Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Friday, 27 Jul 1945

Vol. 30 No. 8

Appropriation Bill, 1945 ( Certified Money Bill ) Committee and Final Stages.

Bill passed through Committee without recommendation and reported.
Question—"That the Bill be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Bill be returned to the Dáil."

It has been stated by certain Senators that the Minister was in collaboration with the Parliamentary Secretary in the production of this letter and the subsequent White Paper. If that is so, I wish to withdraw the exoneration of the Minister which I made at an earlier stage and to state that the remarks which I have applied to the Parliamentary Secretary must also be extended to the head of the Department. I do that only on the assertion made by Senators that this was a joint production.

Senator Hearne—is that correct? I have one other remark to make. It has been suggested that because the evidence has not been published, the facts as stated with regard to the contracts have not been exploded. You can do a lot with oral evidence. You can believe one side or disbelieve the other side, but where the actual transactions are constituted in documents and where the documents form the transactions, they are themselves the evidence and they cannot be contradicted. When I have produced to this House documents which the White Paper said did not exist and when, moreover, I have shown the documents which actually advised the board, it is futile to talk about oral evidence and it is futile to attempt to exonerate anyone who makes slanderous statements, having those documents either in his possession or procurement, neglecting them and stating the opposite.

Going back to Wednesday, might I ask the Minister to communicate to me privately the result of his consideration of the several small points which quite obviously he could not answer in detail at the time? They can be dealt with by correspondence in the ordinary way.

Quite so.

I would like, first and foremost, to say that the manner in which the Minister approached the discussion on the Second Stage seemed to me very satisfactory. His attitude was very helpful. While we might not agree with his views on certain matters, it is satisfactory to know that he expresses those views quite frankly, quite openly and courageously. It is infinitely more satisfactory that he should do that rather than try merely to cover up his views by saying pleasant things which mean nothing. I was very pleased with the manner in which he dealt with various matters raised on the Second Reading.

There were one or two things, however, that were referred to in the course of the discussion and perhaps I might be allowed to deal with them. I mentioned, for instance, the importation of timber from Sweden. On that matter, a person concerned in the building industry talked to me during this week and mentioned that he and some others were concerned in the buying of timber from Sweden, that at the commencement of the discussions their representations were favourably received by the representatives of the Swedish Government, but that at a later stage they were told frankly that Sweden was not prepared to sell timber in Ireland, unless it was paid for in gold. The Minister referred to that yesterday and said there was no difficulty in using sterling assets in London outside the sterling area, including Sweden.

I was glad of that statement, but I want to call his attention to the fact that a very definite statement has been made to me by people concerned, that in fact they were not in a position to use sterling in the case of Sweden, because the Swedish Government were not prepared to sell timber on the basis of payment in sterling. The suggestion was made that in fact an agreement has been entered into between the Swedish and the British Governments to the effect that timber for these countries would be sold only in Great Britain. I do not know if that is true, and I do not even desire the Minister to discuss it, if he is not in a position to do so. I merely want to bring it to his notice because it is at variance with the statement he made yesterday.

In the course of the discussion on the Bill, one matter was mentioned which, I think, is not going to do us very much good in our relations with other people. I refer now to the reference by Senator O Buachalla to the position of the New Zealand Government. He mentioned the statement which was made originally by the present Minister for Local Government some five or six years ago, that the New Zealand Finance Minister came to London on his knees, asking for concessions from the British Government in regard to debts due to Britain.

I do not think I mentioned New Zealand, nor did I say that the Minister came on his knees.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Might I point out that it has not been the practice to re-open on the Fifth Stage of an Appropriation Bill the debate on matters discussed on the Second Stage?

I do not desire to do so I merely mention the fact that there are friendly Governments in certain parts of the world which we ought to be friendly with or whose sympathy and support we at least ought to do nothing to alienate. One of these is New Zealand. A number of the Ministers of the New Zealand Government are of Irish birth or extraction. The first Labour Prime Minister of New Zealand was a County Armagh man. The present Deputy Prime Minister is a Country Kerry man and I am drawing the attention to the fact that we ought to bear that in mind. We might also bear in mind the fact that the late Prime Minister of Australia was a County Cork man and that there are sympathies which should be cultivated between the heads of States and members of Governments having the backgrounds which these men have.

On a point of order. Formerly on the Appropriation Bill nothing like this occurred. I submit that this may call for a reply.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I have already pointed out that it was not usual on the final stage of the Appropriation Bill to have a further debate such as as is now proceeding.

I want to raise a matter of personal interest. The Minister, in the course of his remarks, accused me of being in some way the spiritual father——

Again, might I point out that this matter is being raised on the Fifth Stage of the Appropriation Bill which, I think, was never done before?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

It is a matter, the Senator states, of personal explanation.

The Minister accused me of being in some way the spiritual father of the very misguided young men or girls who burned the National Flag on Trinity College on V-Day. I want to say that that flag-burning action was an act of either very disloyal citizenship or of a person or persons who were enemies of this State.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I cannot allow the Senator to proceed. I thought he desired to raise a matter of personal explanation, with regard to something the Minister said yesterday.

The Minister has accused me, by implication, of sympathising with that act. I want to clear up the point, if I may. That particular action has been regretted, deplored and repudiated by the governing body of the college and by all the various associations of students connected with the college. Moreover, the Provost went on a special mission to the Taoiseach and apologised for that incident, and the Taoiseach, I have no doubt, accepted his apology. As between gentlemen, that should have been the end of the matter, and I think it regrettable that it should have been raised again, and still more regrettable that the Minister should have, by implication, accused me of being in any way sympathetic with or responsible for that very regrettable action. I should be glad to hear that the Minister no longer accuses me of that crime and withdraws that statement.

I want to say to Senator Duffy, as we are having a Fifth Reading debate, that what I said on Second Reading with regard to Swedish currency was true, that we can use our sterling assets for the importation of machinery and timber. Secondly, I want to say to Senator Johnston that the apology tendered by the Provost of Trinity College in regard to the insult to the National Flag was very gladly accepted by the Government. I stated that Senator Johnston himself —not the Provost of Trinity College or any other member on the staff of Trinity or any of the student bodies— was the spiritual father of the people who celebrated a victory many miles from the battlefront and after the battle was over, because Senator Johnston did exactly the same thing here in this House.

On that point——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I am afraid I cannot hear the Senator further.

Arising out of what the Minister has just said, as to my being the spiritual father of these boys, there was also a student of ours, about 40 years ago, called Eamon de Valera, who afterwards became Taoiseach of Éire, and, by the same token, I am the spiritual father of Eamon de Valera.

Question put and agreed to.
Ordered: That the Bill be returned to the Dáil.
Top
Share