I move:—
That a sum not exceeding £115,860 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1949, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for External Affairs, and of certain Services administered by that Office (No. 16 of 1924), including a Grant-in-Aid.
There is also a Supplementary Estimate for £6,585, which was introduced this morning. With the permission of the Chair, I propose, if this course is convenient to the House, that the two Estimates be discussed together.
Before dealing with the matters which from strictly part of the Estimates for my Department, there are certain considerations that I should like to urge upon the House generally. Since the inception of our Parliamentary institutions I do not think it can be said that our constitutional or Parliamentary development has been a normal one. Many issues of fundamental importance from time to time stirred the embers of the civil war and aroused a good deal of bitterness. This was to a large extent an inevitable sequel to the events that occurred. It had the drawback of leading to heated controversy, leading often to unreasoned criticism. Therefore, I should like to appeal to all sections of the House for a new approach in the consideration of issues that come before the House. Instead of approaching problems from the point of view of scoring either personal or Party advantages, I would appeal to the House to approach them from a constructive point of view. In making this appeal I am quite prepared to grant freely that destructive criticism comes from all sides of the House. I think that a greater degree of co-operation and a greater degree of deliberation in the criticism that is made would be welcomed by the country and would help to achieve a greater measure of common good.
Our Parliamentary traditions are very short and they have been stormy. A time has been reached when we should be able to be more deliberate and more constructive in our approach. I am not suggesting that Deputies should not criticise or should not express their views freely. I am suggesting that, as far as possible, they should try to do so in the most constructive manner possible. In no sphere of debate or in no sphere of Governmental activity is this more important than in the sphere of our external affairs. Whatever political differences we may have among ourselves, we as a nation must be united in our dealings with the rest of the world. I should like to feel while I hold this post that in speaking to other nations and in helping to shape the external policy of this country, I am doing so with the full support of every section of this House irrespective of Party difference. The more this is possible, the more our national position will be strengthened, the more our voice will count in the world.
Unanimity and co-operation in external affairs will also help to increase the self-confidence of our own people in relation to problems connected with external affairs. Generally speaking, it is the function of the Department I represent in this House to be the voice of Ireland abroad. It is my desire that this function should be carried out by my Department on a broad national basis without regard to any differences based on matters of internal policy. I should like to make it clear to this House that I shall always welcome any suggestion, any advice or any help that any Deputy can give me in the carrying out of my duties.
The Parliamentary institutions of some countries provide for a committee on foreign affairs. I do not know whether it would be possible within the existing framework of our Parliamentary institutions to make such a provision here. It is a matter that might well be considered at some future date. But, in the meanwhile, I shall always be glad to discuss with the Leader of the Opposition or with the leaders of any of the Parties in this House any matters relating to the external affairs of the country.
I cannot, in the time available for my estimates, discuss the international situation, beyond saying that it is far from satisfactory. It is a sad commentary on the development of human civilisation that, after the most destructive war of history has just concluded, the possibility—it may be a remote possibility, but it is a possibility—of armed conflict should again have to be envisaged by the peoples of Europe.
As a nation, we are pledged, by our Constitution, to the ideal of peace and friendly co-operation among nations, on a basis of international justice and morality. It is the policy of the Government, therefore, to do anything it can to assist in the maintenance of peace.
The difficulty of the present situation in Europe is that a number of nations have, willingly or unwillingly, aligned themselves behind an ideology that takes little or no cognisance of the elementary principles of democracy and personal liberty. I have no doubt that, if democratic institutions were allowed to work freely throughout the countries of Europe, none of them would willingly pursue a path that would lead to war.
We in Ireland are not much troubled by conflicting ideologies. We are firm believers in democracy in its true sense and are firmly attached to the principles of Christianity. Our sympathies, therefore, lie clearly with the nations of Western Europe.
Many suggestions have been made recently in support of a plan to form a United States of Europe. While these plans are still in their preliminary stages and have not got the official backing of the Governments of Europe, it might be well that we in Ireland should begin to think about these plans. It is clear that with the development of transport communication and science generally, isolationism is no longer possible. If another disaster—which this time might well mean the complete annihilation of Europe—is to be averted, it is obvious that some form of world organisation is inevitable.
The United Nations Organisation has not so far provided a solution. The mere fact that, in the present crisis, it does not appear to have taken any effective steps to resolve the present crisis is, in itself, an indication of its failure. The fact, too, that we have been excluded from it demonstrates that its mechanism is open to abuse. In this connection I should mention that, at some time in the near future, it may become necessary that the Government should consider whether our application for membership of the United Nations Organisation should not be withdrawn. I have delayed in bringing this matter formally before the Government and the Dáil as I did not wish, in the present situation, to take any steps that would indicate a lack of faith in any attempt that was being made to discuss world problems at a conference table. No matter how abortive or fruitless such conferences may prove, it is still the only way of avoiding conflict. The more representatives of different nations meet to discuss their problems, the greater the possibility of reaching understanding and peaceful solutions.
A start has been made in the direction of a united states of Europe in the economic sphere by the creation of the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation. This organisation has undertaken its work in a businesslike and constructive manner. If it continues to progress in the same direction, it may well form a nucleus around which economic co-operation throughout the whole of Europe can be planned.
If the countries of Europe are all prepared to surrender a certain small fraction of their sovereignty, then a United States of Europe could become a practical possibility, in the political as well as in the economic sphere.
This movement for a United States of Europe is the result of the realisation that, unless something tangible is done to remove the causes of war, the world will again drift towards self-destruction. I feel, however, that what is really more important than the creation of international machinery is the creation of an ideal of peace, based on the recognition of certain fundamental democratic rights. Materialism and expediency, coupled with fear and intolerance, have been the dominating influences in European politics. It is essential that the people of Europe should be given some hope, based on faith and idealism. For us, this is relatively easy, because our attachment to Christian principles gives us that faith and idealism.
Because of our desire for peace, because of our belief that man has a higher function to fulfil than to act as a cog in a flywheel, and because of our close relationship with the Western Hemisphere, we should be able to play an important rôle in Europe. Our usefulness in this respect is largely nullified by the fact that we ourselves suffer from an injustice, in that our country is artificially divided against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of its people.
I do not propose to deal with Partition at any length in this debate, but I think that I should take this occasion to emphasise the importance of this issue. The continuance of Partition precludes us from taking our rightful place in the affairs of Europe. I believe that the British Government and people are approaching the realisation that the statesmanlike policy lies in the direction of securing the complete friendship and co-operation of this island; the realisation that a united and a free Ireland is as essential to Britain's welfare as it is to Ireland's. We, on our part, want to hold out the hand of friendship to Britain, but so long as Partition remains, it will inevitably mar the relationship between our two islands. We want, and are quite prepared, to bury the past provided that the present holds out a realisation of our right to national selfdetermination. The wise and statesmanlike approach on Britain's part is to assist in the removal of this sore and of all other reminders of the unhappy history of our past relationships.
One of the difficulties that we have to contend with in relation to Partition is that, to Britain, it is only one of many problems; it is always easier to shelve a problem—especially an uncomfortable one. I should like to urge upon the statesmen of Great Britain the very real urgency and importance of this problem from our point of view. It has often been said, and I think it is commonplace even in English political circles, that the tragedy of Anglo-Irish relationship lies in the fact that the British realisation of the realities of our problems always came too late. Nothing can be gained by delaying the adoption of a statesmanlike approach to this very serious problem.
Two points emerge now possibly more clearly than ever before; firstly, the artificial division of our national territory is something that no generation of Irishmen and that no Irish Government will ever acquiesce in or accept. Secondly, that so long as it continues, Partition will constitute a definite obstacle to the kind of relationship between Ireland and Britain, which it is in the interest, not merely of the two countries, but of the world as a whole, to bring about.
In earlier debates in this House I have already referred to the economic disadvantages that result from the continued division of our country— economic disadvantages that affect the welfare of our people on both sides of the Border. If we, in the Twenty-Six Counties have, in the present situation, to be a drain on the resources of the United States or on the dollar resources of the sterling area reserve it is due, practically entirely, to the fact that the industrial arm of our country has been amputated. On the other hand, our people in the Six North - Eastern Counties have to undergo very heavy taxation and shortages, because they are cut off from the agricultural arm of their own country. A very large proportion of their exports remain unrequited, while they are deprived of substantial markets for their own goods in the rest of Ireland.
It has been urged that the reunification of Ireland would, in some way, adversely affect the industrial potential of the Six Counties; that the shipyards or other heavy industries would be hit. I do not think that this would be so, and I feel certain that we would all be prepared to satisfy our Six-County friends on this issue. The industrial potential of the Six Counties is of as much importance to a united Ireland as it is to Britain. On the contrary, our markets would provide them with an additional outlet; I think, too, that we might be of some assistance in helping the sale of Irish linen abroad. I think that complaints would be far more likely to come from some of our industrialists down here who would fear competition from Belfast. I have great respect and admiration for the business and industrial genius of our fellow-countrymen in the North-East. Their enterprise and competition would, I think, benefit the country as a whole.
It has also been suggested that if Partition were ended, the religious and civil liberties of the people in the Six Counties would, in some way be endangered. I do not know whether this is a real or an argumentative view, but in either event, I feel I am expressing the unanimous view of this House in saying that we would be prepared to give them any additional constitutional guarantees that might be reasonably required to lay these fears to rest. There are ample safeguards in our Constitution as regards religious and civil liberties. I am certain that we would not hesitate to strengthen these if necessary, to meet their viewpoint.
I do not think I need dwell more on the question of Partition beyond saying that every section of the community in the Twenty-Six Counties would welcome the representatives of our lost counties, be they Catholic or Protestant, Republican or Unionist, into this House. We have three things in common, which are fundamental, especially in this troubled era: firstly, we all believe in a mode of life founded on Christian principles; secondly, we are all firm believers in democracy, and in the principles of civil liberty; and lastly, but not leastly, we are all Irish, and, I think, all proud of that fact.
In dealing with Partition, I have already dealt with the major problem of Anglo-Irish relationship. Apart from this major problem, I am glad to be able to tell the House that since the Estimates of my Department last came up for consideration, there has been an improvement in the mutual feelings between our two countries. Not least in helping to promote a better understanding have been the steps which are being taken by the British Government to remove some of the startling conflicts of nationality law that existed between our two countries. Under British law, as it has existed hitherto, our citizens were regarded as British subjects, whereas, of course, the position under Irish law was guided by our Constitution and by our own Nationality Act.
A very serious effort to meet our viewpoint was made by Mr. Attlee's Government and embodied in the Bill which has just passed the British House of Commons. Some of the provisions of the Bill, as passed by the Commons, still fall considerably short of our viewpoint; such, for instance, as the imposition of a non-Irish status on our fellow countrymen in the Six Counties and the clauses dealing with the retention of British nationality. However, the provisions of the Bill, as adopted by the Commons, constitute a vast improvement on the position that has existed hitherto.
I welcome the advent of this Bill as a constructive step that has already helped to form a link in the chain of better relationship between our two islands. Its importance lies, perhaps, not so much in its actual practical effects as in the indication it gives of a real desire to understand our viewpoint. Therefore, despite the infirmities which it may still possess vis-á-vis our point of view, I heartily welcome it as a piece of constructive and statesmanlike legislation that can only improve the relationships between our two islands.
I hasten to say that my welcome to this Bill is limited, of course, to it, in the form in which it left the House of Commons. I do not think that it would be proper for me to discuss the details of this Bill or the amendments which were introduced in the House of Lords and subsequently removed by the House of Commons, but I think I can say, without impropriety, that the amendments introduced in the House of Lords, if adopted, would entirely nullify the good effect this measure would otherwise have on Anglo-Irish relationship. I sincerely hope that the majority in the House of Lords will appreciate the importance of not destroying the value and constructiveness of this step towards a better relationship. I hesitated to deal with this matter in this debate, but decided to do so, as I was made aware that the Opposition and Deputies in this House were anxious to have the Government's viewpoint. I am glad to be able to add that there is a complete identity of views held by the last Government and the present Government in relation to this matter. The views of the last Government and of the present Government were, of course, communicated to the British Government.
It might, perhaps, be well, that I should refer to a misconception which seems to exist in some quarters in Great Britain. This misconception is not prevalent, but it does exist and I should like to dispel it in so far as I can. It is that the dominant factor in our political relations with Great Britain is a feeling of traditional ill-will towards that country and towards its people. That is the reverse of the truth. No people has shown itself more ready to lay aside resentments once their causes were removed than our people. It would be more true to say that there is a great fund of potential goodwill towards Britain in this country; that there is a keen perception among our people of the community of interest that exists between our two countries; that there is a general feeling of sympathy and even admiration aroused by the manner in which the people of Britain faced adversity during the war and are courageously now undertaking the rebuilding of their economy. The difficulties in our relations arise, not from any out-worn prejudice or from any barren hatreds, but rather from concrete obstacles such as Partition and such as any short-sighted efforts to retain out-worn forms of a past era that can only serve as an unfortunate reminder of an unhappy and tragic history.
If we are to create a sound framework of our relations with Britain, it must be appreciated that what matters is the substance and not the form of the relationship. Political forms have sense and usefulness only in so far as they express political realities. Out-worn forms which are only reminders of a historically unhappy past can only act as irritants. As irritants, they endanger and frustrate the relationship which they are intended to express and preserve.
The British Crown may well be a traditional rallying point for the people of Britain, Australia, New Zealand or Canada. If I were an Englishman, or an Australian, I probably would feel considerable attachment to the British Crown and would attach value to the traditional forms that go with it. The descendants of the British pioneers that built the present Commonwealth under a common crown may take an understandable pride in their common British origin. They may well choose to express their association by adopting forms that are part and parcel of British constitutional history. We in no way criticise their views. They are quite understandable. But there is no parallel between the history of the Commonwealth countries and the history of our country. We are a small country with a very different history; a history which has been one of continual struggle for survival as a nation. We take pride in our history, in our culture, in our race and in our nation. We resent anything that takes away from that pride of nationhood or race.
We want to be friendly with our big neighbour, not merely because she is a big neighbour, but because we have many things in common. The Crown and outward forms that belong to British constitutional history are merely reminders of an unhappy past that we want to bury, that have no realities for us and only serve as irritants. I have said all these things frankly as I feel that a clear understanding of this position can only help to bring about more real co-operation. An examination of the history of the last quarter of a century will, I think, show that many of these forms in the past only served to prevent closer understanding.
We have very close relationships, indeed, with many great countries that are far more distant from us, such as the United States, Canada and Australia. Millions of our people have lived and settled in these countries. No question of forms enter into our relationship with them, yet our relationship is always most friendly and useful.
I have spent some considerable time in dealing with our relationship with Britain because of my desire to bring about a realisation of our viewpoint to the people in Britain. Our relationship with the United States is so obviously close and friendly that I hardly need refer to it. By reason of the close ties that exist between our two nations, that relationship can only grow and improve. I am glad to say that in every country where we have diplomatic missions, our relationship is an extremely happy one.
We have recently opened a Legation in the Argentine and, I am glad to be able to inform the House that, in the very near future, we shall welcome in our midst an Argentine Minister Plenipotentiary, who will open, on behalf of his Government, an Argentine Legation in Dublin. I would like to take this opportunity of according him a welcome as the representative of a country that has many ties with us.
I am also glad to be able to inform the House that, with the co-operation of the Department of Finance, I am in a position to present a Supplementary Estimate to enable the opening to be made of a Legation to the Netherlands at The Hague. I feel that this is somewhat overdue. Our trade relationship with the Netherlands has increased considerably in recent years. The Netherlands have been represented by a Consular representative here since 1923 and they have been represented, following the opening of a Legation here, by a Chargé-d' Affaires since 1945. I feel it is somewhat overdue that we should reciprocate.
Our participation on the Council of the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation has brought us into much closer and more friendly contact with the 15 other nations of Europe which are also on the council. That contact, I think, has been useful and it will prove useful in the future.
I do not propose to go through the Estimates in any detail, but I shall be pleased to give any information that any Deputy may seek in the course of the debate. There is a net increase of £12,100 on the main Estimate compared with last year. This is not due so much to any extension of staff as to purely automatic factors and accountancy changes. Nearly £4,000 of the increase is due to the charge to this Vote for the first time of the salaries of staffs that have been borrowed and which were previously defrayed out of the Estimates for other Departments.
I do not think that the amount of the External Affairs Vote should call for any apology or defence from any Minister for External Affairs in this House. Any idea that our expenditure on external affairs is extravagant or disproportionate is completely untrue. Relatively to our resources, we spend less on external affairs than practically any other country in the world. We certainly spend a good deal less than any other country in Europe. Our expenditure on external affairs is less than one-third of 1 per cent. of the total public expenditure. Of each £1 that comes into the Exchequer, less than ¾d. is spent on our foreign affairs. The whole Department of External Affairs, including officials in Dublin and our Diplomatic and Consular representatives abroad, costs less than the staff of the British Embassy at Cairo, Bagdad, Ankara or Teheran. That will give the House an idea of the smallness of our Department. The whole Department, including our representatives abroad, costs less than the British Embassy at Cairo.
We have relaxed as far as we could the wartime arrangements in relation to travel restrictions. A simpler system for the issue of travel identity cards, through the police, took its place. The change simplifies matters for the public and makes things much easier for the officials concerned. Prior to that change, the Department was issuing permits at the rate of 60,000 a year. Passports showed a return to normality. In the year 1947-48 the Department issued 14,843 passports as compared with 6,273 the year before— that is more than double the number issued the year before. In the previous year the total number of passports was 1,635. Passports are being issued at the rate roughly of 70 or 80 a day. A considerable number of passports are for people proceeding to overseas destinations such as the United States, Canada, Australia, and mission fields abroad such as China and Africa. A large number are for people travelling on business or for educational or health reasons.
There has been a corresponding increase in the number of visas issued by our various missions abroad.
Since the end of the war, agreements to end the necessity for visas have been entered into with a number of countries, mostly Western European countries, particularly Norway, Belgium, Spain, Denmark, France, the Netherlands and Switzerland. As a result, our citizens can travel to these countries without having to get visas, and citizens of these countries can come here without visas from us. Judging by the number of visas issued in the United States by our consuls and diplomatic representatives, the number of American citizens coming over here is showing an increase. The Consul-General in New York has recently reported that his visa issues are 50 per cent. higher than they were at the corresponding period last year. That is of some importance from the point of view of earning dollars.
Provision was also made for the appointment of some honorary consuls in a number of countries in all parts of the world where we had no representatives. The absence of representatives in such countries has often led to embarrassment and difficulties as it meant that we had to rely on the representatives of other countries to attend to the needs of our own citizens. We have tried to get over this by appointing some honorary consuls. They do not get a salary. They take on the position in an honorary capacity and get sums, varying from £100 to £150 per annum to cover postage, office and general expenses. We have appointed one such honorary consul in Beirut with jurisdiction in the Lebanon and Syria.
There are a number of Irish citizens residing in the Middle East, and in view of conditions there, we felt there should be an Irish consular representative within possible reach. We have appointed another honorary consul in New Orleans. There is a considerable number of Irish citizens in New Orleans, in Louisiana, and in the surrounding cities. Previously they had to go to Chicago to obtain consular facilities.
We propose to raise consular fees and charges for passports in the near future, but I am not in a position to give the Dáil at the moment the final list of these charges. Passports at present are charged for at 12/6 each. It is proposed to raise the charge to £1 or £1 1s. 0d. We feel that that will not impose any serious burden or in any way curtail travel.
I do not know whether Deputies realise that the Department of External Affairs earns a very considerable amount of money for the nation by assisting to recover the estates of intestates who die in America, by acting for the next of kin, by finding the next of kin and by following up the estate. For the last 12-months period for which we have figures, the sum realised in that way amounted approximately to £100,000. The amount varies from year to year. These are important figures because these sums usually come from America and mean the transfer of certain dollar balances.
Now, I have touched generally on the position of the economic co-operation organisation which has its headquarters in Paris. Part of the Supplementary Vote which I am asking the House to agree to is in relation to the appointment of staffs for the European recovery programme. This economic co-operation organisation has grown very considerably. It has branched into a great many committees. I am glad to say that one national representative is chairman of the committee dealing with food and agriculture. There are numerous committees sitting the whole time, and it is essential that we should, as far as possible, be represented on these committees, and keep in touch with the developments taking place.
Broadly speaking, all the work of co-ordinating the programmes of the 16 participating countries will take place in Paris. Each country will formulate its own programmes and its own requirements from the Western Hemisphere. These programmes will then all go to Paris and be sorted out there. On examination, it will probably be found that a great many of these programmes will have to be cut down and that Europe's total requirements exceed the availability of certain goods in the Western Hemisphere. Then it becomes necessary to make the programmes fit each other. The purpose of the economic committee's organisation in Paris is to ensure that everything that can be produced and obtained in Europe will be produced and obtained in Europe rather than be imported from the Western Hemisphere so as to ensure, as far as possible, the free distribution of those commodities that are in short supply in Europe. All that entails a tremendous amount of work. We have, so far, been inclined to man these various committees by sending officials from the Department here to represent us. This has meant a considerable amount of travelling to and fro, and had the double defect, on the one hand, of leaving us very short-handed here, and on the other hand, of not securing continuity in the work which was being done on the committees in Paris. Therefore, we are providing and propose that there should be one Chargé Affaires in Paris who will deal exclusively with European recovery programme matters in Paris in relation to the organisation for economic co-operation.
That is the second portion of the Supplementary Estimate. The other portion deals with the question of establishing our legation in the Hague. I think I mentioned in the House before that the European recovery programme has increased very considerably the work which has had to be performed in the Department of External Affairs. The work is more or less co-ordinated there, and the Department has to keep in touch with the economic administrator in America and with the organisation for economic co-operation in Paris. There are also other numerous conferences going on the whole time, and there will probably be new ones. I have tried, as far as possible, to limit our attendance at these international conferences to conferences that we consider would be of some importance to us and to Ireland. There is always a tendency by very big wealthy countries to create huge organisations and to have conferences about many different matters. This may be easy for big countries like the United States and Great Britain with unlimited resources and unlimited staffs at their disposal, but it possesses a great many difficulties for small countries like ours where our whole Department, as I told the House before is smaller than one Embassy of another country.
I do not think there is anything else that I wish to add. I shall be glad to give any information to any Deputy who may want it. I want to repeat the offer that I made when I opened this discussion, that if at any time the leader of the Opposition or the leader of any of the other Parties in this House, wishes to discuss any matters relating to external affairs with me I shall be only too glad to do so.
