The Minister will be called on at latest at 2 o'clock to conclude the debate. Of course, should any of these Votes take less time than the period allotted, the next Vote will be proceeded with.
Committee on Finance. - Vote 65—External Affairs (Resumed).
When the House adjourned last night I was speaking on the question of Partition. There is no single matter that affects our external relations so deeply and affects the general position of this country in time of crisis so much as this question of Partition. It is a vital question for solution if relations between ourselves and our neighbours are ever to be satisfactorily settled. I said that the first thing we had to do was to make clear the facts in relation to this situation. These facts are not known abroad. As I said last night, a myth has been created, suggesting to the people abroad that there is the same difference in this country as there might be, for instance, between the Jews and the Arabs. There is nothing of the kind. It is completely wrong to pretend that the situation here is, as has been suggested, that we have one part of the country occupied exclusively by people of one racial strain and the other part occupied exclusively by people of a different racial strain. There is no truth in that. The racial strains are mixed right through the country, in different proportions it is true, but to suggest that there are in this country two completely different stocks, living in separate areas, is wrong. It is also wrong to suggest that in the Six Counties we have some historic unit such as an ancient Irish province. That is wrong.
It is also wrong to suggest that you have there a people who are homogeneous in political opinions, homogeneous in religion or anything else. It is only part of the area to which such a suggestion might even be roughly applicable. You can take the greater portion of that area and you will find that within it the desire to be attached to this country is the dominant political opinion. I say political opinion because the differences that exist there are fundamentally political differences. They arise out of political controversies and they are political differences of the same type that might occur in any democratic country. If we say that these political differences are to be solved by cutting off a part of the country occupied by a section holding a particular view differing from that of the vast majority of the people and if you admit that that may be done there is not a single democratic State in this world that could preserve its integrity. You will find that in every State there are some particular sections in which there is a more or less frozen political opinion which did not change in conformity with opinion throughout the country as a whole. No democratic State could last if such a principle were accepted.
There is, in fact, no real justification for the division of this country. I said last night that Britain was responsible for it. So she is. That is quite true. It was created by a British Act of Parliament and it is British forces that maintain it to-day. Britain may find certain difficulties in solving it to-day, but Britain has created these largely for herself by the action of her statesmen in the past. Britain, of course, at that particular time utilised these differences of political opinion in this country in the same manner that any country with hostile intentions towards another will utilise any differences of opinion in order to do something which she might want to do. Aggression in Europe could be brought about and attempts made to justify it by precisely the same methods to-day. Suppose there is a part of a country in which you have people who hold different political opinions from those held by the majority of the people in that country though they represent only a small part of the nation, they put up the plea that they are entitled to self-determination and they attach themselves to some outside nation which uses them to achieve its own particular purpose. Would we admit that that was just? We regard such a thing in this country, and it has been regarded by Irishmen always, as a hostile act. As long as that hostile act continues against our nation it is ridiculous to think that our people are going to have towards Britain the feelings which it would be desirable both in our interests and in the interests of Britain herself that we should have.
I was rather surprised at the manner in which the Minister dealt with the matter of the British Nationality Act. I think he has been altogether, from the Irish point of view, much too moderate in the terms he has used. When we were the Government we indicated from the start that there were in the proposals put forward features which were highly objectionable to us. Fundamentally, these have not been changed. It is true, as the Minister said, that the new position of the British law will be an advance, a considerable advance, on what it was, over a certain part of the field. Over the remainder of the field the fact that there is this reassertion of the British attitude at this particular time as against the Irish attitude is a distinct drawback.
When we were dealing with this—I am sure the present Government has dealt with it in the same way—we dealt with it simply from the point of view that every advance was to the good. The Minister pointed out very clearly last night, in another connection, that Governments shelve difficulties if they can. There is nothing more natural for Governments than to take the line of least resistance. If we want any British Government to face up to the problem, we have to present it to them in a firm and vigorous manner, and let them understand that the question of Partition is fundamental and vital as far as the relations between our two countries are concerned. This Bill does not make for a settlement of these questions. In this Nationality Bill, a copy of which I have as it left the House of Commons, it is quite clear that they are still maintaining that our citizens in the Six Counties who are natural born Irish citizens, owing allegiance to this nation and to no other, are now to be bound and dealt with exactly as if they were citizens of Britain.
As I have said, that cannot be dealt with apart from dealing with the question of Partition. I admit that quite frankly and freely. We here, however, ought to express our protest and make it quite clear that we are not satisfied with that situation, and that anything that may be said by the Government in the way of commendation of any advances that have been made will not be understood or thought in any way to suggest that we are otherwise than completely dissatisfied with this position. I am perfectly sure that the Government is not satisfied with it. The past Government was not satisfied with it, and there is no Deputy or Irishman in this country who is satisfied with it. Let us say to start with that we protest against this partition of our country and protest against the occupation of it by Britain: that we protest against compelling the people of this country who have allegiance to this nation, and to this nation only, to be dealt with as if they had obligations and allegiance to another country.
But we have in this Bill two other things of fundamental importance. By our Nationality Act of 1935 we made it quite clear that none of our citizens was a British subject. We made it quite clear that, as far as Irish will and Irish law was concerned, that situation had passed. I have here our Nationality Act and I think it well to read a section of it. Section 33 says:—
"(1) The British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1914, and the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1918, if and so far as they respectively are or ever were in force in Saorstát Éireann, are hereby repealed."
As far as we are concerned, therefore— and it is our will that should determine the matter in this as in the case of every sovereign State—as far as our will is concerned, there is no Irish citizen here who is a British subject, and the suggestion that they can remain or be such is completely wrong. Sub-section (2) of the Act provides— and this was, lest there should be any doubt about it:—
"(2) The common law relating to British nationality, if and so far as it is or ever was, either wholly or in part, in force in Saorstát Éireann, shall cease to have effect."
It might have been suggested that because we had taken over the British code that even by our own law they were British citizens. To make sure that there could be no plea of that sort suggested, there was that repeal of the common law in so far as it could be regarded at all as possibly dealing with nationality here. Finally, because claims were being made from the British point of view contrary to this, we set out again most explicitly that:—
"(3) The facts or events by reason of which a person is at any time a natural born citizen of Saorstát Éireann shall not of themselves operate to confer on such person any other citizenship or nationality."
We wanted to make it quite clear that the fact of people being born in our territory did not mean that they could be classed as British citizens. How, then, can we stand over and be taken as agreeing to the suggestion that people in this country who have been declared to be Irish citizens and Irish citizens only—declared to be that by our law—and not to have British citizenship, how can we stand over the suggestion that they can "remain" or be so? We protested against such a proposal, and I feel certain that the present Minister also protested against it. Despite these protests, this thing is being done. We did admit that there were people who had, by overt act, accepted obligations by going into the British service, that they had accepted the obligations of British citizens and could be regarded as having embraced British nationality and inferentially abandoned ours. We have, in fact, in our Nationality Act a section, Section 21, which says:—
"(1) Save as is otherwise provided by this Act, every citizen of Saorstát Éireann who, after he has attained the age of 21 years, becomes a citizen of another country shall thereupon cease to be a citizen of Saorstát Éireann."
Our view—my view, anyhow—was that those who had gone into the British service and accepted allegiance and the obligations of citizenship in another country could be regarded as having abandoned, so to speak, their Irish citizenship. It would not have been inconsistent, in the case of those who had, by overt act of that particular kind declared themselves, so to speak, as ready to accept the obligations of British citizenship to admit that they could be allowed to do so and that we could make provision for them. But in this Bill it is provided that if anybody at any time here claims—that is practically what it means—to be a British subject, he can be accepted as such. He has only to write to the British Home Secretary and make his claim. It is true that the claim would have to be based, number one, on grounds that he has been in the Crown service. He can make the claim at any time. Surely some effort should have been made, and if there was this good will on the part of the British Government to meet our point of view, there could have been a time limit to this making of claim. There should not have been this provision that they can at any time in the future make a claim on the basis that they have been at some previous time "in the Crown service under his Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom," or that they have had a passport. That is open to a certain amount of questioning, too. These passports in the past were issued under circumstances very different from the circumstances which obtain to-day. The question is whether, if they are going to make that concession, there should not have been a time limit or some more definite specification. "If he is by descent"—I do not know how far back you can go by way of descent. Then you have "residence"—"by descent or residence." We have four categories: in the crown service, those who have a passport issued to them, by descent or residence, and people can claim on any of these grounds. I have tried to show you how wide these are, but surely the worst of all is that we have the alternative "or otherwise,""by descent, residence or otherwise." Descent and residence would be difficult enough to get into a class and say that the rule of ejusdem generis would apply. It would seem to me that the only way I could make a case to get descent and residence into a class would be on the considerations determining citizenship generally, and I doubt very much if the British Home Secretary will be inclined to interpret it that way.
What does that mean for us? Our law, as we have declared it to be, is that our citizens have one allegiance, but according to this anybody who has even the remotest connection with Britain can claim to have allegiance to her. This "British subject," as I make it, means obligations of allegiance. All the time we have resisted that, and I see no other meaning to it. If the question of allegiance does not come in I would like to know what does come in or what is the meaning of it. We have always resisted the giving of allegiance by our citizens to any State outside our own. In the case of Ireland and Britain, it is particularly important, in view of the struggles of the past, that there should be a clear definition of the rights of every citizen in this country. We have tried to give a clear definition in the Constitution. I have not the Constitution with me to quote it word for word, but in general terms it says that fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the State are the first obligations of a citizen. We cannot have in this country people whose first allegiance is not to our nation, and we should make it clear, if there are such people, that we do not regard them as our citizens, and we should know where we stand in respect of them. What they are, to which country they are loyal will only appear in times of crisis. We are in a time of crisis; we have experience of them now and we should provide for times of crisis in the future.
I think that the British Government is very far from meeting our point of view. I am expressing this, lest by any chance it should appear from the statement which the Minister made last night—I can appreciate his attitude—or from the mild way he dealt with the subject that we are satisfied. I think it is particularly important, in view of some of the statements which were made in the British House of Lords recently and gave a completely wrong view as far as Ireland's attitude is concerned.
We are not satisfied with this Bill. We admit that it is an advance over something that was intolerable; there was an arrogance on the part of the British in dealing with us in this matter in a way that she would not have dealt with any outside country. Citizenship is one of the things which touches nearest the question of nationality. No other country would tolerate the law as it existed and Britain knows that. I have here a note regarding something that happened in 1922. In 1922 the French Government decreed that all residents in certain French territory should be French citizens and then sought to apply to them compulsory military service. That was in Tunis and Morocco. Britain, on behalf of her citizens, objected; France contended that it was a matter of domestic jurisdiction. The matter was carried to the Permanent Court of International Justice in The Hague and the court, in May, 1923, gave as its opinion that this dispute was not solely a matter of domestic jurisdiction. The court pointed out that it did not lie with France alone to say that the citizenship of all the people on the territory she controlled was a matter of domestic jurisdiction.
What I have said upon that is simply to point out that in treating us and dealing with our people as if they were British citizens in the past despite our law, Britain was acting in contravention of what was a well-recognised international rule.
I have dealt so far with two of the objections from the Irish point of view to the provisions of the Bill. First, it reasserts their attitude towards Partition and affects the great majority of our citizens in the Six Counties who do not admit of any foreign allegiance. We hear about coercion; we hear the old cry: "Ulster will not be coerced", but surely it is coercion of the worst sort to compel a person to forswear the allegiance he naturally as a natural born citizen here has and to compel him to accept obligations of allegiance to another country. If there is compulsory military service, are our people up there to be conscripted? That is objection number one.
Number two is the question I have been dealing with of continuing to be British subjects, but we have a third, and as far as our immediate position is concerned it is probably the most provocative of the lot. I mean the question of the authority of our law here. It is not the most objectionable fundamentally. The most fundamentally objectionable feature is the reaffirmation of Partition. Next to that comes the ignoring of our law and the insistence that British law should in certain cases prevail over our law in the matter of citizenship. It is a question of making Irish citizens, if they be in the Six Counties or in Britain or in British colonies subject to the obligations of British citizenship. That as a principle is completely wrong. I have read to the House how France tried to impose on British citizens in Morocco the same obligations as could be imposed on French citizens there. The Permanent Court of International Justice held that it was not a matter of domestic jurisdiction and we hold that it is not a matter of domestic jurisdiction either. Our citizens in Britain should be dealt with as citizens of a sovereign, separate, independent State. If relations are to be established between us on the basis of citizenship, if we are to make provisions for their citizens here and ours there, special from those with other countries, a convention must be duly arrived at between the two countries. That ought not to be done by unilateral action—by Britain. We have to object to that. I will admit that the Bill was very much worse in its original form, when it was suggested that the obligation of British citizenship should apply to Irish citizens everywhere. There has been an improvement to the extent that it is now confined to our Six Counties and to British territory. There is a sort of corollary in the provisions making the terms of the British Shipping Act apply. But the area is widened, imposing upon Irishmen the obligations which are only legitimate obligations to be imposed on British citizens. Our people in Britain, so long as they remain Irish citizens, ought to be treated as the citizens of a sovereign, independent State, and in no other way. I hope there is nothing in the suggestion—I was wondering if there was—that our Government have agreed to it. I think we should not agree at all to any such unilateral action.
The Deputy does not suggest that it was made from this side?
Mr. de Valera
I said that there had been a suggestion—I hope it is not true——
Not in this House.
Mr. de Valera
——as to agreement by us that Britain, by unilateral action, could deal with our citizens in that way.
The Deputy is not suggesting that there was any such suggestion in this House by me?
Mr. de Valera
Some statement was made which made me anxious. I hope it is not true, and, if the Minister tells me that it is not true, I accept it unquestioningly. It would be a serious matter if we accepted Britain's unilateral legislation in the matter. That has to be settled. If a matter of mutual convenience or interest is involved, it has to be settled between the two countries, providing for our citizens there and for their citizens here on a status different from that of other countries; that is a matter to be arranged between the two countries in the manner in which it would be arranged between any two sovereign States by mutual agreement—by a convention.
We have, then, to object to that provision in the Bill. Are our people to be dealt with in Britain in the same way in which the French wanted to deal with English citizens in Morocco? The French action in that case might have led to war, because a strong nation would not permit that to be done with its citizens and would defend them against any attempt to impose obligations upon them which were inconsistent with their natural right and the accepted rules of international law. There might very well have been war over that, but both parties were wise enough to submit it to the Permanent Court and the decision in that case ought to be accepted as a decision determining the international law on the matter—that a State is not permitted in a vital matter of this sort to deal with the citizens of another State within their territory, just as if it were a matter of purely domestic legislation. I want to do everything I can—and I have, from the very beginning, tried to do everything I could and I have said so publicly, not merely during my period in office but long before it—to bring about good relations between the two countries, and, if I speak as I speak now, to assert our position it is, because I know that, if that position is ignored, those good relations cannot be established.
I have here the Minister's statements and perhaps it would be as well for me to make comments upon them. I think that, from the point of view of asserting the Irish position, they were much too delicately phrased. I have to admit that I do not think the British Government have come as far to meet us as they should. I think this was an excellent occasion on which to try to take hold of and deal with this question of Partition. When they realised what our attitude would have to be, as we pointed out from the beginning, they should have tried to tackle this problem in a fundamental way—the only way in which it can be tackled successfully. There is an old proverb that things are never settled until they are settled right. I admit that the British Government have serious problems on their hands and I admit that they are only acting in the way in which most other Governments would act, in shelving a difficult question, but there is no use in our giving them the idea that we are satisfied with their leaving this fundamental matter unsettled. Certainly, when they encroach upon our sovereignty, we ought to protest in the strongest possible manner.
The Minister's statement introducing this is not so very long and the House perhaps will bear with me if I make my comments upon it as I read it. The Minister says, to start with, that there has been an improvement in the mutual feelings between our two countries. I hope that that is true. Certainly, any advance will probably be helpful, but, so long as the fundamental source of quarrel remains—and, so far as we are concerned, we have a just reason to resent the present position, we being the aggrieved party— it would be quite wrong to suggest that any great progress has been made. We faced a critical situation during the recent war and I have no doubt whatever that, if this new critical situation should develop, we will have the same conditions exactly as obtained then. We will have approaches and suggestions made to us that, if we take certain lines of action, our doing so will lead to the ending of Partition. If any Government in this country is wise, it will make one answer to all such suggestions, and it is, that we have been fooled before and we are not going to be fooled again.
A large number of our people went out during the 1914-1918 War to fight, as they thought, to secure the rights of small nations. When the war was won, those of our people who survived —many thousands had died—found that what their nation had to face was the Black and Tans, and when those who had suggested that Irishmen should go out and fight in that war tried to get the promises which had been made to them redeemed, they were told: "Ulster must not be coerced". That is a very easy excuse which will be used at any time, and I should like to put it on record that any Government in Ireland which accepts such a promise is going to be fooled, and that the proper attitude for any Irish Government, in circumstances of that sort, is to say: "We have been fooled before and we are not going to be fooled again". If there is to be any question of the unity of our country playing a compelling part in determining vital national decisions, the proper thing to do is to have the matter of the unity of our territory settled first. Let the unity of this country be brought about and then leave it to the Irish nation, to its proper representatives, properly elected in a democratic way, to decide any national issues which have to be decided; but if there is any Irish Government foolish enough to be led into a particular line of conduct involving sacrifice by our people on the basis that it is going to serve the nation, to the extent of bringing about later the ending of Partition, I say that that Government is going to find itself fooled and the nation fooled. The excuse for the evasion of any promise given is too ready to hand. Ulster must not be coerced. If there is to be any question of any such promise affecting the national decision, the proper attitude is to say: "Let us have a united nation, restore to the nation the part of the territory that is taken from it". Let that united nation then, through its proper representatives, decide, as being the proper body to decide, what the national action should be.
Only in a modified way then is it true to say that the feelings between the two countries have been improved.
Continuing the Minister said:—
"Not least in helping to promote the better understanding have been the steps taken by the British Government to remove some startling conflicts of nationality law between our two countries."
I have told you the extent to which that has been done. To the extent to which it has been done, I add my welcome and my pleasure to that of the Minister. The Minister went on:—
"Under British law, as it had existed hitherto, Irish citizens were regarded as British subjects, whereas, of course, the position under Irish law was guided by our Constitution and our own Nationality Act. A very serious effort to meet our viewpoint was made by Mr. Attlee's Government...."
I will say that that was a very generous tribute, more generous than, I am afraid, I would be inclined to give.
Read the next sentence.
Mr. de Valera
"and embodied in the British 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...."
All I can say is that that phrase is extremely moderate: "non-Irish status on our fellow-countrymen in the Six Counties"; "still fall considerably short". I think the whole of this suffers from understatement. In a matter of this sort we ought to state it without exaggeration and we ought to state it fully and we ought to make known to the British people, to the British Parliament, to the British Government, to everybody concerned, our deepest feelings in this particular matter.
"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 hitherto existed."
I am quite willing to admit that it is an improvement, that it is an improvement to the extent that the arrogant claim of still, despite our law, regarding our people as British subjects has been eliminated.
Of course, it is outrageous—in my opinion, of course—that, by unilateral action, the British Parliament should purport to deal with our citizens in Britain in a way that they would not deal with the citizens generally of a sovereign State. I have said it is the unilateral action on their part that constitutes one of the most grievous evils of this proceeding where they assume that they can do this unilaterally. I think, as I have said, it is contrary to accepted international principles, principles which are not often as well defined as they have been by a judgment in the case of the Permanent Court of International Justice. Consequently, we ought to protest against it and, if there is to be special relations, then any such should be settled by way of a convention between the two countries.
I think I should not detain the House any longer on this. The principal matters that come for discussion at this particular time have been dealt with. I have said that I assure the Minister that he will always find, as far as we are concerned in this House, sympathetic understanding of his difficulties. In our criticism we will always try to see that it is helpful criticism, criticism that is meant to strengthen the national position and not to weaken it.
With regard to the war dangers, I would like to repeat, and once more impress upon the Government, that they ought to take time by the forelock, that there is nobody, as far as I know of any understanding or experience in any part of the world who has not come more or less to the conclusion that with the present outlook war is inevitable within a short time. When I say a short time I mean a period of a few years. That it may come sooner is an added reason why we should make provision. We should not imagine for one moment that the world has come into a peaceful situation. I do not think that the realisation of that will help to bring the dangers anyway nearer and any steps that we take, even though they may impose a certain burden upon us, ought to be taken, the burden being borne as if it were an insurance.
When shortages and difficulties arose during the last war, the preceding Government were often blamed very severely for not having looked ahead and for not having made the provision that could have been made if one had envisaged war for a certainty. Little will be lost, it seems to me, if you do that. Not a terrible lot will be lost in that way but the nation may be lost if you do not do it. I do not see any evidence in the actions of the Government as a whole that they realise that situation and I do hope that the Minister for External Affairs, who by his contacts will be able to get the feeling much better than his colleagues, will be able to impress upon them the necessity for making provision in time, provision not merely in a material way, but provision also in the spiritual and intellectual way.
Very big decisions may have to be made by this country. Public opinion has to be informed. Our people will have to realise what the things at issue are and what the dangers may be. Everyone of them will have to balance from the national point of view, the interests of this nation and the various pros and cons for any course that may be suggested. I have lived through times of crisis of various kinds and I do not know that any time was so dangerous from the point of view of this nation as the present crisis. A divided country with, possibly, divided opinions about issues involved, will create tremendous difficulties here for any Government. We ought to try to clear the ground as best we can so that the difficulties that lie ahead may become fewer. One of these fundamental difficulties is the one of Partition and every effort ought to be made, in view of this crisis, both through diplomatic channels privately and through public channels to try to remove that fundamental difficulty out of our path. It is a difficulty which obviously will create internal difficulties and, of course, any internal difficulties will be exploited by any outside power; so it is essential for the well-being of this country that every effort that can be made to end Partition should be made now.
The Government ought not, as some members seem to, show any irritation at efforts being made by anybody to try to bring public opinion to bear on this question. I see no reason why the Government should have any objection to any Irish citizen doing everything in his power to expose the facts and make them clear. It is quite wrong to play petty politics on a matter of this sort. I hope the Government will take steps, if they want to get proper cooperation, as they should get, from all Irish citizens on Partition, to see that there will be an end to these petty suggestions that Irish citizens should not speak about this question. There is nothing that affects every citizen so much. In fact, one of the troubles has been that, knowing that everybody in this part of Ireland was against Partition, we have had no demonstrations here in this part of the country against it; and some people abroad think that, because we are not demonstrating here and doing the things that we did formerly when we were striving to get Irish independence, we were complacent about Partition. That was a wrong view, but what can you do to meet it, if people get this idea abroad? You may have to show these people, and I have asked every Irish citizen who has friends abroad with whom he is corresponding, to use that correspondence to tell these people that we in Ireland regard the Partition of our country as a grievous wrong to our nation and that we are not going to be satisfied until that wrong is undone. Why should any member of the Government find fault with me or anybody else, if we use whatever means should be at our disposal to try to spread the knowledge of the facts of Partition? Why say it is nationally wrong to do anything of that kind?
Why should it be suggested that it is only now that I have been active about Partition? Both publicly and diplomatically, as the Minister can assure himself, I have done everything in my power to try to get a move on with regard to this particular thing. Whenever I had a medium in which it was possible to voice this matter, I have used that medium. If I differed from Deputy Esmonde, it was not because I did not want to do it but because I did not think it was going to be effective for the particular time and place. If the Deputy reads the whole context he will see that it was a most difficult situation. One of the difficulties of Partition is that it imposes upon the Irish Government the most odious of tasks. It means that, in order to keep discipline and order here in this part of the country, we must deal very severely with anybody who unlawfully tries to disrupt the national unity and purpose in a difficult situation. It was in a Bill dealing with that that the Deputy made the suggestion. I want to use every means that can be made effective. There may be a difference between us as to the particular means. That is a legitimate point on which to differ, but the desirability of ending it is the common desire of everyone. In this critical situation facing us, it is the most urgent of all our problems and wherever the Minister meets Ministers of other countries interested in getting unity of action amongst the different States and pressing for it, unity of action and unity of thought, he should point out that there is no use in talking about bringing unity between nations which have been distinct and separate for centuries and at the same time persisting in dividing up the national unity of this territory which we had for thousands of years.
We, on this side, shall co-operate to the fullest We reserve our right of criticism and I hope the Minister will understand my criticism on his action. I can understand the view that it is better to welcome an advance under any circumstances. On the other hand, lest our whole national attitude be misunderstood, we in this House must make our position abundantly clear. There must be no suggestion that that measure as a whole has Irish consent. The British Parliament has the power to pass it if it wants to, but it violates some of the fundamental rights of our nation, doing something which is not new, except in so far as it is a reaffirmation at this stage of an old wrong attitude. They are affirming a position to which we objected. In anything we do as an Opposition, our desire is to work for the interests of this nation. We believe we have a duty in this matter, just as the Minister and the Government has, and we are seeking to discharge our obligations as best we can.
I am glad that in this particular case there does not seem to be that violent change of direction of policy which took place in other Departments. My criticism of the Minister is not to be taken in that way. I am simply reaffirming at this stage what I believe I would have done if I were on the other side of the House. Different people will tackle the same situation in different ways. One person will think that by understatement he is strengthening his case. My belief is that in this case the circumstances demand, not an understatement but a complete and full statement, in order that the national feeling and the national position may be thoroughly understood on the other side. It is far better that they should understand us now than that difficulties should arise later. It would not be right for them to think that we agree that our citizens in Britain or in British territories or, as provided in the Merchant Shipping Acts, should be dealt with exactly as if they were British subjects and with the obligations of such subjects. We think that is wrong, that it is an invasion of our rights.
I put down this Motion so that the Chair would give the necessary permission to deal broadly with these matters which I felt it necessary to raise. I have no intention of pressing it to a vote and the motion is simply put down to meet the rules of order of the House.
It is only natural that in a debate on the Estimate for the Department of External Affairs the question of Partition should play a prominent part. If it did not do so, there would be something lacking in the character of this House. We are all glad to appreciate and realise now that the correct forum for the discussion of this vital matter is this House and the correct vehicle and instrument to carry the wishes of the Irish people and to lead the struggle for the abolition of Partition is in the hands of whatever Irish Government is in power at a particular time. But there is a factor which I think each successive Government in turn has overlooked and it is an important factor in the solution of this problem. It is the time factor. We lawyers have a principle which is known as the statute of limitations. It is an old principle which grew out of the wisdom of judicial decisions in the past and was later on defined in legislation. Year by year the solution of the problem of Partition is becoming more difficult by reason of the statute of limitations which is being enlarged from year to year so long as this problem is not cleared up.
There is another matter which also urges upon us the necessity of realising the importance of the time factor and that is that year by year on both sides of the Border you are creating a vast vested interest—it is growing from day to day—a vested interest that will not allow itself to be influenced by a proper national outlook. I am sorry to have to say that. I believe that there are on both sides of the Border a number of people whose interests are so vested that they will allow those interests to superimpose themselves upon what should be their proper national outlook, and that body of persons will expand from day to day.
Then there is another important factor which we are inclined to overlook. We are sitting smugly here—I do not use the expression in any offensive sense—in our national Parliament representing 26 of our counties. But let us recollect this. The fight for Irish freedom since its inception, no matter what form it took, whether it was on the floor of the House of Commons or on the battlefield in Ireland, was a fight which our fellow-countrymen in the North took part in and that it is largely owing to their efforts in the past, together with our own, that we enjoy the freedom we have in this part of the country to-day. I do not think that it is right or fitting that this debate should pass without some reference being made to the debt that we owe to our fellow-countrymen across the Border who contributed to the freedom of this part of the country.
In addition to that, very serious harm is being done to the country as a whole. I know that the arguments which I am advancing are arguments which have been advanced from time to time. They should, however, be emphasised in this Assembly of ours. God intended, nature intended, that this country should not only be physically one but that it should be also nationally and economically one. I do not believe you will ever move to a final solution of any of our problems or be able to get to real grips with any of our problems, social or economic—leaving out the national aspect either on this or the other side of the Border—until you can do so through the medium of the executive action of an Irish Government responsible to a Parliament for the whole of this country.
There is a point in our approach to the solution of Partition that must never be forgotten. In the year 1918, the then Prime Minister of Great Britain, Mr. Lloyd George, was faced with the problem—Deputy de Valera referred to the position of affairs between 1914 and 1918—of redeeming promises the British Government had made to this country and to the then representatives of this country, who included Deputy Alfred Byrne and myself. He was faced with the necessity of redeeming the promises to the Irishmen who went out and fought on the side of the Allies in the 1914 war. There was no way which he could find of getting out of redeeming those promises except the invention of a particular myth. Out of that grew the myth that Ireland could not have selfgovernment for the whole of its territory because Irishmen could not agree amongst themselves and because the problem was an Irish one. Let us not get away from that fact.
The idea that it was not an English-Irish problem was created by the then Prime Minister, Mr. Lloyd George. Ever since then the opponents of the unity of this country have always sought to make it clear by every action and every word that the reason why Ireland is not united is that the Irish are not able to agree amongst themselves. The sooner the public of England and of the world realise that you must get back to the position and the mentality that existed before 1918 in this matter the better for the solution of that problem.
I should like to give the House one instance of the clever propaganda that goes on against us in this regard. Immediately after the passing of the Constitution of 1938 the name Éire was applied to the entire 32 Counties. It is the Irish name for Ireland, which is also mentioned in the Constitution as applying to the 32 Counties. Previous to that, the Twenty-Six Counties had been known as the Irish Free State. The very next day and from then on in every English newspaper and in every public statement the word Éire was used constantly and consistently, the meaning assigned to it being that that is the name the Irish people have given in the English language to the Twenty-Six Counties and the object being to show that a distinct entity in the Twenty-Six Counties is recognised by us.
As I have referred to the period of 1918, let us examine for a moment what the position was then in order to show the fallacy which was then invented that Irishmen could not agree amongst themselves. I will take the Six Counties for example. What was the position at the dissolution of the British House of Commons in December, 1918? We will all admit that, of the Six Counties, Tyrone and Fermanagh have ever since, election after election, registered their desire to join us. That leaves Down, Antrim, Armagh and Derry. Of the cities represented then in the British House of Commons, Belfast had four members, one being the late Mr. Joseph Devlin, Nationalist. The City of Derry, the second city of these four counties, was represented by an Irish Nationalist. South Derry was represented by a Home Ruler who always voted with the Irish Nationalists on that question. South Armagh was represented by an Irish Nationalist. South Down was represented by an Irish Nationalist and the Borough of Newry was represented by an Irish Nationalist. The only county of those four counties and of those boroughs that could leave the House of Commons in December, 1918, and say that they could cast every vote in favour of Partition was the County of Antrim and in the case of Antrim there is a substantial Nationalist minority. That was the situation in 1918 when a clever and astute politician invented a theory that the enemies of the union of Ireland have acted upon ever since.
I would say to those people in Northern Ireland that they are very foolish. They have everything to gain by joining us. To take an illustration again from 1918. I recollect crossing on the steamer Dún Aengus to the Aran Islands in the summer of that year. In so far as there was any sizeable cargo on board, there was a large cargo of sacks of flour going there and on every one of these sacks was written “Belfast Flour Mills”. The people in the Six Counties have everything to gain and nothing to lose, economically, by joining us. It is only because the theory that Irishmen cannot agree amongst themselves was seized upon by certain political bosses in the North of Ireland that Ireland is not united at the present time. What have they to fear here? Since the inception of this State—continuously—there has been a judge reared in the Six Counties in either the High Court or the Supreme Court. Since the inception of this State there has been a Minister of State from one of the Six Counties in the Government. Is that not surely an answer, and a positive answer, to anyone who might suggest that this country is not one for the people of the Six Counties because they would not get a fair show? Perhaps it is only reasonable to expect that anyone who speaks with a certain amount of force and with conviction on a matter of this kind would have some tangible and sensible contribution to make in the way of suggesting a solution. I have consistently and always advocated, although other persons have disagreed with me, the use of our wireless for propaganda purposes. I still advocate it. I will pass from that because I think it is so obvious that it does not require elaboration. In a matter of this kind we should speak as a united people without any difference of opinion. We should be able to present our unanswerable case on a plate, with the views of the entire 100 per cent. of the people of the Twenty-Six Counties behind us and the bulk of the opinion from the Six Counties. What I suggest is that we should elevate this question of Partition to a proper plane and that we should keep it from being anything other than a national matter.
I am glad to see that it has not descended to a question of Party politics. My suggestion is that we should formulate some form of committee or bring into being some sort of all-Party committee with, if you like, quasi-executive functions, whose only duty would be to watch and to guard our interests with regard to Partition; to disseminate propaganda, and to take every step from a national point of view on the road towards the abolition of Partition. I say "quasi-executive functions," but I might go even further and give it executive functions. Let it be a committee somewhat analogous to the Foreign Affairs Committee in the United States. In that way we could present our case as a united people on behalf of a united Parliament. I believe that that would have a very good effect. At the present moment I take it that propaganda on behalf of the abolition of Partition is the care of the Minister and the Department which we are now discussing. A committee such as I have referred to would, however, be responsible for disseminating propaganda—and when I use the word "propaganda" I do not mean vilification. We have got a good case. Nobody who ever went to court had a better one and no advocate going into court with a good case is such a fool as to loose it by vilification. We have all the trump cards and all we have to do is to get our case across to the jury of the public and we can do that in a dignified and in a reasoned fashion. That is the type of propaganda I would like whoever is responsible to indulge in. Certain questions arise from time to time. They arise in the British Nationality Bill which is now before the British Parliament. There is another matter that seems to have passed the observation of everybody altogether.
There is an inclination now—I think it is a definite drive—on the part of those who are interested in the maintenance of the Border to give to the Government of those Six Counties in the North a status greater than that of a Legislature subordinate to that of the Parliament in the United Kingdom. Two doors away from the Irish Tourist Office in London—in the very heart of the West End where almost every foreigner who visits London must pass and within a stone's-throw of Piccadilly Circus—there is an office which was officially opened with great éclat within the past two years. A British Government representative was present at the opening. That office calls itself, under a title which it has no right to assume, the “Ulster Office”. There is no such State as Ulster. The Government of the Six Counties not only had the effrontery to build their office two doors away from the Irish Tourist Office but, in addition, to put up the Arms of Ulster and to call itself the “Ulster Office”. That is a matter that could be dealt with by such a committee and it is one that should be dealt with. It is one of those things that would come under notice from time to time. I am glad the Minister made it quite clear in his opening speech last night that the people of the North have nothing to fear from us.
I am glad he made it quite clear that we are willing to grant them any concessions which might be considered reasonable under the circumstances. They would only be concessions necessary from their point of view. But I venture to think that if they accepted these proposals, there would come a time when, having lived amongst us and worked with us here as brother Irishmen, having demanded these concessions from us, they would come to us, or to whatever Government was in existence at the time, and they would say: "We have had the experience now of working with you and we regard any concessions that we asked for at the time we joined you, which we asked to be enshrined either in the Constitution or in the laws of the country, as entirely unnecessary and a reflection upon us as real Irishmen". which some day we hope they will be.
This Estimate is one which I approach with a certain amount of diffidence because I realise the necessity for care and circumspection in approaching questions of our foreign and external policy. I think, however, that I may be permitted to put before the Minister and the House certain considerations which should govern the policy to be pursued by the Minister's Department. Very naturally, the problem of Partition loomed large in the Minister's speech and in the speech of the Leader of the Opposition and in the speech of Deputy Sir John Esmonde. I think that it would be a mistake for us to regard Partition merely as it exists to-day as being the cardinal factor for consideration. I would prefer to approach the problem from the point of view that our external policy is conditioned by our history—a history of the invasion of one country by another.
Even though I realise the danger of over-simplification, I would prefer that the Minister and the House should consider this problem as the problem of an invading Power continuing to occupy six of our counties. I think the House must agree with me that, while that condition of affairs exists, the remainder of our foreign policy and our external relations with Powers other than Britain must be conditioned by our recognition of that fact. Deputy Sir John Esmonde suggested the setting up of a Party committee on Partition with quasi-executive powers and functions. I think that is something that the Minister might very well consider. Deputy de Valera dealt in an exhaustive way with the Minister's speech and adverted to certain criticisms that had been made of the anti-Partition propaganda conducted by himself and his colleague, Deputy Aiken. As far as the Clann na Poblachta Party is concerned I would like to put our view on record that we welcome the propaganda given to Ireland's case and the case against Partition by Deputy de Valera and by Deputy Aiken just as we would welcome similar propaganda from any other influential Irishman.
Deputy de Valera took the Minister to task, albeit perhaps rather tenderly, in respect of the Minister's remarks and approach to the Nationality Bill at present before the British Parliament. With some of those criticisms I might, perhaps, find myself in agreement were they to come from any Deputy other than the author of our Nationality and Citizenship Act of 1935 and our External Relations Act of 1938. I would say to the Minister that I think it is a pity that in introducing this Estimate he did not give us some indication that the anomalous constitutional position which has existed since the passage of the External Relations Act would be speedily ended. I do not want to appear to press the Minister unduly on that matter but I would suggest to him that the anomalous position in which we find ourselves to-day is due to an act of this House which gave powers and functions, however limited you may like to describe them, to a British King.
The Deputy realises that that was an Act of this House and that the Minister has no power to alter it except by new legislation. The Deputy is not entitled to discuss legislation on this Estimate.
I regret that no reference was made by the Minister when he was introducing this Estimate——
I think the Deputy was referring to the External Relations Act. The Minister has no power to alter that without legislation.
I bow to your ruling and I pass from that subject. May I put it this way, that the Minister would examine the anomalous position whereby——
Which is another way of saying the same thing.
If the Leas-Cheann Comhairle will bear with me, I suggest I am entitled to ask the Minister to examine the position.
The Deputy is not entitled to suggest legislation or to discuss existing legislation. He is entitled to discuss policy and administration. The Minister has to obey the law the same as anybody else.
I suggest the Minister should look into the administration of his Department and administer affairs so that the anomalous constitutional position in which we now find ourselves——
The Deputy is back again. He will have to get away from that line. The Minister cannot alter legislation by administration.
I was about to refer to the issuing of passports. Surely that is a matter of administration?
Mr. de Valera
What does the Deputy suggest about the issuing of passports?
I am suggesting that side by side with the passport which is at present issued—and I submit that no legislation is necessary—we could issue an Irish identity card.
Mr. de Valera
There seems to be a complete misunderstanding. Will the Deputy get a passport and look at it?
Deputy de Valera was allowed to speak without interruption. I am endeavouring to obey the ruling of the Chair and to confine myself to matters under discussion upon this Estimate. I appeal to the Minister to pursue a policy which will bring the evils of the occupation of six counties of our country by Britain before the rest of the world. I ask him further to bear in mind that in the event of any repetition of the state of emergency that we knew here between 1939 and 1945, in the event of any major conflict, this country will not be committed in any way to the assistance, militarily or otherwise, of the Power which occupies six of our counties.
The Minister mentioned certain proposals for a United States of Europe. He did not indicate whether he had formed any very definite views as to how such proposals should be approached by this country. I suggest to the Minister that before giving consideration to any scheme whereby we would participate in a United States of Europe, these proposals should be subjected to the closest possible examination. I speak personally in this matter, perhaps, when I say such proposals should be approached with a good deal of suspicion.
I ask the Minister to bear this in mind, that as regards the achievement of those good relations with the people of Britain and with all peoples, that we as Christians must desire, he should bear in mind that they can be permanently achieved only when Britain recognises the right of the people of this country to the possession of the 32 Counties and to the republican form of government for which the people of this country have expressed their preference.
Major de Valera
Deputy Lehane seems to be labouring under a misapprehension as regards passports. I do not think there is any administrative problem for the Minister in regard to a passport. The position, of which Deputy Lehane should be well aware, is that in 1932 under the old Constitution in which the King was a definite organic part, passports were issued in his name, but now our Constitution, starting with the enactment that makes the people of this country sovereign and without any provision for external sovereignty, settles our constitutional position here. There is no doubt about our sovereign position here and, in accordance with that, passports since that time have been issued. For the benefit of Deputy Lehane I will read one.
On a point of explanation——
Take your medicine.
I do not know whether Deputy de Valera is trying to suggest something I did not say. I was not given an opportunity of developing my point.
You were "blahing" too much about it.
Major de Valera
The insinuation was made that passports were issued in the name of the King of England.
No such statement was made.
Major de Valera
I would like to read for the Deputy's benefit what is on a passport. On the front of it is "Éire (Ireland)." Then there is the word "Passport" in Irish, English and French. I will now read a translation of what is in Irish. It comes to this: "We, the Minister for External Affairs for Ireland, hereby request and require all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance and afford him every assistance and protection of which he may stand in need." That is in French also.
On a point of order. That is not the form at present used on the passport, since the change of Government.
Major de Valera
It will be very interesting to know if the change has reintroduced the authority of any other Power.
By my direction the word "We" has been deleted from the form now used. I am speaking purely from the point of view of accuracy— getting it right.
Major de Valera
The position is, nevertheless, the same. The Minister for External Affairs for Ireland is the person who requests, and it is in his name that the passport is issued and it bears the Irish seal. There is no question of any other Power or organ associated with the issuing of a passport.
Mr. de Valera
There is an "I" instead of "We"?
There is no "I". The "We", which might be misunderstood as a Royal "We", is deleted.
Mr. de Valera
What about the corporate capacity of the Department?
We deleted "We" because it might be misunderstood as a Royal "We".
Mr. de Valera
Anybody who wishes can read the passport.
Major de Valera
It in no wise alters the situation that, in pursuance of the sovereign status of this country, established under our own Constitution freely enacted by the people, the passports are issued in a form consonant with these provisions and any attempt to represent our foreign relations as depending on an external organ, and in particular on the British King, is a gross misrepresentation.
How does the Deputy square that with the provisions of the External Relations Act?
Major de Valera
I am afraid, having regard to the number of times that they have been repeated and refuted, these misrepresentations are deliberate. The Deputy talks about the External Relations Act but there is nothing in that Act that affects the status of this nation as a sovereign people. It is simply a matter of expediency. Anyway, the Minister is competent to introduce such legislation as he likes to change it. It simply requires a simple Act to alter that situation. If the Deputy wishes to alter that situation the Minister has the power to do so. There is no use in making a noise about it. It merely requires a simple Act.
Mr. de Valera
Even that is not necessary. He can change it if he wishes without legislation. It is a permissive Act.
Major de Valera
It is permissive. You have now a Clann na Poblachta Minister in power and let him deal with it. When the Deputy comes along with this type of insinuation, he leaves himself open to the suspicion that he is not sincere in his protestations.
To come back to the Estimate, the Minister in his opening speech made a number of references to our position in the world of to-day. I, completely in the spirit in which the Minister asked us, realise that this is a Department that calls for tactful handling, but I should like him to expand a little more what he meant when he referred to isolationism as being no longer possible and when he referred to the surrenders of sovereignty that are necessarily associated with the establishment of any so-called United States of Europe. These things are of very great moment to the people, and it might perhaps be well if the Minister could be a little more definite as regards our policy for the future in case of difficulties.
I should like to draw one aspect of the situation to the Minister's attention. Before the last conflict broke, it was very difficult for us to secure certain equipment that we needed to maintain the position of neutrality which we had adopted and to weather the storm of the war. The Minister's Department is one which has a number of contacts and the only suggestion I would make is that, having regard to the unsettled state of Europe at the moment, the Department should be alive to the necessity of exploring the possibility of securing such commodities and stocks of equipment as we might require in the case of another emergency. I think it is not too early to consider such a matter and although this would probably be more to the point on the Estimates for the Ministers for Defence and Industry and Commerce, still the Department of External Affairs has certain contacts and certain functions with regard to what is available in other countries and it should interest itself in the matter.
There is one other matter to which I should like to refer. Prior to the last war there was a certain lack of day-to-day information in other Departments of State that presumably was available, or could be made available to the Department of External Affairs. The previous situation was that there was not sufficient contact between the Departments and it was not realised how important it was that there should be. I should like to suggest to the Minister the necessity, for instance, of keeping the Department of Defence accurately posted in details. The main things are always passed on. Information available to the Minister himself, when he considers it of sufficient importance, will undoubtedly be exchanged at meetings of the Cabinet but I am thinking rather of a lot of details which might be overlooked by him but which, taken in conjunction with other facts, might be rather significant. Even details which taken from the Minister's point of view might not be very significant, might acquire much greater significance when looked at by the appropriate officer in either the Department of Defence or the Department of Industry and Commerce. In speaking of this matter I have really in mind a recommendation of the general staff a good many years ago on the importance of keeping the Army authorities posted on the details of information which come into the hands of the Department of External Affairs. It greatly assists them in the tasks which they have to perform. The same thing might apply in the case of other Departments as well.
As the time for this debate is limited, I shall confine myself to these observations although there are other matters to which I should like to refer. If things become more acute, the people of the country are interested in knowing positively where we stand in regard to our associations and relations with outside nations and what are likely to be the problems with which we shall be faced. I think early information on that matter given by the Minister would be desirable.
I want briefly to congratulate the Minister on his statesmanlike, lucid and realistic approach to our external relations. The Minister has appealed for the co-operation of all Parties in regard to external policy. He has suggested that this nation in regard to other nations should speak as one man. I have no doubt that possibly the Leader of the Opposition Party would endorse that view, if he were the one man. I think there is a great deal to be said for having a foreign relations committee to discuss extenal questions, a committee representative of all Parties. The suggestion has been made by two Deputies that there should be an anti-Partition all-Party committee. I think it would be better to go further and have an external relations committee of all Parties which would take cognisance, not only of the Partition question but of all other cognate issues affecting our external relations. While Partition is the big issue, I think it is essential that we should not lose sight of the other aspects of external policy.
It is true, perhaps, as the Leader of the Opposition Party said, that we cannot take part in any world-wide campaign for peace while this country suffers under the wrong of Partition but, in the line of thought which Deputy de Valera adopted, there is a danger that in our competition, first of all amongst ourselves, to show how ardent we are for the abolition of Partition, in perhaps our natural desire to advance the cause of national unity and the world-wide propaganda for that cause, we might find ourselves pushed into the position of being lined up, not in agreement with, but in opposition to, the freedom-loving nations of Western Europe. We have had the experience in our external relations during the past 25 years that it was our world-wide publicity campaign for the independence of our country, particularly as pursued in the United States, that contributed in a very large measure to the breaking up of the League of Nations and to co-operation between the United States and Europe. That in a way contributed to the position which led to the recent World War. Because we realise all those dangers and realise what a powder magazine the world is at the present time, I think we should view all aspects of our external affairs and take our decisions prudently and wisely.
I am one of those who believe that the most difficult international questions, and particularly questions which involve an injustice on one nation by another, can always be settled, provided there is a fair measure of good will and understanding on both sides. That is why I want to suggest that, having first of all shown our sense of responsibility by setting up a national all-Party world affairs council, we should next proceed to initiate direct negotiations between this country and Great Britain. In recent months we have effected a very comprehensive trade agreement with Great Britain, a trade agreement which may have and which, I believe, will have very good results as far as trade between Great Britain and Ireland is concerned. There is not any reason why our Ministers should not sit down with the Ministers of the British Government and point out to them the dangers of the present position in regard to Partition, the dangers which are involved in that position not only for this country but even more for Great Britain and I would say, also, to the cause of unity between those nations which are opposed to aggression and opposed to world domination by the forces of Communism. I think that if the Minister would turn his mind to the desirability of having direct negotiations with British Ministers on this question useful results might flow therefrom.
We are, undoubtedly, a small nation but, as I have pointed out, we have in the past contributed in a very large measure to the shaping of world events, and it is possible that we can contribute quite a great deal to the preservation of world peace in the years that lie immediately ahead. Every cause of dissension between the nations of Western Europe may aggravate the dangers of the present European situation and may assist towards promoting another world conflict. Therefore, the removal of these causes of disunity and dissension between Great Britain and Ireland is now a matter of great urgency, and the urgency of that problem should be brought home very forcibly to the Ministers of Great Britain.
The Minister referred briefly in his opening statement to the possibility and desirability of a United States of Europe. Sooner or later that organisation must come into being. Some people in this country may be inclined to view such a development with suspicion, but we can always, however, use our intelligence and consider all aspects of the question. The Minister very rightly pointed out that if a world war comes again—there have been two within the memory of most of us here— the main causes for it will be materialism, expediency and fear. We may be inclined, for reasons of expediency or fear or even material advantage, to stand aloof from the other free nations, and by so doing may weaken the forces that stand for peace. I think that the best way to prevent another war would be for those nations which do not believe in aggression to stand firmly together. Anything that can be done to bring about that unity between free and democratic nations should be done.
The Minister in his speech asked for co-operation from all sides of the House. That is a big change from the time when he was on the hustings in the County Dublin.
That is hardly appropriate to this debate.
There was a lot of misrepresentation carried on then. I want to deal with one thing—the tourist industry. The Minister for External Affairs at that time derided and decried the tourist industry in this country. Now, of course, some of his colleagues in the Government come along and praise it for being worth £35,000,000 to this country. I hope the Minister has changed his mind on that, and that, as Minister for External Affairs, he will encourage that industry since we all know how essential it is for bringing about a balance in trade. The success of the tourist industry will depend to a great extent on the good work of our diplomats in foreign countries. I hope the Minister will do his best to see that that industry will improve now and for the future.
There is another aspect of external affairs that I am very anxious about and take a deep interest in. I take this opportunity of congratulating the previous Minister on the way he, during his time of office, under very adverse conditions, improved the position of our trade relations with other countries. I think that our trade representatives abroad should have the opportunity of seeing what we have to sell so as to build up our export trade.
Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present; House counted, and 20 Deputies being present,
Our trade relations, like the tourist industry, are very important to our country's economy and I am sure that the Minister for External Affairs will see as far as possible that the very best trade representatives are sent to these countries with a view to exchanging trade and exporting some of our manufactured goods and the things that they have not got in other countries. I believe that the Department of External Affairs could play an important part in building up our trade abroad.
Now that our short-wave broadcasting station has been put in abeyance, I believe that our representatives should try in the meantime to encourage our cultural influence abroad. I wish to pay a compliment to our representative in England. Friends of mine have spoken highly of him and the good work he has done for Irish culture, Irish enterprise and Irish artists and others in England. That was encouraged by the previous Minister for External Affairs who realised its value to our nation and who was anxious to put our country on the map with the other civilised countries of the world, and he was responsible for bringing great credit to our country. I hope that the present Minister for External Affairs will also encourage that aspect of Irish cultural organisation.
While I am dealing with our diplomatic representatives, I would like to see a representative sent to India, because I feel that that country and our country had a good deal in common during their struggle for national independence. I was more than delighted and very happy to see the reception given in India to the previous Taoiseach, who has a place in Irish history that no man can take from him. I know that it costs money and that the expense of sending representatives to other countries would be a drag on the resources of the country, but it is very essential, and I would not like to see the adoption of the shortsighted policy spoken of by some Deputies here last night of begging the crumbs from our neighbouring nations' tables. Many projects have been put in abeyance, which is not a proper thing for a young country like ours. After years of trying to give our country the same status as other free countries throughout the world, we should avail of every opportunity possible to develop our national prestige.
There are many of our nationals in other countries and I have heard a reference in the debate to the possibility of appointing honorary consuls or honorary representatives abroad. That would be a very commendable thing, as there is hardly a country in the world where there are not some of our nationals.
The subject of Partition has been dealt with and the Minister will have the co-operation of the whole House in trying to right that wrong that has been perpetrated on our country. The previous Taoiseach should be complimented by the people of the country on his tour throughout the world and not be referred to, as he was by some of his opponents, in a disrespectful manner. He is an Irishman who has done wonderful work throughout the world to show up the wrongs perpetrated on the country over the centuries and which people are trying to make permanent now. We should all be united on that national issue.
This matter of external affairs and the problems that affect us, both nationally and internationally, are, I think, probably the most important matters to come for discussion and decision in the Dáil at the present time. By arrangement between the Parties, a period of six and a half hours has been allocated for the discussion on this Estimate. One should imagine that within two hours of our assembly here this morning it should not have been necessary to draw the attention of the Chair to the fact that less than a quorum of Deputies was present. Almost every Deputy will talk in every place of the importance of external affairs and Partition, but, when the matter is under consideration here, it does not receive the attention from Deputies that it should. That is disappointing. If we are going to treat this House in the way in which it is being treated, we are going to bring this Parliament into disrepute.
The Deputy should not lecture the House on its duties. He should proceed to discuss the Estimates before it.
I am not referring to this matter from the point of view of lecturing the House, but because I feel it is my duty to do it.
It is totally irrelevant.
The big problem that confronts us seems to be our constitutional position. What is our constitutional position? Many people do not seem to have a clear appreciation of what our constitutional position is at the moment. Are we a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations or are we, as has been stated, an independent republic? If we can be clear on that, there should be no difficulty about discussing this matter in a sensible and intelligent way, but the trouble is that we say amongst ourselves that we are a republic, whereas we act as a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations. That has been perfectly clear from the speech made by the Minister introducing his Estimate and it was perfectly clear from the contribution made by Deputy Eamon de Valera.
Mr. de Valera
That is inaccurate. If the Deputy wants to be accurate, he can easily get the quotation. That is not the position and it has not been suggested by anything I said.
Nor was it suggested by anything I said to the House. The reverse would be the position.
That is where I start. What are we? Will somebody tell me what we are, and then I will discuss the position?
Mr. de Valera
When I was asked that question, as the Deputy will see if he looks up the records, I defined the position as clearly as it could be defined.
Deputy de Valera does not need to explain what he said when in office.
I have read——
In fairness towards Deputy de Valera and myself, the Deputy should be asked by the Chair to state what was said by either Deputy de Valera or myself in the course of this debate which made it perfectly clear that either of us considered that this State formed part of the British Commonwealth of Nations.
The Chair has to be thankful to Providence for many things. One of the things it is very thankful for is that it has not to give definitions or decisions with regard to the constitutional position of the State and it does not propose to get involved in them now.
That is the trouble we have when we proceed to discuss this Estimate and to discuss our external affairs. If the Minister or the Leader of the Opposition should wish to have this matter determined by our own Supreme Court, there are sufficient decisions of the Supreme Court to indicate very clearly that we are still a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations.
Mr. de Valera
Hopeless!
Would the Deputy give the decisions which indicate that or give the references to them?
The Deputy will make his speech in his own way.
And will not give the House the reference to the decisions which he mentions.
The Deputy will make his speech in his own way and will make it honestly. I think it right that the country should take its stand on honesty in these matters.
The Deputy has been challenged because he has made two statements in a very short space of time which he is not prepared to substantiate.
Our constitutional position is based on the Treaty——
Mr. de Valera
On the Constitution.
I will come to the Constitution. Our constitutional position is based on the Treaty with Great Britain made in 1921.
That is going very far back.
Mr. de Valera
It is not so based.
I am unfortunately being pressed to prove my point. As a result of that Treaty, a Constitution, the Free State Constitution, was adopted by this country. Under the provisions and by the authority of that Free State Constitution, another Constitution was introduced, a Constitution in which we said——
Mr. de Valera
Not at all; that is fundamentally wrong.
We cannot discuss what is already an enactment. Whether or not the Deputy likes it or accepts it, the Constitution under which this State is operating at the moment is an enactment, and he cannot discuss it.
I am in this difficulty, that, if we are an independent republic, there is no doubt and no trouble whatever as to what our constitutional position is.
Mr. de Valera
And so you are.
Will the Minister say that we are an independent republic?
We are certainly not——
Very well; we are not.
If the Deputy asks a question, he should at least wait for the answer. We certainly are not——
I will not be spoken to sharply by the Minister or by anybody else in this House.
The Deputy asked a question.
And then proceeded to interrupt me when I was answering it.
There is no obligation on the Minister to answer but, if the Deputy gives way, the Minister is entitled to answer him.
The answer is that we are certainly not a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations.
I am glad that I at least know where the Minister stands and where the former Minister stands in regard to that, that we are not a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations.
Mr. de Valera
Has all the propaganda gone up?
Deputy Lehane is looking very troubled.
Deputy Lehane can speak for himself.
The Minister says we are not a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations. I accept that as the Minister's opinion, but I do not accept it as a fact, and, when Deputy de Valera states that, I accept it as being his opinion, but do not accept it as a fact.
Mr. de Valera
Only by propaganda, of course.
I am not putting it to that extent at all. May I ask the Minister then: are we an independent republic?
The Deputy must proceed by speech and not by cross-examination.
It is a fair question to put to the Minister.
The Deputy is not being relevant.
With respect to the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I submit it is absolutely relevant to a proper consideration of this problem. Are we an independent republic or are we not?
Debate in the House proceeds by way of speech and not by way of cross-examination.
If the Minister does not want to answer the question now, perhaps he will do so when he is closing the debate. That is the problem we are up against in regard to our constitutional position. If we are an independent republic, we have nothing to fight for, except the abolition of Partition. We have nothing to struggle for except the abolition of Partition.
Mr. de Valera
And the working out of our salvation as an independent nation.
Yes. That is our position. I want to be clear on that. If we are not an independent republic, there are certain steps that we must take to achieve our freedom and independence.
Mr. de Valera
Hear, hear!
That is the difficulty I have. Have we an independent republic?
Mr. de Valera
You have. There is nothing you cannot do here constitutionally.
No. If that were so, I feel that our approach to this British Nationality Bill would be different—very different. Our approach to the British Nationality Bill would be very different from the approach of the Minister. It would be very different from the approach of Deputy de Valera because this British Nationality Bill, that would attempt to make British citizens of Irish citizens, would be a hostile act as far as this country is concerned and, if it is a hostile act, it should not have been approached by the Government of this country in the way the Minister states he has approached it.
Atom bombs?
I take it the Minister adopted the same grounds and lines of objection that his predecessor in office adopted. I am accepting that. I do not want to be led into any discussion between the Minister and Deputy de Valera on that point. I want to steer clear of that particular trouble but, if we are an independent republic, the British Nationality Bill is a hostile act as far as we in this country are concerned and it should be approached on that basis. That is why I said at the beginning that our present constitutional position is the difficulty that arises. My own personal point of view, looking at the matter as fairly as I can, is that, constitutionally, we are a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations.
Mr. de Valera
None so blind as those who do not want to see.
That is the danger. It is not that I do not want to see. But I am objecting to being put into blinkers and made to look at a thing in the wrong light. That is what I am objecting to. I want to remove these blinkers and to look facts in the face. The fact cannot be denied that when foreign representatives come to this country, they come accredited to the British King. They are met here by the Minister for External Affairs, representing the British King.
Mr. de Valera
No truth whatever.
When a Minister will come here in a few days from the Argentine, when he presents his credentials, he will present them to his Britannic Majesty and to his Britannic Majesty's representative in Ireland, the Minister for External Affairs.
Mr. de Valera
There is no such thing. There is a person; there is Lord Rugby.
I would like to think that Deputy de Valera is right but, unfortunately, I do not think it nor can I think it.
Mr. de Valera
Having spoken so often in the opposite direction, it is very hard now to reverse.
Deputy de Valera ought to allow Deputy Cowan to make his speech.
I have never in my life spoken one word in the opposite direction. Is that a sign of our independent sovereignty that a foreign representative should come here accredited to the King of a nation with whom we are not associated? Unless we face facts, we will not solve the problems, and the fact is that we cannot be and are not an independent republic at the moment and it is the duty of this House, and the duty of this country, to take such steps as are necessary to achieve that independence and to establish a republic here.
Mr. de Valera
Ipse dixit. It must be so.
That is, unfortunately, the position, that we still have a distance to go. I freely admit that, during the last 16 years and under the Administration of Deputy de Valera, we did make considerable strides towards the achievement of that goal but we would only be fooling ourselves if we were to say now that we have reached it, when in fact we have not reached it. There are more ditches to be crossed. We have yet to achieve the ultimate, the final independence of this country and we have yet to set up our republic.
It is only right in the debate on external affairs, that we in this House should make it perfectly clear that we do intend to take the steps that will establish this country as an independent republic, whatever those steps may be, and whatever sacrifices may be necessary in the process. That is my view, expressed deliberately and honestly. While that is so, our approach to this problem of Partition may be somewhat difficult. For 25 years I have heard discussions on Partition and I would say that probably the most effective step that might have been taken to solve Partition was taken by Deputy Aiken 25 or more years ago. I have heard predecessors of the present Minister speaking in exactly the same way as the Minister has spoken about the dangers to the friendship between Ireland and England unless the Border was removed and Partition was ended. When the Minister spoke last night; he said nothing new on this problem; he said nothing that has not been said by Deputy de Valera before him; he said nothing that has not been said by Ministers of the old Cumann na nGaedheal Government prior to that.
Deputy de Valera says that the Minister may have understated the problem. That is a matter of approach but this approach to the problem, whether it comes from the Minister, from Deputy de Valera or Deputy McGilligan, who was, I think, his predecessor, accepts the situation that Partition has been established there by the British Government and that apparently it can only be solved when people on both sides of the Border get sensible and when the British remove whatever influences they have in the Six Counties. But we have had 25 years of that. Will the Minister or Deputy de Valera say that we are going to make any appreciable advance in the next 25 years? Will the Minister or Deputy de Valera say that we are going to make any appreciable advance in the next 50 years? It is all very well to talk about the evils of Partition. We are all aware of those evils. With every word the Minister has said, with every word Deputy de Valera has said, here and elsewhere, every Deputy agrees; but we have had 25 years of talking and 25 years of talking have not brought us nearer a solution of the problem. I say deliberately that another method of solving this problem must be taken, and must be taken quickly. If we are to have regard to the sacrifices that have been made in this country over many years, many generations, many centuries, to achieve the ultimate ideals of freedom, we ought to be taking the practical steps that would bring about the ending of the evil of Partition.
If we go back prior to 1916, every speaker in Irish politics, every member of the Irish Parliamentary Party, every patriot in that period from Parnell down, spoke about the dangers to friendship between Ireland and England unless they gave us our freedom—and after 40 or more years of that talk, it took other methods to achieve something. I have respect for those other methods and I do say in this House that it is only by those other methods that we are going to achieve the unity of this country in our time.
I was surprised to hear the Minister refer to the international situation and say very specifically that our sympathies in a coming crisis were clearly with the Western States of Europe. That can mean only one thing—that we are making it clear to those Western States that we will be on their side in the event of a crisis. It is ráiméis to talk in that way, when we have in this country a Defence Force much less than five or six battalions strong. We indicate that in a war situation, our sympathies—in other words, if the Minister likes to push it that far, our active support—will be with one set of belligerents, and we have not enough troops to-day to defend, or even protect, the Shannon airport. We ought to be realistic. If we are going to take that line of identifying ourselves with one set of belligerents in a coming war, let us prepare to take our place there. You cannot talk in that way with your tongue in your cheek, or when you have wiped out the Defence Force.
Lest the Deputy's remarks might lead to misunderstanding as to what I did say, I think I should repeat, for the benefit of the Deputy, what I said in relation to that matter:
"We here 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 Western Europe."
"Our sympathies are clearly with the Western States of Europe"—that is what the Minister said, and what the Minister wanted to be assumed from that was that, in any coming conflict, we could be trusted to play our rôle on one side.
That is not what I have said, directly or indirectly.
The statement of the Minister for External Affairs in this present world situation was a statement that should be considered with the greatest care. Every word should be weighed and nothing should be said that might give a wrong impression. If a wrong impression has been given by those words, it is regrettable.
Anything can be distorted, of course.
Man has a higher rôle to play than to be a cog in a fly wheel. I will not trust myself to comment on that, as it would be outside the scope of the debate. In the last tragic war, when Europe was overshadowed by a terrible menace, when Nazism and Fascism were rampant on the Continent, this country took the line of neutrality, for several reasons. One of the main reasons was that while an injustice was being done to our country by Great Britain we could not take the side of Great Britain in that war for freedom. If we were to approach a war to-morrow, I agree with Deputy Lehane—I hope I am not misquoting him—that while that injustice is still being done to our country no Government, no Administration or no Minister should lead this country into war on the side of Britain.
I do not agree with those who say that there is a danger of immediate and terrible war. There is a situation that could readily result in war, but it seems clear to me that those great nations at the moment are playing a game, that none of them wants to fight a war or is prepared at the moment to fight a war. I am satisfied that there will be no war in the immediate future. If we go back to the years after 1918, to the 1920s, and look at the files of the world's newspapers for that period they would be an eye-opener. Every day during these years you saw a crisis here, a crisis there—Germany, Russia and Italy—and assassinations. I find that it is a very useful thing to take up these newspaper files and compare those crises at that time with the crises of to-day. The war did not come until many years afterwards, until a great country had committed its destiny into the hands of a madman. In conclusion, I may say that I welcome the suggestion of the Minister for External Affairs that there should be a committee on foreign affairs in this House.
Mr. de Valera
I hope he will never adopt it.
The leader of the Opposition may be wrong in that.
Mr. de Valera
I may. I am simply expressing a hope.
I think it would be for the good of this Parliament and this country if a number of Deputies were to specialise in the study of matters affecting our external affairs. The committee that I visualise the Minister having in mind would be a committee of Deputies who were prepared to study these problems and that to that committee would be given information that the Minister felt could and should be given to them.
Mr. de Valera
That is all right.
That is what I believe the Minister had in mind. If the formation of that committee resulted in more Deputies and more citizens generally taking an active interest in our external affairs and relationships, then it would be a good thing. I think the consideration of this Estimate has been approached in a very sensible way by the Leader of the Opposition and by the other Deputies who have spoken.
I was rather amused, a Leas-Chinn Comhairle, when you were suspecting that Deputy Lehane was going to advocate the amending of legislation. The Deputy had not any such idea. The Deputy knows perfectly well that if the Minister for External Affairs, with the approval of the Government, wishes to accredit our representative directly to the Argentine or any other country he can do so without getting the paper signed by the British King.
I think that involves some section of the External Relations Act.
The External Relations Act is permissive. It says that all our diplomatic representatives are to be appointed on the authority of the Executive Council. The Executive Council has now been changed under the Constitution to the Government. It says also that the consular representatives of Saorstát Éireann shall be appointed on the authority of the Government. If the Government want to send a representative directly to the Argentine without any other papers than those signed by the Minister for External Affairs, on the authority of the Government, they can do so.
Will the Minister explain why the previous Government passed the External Relations Act?
These are the terms of the External Relations Act. Deputy Lehane wants to carry on with some of the propaganda which they are making against the External Relations Act and our constitutional position.
I do not know whether this is a useful matter to pursue but, if I may say so, I think that the Leader of the Opposition will agree with me when I state that the position as stated by Deputy Aiken is not the correct position.
Mr. de Valera
I agree with Deputy Aiken that the authority of the Government is sufficient, provided the other Governments concerned accept.
If the Chair allows the matter to be discussed, I think it should be discussed on a proper level.
This is not a court to construe an Act of Parliament. If a section of an Act of Parliament has to be construed, there is a place where it can be construed. This is not the place to construe any section of an Act of Parliament.
This is the place to deal with policy. If the Minister for Agriculture will allow the Minister for External Affairs to accredit our representative directly to the Argentine with a letter from him, not going through England——
The Deputy is——
It is a question of policy.
It is not a question of policy. I ruled out Deputy Lehane because I understood that it would be necessary to introduce legislation to alter the present position in regard to the accrediting of our foreign representatives. I think it will be agreed also that there is some doubt——
Mr. de Valera
I do not agree that there is any doubt.
Deputy de Valera does not agree. That may be so. There may be others who will agree. This is not the place to construe a section of an Act of Parliament. Having ruled out Deputy Lehane, I must also rule out Deputy Aiken as to the position with respect to an Act of Parliament.
I want to tell Deputy Lehane, through the Chair, that if he wants our Minister going to the Argentine not to have on his letter the signature of the British King, he can do so. If it is put on, it is not because of the law, but because of the policy of the present Administration.
That is not in accordance with the facts.
That is in accordance with the law. I know the Minister for External Affairs so well that I would no more dream of taking his word in regard to a matter——
That is a compliment to him.
We cannot have a discussion here on the level of personal abuse of that kind.
That is not personal abuse.
It is.
Not at all.
To say that the word of a Minister cannot be taken is sinking to the level of personal abuse of the Minister.
I brought in evidence yesterday that it could not be taken.
I am not concerned with what the Deputy brought in. The Minister is a Deputy and discussion in this House always proceeds on the understanding that the word of a Deputy has to be taken and is taken. To say that the Minister's word cannot be taken is descending to the level of personal abuse.
The Minister yesterday——
Mr. A. Byrne
Has the Deputy withdrawn the statement?
Mr. de Valera
The Deputy is not in the Chair.
Mr. A. Byrne
It is customary to withdraw a statement like that.
I am waiting for the Deputy to indicate what is his attitude towards his expression in regard to the Minister.
What expression?
I ruled that what the Deputy stated is personal abuse of the Minister and cannot be allowed. Is the Deputy withdrawing that remark—that he cannot take the Minister's word?
If you rule, I must. I withdraw it. The Minister, in opening up this debate, made an appeal for co-operation and unity in regard to our external relations. He delivered a very good homily on the whole matter and if he were sincere in asking for co-operation I would very heartily welcome and agree to the meeting of his appeal. However, when the Minister allows his colleagues to misrepresent the external affairs position he cannot get the co-operation that should exist between all Parties in this State on questions of our external affairs. I leave that particular aspect of the External Relations Act—I have already made the position clear in that regard. The Minister and his colleagues in the Clann na Poblachta Party may misrepresent it as energetically up and down the country as they did with regard to our position in relation to the British Commonwealth. Some day or another, however, they will have to admit, as the Minister for External Affairs admitted here to-day, that they were wrong in relation to this particular matter as they were wrong in relation to our membership of the British Commonwealth. Of course, Deputy C. Lehane is afraid to admit to his followers throughout the country —if there are any left, as I am reminded—that Deputy Dillon, the Minister for Agriculture, is in control not only of our agricultural policy but also of our external affairs policy.
The Deputy knows that that is so and that is what is worrying him or, I should have said, the Deputy knows that that is not so and that is what is worrying him.
The Deputy spoke the truth the first time when he said that I know that it is so.
That it is not so.
The Deputy corrected himself. I know that it is so——
It is not so.
Deputy Aiken must have heard that in Australia.
The Minister for External Affairs has handed the reins of government that he got from the people to the Minister for Agriculture. The Minister for External Affairs got sufficient votes to enable him to control the present Government if he was prepared to use his power. Instead of that he has given the reins of government to Deputy Dillon, the Minister for Agriculture, and he has given them unfortunately even in relation to our external affairs. It would be very interesting if the Minister for External Affairs would state what he thinks of the policy of the Minister for Agriculture in relation to the dangerous international situation which he outlined in his opening speech last evening. If we are facing war a few years hence, or if there is an immediate danger, why on earth should we now reverse the agricultural and economic policy that enabled us to take our own decision in the past war and to stick to it right through in spite of all the pressure that was brought to bear upon us in order to make us change our minds. If we are to decide our own policy in time of war we require very much more than a constitutional right to do so—a constitutional right recognised internationally. We require the economic strength to support that political or constitutional decision. The Minister for Agriculture is at the moment going round the country telling the people that——
We are not discussing the Minister for Agriculture now.
He told the country a short while ago that there is not going to be a war——
The Minister for External Affairs is responsible for external affairs only.
Is that not a matter of external affairs?
If the Deputy wishes to discuss Government policy I would point out to him that it arises on another Vote. The Minister is responsible for external affairs and external affairs only. He is not responsible for agricultural policy.
Mr. de Valera
I submit that in this debate a resolution was put down precisely for the purpose of giving a wider scope so that Government policy would be discussed.
The Deputy means the policy of the Department of External Affairs.
Mr. de Valera
I have made this point already myself and I want to find out if I was in order in doing so. I made the point that it is desirable that the Minister for External Affairs should indicate to his colleagues the seriousness of the situation so that other Departments might also take steps in that regard. The matter is much too important from a national viewpoint for us here to be bound by any narrow rules of debate.
An Leas Cheann-Comhairle
I am not endeavouring to curb Deputy Aiken in any way but there is another Vote on which general Government policy can be discussed in its entirety. The Minister for External Affairs is responsible for external affairs only and not for agricultural policy. Let me say, for the last time, that agricultural policy cannot be discussed on this Vote.
One Minister of this Government has told us that there will be no war. On the other hand, the Minister for External Affairs rightly took up some time in outlining to the House the dangerous international situation that exists to-day. We know that this gentleman who made the declaration about no war said in 1938 also that there was going to be no war then. I hope he is nearer the truth to-day than he was in 1938, because none of us wants to see another holocaust. I do not think anybody is so mad as to think that any good is going to come out of another holocaust either for this or for any other country in western Europe. We hope that a rule of international law will be agreed upon and put into force without having to use the awful weapons of destruction that are available to mighty belligerents at the present time. However, suppose it happens that our will is not to rule in that regard and that a war does break out. It is of the utmost importance, first of all, that we should agree here about our constitutional situation and that nobody is going to make treasonable remarks about our present constitutional position. Secondly, being clear on the constitutional position of this country and on our constitutional right to make any decision we may wish to make that would seem to the benefit of Irish interests in regard to that war, we should have the economic strength built up to enable us to support such a decision.
Mr. A. Byrne
On the question of Partition I should like to point out that I have not heard during this debate any suggestion as to approaching Northern Ireland representatives to see what proposals would be acceptable to them. I should like to hear from the Minister if, after considerable thought, he has prepared proposals which he could put before Northern Ireland representatives for their consideration and possibly for their acceptance. I should like to see proposals from Deputy de Valera, the leader of the Opposition, for acceptance by the people of Northern Ireland——
The people of the Six Counties.
Mr. A. Byrne
——in a pamphlet form or published in his newspaper. In these proposals he should set out how far he is prepared to go in the way of guarantees to the people of Northern Ireland, if they require any guarantees, on what he is prepared to give them. So far, we have not seen any proposals from Deputy de Valera while he was Minister or from the present Government either.
Mr. de Valera
Our Constitution gives all the guarantees that are reasonably necessary.
Mr. A. Byrne
I hope that is not the end of it. If Deputy de Valera says that our Constitution gives them all the guarantees that they can reasonably expect will the Deputy say now what his attitude is in regard to the 8,000 or the 10,000 civil servants or Government employees in Northern Ireland. These people are established in permanent posts. They have good rates of remuneration, holidays with pay, and they are entitled to pensions. Instead of inviting them to come in I would prefer to ask that they should "come together" by goodwill on the part of the people at both sides of the Border.
Mr. de Valera
But these are trifling matters. Anybody could settle the question of the civil servants and so on. They are only trifles.
Mr. Byrne
Under what terms? What is trifling?
Mr. de Valera
These are trifles. There is no major issue involved. These things could be settled.
Mr. Byrne
Does not the Deputy know that there are 10,000 civil servants fighting for their rights and agitating all the time for the preservation of those rights?
Mr. de Valera
Nonsense! They know they could get equivalent rights to those in five minutes.
Mr. Byrne
In Northern Ireland they have not got compulsory Irish. In Southern Ireland we have. If there were competition for clerical posts in the Civil Service the boy or girl in Southern Ireland would have 300 extra marks for Irish.
Mr. de Valera
What else does the Deputy want us to surrender? Are we going to surrender everything?
Mr. Byrne
The Deputy knows the point I am making. You have young men in Northern Ireland at the present time qualifying for professions. They do not need Irish. Will the Deputy or the present Government give them a guarantee, if there is a coming together, that compulsory Irish will not be used against them if preference arises, all other things being equal?
Mr. de Valera
The Deputy ought to realise that matters of that kind can be adjusted in the proper way and at the proper time. The Deputy is not doing it in the proper way now. I stand for the Irish language and the right of those who want to speak it and, above all, the right of the nation to have its language.
Mr. Byrne
So do I.
You are standing for it in a damn queer way then.
Mr. Byrne
So do I stand for it. But I am asking if this guarantee will be given. When I was discussing Partition with the people in the North they asked me what guarantee we would give them for 20 years that they would be exempt from compulsory Irish——
Mr. de Valera
The Deputy is trying to damage the Irish language and he is doing it knowingly.
He has been doing that all his life.
Mr. de Valera
If the two parts come together these questions will have to be threshed out subsequently. There are certain things which we as a nation will never surrender. One of them is the language and the other is our faith. As I said in the Seanad on one occasion, if we surrender the language the next thing will be a demand to surrender our faith.
Mr. Byrne
Will the Government give a guarantee for a certain period of years that they will be exempt and that there will exist no disqualification against them? I do not put that forward as my own suggestion. I was asked to put that specific question. Will they be given a guarantee that they will not be denied appointments because they have not got the same standard of Irish?
Mr. de Valera
They will be treated fairly.
Mr. Byrne
Will you give them an exemption for ten years?
Mr. de Valera
It is no good addressing these questions to me. I am not now in a position to determine them. But I do say, from my point of view, that there are distances to which we cannot go to meet the views of the North. Everybody knows what those distances are. We shall be as reasonable as we can and as fair as we can.
Mr. Byrne
I am sorry the Deputy will give me no encouragement. These people want time in which to get proficient in Irish. They want time in which to get teachers so that the young people in the future will not be disqualified in open competition. I want a united Ireland. I stand to-day for a united Ireland as I have always done. In 1917 the British Government sent representatives to the Irish Party and they offered us 28 counties. I voted against the acceptance of 28 counties then. Nobody could ever accuse me of being anti-Irish or non-national. For 30 years we have been working with 26 counties. I make the suggestion as to whether it is not possible that we could get these Northern counties to come in with good will and by proving to them that no injustice will be done in them. Can we tell them that they will have the same social services and the same old age pensions if they come in with us; can we tell them that we shall try to level up our social services to theirs rather than bring them down to our level?
Mr. de Valera
Let the representatives meet and discuss these questions amongst themselves.
Mr. Byrne
How nice it would be to bring in our colleagues in Northern Ireland.
Mr. de Valera
We have done a great deal here to try to do that.
Mr. Byrne
I did not think my five or ten minutes would bring Deputy de Valera to his feet. All I want to point out is that in discussions I have had with people in Northern Ireland I have been asked these questions: what would we do for the civil servants; what would we do for the young children who have not got any Irish; would they be denied the opportunity of taking part in competitions because they have no Irish? We have got proficient teachers for our children here. In Northern Ireland they have not got teachers just as we had not got them when we first established our own Government.
Mr. de Valera
Is it not obvious that they could do what we did here? Could not the Deputy have told them that they should know perfectly well that they would be treated fairly? Could he not have told them that the demands of justice would be met?
Irish is taught in the Catholic colleges and convents of the North.
Mr. Byrne
Will they be given a 20 years' guarantee to make themselves ready to compete with our children? I am as anxious for the Irish language to be revived as Deputy de Valera is. When Deputy de Valera was in power did he ever consider the possibility of appointing a representative in Northern Ireland and equally a representative of Northern Ireland here. I think that might have gone some way towards solving our problem. These representatives could have discussed the points upon which Deputy de Valera is now so irritable. I merely offer friendly suggestions that might help to bring our own people together. We should not blame the British all the time for Partition. The British themselves will say to you: "Will you people settle this yourselves?"
Mr. de Valera
Having created the present situation they want us to settle it.
Mr. Byrne
That has been said so often that I feel I should take this opportunity of getting some information as to how we should try to bring about this "coming together". Have we ever discussed these matters with our Northern friends? I believe that a good day's work would be done. It is only by goodwill and good Government that we will get these two people together, the people on our side of the Border and the people on the Northern side.
I hope the present Government will do something to induce the coming together of these peoples—at least to discuss the matter with them and ask them what objection could they have to coming into a united Irish Parliament. We could tell them "We will give you all the guarantees you ask for." We can assure them that every guarantee it is possible to get we at this end will be prepared to give. We are prepared to go a very long way in order to get the people on both sides of the Border to work together in a united Irish Parliament. I suggest the Minister should do something along those lines.
I wish to congratulate him for the statement he made here last night. I was encouraged by that statement, that it is his intention sooner or later to get the two peoples together. Please God, in his time Partition will be removed without any threats to the people of the North.
I am not surprised that Deputy Byrne addressed his remarks to Deputy de Valera in connection with this matter because, in my view, and in the view of Irish people at home and abroad, the solution of this problem of Partition rests in the hands of Deputy de Valera. I am not in the least reflecting on the ability of the present Minister for External Affairs when I say that.
I was rather disappointed, as one closely associated with the Border and the demoralising effects accruing from it to the people on both sides, not to hear from the Minister some definite plan for the solution of this problem. I was expecting something of that nature, considering that the Minister blazed his way into this House mainly through his attitude and his statements about Partition and judging by the softening-up barrage in the form of telegrams from one of the candidates in my constituency prior to the recent election. The time for an active national policy in relation to Partition is long overdue. Every Party in this House has declared its support of our people's demand for national unity and independence. It is time we combined to put that demand into practical effect, into a definite active policy— that is, if we are really sincere and earnest in what we say. Our friends at home and abroad are asking for some definite sign of our national determination.
Knowing the evils of Partition at close range, I say we should be ashamed that the advocates of unity in the partitioned Six Counties are forced to organise down here in free Ireland an anti-Partition league in order to bring us to a realisation of our national duty. This Government, I may say, entered on a course in regard to Partition which had been carefully watched and probed by the Fianna Fáil Government for 16 years. In my view everything had been made ready by them as a springboard for future action.
The Minister in his opening remarks mentioned the possibility of establishing a council of all Parties on external affairs. I would have preferred if he had suggested a council of Deputies of this House to deal exclusively with Partition because, unless concerted action is taken, we are going to have nothing more than talk, as has been happening for so long. There is one thing we must do, and that is to make up our minds to cease confusing the national issue by a manifold policy concerning Partition, and this is particularly in danger of happening owing to the number of Parties comprising the present Government.
There should be one clear policy, one clear and definite demand that the coalition Government, with all Parties, north and south, should make because it is fundamental to all progress on this issue. That is, compelling the British Government to clear out its entire military occupation forces and cease at once spending Marshall aid dollars in the continuous imposition of a Parliament against the wishes of the vast majority of the Irish people. Let us anchor on this demand and cease the impracticable and senseless proposals put forward recently by puerile politicians.
As Deputy Byrne reminded me, a Minister of the British Government recently said, when queried about Partition: "I would prefer if you would settle that among yourselves." Until England has cleared out bag and baggage, we down here can make no approach to our Protestant friends in the Six Counties. As long as the English garrison and American dollars are available, they will cling to them no matter what the ultimate economic and social loss may be.
The Minister mentioned the religious aspect of Partition and I am sorry he should have suggested, should the opportunity ever arise or should the unity of the country take place, the provision of additional safeguards in the matter of religion, when the world knows—and no people better than our Protestant friends in the Six Counties —that in no country in the world is there such consideration and such provision made for non-Catholics as in this country. For that reason the suggestion of safeguards was unfortunate in that it might give the impression that they were necessary.
The religious aspect of Partition is merely a wedge driven by the British and Irish Ascendancy Parties between Catholics and Protestants in this country for no reason other than to perpetuate ascendancy rule to the grave disadvantage of both Catholics and Protestants. Especially in face of the world-wide anti-Christian menace, the Christian religion should be above place, power and the spoils of office, but unfortunately there are politicians in the Six Counties who never hesitated to barter it on the political exchange. Before concluding, I should like to pay a tribute to the indomitable few in the Six Counties who for 25 years at a great personal sacrifice, including imprisonment, have kept the world informed of the injustice of Partition. I think they call for, and that they deserve, more consideration from us than they have got in the past. I think the House will agree with me when I say that it is about time the responsibilities and duties of so many ceased to be the burden of so few.
Deputy Burke began his speech by suggesting that the Minister was guilty of misrepresentations in this House. Naturally the inference was that his speech was a misrepresentation. Fortunately Deputy Burke did not continue on these lines, but a hint of misrepresentation on the part of some members of the Clann na Poblachta Party was made by Deputy Aiken. May I say that it is rather difficult to decide whether the proper attitude to adopt in treating allegations of that kind, coming from the Fianna Fáil Benches, is to treat them with contempt or to attempt repudiation of them. Deputy Byrne raised a very simple question here when in talking of Partition he mentioned the difficulty which, he stated, was put to him by some friends in Northern Ireland. Immediately three of the five Fianna Fáil Deputies in the House pounced on Deputy Byrne and began to make speeches in interjections. Deputy Byrne was accused of doing injury to the Irish langnage by putting his case. Deputy de Valera announced quite clearly what his position was in regard to the culture and development of the Irish language. We all know that and none of us yields to Deputy de Valera in the desire for the propagation of the Irish language but we do object, and very strongly object, to making the development of the language the racket it has been.
Very interesting.
The approach to the Partition question made by the Minister for External Affairs is something which is new. His method of approach is quite different from that adopted by his predecessors and it is because of that approach that an extraordinary resurgence of advocacy for a solution of that problem has taken place. In his tour throughout the United States and in Australia, Deputy de Valera contributed, as we should expect from him, his share in the propagation of the views of the Irish people in regard to that problem. I am sure that nobody would fail to pay him adequate tribute for what he has done, but I do not think that he has done what he might have done when he was able to do it. I do not think that when he was in office he did as much as the present Minister for External Affairs has done within the last few months. In the campaign to end Partition, all Irishmen are united in the desire to make our country one. There is no doubt whatever in the minds of all who love their country on that score.
As Deputy Sir John Esmonde has stated, the basis on which that ideal can be achieved is by the re-establishment of the unity which prevailed in 1918 and which continued until 1921. In order to strengthen the Minister's hands, it is necessary that he should be fortified by the cohesion of all our people. In the re-establishment of that spirit which Deputy Sir John Esmonde desires, it is refreshing to know that it took 26 years to attempt to reestablish that spirit. The formation of the inter-Party Government has been the first great step towards the re-establishment of that spirit and the reunion of our people.
I am sorry to have to interrupt the Deputy, but by arrangement I must call on the Minister at 2 o'clock.
On the whole I should like to congratulate Deputies, with a couple of exceptions, on the tone adopted in the course of the debate on this Estimate. I do feel that it would be of considerable help to the House if Deputies would criticise in a constructive and reasonable fashion in this House, and would, if possible, ascertain their facts before making statements which are often not in accordance with the facts. As was inevitable, a large portion of the debate centred around the biggest national problem that we have, namely, Partition.
There is little that I can add to what I said in opening this debate, or that I can add to what the Deputies of this House have said. The continuance of Partition is a constant indictment of the elementary principles of democracy. It is a constant infringement on the right to national self-determination. I think I made it clear in opening that the Partition of Ireland is something that no generation of Irishmen, that no Irish Government and that no Irish Parliament will ever accept or acquiesce in. I think I also made it clear that the continuance of Partition would prove a hindrance to the good relationship and co-operation that should exist between this island and Britain.
One thing, I think, is rather essential. It is that no Party, and no particular individual on any side of this House, be he Minister or leader of a Party, should seek to monopolise Partition as part of his personal policy. Partition is a national issue upon which there is complete unity in this House and in the country, and it does not belong to any one Party. I would like that this House should always maintain a united attitude in relation to it.
I want to compliment especially Deputy Sir John Esmonde for the speech he made in the House to-day. It was a most constructive and a most helpful speech on the issue of Partition. I think that there is probably a lot in the suggestion that he made, a suggestion that I propose to have examined more carefully that there should be an all-Party committee of this House to deal with it.
One or two particular issues have been raised in relation to Partition. Deputy Byrne raised one particular question, and I must say that I am in complete agreement with the remarks passed by Deputy Dr. Brennan in relation to the interruptions to which Deputy Byrne was subjected. I think that Deputy Byrne did raise a question that must be faced up to, and I think that the Leader of the Opposition would, on examination, realise that a lot of our friends in the Six Counties have genuine fears, fears that may have been deliberately created for an ulterior reason, but be that as it may, I think that a great many of what we may call the Unionist population in the Six Counties have very genuine fears about certain matters. I think that it is our duty, in so far as we can, to lay these fears at rest.
A great many of these fears have been deliberately propagated by those who want to maintain the division of this country. The people there have been told that we are intolerant, that if Partition were ended their religious or civil liberties would be in danger, that they would be compelled to learn Irish, that they would be precluded from securing employment unless they knew Irish, that their children would be made learn everything at school through the medium of Irish, and that we would interfere with their religious services or their religious liberties. We have no intentions of the kind, but it is so. Why should we let that propaganda go unanswered? We have no intention of in any way interfering with the civil or religious liberties of the people in the Six Counties; we have no intention of trying to compel the people of the Six Counties to learn Irish or to deprive them of the right of employment because they do not speak Irish. Is it not just as well for us to say these things right out?
Mr. de Valera
Certainly, when in the right context.
I am sure that the Deputy, on reflection, will realise that it is of value to lay these fears at rest. Likewise, I think it is of value that we ourselves should appreciate the realities of the position, and that we must in this House realise that it is essential that we should establish conditions in this part of the country from the social point of view and the point of view of the social services which are as good as those that exist in the Six Counties.
Likewise, I think that it is essential that we should convey to our friends in the Six Counties that if they have to pay higher taxation, if they have to undergo shortages, it is because of Partition; if they export vast quantities of goods and get none in return, it is because of Partition. These are economic facts that there can be no argument about, and I think that these facts should be explained to the people of this country. I am not suggesting that historical reasons or sentimental reasons should not also be dealt with, but I think that you want to deal with all aspects of Partition and get the people, not merely of this country, but the people of England and of the rest of the world to understand these facts.
One Deputy made what I consider to be a rather mischievous suggestion, which I have no doubt will be exploited to the fullest on the other side of the Border. I do not know whether it is Deputy Cowan's intention to suggest that this country should declare war on Britain and should invade the Six Counties. If that is his suggestion, I think he might have told the House in so many words that it was and proceed to explain how that war should be waged.
The position in relation to the Nationality Bill which has just been passed by the British Parliament, is, as far as we can see here, quite clear and unambiguous. The last Government made its views most clearly to the British Government; the present Government did likewise. As I stated at the beginning—and I do not think that there can be any doubt about it— the views of the two Governments were identical on the matter, and those views were communicated to the British Government. I stated that yesterday evening and I do not know whether Deputy de Valera meant to suggest anything otherwise when he referred to the "mild way" in which I dealt with the position. I would rather if this matter had not come up for discussion in the House. I do not know whether Deputy de Valera would consider that any useful purpose would have been served had I indulged in vituperations directed to the majority of the members of the House of Lords and to the British Government. Personally, I do not think that it would have served a useful function.
Mr. de Valera
I did not suggest that.
I do not think that the British Government or the British Parliament had any doubt as to our attitude. I have read the debates which took place in the British House of Lords and the House of Commons fairly carefully and I am satisfied from these that our attitude was known and that those who had carriage of the Bill in the British Parliament made it clear that this Bill was not acceptable to us in its present form, that we had objections that had not been met and that all we could say about it was that it was an improvement on the position that had existed.
Lest some of the things that have been said might be taken as an indication that this Government or my Department had in any way failed to make the position clear, I think it would be well if I told the House, without going into detail, the position as I found it, when I took over the Department, in relation to this matter. I found that there had been since early 1947 conferences dealing with nationality and citizenship held in London at which we had been represented. These conferences lasted some considerable time in the early part of 1947; we were adequately represented at them by several of the higher officials of my Department. Therefore, we were fully informed as to what was taking place; therefore, the Leader of the Opposition was also, at that time, fully informed as to what was taking place. He was the Minister in charge of the Department. Subsequently the views of the Government were, as we know, imparted in memoranda that were sent to the British Government, views with which I concur completely. These views, however, were not wholly accepted by the British Government, and when this Government was appointed by this House and when I took over the Department of External Affairs, I found that the matter was closed and that the Bill had been introduced in the British Parliament. As far as we were concerned, the matter was ended. After lengthy discussions and an exchange of memoranda, it was introduced into the British House of Lords. Owing to certain provisions that were still in the Bill, and lest there be any misunderstanding as to the position, I felt it necessary to reopen the matter and I think I can say that as a result of reopening it, we were able to secure some further improvement in the Bill, improvements that were incorporated in the amendment moved on behalf of the British Government in the House of Lords.
Under the Bill as introduced, an Irish citizen was amenable to the British criminal law in England in respect of an act committed in Ireland. An amendment was introduced, as I have informed the House, on behalf of the British Government in the House of Lords rectifying that position and providing that an Irish citizen would not be guilty of any offence against the laws of the United Kingdom in respect of any act done in Ireland, or in any foreign country, unless that act was an offence if he were an alien. These, broadly speaking, are the provisions of that section. But the position was, when we took over, that this Bill was introduced and the matter was closed, so far as negotiations were concerned.
Mr. de Valera
Not necessarily.
The representations made by my predecessor had not been accepted and the Bill had actually been introduced.
Mr. de Valera
Obviously, up to the last moment, you keep on trying.
I hoped that would have been so. I am not in any way trying to suggest that the Leader of the Opposition failed to do what he should have done in connection with the matter. Let me say this quite frankly: so far as the conduct of affairs in the Department of External Affairs is concerned, I have no criticism to offer or to suggest against the Leader of the Opposition, but I think that, on reflection, he must agree with me that it is not quite fair to suggest to the House that we have in any way done or omitted to do anything which should have been done in connection with this nationality Bill. Had this House, had the country, heard any public protest from the Government Benches in connection with that Bill up to the change of Government?
Mr. de Valera
You would not until the Bill was coming to the point at which we had failed.
The Bill was in print and introduced into the British House of Lords before the change of Government.
Mr. de Valera
What is the date?
The Bill was in print on, I think, the 4th February.
Mr. de Valera
When was it introduced?
It was introduced on 17th February.
Mr. de Valera
What was the date of the change of Government?
18th February, but that is not sufficient, because the Bill was in print and was supplied to my Department early in February. I am not aware that there was one single, solitary word of public protest before that.
Mr. de Valera
My attitude towards this is, that, when the Government had done everything it could to get the changes required, and when the position was one which was quite unsatisfactory from the national point of view, it was our duty here to make a protest, and this is the time to do it.
The position so far as the Department was concerned was that the British attitude was perfectly clear in the first days of February, so that I think it is somewhat unfair to suggest in these circumstances that this Government failed in any way in its duty in the matter or omitted to do something it should have done.
Mr. de Valera
I do not think I have suggested that.
The Deputy did not say it in so many words, but I think that some of the things he said were open to that inference.
Mr. de Valera
Might I say that I had no intention whatever of suggesting that the Government had not done what it could in dealing with the British Government to get them to change. My point is that, having failed to get these changes brought about by diplomatic methods, it was our duty here to make quite clear in this Parliament what the position is so far as our nation is concerned and our attitude towards the Bill as it stands.
I am very glad that Deputy de Valera is not making any suggestion that the Government failed in any way to do what it should have done in this matter. The Bill is an improvement, and a very vast improvement, on the position as it existed. I feel that it will serve some useful purpose in the relationships between the two countries, as I said before, possibly not so much because of its practical effect but because it is the first indication of any attempt to meet our viewpoint on these matters.
Mr. de Valera
Does this mean that our people in Britain at present can be conscripted according to British law?
The understanding, as the Deputy will know from the discussions which took place before the change of Government, is that it would not.
Mr. de Valera
It is a very dangerous thing to have the law without having agreements of that sort definitely in such a way that they will not be open to change, if there were a change of Government in Britain.
Laws may change any time. This Parliament may, in its wisdom or lack of wisdom, pass a law here enforcing conscription and imposing conscription on every alien resident in this country. It has complete jurisdiction in its own Parliament. Many countries at present have laws which impose military service on non-citizens resident there. I do not want to be taken as suggesting that this Bill is an ideal Bill, that it is the Bill which this Parliament would have drawn up and passed, if it could do so, but we have to recognise certain facts.
We have to recognise in relation to this particular matter that there are three viewpoints. There is our viewpoint upon which, I think, we are unanimous. There is the viewpoint of the British Labour Government, that goes a certain distance to meet our viewpoint, and there is the viewpoint of the Conservative majority of the British House of Lords, that takes the same view as Deputy Cowan does, namely, that we are part and parcel of the British Empire and the Commonwealth. I am glad to see that there is some identity of view even between the most extreme sections of opinion in both countries.
What is the British Labour Party point of view?
That we are not members of the British Commonwealth.
And that we are an independent republic?
On the question of our constitutional position, there has been quite a lot of nonsense talked on both sides of the House. Deputy Cowan has said that we are members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, that that is our position constitutionally. Our constitutional position is governed by our own Constitution. We are not members of the British Commonwealth of Nations. This is typical of the type of damaging statement that can be made in this House by Deputies. Statements made in this House are often quoted back in other Parliaments. The House may remember that there was an adjournment debate in this House on the question of the Nationality Bill. That debate, and some of the statements made in that debate, formed part of a stick that was used against us in the British Parliament a short time afterwards. That is why I think it is unfortunate that we have had to discuss these matters in this House at the moment. I do not think it has been helpful.
Would the Minister say what right the British Parliament has to deal with our nationals at all? I object to their having that right.
The British Parliament are, in the first instance, repealing a statute and a common law whereby Captain Cowan and Deputy de Valera and myself and Deputy Byrne were all, under British law, British subjects.
Is not that my point?
It is an Act of the British Parliament and, as far as I know, no Parliament can ever repeal the Act of another Parliament except the Parliament that made it.
If we do not recognise them, they can pass any Acts they like.
That is exactly what they are doing.
Why should we bother about what they are doing?
I am replying to the debate on this matter but, of course, if Deputy Cowan's views are correct, this is all beside the point, because we are members of the British Commonwealth.
I am asking the Minister are we an independent republic at the moment? Our courts, as the Minister knows, have held that the Treaty is still——
The Minister is not giving way, Deputy.
If he does not give way, I cannot make him.
Mr. de Valera
If the Deputy would give me some references, I would be very glad to get them.
I will give them.
But not now. The Minister.
Our constitutional position at the moment is certainly, in some respects, anomalous.
Hear, hear!
We are clearly not part of the British Commonwealth. We are clearly a sovereign and an independent State. We lack an external head for the State, with external powers.
Mr. de Valera
No. The Government is there and the Government can, to-morrow——
As Deputy de Valera knows quite well, there are certain functions that are performed by heads of States and that are limited to be performed by heads of State. We lack such a head at the moment.
Mr. de Valera
We do not.
I do not think it is necessary to discuss it, but that is the position.
Mr. de Valera
The Government, as head from that constitutional point of view, has all power.
I wish Deputy de Valera would not interrupt.
Mr. de Valera
It is that the matter is of such importance.
I do not think it would serve a useful purpose at the moment.
Mr. de Valera
All right.
The position that has been accepted hitherto is that we have, for external purposes, no head of State.
Mr. de Valera
No, that has not been accepted. I must deny that; as far as I am concerned I have never accepted that position.
I do not propose to enter into a discussion. I think that is the constitutional position.
Mr. de Valera
I do not agree.
I think the Minister should go into it. He made aspersions against me in the debate. Let him explain what the constitutional position is.
Does the Deputy wish to make my speech?
I want the facts clear.
The facts are as I have stated.
We are an independent republic?
Does the Deputy want to speak?
The Minister must be allowed, without interruption, to make his speech.
In relation to certain other matters that were raised by the Leader of the Opposition, I quite agree with him that everything possible should be done to ensure that visitors to our country, be they tourists or otherwise, are treated properly when they come into the country and, if he has any information concerning any unnecessary delays or inconveniences that may have been inflicted upon any of them, I shall be very glad to have the matter looked into. Strictly speaking, it is no part of the function of my Department to look after the transport of tourists or such matters but I do take the view that it is in the interests of the foreign policy of this country that we should ensure that visitors to this country are treated properly.
The question of the cultural committee is going ahead and so is the question of a suitable handbook. I do not think I shall have quite the same views as to the form that handbook should take as possibly my predecessor had. I think a somewhat different type would be more suitable, but that is only a question of detail.
In relation to the opening of a Consulate in Philadelphia, I would like to have a Consulate in every town in America where there is a large Irish population and I would like to have diplomatic representatives in many countries where we have not got them at the moment. We have a Consul in Boston and in a number of other American cities. Generally speaking, we have no Consuls save in American cities with big populations and cities that are also ports—that is, apart from Washington and New York, where we would have a Consul at any time. Philadelphia is within easy reach of both Washington and New York. I would like to have a Consul there, but I do not see that the expense would be justified at the moment.
I think it was Deputy Vivion de Valera who mentioned my references yesterday to the United States of Europe. I referred to it, not to suggest that it was a practical possibility at the moment, but to convey to the House that it was one of the plans that are being discussed in Europe at present, not by Governments but by Parliaments in Europe independently of Governments. We here should try to keep abreast of political developments in the international sphere in other countries, we should know what things are being discussed by them and we should think out our attitude in advance. We should not wait until a fait accompli is presented to us. Discussions on these things amongst ourselves, either in this House or in the Seanad, are useful, as they get people thinking of the various problems that confront the country and the world at large.
Because I stated that isolationism is impossible now-a-days, it was sought to suggest that I was proposing that this country should commit itself to participation in a war. I thought I had explained fairly carefully that the advance of science, the advance of the means of communication, of wireless, transport, and aviation, made isolationism impossible. We cannot lock ourselves up, away from the movements of the world, away from the thinking indulged in in other countries. It is in that sense that I mean that isolationism is impossible. Our tendency in the past—not in connection with the last war —was to be a little bit isolationist and insular in our thoughts. That was so in the early part of the century. We cannot keep on a policy of that kind, even if it were advisable, because of the development of wireless and transport. We cannot but be influenced by the thought in other countries and, therefore, it is much better that we should think ourselves in these terms rather than let ourselves be influenced by propaganda that may reach us afterwards.
I have been criticised by Deputy Cowan for having said that our sympathies were with Western Europe. What I stated was:
"We here 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 Western Europe."
I do not know if any Deputy wishes to challenge that seriously.
In conclusion, I would like to feel that when we have to discuss external affairs, Deputies will exercise a greater degree of moderation in their language, bearing in mind that what they say here may very often be misconstrued in other countries.
Mr. de Valera
I forgot to refer to the question of the Irish language in the Department. As the Minister knows, a great effort has been made by the officers there to see that the language is known and used to a certain extent. It is particularly important in our external relations and it is a distinguishing mark of our nationality that representatives should be able to speak to each other in the language. We should be able to continue that and I hope that there is no change of policy there.
There is no change of policy there.
Motion—"That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration"— by leave, withdrawn.
Vote put and agreed to.