asked the Minister for External Affairs whether any plenipotentiary was appointed by the Government to represent the Saorstát at the Second General Conference on Communications and Transit of the League of Nations at Geneva in November-December, 1923: whether Sir H. Llewellyn Smith, who signed the Convention adopted by that Conference, dated 9th December, 1923, as plenipotentiary for "the British Empire," was authorised by the Government of the Saorstát to sign on their behalf; whether the Minister proposes to ask the Oireachtas to approve of the ratification of this Convention, and whether he will communicate with the British Government and the Governments of the Dominions with a view to the adoption of a more specific designation than "British Empire" to indicate the States which appoint and instruct plenipotentiaries to international conferences and authorise them to sign international agreements.
CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. [ORAL ANSWERS.] - SAORSTÁT AND GENEVA CONFERENCE.
TOMÁS MAC EOIN
Mr. MacWhite, representative of the Saorstát at the League of Nations, was appointed to act as the sole representative of this country at the Conference. The question of authorising the representative of another country to act on behalf of Saorstát Eireann did not arise. The description "British Empire" used by the British signatory to League Conventions is presumably intended to include British territories other than the Dominions. The British signatory only signs for a Dominion when specifically authorised to do so, and a formal declaration of the authorisation has to be made at the time of signing.
The present Conventions remain open for signing until the 31st October. The detailed examination of the Articles by the Departments of the Government concerned has not yet been completed. The Conventions will not be ratified without the approval of the Oireachtas.
Will the Minister indicate the purpose for which this Convention has been circulated to concerns and institutions within the Free State, or was it presumably for the purpose of informing them of what had been agreed to?
Does the Deputy suggest that this circulation has taken place, implying that the thing has already been agreed to on behalf of the Free State?
That is my suggestion—that as a matter of fact copies of the Convention have been circulated by the Minister for Industry and Commerce for the information of certain public boards. They transmitted a copy of the Convention adopted at the second General Conference on Communications and Transit of the League of Nations, held at Geneva. The Convention was adopted unanimously by thirty-one delegates and was signed by the representatives of the various countries. A further communication directs that the Minister will be favoured with any observations. I would like further to ask whether any definite notification is given that the term "British Empire" does not include any further States than those the Minister has referred to?
Perhaps the Minister for Industry and Commerce will explain that. I understand that the circular was sent forward to selected bodies to ascertain their opinions on the matter for that Ministry so that it would have some advice to give me as to whether we could actually sign or not. There are a number of cases in which I notice that it is signed by the representative of the British Empire, but it is quite obvious that that would only mean the British Empire not including the Dominions, because the Dominions themselves have to sign separately.
That is exactly what I want to bring out.
Is the Deputy asking a question?
Is it quite clearly understood that the circulation of this Memorandum is with a view to preparing for the acceptance or refusal of the Convention?
If Deputy Johnson will ask the Minister for External Affairs to put down a question to me some day next week, I will see what I can do in this matter.