whom we are in a position to influence, can make a substantial contribution, the first and most important of which should be to ensure that nowhere and at no time will Ireland or the Irish ever be used by the Communists for the purpose of creating ill-will in the United States of America against Great Britain and the Commonwealth to which she belongs. Secondly, to ensure that neither Ireland nor the Irish will be used anywhere in Great Britain or throughout the Commonwealth for the purpose of creating that kind of civil disturbance or misunderstanding which is the daily bread of Communism in any country which they are conspiring to destroy, and, thirdly, in a positive way, wherever and whenever the chance arises to interpret the British people to the American people and the American people to the British people with a view to removing, in so far as within our power lies, any material for misunderstanding, ill-will or disagreement.

We are in a peculiar position in that we belong to neither people but are intimate with both; we are in the peculiar position that our people understand the Americans as few other people in the world do, and at the same time we understand the British as few other people in the world do. We are so circumstanced that, if we wished, we could interpret one to the other, explaining their weaknesses, applauding their virtues and doing all we can to ensure that the Communist attempt to excite ill-will and disunion will fail. Ours may not be a world-shaking contribution. If everyone, great and small, does his part to resist this attempt at world conquest by Moscow, the conquest will never take place. If the smallest amongst the nations of the world should fail to make its microscopic contribution, that fragment may, in the last analysis, be the thing the lack of which, in the hour of crisis, may tip the vital scale.

I want to see, on every opportunity that presents itself, the question of Partition pursued. The place in which I would like to pursue it principally would be in Belfast. I would much sooner see the Orangemen of Northern Ireland coming home than having to return to Ireland in consequence of what they felt to be a betrayal by those whom they had thought to be their friends. For my part, I should like to approach them on the basis that I hoped to see our Protestant Orange fellow-countrymen, not an unwanted charge on the charity of Socialist England, called up again and again by their enemies to justify their claim to belong to the United Kingdom, to plead, on the grounds of their unswerving loyalty and devotion to the British Crown, the privilege of remaining where they are not wanted and where they do not belong. I should like to remind them that they humiliate us all when they suffer themselves to be insulted on the floor of the British House of Commons and find themselves without effective answer because in their hearts they know they are standing where they do not belong whereas, in this city, a sovereign Parliament is waiting to receive them, where they do not have to ask leave to come in, where they have as good right to speak as any living creature in the world, and help in the shaping of the destiny of their own country which, if they were here to help in shaping it, might be a very different destiny from that reserved for them if they continue to stay away.

When they come here there will be no mental reservations. The man who speaks for the citizens of Shankill Road speaks with the same authority as the Deputy who speaks for the electors of County Clare just as the man who speaks for the West Riding of Donegal speaks with the same authority as the man who comes from Derry City. They can come here with the knowledge that if anyone questions their right to be here, they can look at him with contempt, in the knowledge that the challenge is not issued by any claim of right but because the challenger is afraid to face them with the honest weapons of debate. How much happier, how much more dignified, would be the members who represent Northern Ireland, in such an atmosphere in Dáil Éireann, than looking over their shoulders on the floor of the British House of Commons trusting to God that they will get support from any quarter however disreputable? I pity them. I can sympathise with the degradation they must feel, canvassing this one and canvassing that one, to ensure that they will not be left alone to face the music in the British House of Commons. They are learning the lesson, and if we follow the right lines here, they will come home, not as a result of threats, not as a result of inflammatory movements, not as a result of campaigns of vilification abroad, not as a result of suggestions that they are no more than planters, but secure in the knowledge that they have as much claim in this country as any Deputy speaking in this House. They have been here in this country a great deal longer than some of those who make spurious claims to be incorruptible Irishmen here in Ireland.

We have no army; we have no mighty armaments which we could utilise in any conflict that may arise but we have Truth if we are not afraid to use it. In the world in which we live to-day it is a very mighty weapon. The purpose of my observations is to suggest to the Minister for External Affairs that instead of pouring over the notes appended to his Estimate in the Book of Estimates, he would be better employed in declaring the method whereby he hoped to serve Truth on behalf of Ireland in the world outside. We must make the choice between those who have deliberately sold their souls to the devil and those multitudes of imperfect men who still experience a sense of guilt when they know that they have done wrong. I do not want anyone to imagine that I am suggesting that all over the United States, Great Britain and the other democratic countries of the world, there are nothing but angels and saints; they are mostly sinners. We know that, as we know ourselves, but the profound distinction is that they know that they are sinners while those who serve the devil believe that the more gross outrages they perpetrate on Christian belief, the more faithful is their service to the cause which they have chosen to serve.

If in this hour it appears before the world that Ireland, above all, is preoccupied with her own particular individual grievances to the exclusion of everything else and takes up the position amongst the nations of the world that, until this grievance is disposed of, we shall lend no hand in any worthy undertaking—if that be our position we are disgraced and I should be ashamed to confess abroad that I was Irish. But whatever this Government may do, that is not the view that is taken by our people. Our people know the hierarchy of importance to which fundamental developments in the world belong and, given right leadership, our people would do all in their power to lend a hand in averting catastrophe, in securing peace and justice, not only for ourselves but for the whole world, not ashamed that our contribution to the effort is so small but rather like Le Jongleur de Notre Dame, who offered all he had, discovering that that little was more welcome than the most precious gifts from those who are in a position to afford more.

I do not know when the Taoiseach proposes to end this discussion. For strategic reasons, he did not say what he ought to have said at the beginning of the debate. When the debate finishes, I hope that we shall hear a more positive note from him and, above all, that he has decided no longer to ask our people to live a lie.

Mr. Cafferky

This is a very important Estimate. It would be a waste of the time of the House if I were to attempt to try to cover all the ground that was covered by Deputy Dillon. Nothing would be gained by my doing so. The Deputy holds that the Minister for External Affairs is responsible for our outlook on foreign policy. I deny that. He may be responsible for the outlook on foreign policy so far as his Party is concerned, but he certainly has no responsibility as far as I am concerned. I am quite capable of forming my own opinions without any line from the Taoiseach. Whether the Minister for External Affairs or Deputy Dillon agrees with me or not, I am convinced that we can do a lot of good by telling the world how we are fixed here. Deputy Dillon is a man who advocates the truth. Is he afraid of the truth? Is he afraid that if we tell the outside world the truth that we are doing an injustice to ourselves and to those who do not agree with us, or that we are insulting the peoples and the nations who listen to us. If so, does Deputy Dillon expect us either to tell a lie or to remain silent and suffer on?

I long for the day when our short-wave system will be in operation. If Deputy Dillon had lived as long outside this country as I have—he may have lived outside it for a year or more but I did so for more than ten years—he would be aware of the desire of the Irish people to be able to tune-in and listen to whoever is head of the State addressing them at intervals during the year. Whoever the head of the State may be, I cannot see that there is anything wrong when he addresses the people of this country.

Mr. Dillon

Who, do you say, is the head of the State?

Mr. Cafferky

Whoever the head of the State is. I did not mention any name.

Mr. Dillon

Who is now the head of the State?

Mr. Cafferky

I leave it to the Deputy to describe who the head of the State is. One of the things that people living outside the country complain of is their inability to hear addresses delivered by the head of the State. The newspapers which circulate in the countries in which they live are anti-Irish and never carry the addresses delivered by the head of this State or the head of the Government. It is only natural, therefore, that they should long for the day when they will be able to tune-in and listen to the head of the State, even if that person were Deputy Dillon himself. Does the Deputy really think that if I were head of the State and addressed the Irish people in America, if I put before them the position in regard to this country and made every effort to contradict the anti-Irish campaign carried on in the newspapers of that country, or in the newspapers circulating in England, that I would be doing an injustice to this country: that I would be injuring the freedom of this country or that I would be insulting the people of America and England?

The Deputy knows that there are two ways of addressing the people of America, the right way and the wrong way. No responsible head of a Government here would address either the people of the United States or the people of Great Britain in the wrong way. He would appeal to them in the right way, in a way to convince them that this is a nation divided against its will, that we are a democratic nation, that we have democratic institutions in this part of the country which is free, that it is our desire to apply these democratic institutions to the whole country, and that that is the desire of the overwhelming majority of the Irish people. You cannot just talk about a minority or a majority of the people in any part of Ireland. You cannot say that you must consider the majority in North-East Ulster. As far as we are concerned, North-East Ulster exists only in the minds of those who invented it, and I do not think that, in putting that fact before the people of America or the people of England, we would be doing any injury whatsoever. The results of the 1918 election should be a sufficient answer to the people in North-East Ulster that public opinion in this country was united even when the country was governed from Dublin Castle.

Deputy Dillon is worried about the development of Communism, and on the inroads it is making, particularly on Irish people living outside the country. I noticed that when he was speaking on that subject he had a paper called The Irish Democrat before him. I happened to be living in England when I stood on a public platform for the first time. My reason for doing so was that I recognised that the organisation to which Deputy Dillon referred at such length was leading a large number of Irish people astray, and that as Deputy Dillon described it, was being used as a trap. I tried to explain to the people on that occasion what the position was and how it should be remedied.

I believe that our short-wave system can be utilised for the purpose of bringing the truth to Irish people living in England. It will enable us to tell them what we are trying to do here. There will be no need for them to join the Connolly Club or to go to the Albert Hall or any other hall. It can be utilised to counteract the efforts of speakers having Communist tendencies—some of them avowed Communists—who use the name of the late Mr. Connolly or the names of Patrick Pearse or some other of our Irish patriots for the purpose of deceiving Irish people listening to them, and in the hope of leading them up the garden to the particular objective which those speakers have in view. Our short-wave system can be utilised to convey the truth to people outside this country and without any desire to mislead them. Our desire will be to give them the truth which will lead to the establishment of complete unity and freedom in this country. I have not a great deal of pity for those Irishmen and women who join organisations without first investigating them with a view to finding out what type of organisations they are, how constituted, who is running them and what is the purpose of them. A great proportion of these men and women have attained a reasonable standard of education, to the seventh or eighth standard, as good as any Englishman in Great Britain has and, from my experience, better. They are able to read and write and if they are in doubt they can, for tuppence, get a booklet in any Catholic bookstall which will give them all the information they want in relation to Christian doctrine and traditions and in relation to the way in which they should live. If they are too idle to avail themselves of that opportunity, it is their own look-out, and if they allow themselves to be misled by someone who is merely using them for a particular purpose, it is too bad.

I have my own opinion as to the development of Communism in Europe to-day and as to the effect it will have in this country. Sometimes one can be misrepresented when one speaks about Communism, its ills and its dangers. One would be told that this is a Catholic nation and that Communism can never get a foothold here, that it will never become influential here. Spain was a Catholic nation. Mexico, Brazil and other nations were Catholic countries having Catholic governments. There is one remedy for Communism and the dangers of Communism. It is not long-winded speeches. It is not the organisation of great armies. In my estimation, these things merely encourage it by creating saints, by creating godheads who will be worshipped because they have made the supreme sacrifice for their cause, who will be used for the purpose of rebuilding Communism and making it stronger than it has been. The way to avoid the development of Communism is to remove the many social ills that exist and on which Communism builds its platform. If that is done, there is no need to fear Communism. If a country is administered badly, if social sores are left unattended which can be exploited, naturally Communists will avail of the opportunity to exploit them and they will exploit them for a totally different purpose from that which prompts the members of this House when they go on the political platform outside. Some of these people may appear sincere but they are being used by outside influences to create a false impression in the minds of the Irish people and to convince them that if they turn to them and support them all their ills and difficulties can be removed and a Utopia will be created.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is on internal affairs, I think.

Mr. Cafferky

I am relating it to external affairs and to the effect which the Communistic philosophy would have in this country if we were to continue to administer our affairs in a haphazard or shoddy manner. I am dealing with the effect which Communism is having in Europe to-day and the dangers which will eventually emanate from them. We can counteract them only by doing the best we can socially for our people at home and by bringing the truth to those of our kith and kin who are living outside the country and by keeping them in touch with our aspirations and development and with our Christian outlook and by demonstrating to them that we can live our daily lives as Christians and yet have a system of government and a system of institutions and administration equal to any in the world, if not better. If we can do that, we will be doing a good day's work. A short-wave station that would help in achieving that object, even if it cost £100,000,000 would be well worth it. I know the damning effect on our Irish people abroad when they lose contact with the mother country and with everything of which we should feel proud.

I was in Donegal last Sunday, in a place called Moville. I got up to address a meeting and I was rather embarrassed when I saw the mixed audience. There were Scotch Highlanders, soldiers in various uniforms, not the Irish uniform, sailors. I asked was this an international court or what was it. I was told a most astounding story, that these people had been there all through the war, that the police had a very difficult time, that there were Dutch soldiers and sailors there, English soldiers and sailors, French— all nationalities. I said that we were neutral and that that could not be. They said, "That is what you thought in Mayo and Dublin but if you had been here you would have seen 60 ships in the harbour." I have a nationalist outlook but I am not extreme. I do not believe in being extreme about national ideals because you can go too far. I believed in the policy of the Government of neutrality. Any other policy would have been suicidal. It was not only the policy of the Government, it was the policy of this House and of the country at that time to be neutral and I am sure it would be the policy again although it will not be if we get into United Nations Organisation. The point I want to make is that now I am convinced it was all a sham.

An Ceann Comhairle

What has that to do with this Vote?

Mr. Cafferky

I want to know from the Taoiseach is there any line of demarcation down Lough Foyle? What is the position there? Is there any agreement or any understanding? Can our troops go into Derry—as troops can come from Derry to us—in the uniform of the Irish Army, and play about as they play about in Moville? How was it, or is it true, that there were ships on our territory during the war and how was it that we did not know it? Were we strictly adhering to the policy which we thought we had, the policy of neutrality? I do not object to these men coming in. I was surprised to find them there, but it will do no harm. They might learn the lesson that we are free. When they hear me speaking, they will not be convinced that there is a dictatorship here, when one man can tell here what he thinks about the present Government and the Taoiseach. They may be able to go back and say: "If we do join with Ireland, we will be able to tell you what we think of you, as there is freedom there for speech making and for advocating a different type of Government." I would like the Taoiseach to give us a full explanation about that and then I would be satisfied. I believe there was an explanation, but I want to know if it is the truth.

Coming back to what we should talk about, is there any hope of abolishing the permit system existing between Great Britain and Ireland? As Minister for External Affairs, the Taoiseach must know the inconvenience which that system is causing. He will recognise that, down there in the British Permit Office, there never has been a proper system to deal with the issuing of travel permits on the scale which has existed since the outbreak of war. Before that, only a small scheme was necessary, as very few permits were required. They run into thousands now. You find people sitting on the pavement, on the steps up to the door, standing for hours inside, and there are a few forms on which they can sit down on the landing or staircase. There is no accommodation and certainly no courtesy. You are awfully lucky if you do not get your nose cut off coming out the door or your coattail cut. The Minister should make some representations about that. The representation that I want him to make is, not to seek for courtesy or accommodation but for the abolition of this passport system between Great Britain and Ireland, if it is at all possible.

The Minister may tell me that, if the passport system were abolished, there would be nobody left here. While that may be so, who is to blame for it? The failure to provide employment for them is the whole key to the problem. There would be very little emigration and very few passports required, if they could be given employment which would keep them at home.

As regards the appointment of our representatives abroad and the reception of foreign Ministers or Ambassadors here, a lot has been said by Deputy Dillon and Deputy McGilligan. Both of them are barristers and well versed in the law and can do a lot of legal twisting if they want to. There is a certain amount of truth in what Deputy McGilligan said. He is under the impression that the Irish people are being misled by the Minister for External affairs. Well, the Irish people are not misled. I represent the ordinary type of people with ordinary elementary education and the Taoiseach could not mislead me. I think he cannot mislead anyone else, nor can the Government do so.

We all know how these credentials are presented, we all know the relations which exist between the Commonwealth on the one hand and Great Britain on the other. I understand that that can be changed by an Act of Parliament in this House, if this House desires. Whether it would be for good or evil is another question. I think it is very humiliating to have to present our credentials to a foreign monarch or to the President of a foreign country through His Majesty King George VI or any other King. It is humiliating and I would be better pleased to put up with sacrifices, no matter how great they would be, to have it otherwise. I could not imagine, if the British people and the British Government are as good as Deputy Dillon makes out, so Christian, so truthful and so kind, that they would impose an injustice on this country from the point of view of trade or international relationship because we desire foreign representatives to present their credentials to the Head of this State and not to His Majesty King George VI.

That is a question—and I would like the Minister to know it, Sir—that is being discussed at every fireside. One picks up a paper and sees a report about the ambassador of France or Spain— the last one I read about was Spain, when the representative of Spain presented his credentials here. We saw the pictures showing him at Dublin Castle and showing our Irish Army there—and we were fully proud of them —presenting arms. Then we saw the Taoiseach as Minister for External Affairs receive him and present an address in the name of this country. Does the Minister realise that, down the country, at the fireside where I go every second night visiting, to hear the jokes—and one hears very smart ones about Deputies and Ministers; you would be surprised what they know down the country—the question is: "How is it that it is Mr. de Valera who receives this gentleman—what is O'Kelly doing?" I am putting it the way they put it at the fireside. They say: "You should know, Dominick." Even if I said: "Oh, well, I do not know," they are not deceived. They know well that it is the Minister for External Affairs, representing His Majesty, King George VI.

The Taoiseach

It is not true.

Mr. Cafferky

At least, they believe it. I am not going to argue with the Minister for External Affairs, as I am an ordinary layman with limited knowledge.

The Taoiseach

Read the Constitution. The Deputy can do that.

Mr. Cafferky

There is something in it, anyway, whatever it is. There was a man who was over here from Britain at the time the Constitution was passed in 1937 and who wrote a commentary on it and on the ability of the Taoiseach and those who helped him in drawing it up. He was a Scotsman, an authority on international law or something like that. He said that it was a masterpiece and could be used in any way. He said that it could be proved that the Minister here is really and truly representing this country and a very sound argument can be put up for that, but a very sound argument can be put up that he is merely acting in the name of the British King and each of them looks true. I think he said it could be described as a mathematical problem and he said that most Scotch people are unaware that de Valera is a mathematician and naturally put such a problem in the Constitution as would leave the best brains in the world pained to solve. I think that is what has happened.

The Taoiseach can get up and make a very good case and deny emphatically that such is possible. Deputy McGilligan—whose ability as far as law is concerned no one will dispute— and Deputy Costello can make it otherwise, and you cannot tell which is telling the truth. The ordinary man is full of a sense of understanding and, if the Minister wants to know what the ordinary man thinks—that is me and the likes of me—it is that the relationship is there and that the King of England is doing the work that Mr. Seán T. Ó Ceallaigh, His Excellency the President of Ireland, should be doing. That is the honest truth. I would love it to be otherwise, I would be proud to see the Head of the State performing these functions, receiving these representatives, opening Parliament and closing it, seeing him do all the things a monarch should do, see him honoured and respected and recognised. I wish in no way to belittle his position, but if the Minister wants to know what the opinion is, it is that he is there only for attending at football matches.

The Dáil adjourned at 2 p.m. to 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 24th June, 1947.

Dáil Éireann debate - Friday, 20 Jun 1947

Committee on Finance. - Vote 65—External Affairs.

Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 20 Jun 1947