Vol. 14 No. 35
I move, on behalf of Senator Milroy:
"That Seanad Eireann approves the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation between Saorstát Eireann and the French Republic signed on the 23rd day of June, 1931, a copy of which was laid on the Table of Seanad Eireann on the 8th day of July, 1931, and recommends the Executive Council to take the necessary steps to ratify the said Treaty."
I second.
I would like to draw the Minister's attention to Article 12 of this Treaty. There is part of the Article which states:
In view of the licence duties which are levied in the Irish Free State on commercial travellers representing French firms trading in goods liable to excise duty in the Irish Free State, the French Government reserves the right to impose equivalent licence duties on commercial travellers representing Irish firms trading in certain goods liable to consumption taxes in France.
I was not aware that there was any licence duty on French commercial travellers in this country and I was wondering whether this was put in in anticipation of such a licence being imposed or whether the Minister has any explanation to make in regard to it.
I can deal with the point raised by the Senator in a moment. The reason for entering into negotiations for a Treaty with France at all, was that owing to certain taxes being put on French wines here—which were held by the French Government to be, if not the highest, amongst the highest levied on such wines in any country in the world—there was a disposition on the part of the French Government to withdraw the most favoured nation treatment which our goods were receiving on entry into France. The fact that they did achieve that position depended on an old Anglo-French Convention of many years ago and as is the case, on any State coming into control of its resources for the first time, there is a peculiar mixed position in law with regard to old Treaties. It really depends on the wishes of the two parties whether they should be continued or regarded as non-existent. There was, however, a fear that unless direct Treaty negotiations were opened up and concluded, the good position which we had enjoyed would disappear. Under the terms of the Treaty, we do get most favoured nation treatment on everything. There are very few countries in the world who have achieved that position and there is none but ourselves who have achieved it in recent years. We have also got a special exemption from the prohibition which rules in regard to imported spirits. We have got a special exemption in regard to Irish whiskey.
The point raised by Senator O'Farrell is really to cover one small point of practice in this country and what is actually the practice in France. Most commercial travellers in France must have licences. In this country commercial travellers generally do not have licences. A traveller who is known to have a good house behind him and who travels on ordinary business here need not have a licence, but a special exception was made with regard to travellers travelling for spirits liable to excise duty. That is the meaning of the phrase "trading in goods liable to excise duty." The phrase is to cover what is the main practice in France and a small point of practice in this country. I desire to call the attention of the House to an erratum which was sent out to substitute certain words in the first paragraph of Article XXIX. It really amounts to this, that the French text is the correct text. Although it is in French, it was actually our text. The reason for the difference is that the old Convention of 1882 ruled other things as well as commerce and navigation and the point was raised as to whether or not this Treaty should replace that 1882 Convention in everything. Our view was that it should and that the other matters not dealt with in this Treaty will form the subject of another type of Treaty. Pending the conclusion of that type of Treaty we have by an exchange of letters consolidated the present position in these other matters.
I do not wish to raise an objection in respect of matters dealing with our relations with foreign countries about which I know very little. I rise merely to ask for an opinion on a matter which has been touched upon but not, I think, very fully explained by the Minister. As I understand the Minister, we now are the assignees of all Conventions arrived at between Great Britain and France before the signing of the Treaty, assignees in so far as they affect the territory of this State. I would like to have that matter more fully explained if the Minister feels that he ought to give an explanation, because we would like to know exactly where we stand in a matter of that kind.
While the result is the very same as the Senator describes, I would object to his wording of it. We are not assignees under the Treaty. What happens, and it happens not merely with regard to ourselves but with regard to the States which came into being, for instance, on the break away from Russia, where Treaties or Conventions had been entered into under the old régime, is that the new countries, provided the other party to the Treaty agrees, continue to operate as if the Treaty were in existence. There is a vast mass of Treaties and Conventions in existence all of which cannot be considered at the moment. There is no necessity to denounce, renew or remake them until some particular point arises. The Treaties are allowed by the consent of both people to continue as ruling on a sort of modus vivendi arrangement, until definite Treaties can be established to take their place.
